Pekka Kärkkäinen

In 1513 the Fifth Lateran Council determined that the immortality of the rational soul is not true only in theology, but also in philosophy. The determination can be related also to the actual teaching of philosophy. In the university of Erfurt, Bartholomaeus Arnoldi de Usingen and Jodocus Trutfetter wrote expositions on natural philosophy at that time. Usingen's and Trutfetter's expositions of De anima represent a position, which faithfully follows in methodology and aspirations the tradition of the via moderna. Furthermore, they give an interpretation of the relationship between philosophy and theology, which Trutfetter considered consonant with the intentions and the formulations of the Fifth Lateran Council; and finally, Trutfetter even presents a practical application of the Council's recommendations.

In his Questions on Aristotle’s De anima, John Buridan faced the problem, whether it follows from the definition of the term ‘animal’ that all quantitative parts of an animal are to be called animals. His solution was that parts of the animal are to be called animals, though in a extraordinary, non-connotative, sense of the term. The problem variously discussed by some later Buridanian authors from Erfurt. Bartholomaeus Arnoldi de Usingen ends up to deny the use of such terms as ‘animal’ and ‘human being’ as connotative terms. Jodocus Trutfetter, however, uses the distinction between the absolute and connotative senses of these terms without reservation.

In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries the University of Erfurt was one of the strongholds of the via moderna in Germany. The present article examines how this school's identity was manifested in discussions on the soul and its powers, engaged in by three Erfurtian philosophers: Johannes Carnificis de Lutrea, Jodocus Trutfetter and Bartholomaeus Arnoldi de Usingen. In the various forms of their expositions these authors reveal a rather uniform stance concerning doctrinal issues. Their positions are largely based on the tradition of the via moderna going back to the early fifteenth century, and their argumentation is deeply bound to the problems arising from this school's position. Comparisons with concurrent Thomist and Scotist sources show that the Erfurtians describe the positions of other schools in an appropriate manner, although the arguments for and against these positions are often borrowed from the authorities of their own school rather than from contemporaneous discussion

The present article discusses the concept of synderesis in the late medieval universities of Erfurt and Leipzig and the later developments in Wittenberg. The comparison between Bartholomaeus Arnoldi of Usingen in Erfurt and Johannes Peyligk in Leipzig shows that school traditions played an important role in the exposition of synderesis by the late medieval scholastic natural philosophers. However, Jodocus Trutfetter's example warns against overemphasizing the importance of the school traditions and reminds us of the manifold history of medieval discussions on synderesis, which were more or less familiar to many authors of this period. Finally, the diverse references to synderesis in the texts of Martin Luther, Johannes Bernhardi of Feldkirch and Philip Melanchthon reveal no uniform relationship with late medieval discussions but rather indicate various ways of adopting scholastic ideas and transforming them in the context of humanist and reformation thinking

The internal senses are a class of cognitive faculties that were posited to exist between external sense perception and the intellectual soul. The notion of internal senses was developed in the Arabic philosophy of the Middle Ages on the basis of certain ancient philosophical ideas. The classical list of five internal senses was provided by Avicenna: common sense, retentive imagination, compositive imagination, estimative power, and memory. He also localized these faculties in the three ventricles of the brain. According to Avicenna, the function of common sense is to receive and relate the perceptions of the external senses. The retentive imagination stores the forms of these perceptions and the compositive imagination processes these forms. Furthermore, estimative power grasps the “intentions” of the perceived objects, such as hostility or pleasantness, which the external senses do not perceive. The intentions are finally stored in memory. Averroes’ position was critical of Avicenna’s view, and both accounts had a remarkable influence in medieval Latin philosophy. Avicenna’s view dominated throughout the Middle Ages, although it was challenged and modified with help of other authorities. Albert the Great adhered to Avicenna in general outline, but incorporated some of the views of Averroes, John Damascene, and Qusṭ;a ibn Lūqā. Thomas Aquinas followed the same lines, but further modified the view. There were also constantly differing positions concerning whether the brain or the heart is the primary organ of the internal senses. Peter John Olivi and John Duns Scotus presented a novel reading of the estimative function, which gave up the Avicennian notion of intentions as the objects of the estimative faculty. John Buridan reduced the number of internal senses to two: common sense and memory. His view was adopted by some later authors but rejected by others.

The chapter gives a general description of philosophical psychology as it was practiced and taught in the sixteenth century at three of the most important universities of the time, the universities of Erfurt, Padua, and Bologna. Contrary to received notions of the Renaissance it argues that the sixteenth-century philosophical psychology was tightly bound to the Aristotelian tradition. At the University of Erfurt, philosophical psychology was developed with strong adherence to the basic doctrines of Buridanian via moderna, as it had been taught for over a century. The Buridanian approach dominated especially discussions on the metaphysical nature of the human soul and disputes about universal realism versus nominalism. The situation was somewhat different at the universities of Bologna and Padua. The connections between these two universities were close, and they can be seen as developing one and the same Aristotelian tradition. Although the works produced were rather eclectic in nature, they shared research topics as well as conceptual and methodological frameworks which contributed to the unity of the school. In Bologna and Padua, Averroës had a central position as an authority cited and criticized; and philosophical questions concerning the immortality of the soul and the nature of the intellectual species attracted continuous interest. The development of philosophical psychology was also influenced by the special organizational situation of these universities: theology had a relatively unimportant position, and medicine instead had continuous impact on teaching.

Bartholomaeus Arnoldi (b. c. 1465, d. September 9, 1532) (also called Usingen after his birthplace), began as a philosopher in the via moderna school and later became a member and a theologian of the Order of Augustinian Hermits. Together with Jodocus Trutfetter, he was the most prominent philosopher in Erfurt in the early sixteenth century. Usingen’s main authorities were John Buridan, William of Ockham, Gregory of Rimini, Peter of Ailly, and Gabriel Biel. The focus of his teaching was on a “common view of the via moderna,” which was strongly involved in semantic–metaphysical questions. Usingen stressed the importance of logic as a necessary tool for gaining scientific knowledge, but it was his works on natural philosophy, in particular, that were respected by his contemporaries. In natural philosophy, he generally followed the tradition of Buridan. His discussion on the theory of supposition follows Ockham. On the relationship between theology and philosophy, he strongly posited the unity of truth by allowing certain theological truths a sufficient degree of plausibility as truths in natural philosophy. This view was partly based on Lawrence of Lindores.

Johannes Bernhardi of Feldkirch (1490-1534), Melanchthon’s close collaborator elaborated significantly the Lutheran method in works written shortly before his untimely death in 1534. He seems to have systematized to a considerable degree the Melanchthonian concept of method and to have developed it towards an explicitly Aristotelian and even scholastic framework. In doing so, he did not merely imitate his authorities, who included above all Aristotle and Albert the Great: these figures served as sources for his Melanchthonian/Lutheran manner of presenting and organizing scientific knowledge. The example from Bernhardi’s discussion of causes shows that his contribution to the discussion on method did not remain at the level of mere theorizing, but was applied to some degree in his own teaching of natural philosophy.

Jodocus Trutfetter (also Trutvetter) was a philosopher and theologian of the via moderna, at the University of Erfurt, in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. His main works include a textbook on logic, the Summule totius logice, and another on natural philosophy, the Summa in totam physicen. As a proponent of the via moderna, Trutfetter stressed the importance of taking both ancient and modern authorities into account. In questions concerning universals, categories, and psychology, his views were close to those of John Buridan. On the relationship between theology and philosophy he shared, for the most part, William of Ockham’s position.