1 1 6 Science Religion and Reality 



commentaries were made not directly from the Greek but through 

 the intervention of Arabic or Hebrew commentators. 



During the Middle Ages the tradition of Greek learning was 

 mainly in the keeping of people of Arabic speech, and largely resided 

 with the Jews so far as Europe was concerned. Among these 

 " Arabians " and " Arabists " there was a difference of opinion as 

 to the interpretation of the Aristotelian philosophy. One great 

 group, followers of the Mohammedan philosopher Averroes, held 

 that the world was eternal. That view was shared in a more or 

 less veiled manner by a number of Christian writers, but was 

 clearly heretical and could never be formally accepted by the 

 Catholic Church. The other interpretation of the Aristotelian 

 record represented the world as created. This view was presented 

 by the Jewish writer Maimonides, whose account was generally 

 current. Thus Maimonides came to exercise an immense influence 

 on Christian scholasticism. Aquinas, who depended largely on 

 Maimonides and similar writers, became represented as the pro- 

 tagonist against the " atheistical " Averroes. Opposition to the 

 great Moslem thinker was, moreover, intensified by his denial of the 

 persistence of the individual soul. Aquinas held, however, that 

 the temporal character of the world could not be proved but must 

 be accepted as an act of faith. 



On this matter of the eternal or non-eternal character oi the 

 world there arose a prodigious literature, the examination of which 

 would be of little profit for our purpose. We may note, however, 

 that with our improved understanding of the Aristotelian writings 

 we can now say that the Maimonidean party was mainly wrong 

 in its interpretation and the Averroan party mainly right. Such 

 was the prestige of Aristotle's name that any view had to claim that 

 it was based on, or at least consistent with, Aristotle in order to have 

 the least chance of a hearing. The Middle Ages were on some- 

 what surer ground in their account of the Aristotelian physics. 

 They at least came fairly near to understanding Aristotle in this 

 department. But the medieval Aristotelian view, however inter- 

 preted, cannot be regarded as partaking of the nature of a scientific 

 hypothesis. It was an accepted doctrine, part of the tradition 

 of antiquity. No attempt was made, nor could be made, to put 

 it to the test of experience, nor was it in any sense an organic- 

 ally growing body of knowledge. The great and important 

 contest that arose concerning the interpretation of Aristotelian 



