Ancient Philosophy After Aristotle

The Roman Empire and Its Relationship to Culture

The Roman Empire exerted its influence on the history of culture through various, more or less autonomous pathways.

Firstly, there was the direct impact of Rome on Hellenistic thought; however, this influence was neither profound nor significant.

Secondly, the influence of Greece and the East on the western half of the empire was deep and enduring, as it encompassed the Christian religion.

Thirdly, the significance of the prolonged peace under the Romans facilitated the spread of culture and accustomed people to the idea of a unified civilization governed by a single authority.

Fourthly, there was the transmission of Hellenistic culture to the Muslims, which eventually made its way to Western Europe.

Before delving into these influences of Rome, it is beneficial to provide a brief overview of political history.

The conquests of Alexander left the western Mediterranean untouched; it fell under the sway of two powerful city-states, Carthage and Syracuse, by the early third century BCE. In the First and Second Punic Wars (264—241 and 218—201 BCE), Rome conquered Syracuse and effectively dismantled Carthage’s influence. Throughout the second century BCE, Rome subjugated the Macedonian monarchies. Egypt remained a vassal state until the death of Cleopatra (30 BCE). Spain was inadvertently conquered during the war against Hannibal; Julius Caesar subdued France in the mid-first century BCE, while England was invaded about a century later. During those grand days, the boundaries of the empire extended from the Rhine and Danube in Europe to the Euphrates in Asia and the desert in North Africa.

Roman imperialism was most prominently manifested in North Africa, which played a crucial role in the history of Christianity as the homeland of St. Cyprian and St. Augustine. The vast lands there, which had known no cultivation before or after the Romans, were transformed into fertile fields that supplied food to populous cities. The Roman Empire was generally stable and peaceful for more than two hundred years—from Augustus’s ascension to the throne in 30 BCE until the calamities of the third century CE.

During this time, the structure of the Roman state underwent significant changes. Initially, Rome was a small city-state not unlike the Greek cities, especially those like Sparta that did not rely on external trade. Kings, akin to the monarchs of Homeric Greece, were succeeded by an aristocratic republic. Gradually, as the aristocratic elements embodied in the Senate remained strong, democratic elements were added; the resulting compromise was viewed by Panaetius the Stoic (whose ideas were reproduced by Polybius and Cicero) as an ideal combination of monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements. However, the conquests disrupted this precarious balance; they brought immense new wealth to the senatorial class and, to a lesser extent, to the “equestrians,” the upper echelons of the middle class. Italian agriculture, once in the hands of small farmers who cultivated grain through their own labor and that of their families, became the foundation for large estates owned by the Roman aristocracy, where slaves toiled to cultivate vineyards and olive groves. This resulted in the overwhelming power of the Senate, which was shamelessly exploited for personal enrichment with little regard for the interests of the state or the welfare of its subjects.

The democratic movement initiated by the Gracchi in the second half of the second century BCE led to a series of civil wars, ultimately resulting in what frequently occurred in Greece—a descent into “tyranny.” It is curious to observe the repetition on such a grand scale of events that in Greece had remained confined to smaller areas. Augustus, the heir and adopted son of Julius Caesar, who reigned from 30 BCE to 14 CE, put an end to civil strife and (with few exceptions) external conquest. For the first time since the dawn of Greek civilization, the ancient world enjoyed peace and security.

Two facts had undermined the Greek political system: the first was the claim of each city to absolute sovereignty, and the second was the bitter, bloody struggle between the rich and the poor in most cities. After the conquest of Carthage and the Hellenistic states, the first cause no longer inflicted suffering on the world, as effective resistance to Rome was no longer possible. However, the second cause remained. In civil wars, one general would declare himself a supporter of the Senate, while another would align himself with the people. Victory went to the one who offered greater rewards to the soldiers. The soldiers sought not only pay and plunder but also granted lands, and thus every civil war ended with the formally sanctioned exile of many landowners, nominally tenants of the state: thereby making room for the legions of the victor. The costs of war were covered by the executions of the wealthy and the confiscation of their property. This system, however ruinous, could not be easily curtailed; ultimately, to everyone's astonishment, Augustus emerged as such a complete victor that no rival remained to contest his claims to power.

For the Roman world, the realization that the era of civil war had come to an end was a surprise, a reason for widespread rejoicing, shared only by a small group of senators. For everyone else, it was a tremendous relief when Rome, under Augustus, finally achieved the stability and order that the Greeks and Macedonians had sought in vain, and which Rome had also failed to establish prior to Augustus. According to Rostovtzev, republican Rome “brought nothing new to Greece except pauperization, bankruptcy, and the cessation of all independent political activity.”

The reign of Augustus marked a period of prosperity for the Roman Empire. The administration of the provinces was finally organized with some concern for the welfare of the populace, rather than purely on a plundering basis. Augustus was not only officially deified after his death, but he was also spontaneously venerated as a god in various provincial cities. Poets sang his praises, the trading classes found the universal peace convenient, and even the Senate, which he addressed while maintaining all outward forms of respect, showered him with flattery and honors at every opportunity.

However, while everything around was prosperous, some zest had departed from life, as security replaced adventure. In earlier times, every free Greek had the chance to experience adventure; Philip and Alexander put an end to that state of affairs, and in the Hellenistic world, only representatives of the Macedonian dynasty enjoyed anarchic freedom. The Greek world lost its youth and became either cynical or religious. The hope for the embodiment of ideals in earthly institutions faded, and with it, the zeal of the best individuals vanished. For Socrates, the heavens were a realm where he could continue his debates; for philosophers after Alexander, it became something distinct from their existence here on earth.

In Rome, similar changes occurred later and in a less painful form. Rome was not subdued, as Greece had been; rather, it had incentives for successful imperialism. During the civil wars, it was indeed the Romans who were responsible for the chaos. The Greeks failed to achieve peace and order by submitting to the Macedonians, while both the Greeks and the Romans secured both by yielding to Augustus. Augustus was a Roman whom the majority of Romans willingly and voluntarily submitted to, not only because he proved to be far stronger than they; he also endeavored to mask the militaristic nature of his rule and to base it on senatorial decrees. The adulation expressed by the Senate was, without doubt, largely insincere, but outside the senatorial class, no one felt humiliated.

The mood of the Romans resembled that of a certain jeune homme rangé in 19th-century France—a young man who, after a series of romantic adventures, settles down and enters into a calculated marriage. This state of affairs, though contented, lacks creativity. The great poets of the Augustan era emerged in more tumultuous times; Horace fled during the battle of Philippi, and both he and Virgil lost their estates, which were confiscated in favor of the victorious soldiers. During this period of stability, Augustus, albeit somewhat insincerely, sought to restore ancient piety and was involuntarily rather hostile toward free thought. The Roman world began to take on a stereotypical nature, a process that continued under subsequent emperors.

The immediate successors of Augustus descended into appalling cruelty toward the senators and potential rivals in the struggle for power. In some measure, the distortions in governance during this period extended to the provinces; however, for the most part, the administrative apparatus established by Augustus continued to function quite effectively.

Better times dawned with the ascent of Trajan to the throne in 98 A.D., lasting until the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 A.D. Throughout this period, the administration of the empire was as good as any despotism could hope to achieve. In stark contrast, the third century brought horrifying disasters. The army recognized its power: it elevated and deposed emperors for a cash payment and the promise of a life free from military campaigns, consequently becoming an ineffective fighting force. Barbarians from the north and east invaded and plundered Roman territories. Preoccupied with private gain and domestic turmoil, the army was unfit for defense. The entire fiscal system crumbled, as there was a massive decrease in revenue sources alongside a significant increase in state expenditures for unsuccessful wars and military bribes. Additionally, an epidemic drastically reduced the population. It seemed the empire was on the brink of collapse.

This impending doom was averted by two vigorous individuals—Diocletian (286—305 A.D.) and Constantine, whose undisputed reign lasted from 312 to 337 A.D. By that time, the empire had divided into western and eastern halves, roughly corresponding to the division between Greek and Latin. Under Constantine, Byzantium was designated as the capital of the eastern half, which he renamed Constantinople. Diocletian temporarily subdued the army, altering its character; under him and subsequently, the most effective military units consisted of barbarians, primarily Germans, who were granted access to the highest command positions. This, undoubtedly, was a perilous strategy, and by the early 5th century, it bore its inevitable fruits. The barbarians determined that it was more advantageous to fight for their own interests rather than for the Roman master. Nevertheless, the army successfully fulfilled its role for over a century. Diocletian's administrative reforms were also temporarily successful yet ultimately disastrous. The Roman system granted local self-governance to cities, allowing their officials to collect taxes, with only the total amount to be paid by each city determined by the central authority. This system functioned quite well during times of abundance, but when the empire's resources were depleted, the required taxes exceeded what could be produced without significant hardship. City authorities were personally accountable for tax collection and would often evade payment. Diocletian compelled affluent citizens to take positions in local governance and declared flight illegal. For similar reasons, he bound the peasant population to the land and prohibited movement. These measures were upheld by subsequent emperors.

The most significant innovation introduced by Constantine was the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, evidently because most soldiers were Christians. As a result, when the Germans destroyed the Western Empire in the 5th century, its prestige compelled them to adopt Christianity, preserving for Western Europe as much of the ancient culture as the Church could absorb.

The situation was different for the lands belonging to the eastern part of the empire. Although the empire gradually diminished in size (with the exception of Justinian's fleeting victories in the 6th century), it endured until 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Turks. However, much of what had been Roman provinces in the East, including Africa and Spain in the West, became Muslim. Unlike the Germans, the Arabs discarded religion but embraced the civilization of those they conquered. The Eastern Empire was Greek rather than Roman in its civilization; consequently, from the 7th to the 11th centuries, it was primarily the Arabs who preserved Greek literature and whatever remnants of Greek civilization remained in contrast to Latin. Starting in the 11th century and beyond, first through Moorish influence, the West gradually began to reclaim all that it had lost from the Greek heritage.

I now turn to the four paths through which the Roman Empire influenced the history of culture.

I. The direct influence of Rome on Greek thought

Began in the 2nd century B.C. with two figures: the historian Polybius and the Stoic philosopher Panaetius. The natural attitude of the Greeks toward the Romans was one of contempt mixed with fear; the Greek considered himself more cultured yet politically weaker. If the Romans were more fortunate in politics, it merely proved that politics was a lowly affair. The average Greek of the 2nd century B.C. was a lover of pleasures, a resourceful man, skilled in commerce, and indifferent in all matters. However, there were still individuals capable of engaging in philosophy. Some of them, especially the skeptics like Carneades, allowed cleverness to undermine seriousness. Others, such as the Epicureans and a portion of the Stoics, retreated entirely into peaceful private life. Yet a handful of individuals, possessing greater foresight than Aristotle exhibited concerning Alexander, recognized that Rome owed its greatness to certain virtues absent in the Greeks.

The historian Polybius, born in Arcadia around 100 B.C., was sent to Rome as a prisoner and was fortunate to befriend Scipio Aemilianus, accompanying him on many campaigns. It was unusual for a Greek to know Latin, although many of the most educated Romans knew Greek; however, Polybius’s circumstances led him to acquire a profound knowledge of Latin. He wrote a history of the Punic Wars for the Greeks, which helped Rome achieve peace. Admiration for the Roman state apparatus had fallen out of fashion by the time he wrote, but prior to his time, it had significantly outshone the constantly changing structures of most Greek cities in terms of stability and efficiency. The Romans naturally read his history with pleasure; however, whether it was equally pleasing to the Greeks is more uncertain.

We have already discussed the Stoic Panaetius in the previous chapter. He was a friend of Polybius and, like him, a protégé of Scipio Aemilianus. During Scipio’s lifetime, he often visited Rome, but after Scipio’s death (in 129 B.C.), he remained in Athens as the head of the Stoic school. Rome still retained what Greece had lost—the hope associated with favorable opportunities for political action. Accordingly, Panaetius’s doctrines were more political and less akin to Cynic teachings than those of earlier Stoics. Perhaps the admiration for Plato felt by educated Romans influenced him to abandon the dogmatic narrowness of his Stoic predecessors. Stoicism, in a freer and broader form imparted by Panaetius and his successor Posidonius, profoundly impacted the more serious Romans.

Later, Epictetus, though he was also Greek, spent most of his life in Rome. The city provided him with the majority of the examples with which he illustrated his precepts; he continually urged the wise man not to tremble in the presence of the emperor. We know of Epictetus’s influence on Marcus Aurelius, but tracing his impact on the Greeks is more challenging.

Plutarch (circa 46—120 A.D.) drew parallels between the most outstanding individuals from both nations in his work Parallel Lives. He spent a considerable amount of time in Rome and was respected by the emperors Hadrian and Trajan. In addition to Parallel Lives, he produced numerous works on philosophy, religion, natural history, and morality. His Parallel Lives clearly aimed to reconcile Greece and Rome in the minds of people.

Overall, aside from such exceptional individuals, Rome was a thorn in the side of the Greek-speaking portion of the empire. Both thought and art declined. Until the end of the 2nd century A.D., life for the affluent was pleasant and serene. There were neither incentives for effort nor appropriate circumstances for great achievements. The recognized schools of philosophy—the Academy, the Peripatetics, the Epicureans, and the Stoics—continued to exist until Justinian closed them down. However, none of them showed signs of life in the period following Marcus Aurelius, except for the Neoplatonists (in the 3rd century A.D.), about whom we will speak in the next chapter; and it is unlikely that Rome influenced these individuals. The Latin and Greek halves of the empire began to engage in ever-increasing contradictions; knowledge of the Greek language became rare in the West, while after Constantine, Latin in the East remained only in the realms of law and the military.

II. The Influence of Greece and the East in Rome.

Here we must consider two very distinct circumstances: first, the influence of Hellenic art, literature, and philosophy on the most educated Romans; second, the spread of non-Hellenistic religions and superstitions throughout the Western world.

1. When the Romans first came into contact with the Greeks, they realized that, in comparison, they were barbarians and uncultivated people. The Greeks surpassed them in many respects: in manufacturing and agricultural techniques; in the knowledge necessary for competent administration; in conversation and the art of enjoying life; in art, literature, and philosophy. The only realm in which the Romans excelled was military tactics and social cohesion. The Romans’ attitude towards the Greeks resembled that of the Prussians towards the French in 1814 and 1815; however, the latter was transient, while the former endured for a long time. After the Punic Wars, young Romans began to admire the Greeks. They studied the Greek language, imitated Greek architecture, and employed Greek sculptors. Roman deities were identified with their Greek counterparts. A Trojan lineage for the Romans was fabricated to establish a connection with the Homeric myths. Roman poets adopted Greek poetic meters, and Latin philosophers assimilated Greek theories. Rome, in cultural terms, parasitized on the achievements of Greece until the very end. The Romans invented no forms of art, created no original philosophical systems, and made no scientific discoveries. They built good roads, established systematic legal codes, and trained professional armies; for everything else, they turned to Greece.

The Hellenization of Rome brought about a certain softening of manners, much to the distaste of Cato the Elder. Prior to the Punic Wars, the Romans were a bucolic people, possessing the virtues and vices of rural landowners: frugal, industrious, cruel, stubborn, and foolish. Their family life was stable and solid, firmly grounded in patria potestas; women and youth were wholly subordinate. All of this changed with the influx of sudden wealth. Small farms disappeared, gradually replaced by large estates employing slave labor for the application of new scientific methods of agriculture. A sizable merchant class emerged, and a significant number of individuals enriched themselves through plunder, akin to the English nabobs of the eighteenth century. Women, who were previously virtuous slaves, became liberated and dissolute; divorce became commonplace; the wealthy ceased to have children. The Greeks, who had experienced similar developmental stages a century earlier, encouraged what historians refer to as the decline of morals by their example. Even during the days of the Empire, when its life was most debauched, the average Roman still regarded Rome as a proponent of a more pure ethical standard compared to the decadent corruption of Greece.

The cultural influence of Greece on the Western Empire rapidly diminished beginning in the third century A.D., primarily because culture itself was in decline. Numerous reasons contributed to this, but one must be mentioned in particular. In the later days of the Western Empire, the political structure was, more than ever, a less-than-masked military tyranny, and the army often elected a successful general as emperor; however, the army, even at its highest ranks, was no longer composed of educated Romans, but of semi-barbarians from the empire’s borders. These rough soldiers felt no need for culture and viewed the civilian population merely as a source of revenue. Private individuals had become too impoverished to provide serious support for education, while the state deemed education unnecessary. As a result, in the West, only a few particularly educated individuals continued to read in Greek.

2. Non-Hellenistic religions and superstitions, in contrast, gained increasingly firm positions in the West over time. We have already seen how the victories of Alexander introduced the Greek world to the beliefs of the Babylonians, Persians, and Egyptians. In a similar vein, the victories of the Romans acquainted the Western world with these doctrines, as well as with those of the Jews and Christians. Later, I shall examine matters concerning the Jews and Christians; for now, I will limit myself, as much as possible, to pagan superstitions.

In Rome, every sect and every prophet were represented, and they sometimes garnered sympathy in the highest government circles. Lucian, who advocated for healthy skepticism despite the credulity characteristic of his time, recounts an interesting story generally regarded as true about a prophet and magician named Alexander of Paphlagonia. This man healed illnesses and foretold the future while occasionally resorting to blackmail. His fame reached the ears of Marcus Aurelius, who was then engaged in battle against the Marcomanni along the Danube. The emperor consulted him on how to win the war and received the advice that if he cast two lions into the Danube, it would result in a great victory. He followed the soothsayer's counsel, but the Marcomanni achieved the great victory. Despite this, Alexander’s fame continued to grow. A prominent Roman, a consul named Rutilian, after consulting him on various matters, eventually sought his advice on choosing a wife. Alexander, like Endymion, basked in the favors of the Moon and had a daughter by her, whom the oracle recommended to Rutilian. “Rutilian, who was sixty years old at the time, immediately consented to the divine directive and celebrated the wedding, offering a whole hecatomb in sacrifice to his mother-in-law.”

More significant than the career of Alexander of Paphlagonia was the reign of Elagabalus (218—222 A.D.), who, prior to his elevation, was a Sun priest from Syria at the behest of the army. During his slow procession from Syria to Rome, his portrait was carried ahead, sent as a gift to the Senate. “He was depicted in a priestly robe of silk and gold, wide and long in the fashion of the Medes and Phoenicians; his head was crowned with a high diadem, and he wore many necklaces and bracelets adorned with the rarest gems. His eyebrows were dyed black, and traces of rouge and powder were visible on his cheeks. Senators were forced to admit, with sorrow, that after Rome had long endured the formidable tyranny of its own compatriots, it was finally compelled to bow before the effeminate luxury of Eastern despotism.” Supported mainly by the army, Elagabalus zealously imposed Eastern religious rites in Rome; his name was that of the Sun god worshiped in Emesa, where he was the chief priest. His mother or grandmother, who was the real ruler, observed that he had gone too far and deposed him in favor of her nephew Alexander (222—235), whose Eastern inclinations were more moderate. The syncretism of beliefs possible in those days is illustrated by the adornments of his personal chapel, in which he set up statues of Abraham, Orpheus, Apollon of Tiana, and Christ.

The cult of Mithras, which had Persian origins, posed a formidable rival to Christianity, especially during the latter half of the third century A.D. The emperors, undertaking desperate attempts to pacify the army, felt that religion could provide the much-needed stability. But it had to be one of the new religions, as they were favorably regarded by soldiers. The cult of Mithras was introduced in Rome, and it contained many elements that appealed to military minds. Mithras was the god of the Sun, but not as effeminate as his Syrian counterpart; he was a god engaged in warfare—the great struggle between good and evil—which had been part of Persian belief since the time of Zoroaster. Rostovtsev reproduces a relief depicting the worship of the god, found in an underground sanctuary in Heddersheim, Germany, indicating that followers of this cult must have been numerous among warriors not only in the East but also in the West.

The acceptance of Christianity by Constantine was a politically successful act, whereas earlier attempts to introduce the new religion had met with failure; yet earlier attempts, from a governmental perspective, bore great resemblance to this one. In all cases, the possibility of success was equally grounded in the misfortunes and fatigue of the Roman world. The traditional religions of Greece and Rome aligned with the aspirations of people tied to earthly life and hoping for happiness on earth. Asia, having a longer history of experiencing despair, utilized the hope for an afterlife as a more effective antidote; and of all these, Christianity proved to be the most effective means of consolation. However, by the time Christianity became the state religion, it had absorbed much from the Greeks and transmitted it, along with elements of Judaism, to subsequent centuries in the West.

III. Unification of Governance and Culture

We owe to Alexander, and subsequently to Rome, the preservation of the achievements of the great era of Greece, which did not perish for humanity, akin to the accomplishments of the Minoan epoch. In the 5th century B.C., had there been a Genghis Khan, he might have wiped from the face of the earth all that was significant and momentous in the Hellenistic world. Xerxes, had he possessed even a modicum of skill, could have reduced Greek civilization to a much lower state than that which emerged after his attacks were repelled. Let us consider the period from Aeschylus to Plato: all that was accomplished during those times was the work of a minority within the population and concentrated in a few trading cities. These cities, as the future revealed, lacked significant ability to withstand foreign conquerors. However, by a fortunate chance, their conquerors—the Macedonian and the Roman—were philhellenes who did not annihilate what they had conquered, unlike what Xerxes or the Carthaginians might have done. The very fact that we are acquainted with the Greek achievements in art and literature, in philosophy and science, is owed to the stability introduced by the Western conquerors, who possessed the common sense to admire the civilization they governed and endeavored to preserve.

In certain respects—political and ethical—Alexander and the Romans were instrumental in giving rise to a philosophy superior to that which the Greeks cultivated in their days of freedom. The Stoics, as we have seen, believed that all humans are brothers, extending their sympathies beyond just the Greeks. The long dominance of Rome accustomed people to the idea of a unified civilization under singular governance. We know that there were significant regions of the world that did not belong to Rome—India and China, in particular. Yet to the Roman, it seemed that beyond the empire lay only barbaric tribes, ripe for conquest should the desire arise. In essence, and in the idea, the empire was viewed by the Romans as extending over the entire world. This concept found its way into the Church, which was "catholic," despite the existence of Buddhists, Confucians, and Muhammadans. Securus judicat orbis terrarum—the principle of St. Augustine, adopted by the Church from later Stoics; its attractive power stemmed from the apparent external "universality" of the Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages, after Charlemagne, the Church and the Holy Roman Empire were universal in idea, even though everyone knew this was not the case in reality. The concept of humanity as a single family, of a single catholic religion, of a single universal culture, and of a single state embracing the entire earth has pursued human thought since its approximate realization by Rome.

Rome's role in the dissemination of civilization was of paramount importance. Northern Italy, Spain, France, and parts of Western Germany acquired civilization as a result of violent conquests by Roman legions. All these regions demonstrated their capacity to reach a cultural level as high as that of Rome itself. In the waning days of the Western Empire, Gaul produced individuals at least equal to their contemporaries in areas of older civilization. It was due to Rome's spread of culture that the barbarians brought only a temporary eclipse, rather than a lasting darkness. One might argue that the quality of civilization has never returned to that of Periclean Athens; however, in a world shaken by war and destruction, quantity ultimately holds almost as much significance as quality, and in this regard, humanity owes much to Rome.

IV. The Muhammadans as Disseminators of Hellenism

In the 7th century, the followers of the Prophet conquered Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, and in the following century, they triumphed over Spain. Their victories were achieved with ease, and little fighting was required. Perhaps, aside from the initial years, they were not fanatics; they left Christians and Jews undisturbed as long as they paid tribute. Very soon, the Arabs reached a level of civilization comparable to that of the Eastern Empire, yet they were filled with the hopes characteristic of a rising power, rather than the decline of a waning one. Their educated individuals read Greek works in translation and composed commentaries upon them. The reputation of Aristotle was chiefly forged by them; in antiquity, he was rarely mentioned and not regarded as equal to Plato.

It is instructive to consider some words we have borrowed from Arabic, such as algebra, alcohol, alchemy, alembic, alkaloid, azimuth, and zenith. With the exception of alcohol, which referred not to a beverage but to a substance used in chemistry, these words provide a clear representation of the contributions we owe to the Arabs. Algebra was invented by the Alexandrian Greeks but further developed by the Muhammadans. Alchemy, alembic, and alkaloid are terms associated with the attempt to transform base metals into gold, which the Arabs pursued after the Greeks, appealing to Greek philosophy in these endeavors. Azimuth and zenith are astronomical terms primarily employed by the Arabs in relation to astrology.

The etymological method obscures the extent of our indebtedness to the Arabs for knowledge of Greek philosophy, for when it was once again studied in Europe, the necessary technical terms were borrowed from Greek or Latin. In philosophy, the Arabs were superior commentators rather than original thinkers. Their significance for us lies in the fact that they, not the Christians, were the direct heirs of that part of the Greek tradition that had been preserved solely in the Eastern Empire. Contact with the Muhammadans in Spain, and to a lesser extent in Sicily, facilitated the West's engagement with Aristotle, as well as with Arabic numerals, algebra, and chemistry. This contact contributed to the revival of erudition in the 11th century, which led to scholastic philosophy. Much later, beginning in the 13th century and beyond, the study of the Greek language allowed direct access to the works of Plato, Aristotle, and other ancient Greek writers. Yet, had the Arabs not preserved this tradition, the people of the Renaissance might not have even suspected how much could be gained through the revival of classical scholarship.