Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:02:38.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jesuit Aristotelianism and Sixteenth-Century Metaphysics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2017

Charles H. Lohr
Charles H. Lohr*
Affiliation:
Raimundus-Lullus-Institut der Universität, Freiburg im Breisgau
Get access

Extract

The outstanding sixteenth-century Scripture scholar Juan Maldonado, in an instruction for members of the Society of Jesus on the manner of teaching theology, thus describes the ideal professor:

The professor of Scholastic theology should be so skilled in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew that he will be able to speak with grace and not ridiculously and that he will not be restricted in his dealings with the heretics who are well-equipped with languages. He should be versed in all parts of philosophy … and much more so in all parts of theology, first of all in sacred letters, which is the source of all theology, so that he will be able to refute the heretics with the Scriptures; then for the same reason in the decrees of the councils, and the books of the ancient doctors, in Church dogma, in sacred history; … and finally in the Scholastic authors, … especially St. Thomas [MP 864f.].

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Traditio , Volume 32 , Issue S1: ΠAPAΔOΣIΣ: Studies in Memory of Edwin A. Quain , 1976, pp. 203 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The following abbreviations will be used: Const. = Monumenta Ignatiana III.3: Constitutiones Societatis Iesu textus latinus (Monumenta historica Societatis Iesu; Rome 1938); DM = Franciscus Suarez, Disputationes metaphysicae, in: Opera omnia (Paris 1861) XXV–XXVI; Ep. Ign. = Monumenta Ignatiana I.1–12: S. Ignatii de Loyola epistolae et instructiones (MHSI; Madrid 1903–11); Ep. Salm. = Epistolae P. Alphonsi Salmeronis S. I. (MHSI; Madrid 1906–07); Inst. = Institutum Societatis Iesu; MP = Monumenta paedagogica Societatis Iesu (MHSI; Madrid 1901); MPL = L. Lukács, ed., Monumenta paedagogica Societatis Iesu I: 1540–56 (MHSI; Rome 1965); Scholia = H. Nadal, Scholia in Constitutiones et Declarationes S. P. Ignatii (Prato 1883).Google Scholar

2 On Suárez’ work see Grabmann, M., ‘Die Disputationes metaphysicae des Franz Suarez in ihrer methodischen Eigenart und Fortwirkung,’ in his: Mittelalterliches Geistesleben I (Munich 1926) 525–60; J. Gallego Salvadores, ‘La Aparición de las primeras metafísicas en la España del XVI: Diego Mas (1587), Francisco Suárez y Diego de Zuñiga (1597),’ Escritos del Vedat 3 (1973) 9–162.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Cattani, L., Il Metodo teologico di Giovanni Maldonato nella sua teoria della predestinazione (Rome 1949). For Vásquez see J. Hellín, DThC 15 (1950) 2605; for Bellarmine see E. A. Ryan, The Historical Scholarship of Saint [Robert] Bellarmine (Louvain 1936).Google Scholar

4 On the controversies in the Roman College concerning the formation of opinions, see A. Astrain, Historia de la Compañia de Jesús en la asistencia de España II (Madrid 1914) 562f.; IV (Madrid 1913) 18–42; A. Inauen, ‘Stellung der Gesellschaft Jesu zur Lehre des Aristoteles und des hl. Thomas vor 1583,’ Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 40 (1916) 201–37; R. G. Villoslada, Storia del Collegio Romano (Rome 1954) 75–80; L. Lukács, ‘De prima Societatis ratione studiorum sancto Francisco Borgia constitua 1565–1569,’ Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu 27 (1958) 209–32. On the reaction of the Jesuit Order to the Aristotelianism of the Italian universities, see G. Piaia, ‘Aristotelismo, “heresia” e giurisdizionalismo nella polemica del P. Antonio Possevino contro lo Studio di Padova,’ Quaderni per la storia dell’ Università di Padova 6 (1973/4) 125–45.Google Scholar

5 On Perera see C. Sommervogel, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus VI (Brussel–Paris 1895) 499–507; M. Menéndez y Pelayo, Ensayos de critica filosófica (Madrid 1918) 82–84; M. Solana, Historia de la filosofia española: época del Renacimiento III (Madrid 1940) 373–400; L. Morati, s.v., Enciclopedia filosofica 3 (1957) 1280f. On these discussions see M. Scaduto, L'Epoca di Giacomo Lainez: il governo 1556–1565 (Rome 1964) 361f.Google Scholar

6 This notion of common axioms in philosophy made its first official appearance in Jesuit documents in Ledesma's response (1562) to the introduction of Averroistic teaching in the Roman College. He formulated the following rule: ‘Contra receptissimas et solemnes opiniones et quasi axiomata omnium pene philosophorum et medicorum non liceat opinari. Quales sunt: Naturalia corpora constare ex materia et forma et haec esse principia rerum naturalium. Quattuor esse elementa. Quattuor primas qualitates. Quattuor causarum genera,’ etc. (MP 490). Ironically the phrase ‘axiomata apud philosophos et medicos certissima’ also appears contemporaneously in Perera's De principiis rerum naturalium (cited in Solana op. cit. III.395). But in the second and third of the five general norms for the choice of opinions which were prefixed to Borgia's seventeen prescribed propositions (1565), this notion of received axioms in philosophy is separated from medicine and associated with the common opinion in philosophy and theology: ‘2. Nihil defendatur quod est contra axiomata recepta philosophorum, qualia sunt: tantum sunt quattuor elementa, sunt tantum quattuor genera causarum, esse tria principia rerum naturalium, ignis est calidus et siccus, aer humidus et calidus. 3. Nihil defendatur contra communissimam philosophorum et theologorum sententiam, ut quod agentia naturalia agant sine medio’ (X.-M. Le Bachelet, Bellarmin avant son Cardinalat 1542–1598 [Paris 1911] 501). In this way it came into the instructions promulgated under Acquaviva and became the final form and norm for the common opinion in philosophy.Google Scholar