Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:36:56.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-Essentialism and the Rhetoricization of Knowledge: Mario Nizolio's Humanist Attack on Universals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Lodi Nauta
Lodi Nauta*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Well-known for his Ciceronianism as well as for his crass nominalism and virulent attack on universals, the humanist Mario Nizolio (1488–1567) is often considered to be a forerunner of early modern philosophy. But although his name duly features in general accounts of Renaissance humanism and philosophy, his work, edited by Leibniz in 1670, has hardly been the subject of a philosophically sensitive analysis. This article examines Nizolio's attempt to reform scholastic philosophy, paying particular attention to the way in which he de-ontologized the scholastic categories and predicables (genus, species, etc.) and replaced philosophical abstraction with the rhetorical concept of synecdoche. His views on science, proof, argumentation, and rhetoric are discussed, as well as the humanist inspiration from which they issue. We will then be able to evaluate the strength and limitations of Nizolio's program in the wider tradition of early modern philosophy.

Type
Studies
Information
Renaissance Quarterly , Volume 65 , Issue 1 , Spring 2012 , pp. 31 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Renaissance Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to two anonymous readers for RQ for comments and suggestions.

References

Aaron, Richard I. The Theory of Universals. Oxford, 1967.Google Scholar
Adams, Marilyn McCord. William Ockham. 2 vols. Notre Dame, 1987.Google Scholar
Agricola, Rudolph. De inventione dialectica. Lucubrationes. Ed. Alard of Amsterdam. Cologne, 1539.Google Scholar
Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Ed. Barnes, J.. 2 vols. Princeton, 1984.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Luca. Studi sull'aristotelismo del Rinascimento. Padua, 2003.Google Scholar
Braakhuis, H. A. G.“Agricola on Universals.” InRodolphus Agricola Phrisius, ed., Akkerman, F. and , Vanderjagt, A. J., 239– 47. Leiden, 1988.Google Scholar
Breen, Quirinus.“The Antiparadoxon of Marcantonius Maioragius or, a Humanist Becomes a Critic of Cicero as a Philosopher.” Studies in the Renaissance 5 (1958):37– 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit. 4 vols. 1906. Darmstadt, 1991.Google Scholar
Cave, Terence. The Cornucopian Text: Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance. Oxford, 1979.Google Scholar
Cicero, M. T. De inventione. Trans., Hubbell, H. M.. Cambridge, MA, 1968.Google Scholar
Cicero, M. T. De oratore. Trans., Sutton, E. W. and , Rackham, H.. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA, 1976.Google Scholar
Copenhaver, Brian P., and , Schmitt, Charles B.. Renaissance Philosophy. Oxford, 1992.Google Scholar
Fantham, Elaine. The Roman World of Cicero's De Oratore. Oxford, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenves, Peter. Arresting Language: From Leibniz to Benjamin. Stanford, 2001.Google Scholar
Frank, Günther. Die theologische Philosophie Philipp Melanchthons (1497–1560). Leipzig, 1995.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Markus.“‘War Rudolf Agricola Nominalist?’ Zur Bedeutung der Philosophie Ockhams für den Sprachhumanismus.” InRes et Verba in der Renaissance, ed., Kessler, E. and , Maclean, I., 369– 88. Wiesbaden, 2002.Google Scholar
Glossner, M. Nikolaus von Cusa und Marius Nizolius als Vorläufer der neuren Philosophie. Munster, 1891.Google Scholar
Görler, W.“Silencing the Troublemaker:De Legibus I.39 and the Continuity of Cicero's Scepticism.” InCicero the Philosopher. Twelve Papers, ed., Powell, J. G. F., 85– 113. Oxford, 1995.Google Scholar
Hankins, James.“The Significance of Renaissance Philosophy.” InThe Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy, ed., Hankins, James, 338– 45. Cambridge, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo-Serna, Emilio.“Metaphorical Language, Rhetoric, and Comprehensio: J. L. Vives and M. Nizolio.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 23 (1990):1– 11.Google Scholar
Jolley, Nicholas. Locke: His Philosophical Thought. Oxford, 1999.Google Scholar
Klima, Gyula.“The Essentialist Nominalism of John Buridan.” The Review of Metaphysics 58 (2005):739– 54.Google Scholar
Kondylis, Panajotis. Die neuzeitliche Metaphysikkritik. Stuttgart, 1990.Google Scholar
Kristeller, P. O. Renaissance Thought and Its Sources. New York, 1979.Google Scholar
Laerke, Mogens.“The Problem of Alloglossia. Leibniz on Spinoza's Innovative Use of Philosophical Language.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17 (2009):939– 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. Philosophische Schriften. Berlin, 1966.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. Philosophical Papers and Letters. Trans., Loemker, L. E.. Dordrecht, 1969.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. Philosophical Essays. Ed. and trans., Ariew, R. and , Garber, D.. Indianapolis, 1989.Google Scholar
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed., Nidditch, Peter H.. Oxford, 1979.Google Scholar
Mack, Peter. Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic. Leiden, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, Peter.“Vives's Contributions to Rhetoric and Dialectic.” InA Companion to Juan Luis Vives, ed., Fantazzi, Charles, 227– 76. Leiden, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marenbon, John. The Philosophy of Peter Abelard. Cambridge, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melanchthon, Philipp. Erotemata dialectices . InCorpus reformatorum, ed., Bretschneider, K. G., 13: 509– 752. Halle, 1846.Google Scholar
Menn, Stephen.“The Intellectual Setting.” InThe Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, ed., Garber, D. and , Ayers, M., 1: 33– 86. Cambridge, 1998.Google Scholar
Monfasani, John.“Humanism and Rhetoric.” InRenaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms and Legacy, ed., Rabil, Albert., 3: 195– 228. Philadelphia, 1988.Google Scholar
Nauta, Lodi. In Defense of Common Sense: Lorenzo Valla's Humanist Critique of Scholastic Philosophy. Cambridge, MA, 2009.Google Scholar
Newman, Lex.“Locke on Knowledge.” InThe Cambridge Companion to Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed., Newman, Lex, 313– 51. Cambridge, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nizolio, Mario. Marius Nizolius sive Thesaurus Ciceronianus. Frankfurt, 1614.Google Scholar
Nizolio, Mario. De veris principiis et vera ratione philosophandi contra pseudophilosophos. Ed., Breen, Quirinus. 2 vols. Rome, 1956.Google Scholar
Nizolio, Mario. Vier Bücher über die Wahren Prinzipien und die wahre philosophische Methode gegen die Pseudophilosophen. Trans., Thieme, K.. Munich, 1980.Google Scholar
Ockham, William. Summa logicae. Ed., Boehner, P. ,et al.. St. Bonaventure, 1974.Google Scholar
Ockham, William. Expositionis in Libros Artis Logicae Prooemium et Expositio in Librum Porphyrii de Praedicabilibus. Ed., Moody, E. A.. St. Bonaventure, 1978.Google Scholar
Ockham, William. Philosophical Writings. Ed., Boehner, P.. Rev. ed., , Brown, S. F.. Indianapolis, 1990.Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J. Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue. Cambridge, MA, 1958.Google Scholar
Otto, Stephan.“Rhetorische Techne oder Philosophie sprachlicher Darstellungskraft? Zur Rekonstruktion des Sprachhumanismus der Renaissance.” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 37 (1983):497– 514.Google Scholar
Panaccio, Claude. Ockham on Concepts. Aldershot, 2004.Google Scholar
Pasnau, Robert. Theories of Cognition in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge, 1997.Google Scholar
Perler, Dominik. Zweifel und Gewissheit: Skeptische Debatten im Mittelalter. Frankfurt am Main, 2006.Google Scholar
Peter of Spain. Summulae logicales. Ed. de Rijk, L. M.. Assen, 1972.Google Scholar
Porphyry. Isagoge: translatio Boethii. Ed. Minio-Paluello, L.. Bruges, 1966.Google Scholar
Porphyry. Porphyry the Phoenician, Isagoge. Trans. Warren, E. W.. Toronto, 1975.Google Scholar
Quintilian, M. F. Institutio oratoria. Ed. and trans., Russell, D. A.. 5 vols. Cambridge, MA, 2001.Google Scholar
Ramus, Peter. Dialecticae institutiones. 1543. Reprint, Stuttgart, 1964.Google Scholar
Rossi, Paolo.“Il ‘De principiis’ di Mario Nizolio.” Archivio di filosofia 3 (1953):57– 92.Google Scholar
Rummel, Erika. The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation. Cambridge, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. “Systematically Misleading Expressions.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 32 (1932); repr. in Gilbert Ryle, Collected Papers, 2: 39– 62. London, 1971.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Charles B. Cicero Scepticus: A Study of the Influence of the Academica in the Renaissance. The Hague, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavoni, M.“Lorenzo Valla e il volgare.” InLorenzo Valla e l'umanesimo italiano. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi umanistici, ed., Besomi, O. and , Regoliosi, M., 199– 216. Padua, 1986.Google Scholar
Tillmann, Bruni. Leibniz’ Verhältnis zur Renaissance im allgemeinen und zu Nizolius im besonderen. Bonn, 1912.Google Scholar
Valla, Lorenzo. Repastinatio dialectice et philosophie. Ed., Zippel, G.. 2 vols. Padua, 1982.Google Scholar
Vasoli, Cesare. La dialettica e la retorica dell'Umanesimo. “Invenzione” e “metodo” nella cultura del XV e XVI secolo. Milan, 1952.Google Scholar
Vives, Juan Luis. De explicatione cuiusque essentiae . In, Vives, Juan Luis,Opera in duos distincta tomos, 1: 582– 92. Basel, 1555.Google Scholar
Vives, Juan Luis. Opera Omnia. Ed., Mayans y Siscar, Gregorio. 8 vols. Valencia, 1782–90.Google Scholar
Vives, Juan Luis. Vives on Education. Trans., Watson, F.. Totowa, 1971.Google Scholar
Wels, Volkhard. Triviale Künste: Die humanistische Reform der grammatischen, dialektischen und rhetorischen Ausbildung an der Wende zum 16. Jahrhundert. Berlin, 2000.Google Scholar
Wesseler, Matthias. Die Einheit von Wort und Sache. Der Entwurf einer rhetorischen Philosophie bei Marius Nizolius. Munich, 1974.Google Scholar