Interpretation of Aristotle in F. Melanchthon’s Early Ethical Comments

1. Philipp Melanchthon is one of the great commentators of Aristotle in the early Modern. In «Мodified Scholasticism» (Scholasticism passed the crisis of Aristotelianism and humanistic criticism), Melanchthon was radical reforming critic of Peripatetic. If Luther completely rejected the Aristotle’s authority and said Philosophus is the enemy of Christ, Melanchthon considered Aristotle as the author, represent pre-Christian stage of development of culture: its scientific, religious and moral level. This position is associated with Melanchthon’s humanistic education.

2. Especially Melanchthon faith that Aristotle's text is not authoritative., He reject scholastic tradition, and commemorate a difficult situation: he need to interpret Aristotle, when Luther put a hard taboo on peripatetic philosophy. Melanchthon refused a literal following the Aristotelian text, take paraphrases, renderings, and references to the text. This reflected a drop in the value of Aristotle during the early Modern, and strangeness peripatetism for Christian culture.

3. On the other hand, Melanchthon traditionally considered an Aristotle as the main philosopher, and Aristotelianism as the philosophy par excellence. A key opposition in Melanchthon’s interpretation of Aristotelian philosophy based in distinction between doctrina philosophiae and doctrina Christiana. This difference is the foundation of early Melanchthon’s comments in Nicomachean Ethics (ed. Wittenberg, 1529).

4. Melanchthon expresses the need of simply interpretation (simplex) of Aristotle's position. Thus, he refuses to «complicated» interpretations in traditional scholastic exegesis: the text as a reason for the limitless expansion of discourse by distinctions of meaning and concepts. Melanchthon follows the traditional humanistic injunction to understand the text within its own context, without adding semantic anachronisms.

5. On the other hand, this way closes to Melanchthon possibility for «christianization» of Aristotle: the next step he is taking the separation of Christian and «philosophical» content. The key characteristic of Melanchthon’s interpretation is performs of certain topoi that can be drawn from the Bible: «Philosophy does not say anything about the God’s will, nor of justification of sinners, nor of fear and loyalty to God. There are about the external and civil life related with public law... but civil laws are not the center of justice (iustitiam)». Formally, this corresponds (even literally) the views Melanchthon expressed in his Loci theologici (1521). Philosophy clarified and teached (explicatio et enarratio) on external acts, without the faith.

6. How to interpret Aristotle? As much as possible avoiding the complexities understanding, speaking and even of common things. Melanchthon notes that should be here especially mark those topoi of Christian doctrines that do not concern with external actions (actionem virtutes), but the knowledge and glory of God. This again appears in Melanchthon’s interpretation of happiness (foelicitas): «Christian happiness consists not in civil life, but in the faith and the contemplation of God... Happiness according Aristotle these are good acts (honestae actiones), which are found in civil life».

7. Melanchthon make two important conclusions about the «philosophical virtues»: its relate with (a) «laws of the market» (legibus fori) and (b) «only impotent nature» (tanta inbeccititate naturae). Aristotle's ethics does not allow to recognize sin and be cleansed from it, only by strengthening human pride.

8. Thus, the feature Melanchthon’s interpretation of Aristotelian ethics is the thesis of her «externalist» character. It does not concern the essence of man, his subjective beginning, and describes only external, socially significant aspect of his life. Salvation by faith alone is opposed to the Aristotelian position of realization on certain foreign «affairs» that Melanchthon recognized as source of immorality and death. Therefore, the Aristotelian ethic need to serve as an initial level in the moral doctrine. It should not be difficult and treat possible easier (fasilius intelligentur haec). Aristotle’s text lose an authoritative value: real instruction in Christianity based in theology, but for theology Aristotle is useless.

9. On the other hand, Melanchthon probably moving away from strictly Luther's view of the scope of «natural morality» as a negative for Christian morality, under the influence of Aristotle. In later editions of his Loci (1535, 1543) Melanchthon said without Christian moral human is able to follow the civil laws, and that is a training and preparation for religion, and piety and freedom realized in the moral choice, in the external act.

[30] Iacopo Costa

Laboratoire d'É tudes sur les Monothé ismes, Paris, France