By the end of the Thirteenth Century and early Fourteenth centuries, the general consensus among intellectuals in Western Europe in reference to the structure of the universe had returned to a Geocentric, Aristotelian world-view. While bearing a striking resemblance to the works of Classical philosophers such as Ptolemy and Pliny, an important new influence had entered into the field of Astronomy, the Christian religion. To reconcile this early Patristic Church with the Ptolomaic universe of pagan Greco-Roman culture was the daunting task of Medieval thinkers such St. Basil the Great, St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Dante Aligheri. Their success resulted in the Cosmology of the late middle ages which allowed Western Civilization the synthesis of it's two greatest contributors, Christianity and Classical Civilization.

      When the Roman Empire fell, many historians felt that "there seemed to be an end of all civilization, as the conquerors were utterly untouched either by the ancient culture of Asia or by anything they might have learned from their new subjects"[1]. While the presence of the "barbarians" in the Roman Empire and their eventual participation as citizens makes this statement seem slightly exaggerated, it is without a doubt true that most knowledge and learning present in Rome did not carry over into the middle or "dark" ages that followed. This disintegration of Classical thought can ironically be attributed to the inordinate teachings of the early Church. Because a very literal interpretation of Scriptures was insisted on by the early Patristic leaders, "anything which could not be reconciled therewith was rejected with horror and scorn"[2]. In order to understand this harsh reaction of the both the Church and the Germanic peoples to Rome, we first must establish a background of their rise to power.

      The structure of the Roman empire made its eventual destruction immanent. Romes success was based solely on the spoils of war, and the only way to maintain such an economy is "by a policy of perpetual conquest and enlargement of the empire"[2]. After the empire ceased to expand, the incoming tribute and profits of wars were no longer sufficient even to maintain its current size and level of existence. As a futile solution, the currency of Rome was debased and eventually its value lowered to a fortieth of its original [3]. Due to the unreliable nature of the new Roman money, many citizens invested their time and resources in land, which retained its value. As a result, the population of Rome began moving out of the cities, which often fell into ruin and disrepair. The number of actual Italians in the empire had never been large, with most citizens being conquered people, and the general population was on the decline as well. It has been estimated that the population of Rome fell by as much as one-third[4] by the second century CE All of these factors along with the inclusion of Barbarians into the empire as allies, mercenary troops, and servants set up the circumstances necessary for the barbarian acquisition of Rome.

      Due to the efforts of Germanic people such as Theodoric the Ostrogoth, the Roman empire continued at least in name. Theodoric ruled the Western Roman Empire as a King, conquering the invader Odovacar in the name of the Emperor[5], and inevitably gained control over the west. The Western Empire was ultimately sectioned off to the various Germanic tribes, and although an attempt was made to preserve some of the Roman traditions, the tribes lived in an essentially different way. Contact was lost with the Byzantine Empire, and the culture of western Europe fell even more sharply into decline.

      The only institution that managed to survive in any form was the Church. The early Fathers and the swiftly established Papacy utilized the situation by dissolving what survived of Greece and Rome that violated doctrine, while effectively maintaining that which did not. It was in this fashion that the Greek language, and most Greek philosophy was entirely lost. What survived of Latin and Roman literature was hoarded by the church in later days and used to reconstruct earlier philosophies.

      Before the Roman empire collapsed, "there was no enmity to science exhibited by the followers of the apostles"[6] and "in Alexandria, where the leaders of the Christians were familiar with the philosophical speculations of Philo and the Neo-Platonists, it was natural it was natural that they should feel no desire to place themselves in opposition to science"[7]. In fact, Clement of Alexandria viewed the Tabernacle of Moses (a biblical cosmological reference) as allegorical to the structure of the world, and there was a great attempt to find allegories of everything in scripture that could not co-exist with pagan learning by some [8]. But teachings such as these were not favored by all.

      Some of the early church leaders "would have nothing to do with anything that came from the pre-Christian world"[9] and saw even the most worthy thoughts and ideas of the pagans as simply a temptation from pure Scripture. Perhaps the most extreme of these men was Lactantius, writer of books on Divine Institutions around the second century CE. He spoke against the well established Greek notion of the spherical nature of the earth, saying "is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? Or that the things which with us are in a recumbent position, with them hang in an inverted direction? That the crops and trees grow downwards? That the rains, and snow, and hail fall upwards to the earth?"[10]

      A moderate version of this school of thought, who made possible more acceptance of the Aristotelian universe, was St. Basil the Great. His essay Homily 1: In the Beginning shows that while he was too sensible to deny the results of scientific investigation he was not prepared to advocate them openly, and "so that at most he merely mentions them without comment, or endeavors to show that a Christian may accept them without danger to his faith"[11]. It was works similar to this that made possible the adherence to those astronomical systems that more closely related with observable phenomenon. While these new systems of thought were no more correct than the ones that they replaced, they introduced a level of observation, investigation, and knowledge of preceding ideas that was essential for more accurate ones which were to come.

      It is clear that not all members of the church condemned the Greek astronomy with equal fervor [12]. St. Augustine (354-430) wished to yield to Classical thought whenever Scripture was not obviously opposed. The only premise on which Augustine was consistently obligated to concede authority of scripture was the presence of water above the firmament, which was plainly mentioned in Genesis. Many before him also struggled of making this agree with what was observable to them, some using allegory, and others denying the Greek altogether. St. Augustine allowed that the water may have existed in a different state than the familiar, but we could not doubt that it was there, because the authority of the Scripture was greater than the aptitude of the human mind [13].

      While most of the church at least in part disagreed with the Geocentric universe, none had yet taken on the task of replacing it with a detailed, if inaccurate, biblically sound system. Such a theory was finally undertaken by a well traveled man named Cosmas Indicopleustes [14]. His often criticized Christian Topography (sixth century CE) built upon existing doctrine of the church, and set forth a highly inaccurate and contradictory explanation of the placement of the Earth and the Heavens.

      Cosmas believed that only by studying the design of the Tabernacle of Moses could the structure of the universe be explained [15]. This design included a flat, rectangular shaped earth, with the heavens extended above it in the shape of a halved cylinder, joined by four walls perpendicular to the earth. This gave the whole structure that of bathroom with a vaulted ceiling [16]. The sun, moon, stars, and planets were carried across the dome of heaven below the firmament by angels, and as the sun could not go beneath the earth, it was necessary to assume that it was hidden behind huge mountains said to exist in the north. This very abstract cosmology of the universe epitomizes the common practice in the early middle ages of denying that which is not fully in agreement with Scripture, both in the form of previous pagan astronomy as well as physical observations.

      At the same time, there were rival ideas. In the late sixth century one of the more important benefactors of the Greek and Roman philosophers was Isidore Hispalensis, Bishop of Seville. Although his position of Bishop was probably due to family connections, he soon earned a reputation as man of learning and eloquence [17]. Isidores encyclopedic work, Etymologies (for his examination of the supposed origins of many words), was representative of many aspects of Medieval science. In dealing with the more controversial topics "such as the figure of the world and the earth, he does not lay down the law himself, but quotes 'the philosophers' as teaching this or that, though without finding fault with them" [18]. In doing this, he mentioned the spherical shape of both the heavens and earth, as well as the rotation of the heavens with the earth as their center. While he did not directly agree with them, Isidore compromised between the conflicting ideas of Ptolemy and the more conservative Patristic writers of the Church.

      By the mid-seventh century, study of the ancient writers had become more prolific, "and the geocentric system slowly but steadily began to resume its place among generally accepted facts"[19]. One of the first Medieval writers to directly acknowledge and agree with the geocentric system was the Venerable Bede. In his De natura rerum "the spherical form of the earth, the order of the seven planets circling round it, the sun being much larger than the earth, and similar facts are plainly stated"[20]. The significance of this treatise is undeniable, as it betokens the point at which Medieval Cosmology began to approach its antecedents in complexity and merit, if only by rediscovering and agreeing with them.

      As the ninth century dawned, it found the belief of the spherical nature of the earth and the geocentric universe in roughly the same positions that they enjoyed at their pinnacle in the philosophies of Hellenistic Greece, albeit based on the distinct principles of the Christian religion as opposed to paganism. This is ironic, as the actual literature of Hellenistic Greece was still unknown to western Europe [21]. After the Greek language was lost circa the fifth century, the texts written in it were also incomprehensible and obsolete. As such, it was through the writers Roman writers Pliny and other Neo-Platonists that the concepts were known, and the original Greek was not be available until centuries later.

      The provision of Greek literature was made possible by contact with the Islamic culture of the middle east because "In the eighth and ninth centuries, the works of Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid, Ptolemy, and of the other great Greek scientific writers became available in Arabic translations" [22]. This was made possible because as the Islamic empire had expanded, the regulation of its newly acquired territories remained with the natives, and documents were still written in the local vernacular, including Greek [23]. Paradoxically, the translations were then made available to Western Europe in part due to the Crusades (1095-1192) in which the crusaders attempted to overthrow the "infidels" and regain Jerusalem, as well as through the Islamic occupation of Spain. In this attempt, they became reacquainted with both their old colleagues of the Byzantine empire as well as the still expanding Muslim empire. From the eighth to twelfth centuries, Islam enjoyed its cultural zenith, coincidentally allowing the invaders to benefit from the knowledge of a civilization at its culmination, although mutually insisting each other to be heretical foreigners. This access to Aristotle, who soon became one of the most respected Classical philosopher, augmented the growing encyclopedic and educational interest already growing in Medieval society [24], and essentially, Islam "gave to western Europe in twelfth and thirteenth centuries the impetus out of which the Latin Christians began modern science" [25].

      After the writings of Aristotle and others became available, it was only a matter of time before the cosmological ideas of the middle ages progressed to their most sophisticated in the fourteenth century. In this natural progression, several important figures can be distinguished for their illustration of the direction being taken by medieval thought including St. Thomas Aquinas, and Roger Bacon. Aquinas provides one of the most accurate portrayals of the intellectuals of his time, especially in his work of commentary on Aristotle, Commentaria in libra Aristotelis de Coelo et Mundo.

      In this work, he expounds the need for distinction between the realms of human reason as opposed to revelation, which he still insists to be the most important. By establishing this, he is not disturbed by the differences between the works of the philosophers and scripture, because they are separate fields of knowledge [26]. Aquinas also acknowledges that the writings of Aristotle were amended by later Classical writers, but doesnt let this lower their significance. Following him and helping to establish the very beginnings of the modern scientific method was Roger Bacon.

      It is said in The Mind of the Middle Ages that "for the growth of science two factors are essential: careful and controlled observation and bold and imaginative synthesis" [27]. While these are often seen to be completely absent even from the late Middle Ages, the writings of Roger Bacon show that they are starting to emerge. In his Opus Majus, Bacon began to not only learn and study the Classical thinkers, but to attempt to go beyond them [28]. He was aware that the state of science was still rudimentary, and thoroughly believed that the only way to advance it further was through experimentation, as opposed to the irrational belief in any source, including the church and the philosophers. While his position of a poor and oppressed student restricted his thoughts from being carried out [29], it is impossible to ignore their influence on the advancements made in later centuries, from the sixteenth to the present.

      By the fourteenth century, these ideas pinnacled into what Dante so elegantly expressed in his Divine Comedy and Banquet, circa 1300. While it is often unsafe to utilize the poetical literature of an era to represent its scientific thought, in the case of Dante, a comparison to the scientific literature of the same time shows them perfectly concurrent [29]. While the Divine Comedy is more well known, it is in his Convito or Banquet that the prevailing astronomy is more systematically pronounced, along with a large amount of corresponding astrology of the age.

      In a study of the Banquet, one can see that it exemplifies not only the Ptolomaic universe, but also the ecclesiastical culture of his era. Dante explains the number and signification of each of the "heavens" or spheres, their nature and contents, ability of motion, and more. Above the spheres containing, respectively, the moon, mercury, Venus, the Sun, mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the fixed stars, exists the imperceptible "Crystalline", which is diaphanous and completely transparent. Above all of this is to be found the immovable Empyrean or the Church. This final and out most sphere causes the Primum Mobile, or initial movement of the lower spheres, because of their desire to be reunited with this most divine of heavens. All of lower spheres rotate around the Earth, which is also a sphere, and located in the center of the arrangement. The actual movement of the bodies is accounted for by substances of spirit separate from matter called Intelligences (commonly called Angels). In referring to these Angels, he claims that there are as many as for types of matter, such as for trees, rocks, clouds, people, etc. It was these Angels that the ancient Pagans mistakenly called "gods and goddesses" and worshipped because they had not had the revelation of the Truth of Christianity. [30]

      And so we see how, in his works, Dante ultimately harmonizes the literature of Ptolemy and Aristotle with the teaching of the Church of Medieval Europe. Thus the sciences of the late Middle Ages are not only aligned with their past, but prepared for their future. The seeds of the modern scientific method and the potential for Renaissance thought and discoveries were sown in an era commonly thought to be devoid of worth and significance to the modern achievements. Without this synthesis, the entire paradigm of Western Civilization could not have been attained. While the appropriateness of this paradigm may be questioned in relation to the findings of modern physics, it is certainly acknowledged as a necessary step in the evolution of western thought. It seems that we, like our medieval counterparts, have a penchant for blind worship and irrational following of a world-view, although in our case it is the scientific laws and determinism of individuals such as Newton and Descartes. We may look with loathing and pity at Medieval thinkers for their foolish cleaving to an ideal, but when provided with the same challenge, how will we fare? We must be careful not to, as the Zen koan says, "mistake our finger for the moon", or in other words, mistake our process for our goal. We must not mistake our means for their end.

Works Cited

[1]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg.207

[2]R.H.C.Davis, A History of Medieval Europe Constantine to St. Louis (London and New York: Longman, 1988) pg.25

[3]R.H.C.Davis, A History of Medieval Europe Constantine to St. Louis (London and New York: Longman, 1988) pg.26

[4]R.H.C.Davis, A History of Medieval Europe Constantine to St. Louis (London and New York: Longman, 1988) pg.26

[5]R.H.C.Davis, A History of Medieval Europe Constantine to St. Louis (London and New York: Longman, 1988) pg.42

[6]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 208

[7]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 209

[8]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 209

[9]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 209

[10]The Divine Institutes, Book III- On the False Wisdom of the Philosophers

[11]St.Basil the Great, Homily 1: In the Beginning

[12]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 212

[13]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 213

[14]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 214

[15]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 215

[16]The Fourth Book of the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes, Book IV

[17]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 215

[18]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 220

[19]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 221

[20]Bede, De natura rerum

[21]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 227

[22]Frederick B. Artz, The Mind of the Middle Ages (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980)pg.163

[23]Fernand Braudel, A History of CivilizationsI (London: Penguin, 1987) pg.70

[24]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 231

[25]Frederick B. Artz, The Mind of the Middle Ages (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980)pg.169

[26]St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentaria in libra Aristotelis de Coelo et Mundo

[27]Frederick B. Artz, The Mind of the Middle Ages(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1980)pg.245

[28]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 233

[29]J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 234

[30] J.L.E. Dreyer, A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (New York: Dover, 1953) pg. 235