9 Dedicatory letter to the Questions on Dialectics CR VI, 653–58
9 Dedicatory letter to the Questions on Dialectics
CR VI, 653–58
Greetings from Philip Melanchthon to Johannes Camerarius, son of the most illustrious D. Joachim Camerarius1
‘Slight is the field of toil, but not slight the glory’,2 to use Virgil's words [Georgics, IV.6], in having studied dialectic properly, and in being so accustomed to the boundaries of the art that you can follow the threads that are as though appointed by the art, in the explanation of things that are worth knowing, in order that the explanation be true, appropriate, simple, clear, certain and powerful; furthermore, in order that you be able to judge and refute those straying from the boundaries, and recall them, so to speak, to the path and within the limits.
If some clever men, without erudition and this basic knowledge, see by a natural light the sources of arguments and connections of parts of discourse in many debates, and can do many things similar to those done by the masters, the art is not to be neglected for that reason. For such a swift intelligence is not common to all, and there are far more mediocre intellects which, unless trained by the art, would remain in perpetual darkness. Furthermore, even though keenness of intellect, directness and skill are great goods, there are nevertheless two of the highest effects of the art which not even clever men can achieve without knowledge or erudition. The first is to see the causes of certitude, that is, why the beliefs we embrace are fixed, and why what we construct needs to be consistent. The other is to refute deceits by showing the faulty places and the causes of the deceits, and to distinguish the parts of arguments by the naming of the arts, as if by unfailing marks, so that the adversary feels himself held in check by these bonds – like the captive Proteus – and is finally led to the precepts of certainty, called criteria (kritēria), where he recognises that he is overcome and condemned by the divine voice. For these precepts – experience, principles and understanding of consequences – are indeed the divine voice; and to this we add the doctrine passed on to the Church by divine providence, which we will discuss in due course.
1 Johannes Camerarius was the son of Melanchthon's close friend, Joachim Camerarius. Melanchthon often dedicated books and textbooks to the family of his friends (e.g. dedication to Anna Camerarius in the German translation of the Loci Communes, CR, VIII, cols. 33f.). See also the dedications to orations II, 17 and 19.
2 Translated by H. Rushton Fairclough, Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid I–VI (Cambridge, MA, and London, 1967), p. 197.
In the same way, the ingenious painter who is experienced by practice may often paint the shadows correctly but nevertheless, without a knowledge of optics, he does not see the causes, nor can he point out his errors to one who is going astray. Therefore, even though there is great power in natural disposition, there are nevertheless some tasks peculiar to masters which the uneducated cannot perform. Often it also happens to the clever that – either through their confidence or by flattering their own intellect – they ramble too long in discussions, play their tricks and defend and strengthen false ideas, as did the Academics, Arcesilaus, Pyrrho3 and others who indulged themselves too much; nor are examples lacking in other ages. Therefore there is no doubt that the art is necessary which instructs and assists mediocre intellects, rules and forces within limits those that are outstanding and accustoms one to seeking and loving certain truth. But why do I discuss whether there is need for the art? If I had some authority, it would be much more appropriate for me to rebuke those who scorn knowledge than to refute them by debating. For contempt of the arts indicates not excellence of intellect, but barbarous savagery. For certainly, just as unrestrained natures hate the bonds of law in morals, many flee the precepts of the arts as though they were a prison. And just as in life they want licence to be granted to all their desires, so also in religion, philosophy and the forum they love boundless liberty, which is ruinous both to themselves and to the Church of God in defending and rejecting ideas. Even though such wanton natures are not moved by our admonition, those whose intellects are more moderate must not be abandoned.4 I urge and entreat them, for the sake of the glory of God and the welfare of the Church, not to neglect dialectic, nor to applaud the foolish speeches of those who disparage it and loudly claim that it is useless for the Church.
But it is plausible that before our times dialectic came to be scorned and hated, because what was taught was not the art itself but some vague shadow of the art, and indeed inextricable labyrinths were displayed which not even the teachers understood. So far were they removed from being able to assist those engaged in other arts that they were corrupting them,
3 Arcesilaus (c. 315–240 BC) was the founder of the Middle Academy and introduced the teachings of Pyrrho of Elis (365–275 BC), who claimed that it was impossible to achieve certainty in knowledge and that one should therefore suspend judgement and strive to achieve mental quietude. Before the publication of Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Pyrrhonianism in 1562, the major source of classical scepticism was Cicero's works: see Charles B. Schmitt, Cicero Scepticus: A Study of the Influence of the ‘Atcademica’ in the Renaissance (The Hague, 1972).
4 Supplying the passage in italics from the 1555 (Wittenberg, J. Crato) edition, Aiiiv: tamen alii quorum ingenia … non deserendi est.
rather. I, on the other hand, profess the true uncorrupted and original dialectic, which we have received from Aristotle as well as from some of his reliable commentators, Alexander of Aphrodisias and Boethius.5 I declare that it is very useful, not only in the forum and in trials, but also in the Church.
And, to speak of the Church now, the facts show that in the books passed on by God through divine providence the most far-reaching knowledge is displayed regarding law, sin, the Gospel and other similar topics. If anyone said regarding these matters that there is nothing to be defined or distinguished, that there is no need to demonstrate the distinction between human judgements and the decisions brought forth from the hidden bosom of the eternal Father which are beyond and outside the grasp of the human mind, nor that a way and an order need be employed in explanation, it would be true, as one says, that he has strayed beyond the stars.6 Certainly there is a need for dialectic, not only so that the doctrine receive some light, but also so that it be the chain of concord. For in order that the voice of those who teach be one and unanimous, it is necessary to keep the substance of knowledge enclosed within the confines of the arts, held together by specific language and order. For when these restraints of the arts are broken and knowledge is spread in an unsuitable language, without order, definitions or distinctions, disagreement necessarily follows, since each receives and repeats the rules differently. It is therefore necessary to maintain dialectic in the Church, but let it be erudite, respectful, serious and loving of truth, and let it not be garrulous, quarrelsome or deceitful. And let us not be deterred from the study of dialectic for the reason that some have written that with the weapons of dialectic the truth has been overthrown by the authors of warped tenets – for this is not a rebuke of the art, but of evil minds and distorted instruction. As in other studies, the student's disposition should be upright and loving of truth, and he should study the art cautiously, and employ it modestly and seriously for the examination and elucidation of the truth. Sophistry should not be practised, and fallacious arguments and tricks should not be enjoyed, in the way in which many distorted natures – like Autolycus, Sisyphus, Eurybatus7 and other impostors
5 Alexander of Aphrodisias' (second century AD) commentary on the Topics was first published in Greek in 1513, and that on the Prior Analytics and Sophistical Refutations in 1520; and Boethius' (455–525) commentary on the Topics was first published separately in 1528.
6 ‘Toto coelo errare’, is to be entirely astray (by the sky): see Erasmus, Adages, I.i.49.
7 In Greek myth, Autolycus, son of Hermes, was a master of trickery and thieving; Sisyphus in Greek myth had a reputation as the most cunning of men; Eurybatus came to be known as Agamemnon's herald who kidnapped Achilles' favourite mistress, Briseis: Ovid, Heroides, III.9f. Cf. Homer, Iliad, I.V.32.
– delight in games of fallacious arguments and subterfuge. It is sufficiently clear that there have been, and are, many dealers in tenets, if I may say so, similar to these, who by no means are or were dialecticians, but rather sophists or impostors, and the corrupters not only of other teachings, but also of dialectic.
Just as the knowledge of numbers is both a great gift from God and very necessary for the life of men, so we know that the true way of teaching and reasoning is God's gift and is necessary in expounding the heavenly doctrine and in the examination of the truth in other things. Thus, when Paul commands that the heavenly word be divided correctly in teaching – or orthotomein,8 as he says – he demands that care definitely be employed in distinguishing the various parts of doctrine, such as the law, the Gospel, philosophy, civic government and many other things. And it appears that the word orthotomein is taken from the ceremony of sacrifices. For it was not allowed to tear the meat of the victims in a random way, but certain parts were to be burnt for God, such as the fat, the loins and the tail; some belonged to the priests, such as the breast and the shoulders. It was therefore an art to divide the limbs, because God willed these very practices to be admonitions of greater things. He bestowed the breasts and the shoulders upon the priests, not only because these parts, having more meat on them and being more muscular, supply more food, but also because the breast signifies wisdom and the shoulders signify carriers of burdens. It is necessary for the priests to excel in erudition and wisdom, and particularly to sustain the great burden of governing. The tail was burnt for God to signify that all actions are to be related to that end, that is, to worshipping God. But I omit an overly long explanation of that ceremony. For I only brought these things to mind in order to remind the young of the Pauline word orthotomein, which is taken from the language of sacrifices. Just as the victims were to be cut up in a fixed way, so the heavenly notions are to be divided by a fixed method. Since the way of this matter is taught properly in dialectic only, this art could be considered the knife for this division. Everywhere there are ready examples which show how widely the use of the art lies open and how necessary it is.
But now I shall briefly admonish readers about one matter, namely the invocation of God. In order that it be done properly, not only the learned but also others, those unacquainted with letters, need to be assisted by dialectic. For the more learned need to instruct the people regarding what
8 In 1545, Melanchthon composed an oration on the term orthotomein: see CR XI, cols. 684–9.
things one needs to think in prayer, what God is, what God we address and how He is to be distinguished from imaginary deities. Also, in every serious invocation, a difficult struggle is kindled, since we contend whether and why in fact we are accepted, and our lamentation and prayers are granted. Our transgressions reproach us, and anxious and perplexed minds flee God. In this confusion and flight they must not be abandoned. For that reason the reproach must be opposed with the voice of the Gospel which confirms that, although defiled, we are nevertheless in fact accepted on account of the Son of God, without doing anything in return. This is the learned argument on which the learned and uneducated likewise need to reflect. For that to happen, the people, too, are to be instructed, so that they do not stray from God in this reasoning. I have often spoken and written about the benefits of dialectic elsewhere, and I wanted to call them to mind here so that there would be a testimony of my judgement – that I encourage worthy minds, so that they may love and study dialectic as well as the other true parts of philosophy; but they should also add the doctrine of God that is passed on in the prophetic and apostolic writings. I shall mention also the books on dialectic of which I particularly approve. Even though many disparage Aristotle's books, and say that they are like the scattered planks of a wrecked ship, I declare that – if I have any judgement – they teach dialectic properly and can be understood by those who are refined by liberal teaching. It appears that the books are distorted in places by the ignorance of those copying them, since no codex is without blunder, but nevertheless the substance of the work is unimpaired. Although I strongly urge those who are talented to study Aristotle himself, and in Greek, it is nevertheless beneficial to bring the first principles to the reading, so that he can be understood more easily. I judge that these can be learnt properly either from the book by Johannes Caesarius or from the Erotemata of Jodocus Willichius.9 I, too, have included in this publication almost the entire art, and I believe that this method of teaching the art would be useful for the studies of the young. And I have introduced some technical (technologika) matters which show the sources of the tenets; but nevertheless I yield the judgement on the book itself and on the entire intention of this little discourse to the learned who will judge frankly.
9 Johannes Caesarius' (c. 1468–1550) Dialectica was first printed in 1520, with more than thirty reprints; Jodocus Willichius' (1501–52) Erotemata dialectices was first printed in 1540. See Wilhelm Risse, Bibliographia logica. Verzeichnis der Druckschriften zur Logik mit Angabe ihrer Fundorte, I. 1472–1800 (Hildesheim, 1965).
But to you, dearest son, I dedicate this work so that you may have this ever so slight monument to the friendship that I have with that excellent and most learned man, your father, and also an expression of my benevolence towards you. You will learn dialectic either from this book or from others, according to the judgement of your father, which is most weighty. Know me to be one who encourages you and your most delightful brothers, as well as other talented youths, to the study not only of this art, but also of the other parts of philosophy. I have also dedicated it to you all the more willingly, not only to enjoin you and your brothers – since you have in your family the most beautiful examples of all the virtues, namely the wisdom, justice, seriousness and moderation in every duty of your grandfather, uncle and father, and indeed also your father's erudition – to contemplate with attention these ornaments of your family, and to rouse yourself to virtue by contemplating them. But I have done so also in order to enjoin other worthy minds to imitate the studies and excellent morals of your father. I pray to the eternal God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of humankind and of His Church, and fount of true wisdom and knowledge, that He may always gather for Himself the eternal Church among us, and encourage the beneficial study of doctrine, so that the Church can in no way lack erudition. May He also keep your most worthy parents unharmed, and also you and your most delightful brothers and sisters. Wittenberg, first of September, 1547.