https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5543-8032
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
During the thirteenth century, Aristotelian hylomorphism became the cornerstone of scholastic natural philosophy. However, this theory was fragmented into a plurality of interpretations and reformulations, sparking a rich philosophical debate. This article focuses on Robert Grosseteste (d. 1253), one of the earliest Latin philosophers to directly engage with Aristotle’s natural philosophy. Specifically, it delves into Grosseteste’s perspective on hylomorphism, emphasizing two controversial doctrines that characterized British scholasticism in the late thirteenth century: universal hylomorphism and formal pluralism. The former claims that all substances, whether bodily or spiritual, are hylomorphic compounds, that is, they are made of matter and form. Formal pluralism, in turn, maintains that hylomorphic substances possess more than one substantial form simultaneously. After a brief introduction, the paper proceeds, first, to examine the type of hylomorphism endorsed by Grosseteste, shedding light on an obscure passage that seems to suggest universal hylomorphism. Second, the examination expands on Grosseteste’s theory of bodily form and emphasizes the apparent contradiction of this theory with universal hylomorphism. The discussion then turns to Grosseteste’s endorsement of formal pluralism and the functionality he envisioned being expressed by the bodily form. Finally, the paper draws conclusions about Grosseteste’s revised hylomorphic account.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to Cecilia Panti for our numerous discussions regarding both the influence of Avicebron's work on Grosseteste and other aspects covered in this article.
Notes
1 For an overall discussion of the scholastic debate on prime matter, see Pasnau, Metaphysical Themes, 17–95.
2 Typically, the chief function ascribed to prime matter by scholastic philosophers is to serve as the persisting substrate of the processes of natural generation and corruption. On the structural link between prime matter and substantial change, as well as the use of the latter to demonstrate the existence of the former, see Polloni, “Late Scholastic Arguments”.
3 On Aquinas’ criticism of universal hylomorphism, see Amerini, “Thomas Aquinas and Avicebron”.
4 The most renowned of these exceptions is William of Ockham.
5 See Polloni, “Roger Bacon on the Conceivability” and Polloni, “质料多元论” [“Material Pluralism”].
6 For an overall understanding of Avicebron’s metaphysics, see the recent volume edited by Polloni, Benedetto, and Dal Bo, Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron).
7 See Polloni, The Twelfth-Century Renewal, 147–65.
8 Augustine’s theory of prime matter is quite problematic and exceeds the scope of the present paper. For an overall analysis of his stances, see Moro, Il concetto di materia. In the present context, suffice it to say that his stances about the material composition of the spiritual world are confused and it seems that the use of Augustine as an authoritative source is related to the persuasiveness of Patristic authority.
9 On Grosseteste’s activities in Oxford, see Panti, “The Scientific Basis”.
10 In a recent doctoral thesis, Michael B. Sullivan summarises the earlier debate on this issue. See Sullivan, The Debate over Spiritual Matter, 44–7. It should be noted that Sullivan does not consider Panti’s studies that display Avicebron’s influence on Grosseteste’s philosophical works. On Aquinas’ refutation of Avicebron’s hylomorphism, see footnote 3.
11 See McEvoy, The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste, 133.
12 On Gundissalinus’ interpretation of Avicebron, see Polloni, The Twelfth-Century Renewal, 165–209.
13 See Panti’s commentary on De luce in Grossatesta, La luce, 87–174, where she reconstructs Avicebron’s influence on this fundamental text.
14 “Et ipsa forma et species caeli primi lux est, quae forte lux est forma prima quae per se extendit materiam corporalem primam in molis dimensionem; et in qua parte deduxerit materiam ad summum rarefactionis et extensionis, remanet ipsa lux prima forma completiva in illa parte materiae, et compositum ex illa parte materiae et luce prima est propriissime et specialissime dictum corpus, cum non habeat in sui compositione sive constitutione nisi materiam et corporeitatem. Lux enim prima secundum se sui multiplicativa et extensiva in dimensiones corporeitas est, quia corporeitas est potentia activa triplicis dimensionis”.
15 In this case, no middle entities like inchoative forms or accidents appear to be required for the reception of these forms: indeed, we are talking about the creative process.
16 Naturally, I am discussing here option (a) for the sake of the argument.
17 On this point, see Maier, “Die Struktur der Materiellen Substanz”, 47–58.
18 It is worth noting that the distinction between two kinds of metaphysical matter echoes the theories of celestial matter that would mark the later scholastic tradition. On Bacon’s take on this issue, see Pereira, “Remarks on Materia naturalis”.
19 Cecilia Panti also agrees on this point. See Panti, “Non abest nec distat”.
20 “Quicquid enim participat esse, prius participavit esse, nec venit de puro non-esse ad esse. De rebus dico naturalibus de quibus est hic intencio philosophi. De creacione namque materie et animarum ex nichilo, nichil ad intencionem presentem”. Translation from Polloni, “Early Robert Grosseteste on Matter”, 410, where this passage is briefly discussed.
21 “[V]erbi gratia antequam esset mundus vel materia mundi creata, fuit mundus in potentia et tamen nihil potuit esse mundus, nec ex aliquo quod fuit potuit esse mundus. Materia vero prima et omnis res immaterialis penitus antequam crearetur fuit in potentia et tamen nihil unquam potuit esse materia, nec ex aliquo potuit esse materia”.
22 A different interpretation of T3 is possible if we take the ‘immaterial things’ referred to by Grosseteste as being the forms, that is, the other use hylomorphic ingredient of substances. This reading is tempting because Grosseteste does not mention the word ‘form’ (forma) even once in De potentia et actu. Yet exactly for this same reason – that is, for Grosseteste’s reluctance to discuss the hylomorphic components in this treatise – it seems more reasonable to interpret ‘immaterial things’ as referring to the spiritual creatures.
23 For instance, see Grosseteste, On the Six Days of Creation, 65.
24 See Grosseteste, On the Six Days of Creation, 66.
25 See Pasnau, Metaphysical Themes, 53–76.
26 In a recent article, Neil Lewis has assessed Grosseteste’s theory of quantity (and its Avicennian roots) from a novel point of view. See Lewis, “Corporeity, corpus-substantia, and corpus-quantum”. See also Panti, “La moltiplicazione infinita”, 101–8 and Panti, “The Evolution of the Idea of Corporeity”.
27 See Polloni, “Early Robert Grosseteste on Matter”, 408–12.
28 This is the standard interpretation of the Latin version of Avicebron’s Fons vitae. For an analysis of the lost Arabic original version of this work, see Pessin, Ibn Gabirol’s Thology of Desire.
29 See Panti, “Introduzione” to Grossatesta, La luce, 1–74.
30 See Panti, “La moltiplicazione infinita della luce”; Panti, “Il trattato De luce”, Panti, “Introduzione” to Grossatesta, La luce, 1–74, and McEvoy, The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste, 149–67. On the wider role played by light in Grosseteste’s reflections, see Oliver, “Robert Grosseteste on Light”.
31 See Polloni, “Robert Grosseteste on Motion, Bodies, and Light”.
32 “Sed nihil est commune repertum in omni corpore, nisi materia prima et forma prima, et magnitudo, quae necessario consequitur haec duo, et si qua consequuntur magnitudine simpliciter, ut situs et figura”. Translation from Polloni, “Robert Grosseteste on Motion, Bodies, and Light”, 1038. Grosseteste refers to the same ‘first form’ in his commentary on the Physics, 8–9 and in his commentary on the Posterior Analytics, 258.
33 On the infinite replication of light extending matter, see also Panti, “Matter and Infinity”.
34 For instance, this is Richard Rufus’ position. See Lewis, “The Infinite Replication of Prime Matter”.
35 In De luce, for instance, Grosseteste claims that “Lux itaque, que est forma prima in materia prima creata”. See Grossatesta, La luce, 78.
36 See Lewis, “Corporeity, corpus-substantia, and corpus-quantum”.
37 Grosseteste seems to hint at the potency clause also when discussing the virtual presence of all subsequent bodies in the first body. See De luce, 237.
38 “Duo principia prima naturalium sunt forma prima corporis et eius privacio. Sed cum nullum corpus sit vacuum a forma prima, quomodo in alico corpore erit privacio prima simpliciter? Dico quod formam primam et eius privacionem simpliciter esse in eodem est impossibile. Utramque tamen alico modo esse in quolibet corpore mutabili est necesse, cum enim privacio prime forme simpliciter sit prime forme absencia in suo susceptibili, quam tamen impossibile est actu esse alico modo, hec privacio est prime forme impuritas et defectus a suo esse purissimo completo et inclinacio eius ad suum originem, id est nichil. Ex se enim omnis res in nichil tendit, et hec privacio secundum quid que actu est cum suo habitu incompleto est principium et radix privacionum sequentium, sicut suus habitus est principium et radix omnium et habituum sequentium. A prima enim forma, que lux est, gignitur omnis forma naturalis substancialis et accidentalis et a privatione ipsius omnis privatio”.
39 “vult dicere quod est quedam forma substantialis inseparabilis a materia, scilicet forma corporeitatis et illa semper manet; et est prima forma inter forma materialis.”
40 See Grosseteste, Commentarium in Posteriorum Analyticorum libros (hereafter, In PostAn), 380.
41 See Grosseteste, In PostAn, 137 and 345.
42 See Grosseteste, In Physicam, 77–8.
43 This approach is grounded on a principle of conformity by which all differences can be reduced to some rooting identity at a higher order. See for instance Avicebron, Fons vitae, 122. See also Pessin, “Chain, Trees, and Ibn Gabirol’s Spirit-to-Body Boundary”.
44 See footnote 31.
45 See Avicebron, Fons vitae, 65.
46 See Polloni, “Grosseteste on Motion, Light, and Bodies”, 1037–8.