Untangling Robert Grosseteste’s hylomorphism
Matter, form, and bodiness
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21597906 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nicola Polloni (0000-0001-5543-8032, Dipartimento di Civiltà Antiche e Moderne (DICAM), Università di Messina, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 244-263 |
| Publication date | 2025-03-04 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | British Journal for the History of Philosophy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0960-8788 • E-ISSN: 1469-3526 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/09608788.2024.2332425 |
| OpenAlex | W4396596715 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 12 |
During the thirteenth century, Aristotelian hylomorphism became the cornerstone of scholastic natural philosophy. However, this theory was fragmented into a plurality of interpretations and reformulations, sparking a rich philosophical debate. This article focuses on Robert Grosseteste (d. 1253), one of the earliest Latin philosophers to directly engage with Aristotle’s natural philosophy. Specifically, it delves into Grosseteste’s perspective on hylomorphism, emphasizing two controversial doctrines that characterized British scholasticism in the late thirteenth century: universal hylomorphism and formal pluralism. The former claims that all substances, whether bodily or spiritual, are hylomorphic compounds, that is, they are made of matter and form. Formal pluralism, in turn, maintains that hylomorphic substances possess more than one substantial form simultaneously. After a brief introduction, the paper proceeds, first, to examine the type of hylomorphism endorsed by Grosseteste, shedding light on an obscure passage that seems to suggest universal hylomorphism. Second, the examination expands on Grosseteste’s theory of bodily form and emphasizes the apparent contradiction of this theory with universal hylomorphism. The discussion then turns to Grosseteste’s endorsement of formal pluralism and the functionality he envisioned being expressed by the bodily form. Finally, the paper draws conclusions about Grosseteste’s revised hylomorphic account
Epistemology · Theology · Historical Philosophy and Science · Medieval and Classical Philosophy · Medieval Philosophy and Theology · Philosophy
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |