I'm currently reading God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science, which is part of an effort to dispel the myth that nothing scientifically/technologically/intellectually significant happened between 500 and 1500 AD. One of the overarching themes of the book is how medieval scholars wrestled with the works of Aristotle, Ptolemy, and other ancient thinkers. Over a few hundred years, these scholars managed to produce noteworthy commentary on and criticism of classical Greek and Roman authors. And doing so paved the way for the Scientific Revolution.
But what I don't understand is why Greek and Roman works were seen as authoritative in the first place. Before all that commentary and criticism, medieval scholars seemed taken in by recently uncovered/translated ancient texts, to the extent that Aristotle and Galen and others were considered (almost) gospel. But from my oh so enlightened modern perspective, I don't understand why they became so enthralled. I've read Plato, Aristotle, and other bits of Greek and Roman philosophy. A lot of it is brilliant and insightful stuff, but much of it is specious and plainly wrong (even not considering contradictory scientific facts we know now).
So why weren't medieval scholars of the past initially capable of nuanced analysis of ancient wisdom? Why did they allow these random texts from long dead pagans come to dominate their thinking for centuries?
But what I don't understand is why Greek and Roman works were seen as authoritative in the first place. Before all that commentary and criticism, medieval scholars seemed taken in by recently uncovered/translated ancient texts, to the extent that Aristotle and Galen and others were considered (almost) gospel. But from my oh so enlightened modern perspective, I don't understand why they became so enthralled. I've read Plato, Aristotle, and other bits of Greek and Roman philosophy. A lot of it is brilliant and insightful stuff, but much of it is specious and plainly wrong (even not considering contradictory scientific facts we know now).
So why weren't medieval scholars of the past initially capable of nuanced analysis of ancient wisdom? Why did they allow these random texts from long dead pagans come to dominate their thinking for centuries?
Comment