Physical Science in the Middle Ages

by Edward Grant

This concise introduction to the history of physical science in the Middle Ages begins with a description of the feeble state of early medieval science and its revitalization during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, as evidenced by the explosion of knowledge represented by extensive translations of Greek and Arabic treatises. The content and concepts that came to govern science from the late twelfth century onwards were powerfully shaped and dominated by the science and philosophy of Aristotle. It is, therefore, by focussing attention on problems and controversies associated with Aristotelian science that the reader is introduced to the significant scientific developments and interpretations formulated in the later Middle Ages. The concluding chapter presents a new interpretation of the medieval failure to abandon the physics and cosmology of Aristotle and explains why, despite serious criticisms, they were not generally repudiated during this period. As detailed critical bibliography completes the work.

Genres: History, Science, History Of Science, Nonfiction, Medieval

128 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 1971

About the author

Edward Grant is an American historian of medieval science. He was named a Distinguished Professor in 1983. Other honors include the 1992 George Sarton Medal, for "a lifetime scholarly achievement" as an historian of science.

Reviews

[Gigi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Challenging little book but well worth the concentration. If the book comes off overly technical with obfuscating word choice, it is likely because I am an idiot and not the intended audience. To his credit, Grant tends to double back and put things in layman’s terms once all other options are exhausted. However, this is also challenging because the concepts require you to sort of unlearn or at the very least suspend basic and innate notions of how everything around you kinda works—which was really fascinating and fun. And not fun in a belittling way, because although so much of medieval science advocates and depends on individual experience and observation [strictly of the visible], I find it beautiful that the human intuition relied on so heavily to interpret the world in these centuries does so with an innate poeticism.
This has the distinction out of the studies I’ve read of being the least rooted in the centrality of the church in medieval thought and subjectivity while still accounting for its influence. This was a nice surprise as these studies are, for obvious reasons, hard to find. Lots of gems in here: from the rejection of cause and effect, to how mountains form, to the four spheres of Saturn orbiting the earth, to ratios of heaviness and lightness in all things determining their natural places, to etymological determinism—this packs a lot into 90 very dense pages.

[Mark Bowles · Rating 5 out of 5]

PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN THE MIDDLE AGES
EDWARD GRANT

The Physical Sciences in the Middle Ages, by Edward Grant, attempts to uncover the scientific developments in Western Europe from 500 to 1500 A.D. The most influential person in the realm of science and philosophy, during this time, was Aristotle. This was especially true after the twelfth century. One of the main objec¬tives of this book is to discuss the controversies and problems which arose as a result of Aristotelian physical science in the later Middle Ages. In outlining these topics, the general impact and reaction to the major physical and cosmological problems posed by Aristotle will be discussed.
From 500 to 1000 A.D. the state of science was characterized by the encyclopedists. These authors included: the venerable Bede, Isodore of Seville, Macrobius, Chalcidius, Capella, Boethi¬us, and Cassiodorus who produced a series of Latin books which were the most influential scientific works of the time. The books by these authors contained the sum of all scientific achievement in the Middle Ages. These attempts, though of respectable intent,
did not preserve ancient science; and as a result, a dark age fell over Europe.
The age of translation began with the new millennium and the Dark Ages slowly began to lighten. In the eighth and ninth cen¬turies, the ancient Greek scholars' works were translated into Arabic. With the Moslem's defeat in Sicily, these Arabic works fell into European hands. By the tenth century, translations from Arabic to Latin were produced in Northern Spain at the monastery of Santa Maria de Ripoll. The effects of these translations echoed far into the future; for without them medieval science would not have developed, and as a result, the scientific revolu¬tion would have been long in coming.
Until the twelfth century, the main centers of learning were the cathedral schools. These schools emphasized science and secular knowledge with the new translations. Gerbert of Aurillac, who was to become Pope Slyvester II, was the most influential teacher in this age of intellectual deprivation. The works of antiquity were being taught in their translated form. Plato's Timaeus was an early favorite. The students of Gerbert opened their own cathedral schools and were responsible for the openings of the Cologne, Cambrai, Laon, and Utrecht locations.
The cathedral school eventually gave way to the medieval university, where by 1200 A.D., Paris, Bologna, and Oxford were established as centers of higher knowledge. The structure of these universities were much the same as today. Masters and scholars were divided into four facilities - primary arts, law, medicine, and theology. A pre-established curriculum was followed to achieve bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees. The uni¬versities replaced the outdated cathedral schools; but their importance was not forgotten, for they managed to preserve the disciplines of science, literature, and the humanities.
The works of Aristotle were the basis of this medieval education, yet his scientific and philosophic works were viewed with hostility by the theologians through the thirteenth century. In 1210 after the natural philosophy of Aristotle was translated into Latin, there was a holy decree in Paris which stated that none of his works were to be read. This ban was intended for the University of Paris. The university was divided among the teach¬ers of theology and the teachers of philosophy.
The conflict came to a head in 1277 when Pope John XXI directed the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, to investigate he problems at the university. Within three weeks, he had condemned 219 propositions from a variety of sources. Some of these propo¬sitions, which attracted the ire of the theologians, were obvious denunciations of religion. Proposition 152 said "Theological discussions are based on fables" and number 153 said, "Nothing is known better by knowing theology." Other propositions were mar¬ginally undeserving of their condemnation. Proposition 34 said, "God could not make several worlds;" and number 48 stated, "God cannot produce something new." Tempier included these because they limited the power of God. Excommunication was the penalty for those holding in truth any of the propositions.
There were other areas in which science was allowed to progress, and one of those was the Aristotelian physics of motion which was explained in his Physics and On the Heavens. A funda¬mental problem, conceived of by Aristotle, was why a stone, when thrown into the air, moved up at a decelerating rate, stopped, then descended at an accelerating rate. He defined two terms for the explanation of this - violent and natural motion. He said that when an object approached its natural place, such as a rock to the ground, it accelerated with natural motion. Conversely, the upward movement of a rock was violent and resulted in de¬creasing speed. This was the basic core of his physics.
A new question then arose. If an object was placed in a vacuum, what would its motion be? Aristotle was reinterpreted, and a new term was developed- internal resistance. Within every object, both light and heavy parts existed. The ratio of these parts determined the upward or downward speed. In the case of the falling rock, heaviness would be the motive force; and lightness represented the resistance; therefore, all bodies would move in a vacuum because all objects had internal resistance. An important conclusion was drawn from this hypothesis in 1349. Thomas Brad¬wardine and Albert of Saxony determined that two homogeneous bodies of different sizes and weights would fall with identical speeds in a vacuum. In 1638 Galileo, in his Discourses on Two New Sciences, extended this thought to say that all bodies of any material would fall with equal speeds. Looking further ahead, this concept would be unified by Newton, with Kepler's laws, to develop his universal laws.
The cosmology of Aristotle was also dominate throughout the Middle Ages. One of the main reasons for its success was that the heliocentric cosmologies of Aristarchus and Herakleides were known only through Aristotle's denunciation of them. This, cou¬pled with the fact that Aristotle's cosmology was fairly compati¬ble with Christian theology, contributed to its success. The main problem that Christians, Jews, and Muslims faced was that Aristo¬tle claimed to have proven that the universe had no beginning or end and that no creative act could destroy or produce it.
Aristotle's cosmology consisted of a spherical earth at the center of the universe with eleven concentric spheres around it. As proof of the earths curvature, he cited the spherical shadow the earth cast on the moon. Although Aristotle claimed the earth was immobile, John Buridan and Nicole Oresme considered the possibility of a diurnal axial rotation as theorized by Herakle¬ides and Aristarchus of antiquity. Buridan said that the problem was relative motion. He said that even though, to an observer standing on the earth, the universe appeared to be moving, the converse could be true. Buridan eventually sided with Aristotle claiming that if the earth was rotating, he could not explain why an arrow shot directly upwards fell to the same spot where it was launched. Oresme also suggested valid points for a rotating earth but, also, decided that immobility was the best alternative. Even though they were wrong in their final outcome, the arguments for the earth's rotation were so good that Copernicus used them in defense of his own heliocentric system.
The questioning of the Aristotelian ideals by the medieval scientific figures displayed their independent, progressive thought. While searching in a positive direction, they were unable to establish a scientific revolution. The reason for this was their reliance on the Aristotelian system, fear of the reli¬gious hierarchy, and their hesitancy in their denial of both religion and Aristotle. Buridan and Oresme, though establishing valid questions and arguments, could not leave the protective arms of Aristotle. It would not be until the seventeenth century that Copernicus and Kepler could break the hold and develop the shoulders that Newton would eventually stand on.

[John Devlin · Rating 2 out of 5]

A slim precis of the major tenets of scientific thought through what was believed to be the Dark Ages.