Science and Medieval Thought: The Harveian Oration Delivered Before the Royal College of Physicians, October 18, 1900Allbutt, T. Clifford (Thomas Clifford)
Philosophy
Science and Medieval Thought: The Harveian Oration Delivered Before the Royal College of Physicians, October 18, 1900
Allbutt, T. Clifford (Thomas Clifford)
Philosophy, Medieval
[51] Renan, Averroès. And to like effect M. Hauréau says, “Le
péripatéticisme d’Averroès ne diffère pas moins de l’antique doctrine
du Lycée que l’Alhambra du Parthenon”; and he compares “le
péripatéticisme d’Albert et d’Aquinas” to the “monuments fiers et
bizarres du Gothique du XIIIme siècle.”
[52] I may venture to quote again the “locus classicus”:—
“Wel knew he the olde Esculapius,
And Deiscorides, and eek Rufus,
Old Ypocras, Haly, and Galien;
Serapion, Razis, and Avicen;
Averrois, Damascien, and Constantyn;
Bernard, and Gatesden, and Gilbertyn.”
Chaucer, C. T. Prol. 429-434 (Skeat’s Ed.).
[53] See pp. 24 and 28.
[54] As a school of thought; in fine art of course it was glorious.
[55] Ozanam (Doc. inédits, quoted by Rashdall, p. 78) says this early
light was “une de ces nuits lumineuses où les dernières clartés du
soir se prolongent jusqu’aux premières blancheurs du matin.”
[56] Albert—“nostri temporis stupor et miraculum!”—is an attractive
figure, and deserves his renown as the greatest of the medieval sages.
His endowments were richer and wider than those of the great Italian
logician, his pupil, whose name has had a greater vogue, and whose
doctrines are still the accepted discipline of the Church of Rome.
Albert restored Aristotle, and in astronomy and chemistry sought for
truth in nature. That St Thomas was a man of the highest intellectual
power and attainments, an eminence which is claimed for him by many
scholars, as by Mr Vernon in his edition of the Paradise, I cannot
admit; unless it be to a critical scholar who has mastered the
contents of his many folios, if such a scholar there be. For my part,
after reading much of what is written of St Thomas, I have but done
what was possible to me in other such cases; that is, I have run my
eye over the titles of his books and chapters, and formed some rapid
judgment here and there of the ways of his thought. Now I venture to
assert that the ways of the thought of Aquinas, subtle and symmetrical
as they are, lie wholly within the formulas of his age. He left
science for logic, the stuff of thought for its instrument; satisfying
himself with such tinkling cymbals as “Nihil potest per se operari,
nisi quod per se subsistit; ... Impossibile est quod forma separetur a
seipsa ... quod subsistens per se desinat esse” ... and so forth.
Albert though a less symmetrical is a more original genius. To Aquinas
indeed I should hesitate to attribute genius; to Albert it seems to me
this title may be granted, if with some hesitation. “Vir famosus et
erroneus” was Roger Bacon’s summary of Albert’s career, but Bacon was
scarcely an indifferent witness.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account