Philosophy: From the Rich to the Middle Class (Thesis 9.2)

Abstract: In this article, I focus on the upbringing of 371 great philosophers. To facilitate this endeavor, I created a standardized index that measures the economic, social and political statuses of their parents. I make a simple materialist argument to show how the Index may be used to study the history of philosophy. Along the way, I explain the thought process that drew this modest creation together.

***Download the "Philosophers Birthright Index" excel file below to see where your favorite philosophers landed on the Index. Toggle the tabs on the bottom of the document to explore the Index by economic, social and political categories.

Philosophers Birthright Index.xlsx

Download XLSX • 309KB

Before I made a serious study of philosophers' biographies, I casually observed a trend. Philosophers seemed to come from aristocratic or rich means. Casually, I pieced together the conclusion that the majority of philosophers were born to the upper crust of society.

Why does this matter?

“More than for most philosophers, the circumstances of Bayle’s life determined the shape, content and thrust of his work. Curiously, accounts nowadays of the lives of historical philosophers, usually written by philosophers for philosophers, often begin with this sort of statement, even though most philosophers otherwise write as if circumstances were irrelevant. In the case of Bayle, however, the importance of circumstances is undeniable, to the point that ignoring them inevitably leads to distortion and misinterpretation.” (1)

“To understand his motives and his philosophical achievements, we must examine the biographical facts.” (2)

The circumstances of one's birth can have a significant impact on one's focus and worldview. So, the more we know about one's upbringing, the better we understand one's philosophy.

And suppose we collate the best data we have regarding the circumstances of many philosophers' upbringings, can we apply to the whole field what we otherwise would to just one individual?

Now, let's focus that supposition in the form of a popular Marx-inspired question: is the study of philosophy shaped by the focus and worldview of the upper crust of society?

I imagine a materialist would argue, yes. The means to study is the foremost contributing factor determining one's involvement in philosophy. Likewise, their very means to study predetermines the quantity and interest of their works. So yes, philosophy is shaped by the upper crust of society.

The argument:

In the simplest of terms, mankind is divided between the haves and the have nots. You are either born to the luxury of leisure or to the burden of work. He who enjoys leisure spends his time thinking of justice and abstract forms, while he who must work spends his time roughing his hands.

In the frankest of terms, philosophers are the products of rich, wealthy and powerful families. Evidence abounds to affirm this assumption. Epicurus (341–270 BCE) was born a nobleman. Plutarch (35-120 CE) was born rich. Anaxagoras (500-480 BCE) and Empedocles (27-89 CE) were born aristocrats. And still others like Marcus Aurelius and Heraclitus (b.~500 BCE) were born royals. All of these men are regarded as great philosophers. All of these men were born to rich, wealthy and powerful families.

Society is hardwired to funnel its members into a place and a role. Whatever you may call it, the filter through which men and women are sifted, by accident or design, plays a significant role in determining where a man or a woman may live or work and in what fashion he or she may live or work. Given the perpetual dichotomy between the haves and have nots, it is entirely reasonable to assume that the great philosophers of the world, of all-time, were those who enjoyed better than common social, political and economic circumstances. In that case, philosophers were fortunate individuals who enjoyed the means to study, write, correspond and publish.

But! The materialist exclaims. Over the last few centuries, the world has become more prosperous, free and literate. The circumstances fitting to the study of philosophy have become more widely accessible. Therefore, we should see a marked reduction in the status of philosophers' parents over time. That is, the likelihood that one contributes to the study of philosophy is no longer so strongly correlated with one's circumstances.

Is it that simple? Is our materialist correct?

To answer that question, we need data. Is there a historical database of the world’s philosophers? Yes and no. With a quick internet search, you will find two premier online encyclopedias devoted to philosophy: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). Both of these resources can act as proxy lists of great philosophers. With regard to so-called Western philosophy, both are sufficiently complete. Be that as it may, for consistency and practicality purposes, we must choose only one. I chose the SEP.

I selected articles about individual philosophers and passed over articles about philosophical movements and the like. I sorted the philosophers chronologically. Then I began to read through the articles. Unsurprisingly, I quickly found that the biographical information for ancient philosophers is scant. In fact, only a very few biographies of philosophers from that era are as certain as those noted above. For the purpose of maintaining consistent data, I decided to exclude all philosophers who were born prior to St. Augustine (354 CE). In all, I account for 371 philosophers from St. Augustine to David Lewis (b. 1941 CE).

There is one simple reason why philosophical journals, including the SEP and IEP, only produce articles on philosophers who passed away more than 20 years ago. Time has yet to tell who of the contemporary lot of philosophers is great. The affable and insightful Bryan Magee once aptly commented:

“In philosophy, as in most other fields of human activity, the merits of the living are much more controversial than those of the dead. If you took a worldwide poll today about professors of philosophy on the question, who is the best living philosopher? I am pretty sure no candidate would get an overall majority. So, any list of the so-called great philosophers can only end with the latest of the generally acknowledged dead.” (3)

Just as the SEP and the IEP limit their work to the “generally acknowledged dead” so too does my study. Additionally, I abdicate any role in defining "great," "philosopher," or "philosophy" to the SEP. I feel comfortable in doing so, because the SEP is a top-notch publication produced by philosophers from all over the world. The SEP is authoritative.

Late professor Desmond Clarke writes about the problem of defining and qualifying our terms. In his article on Blaise Pascal, he writes:

“There is a complementary reason for urging caution about reading Pascal as a philosopher. He wrote much but published little, none of which was philosophy in the sense in which that term is used today. Apart from his brief essays on the vacuum and the Provincial Letters, all his writings were edited and amended posthumously by collaborators who were still involved in the theological controversies that had dominated Pascal's later life.” (4)

Professors Charles Wolf and J.B. Shank write of the problem of qualifying the study of philosophy:

“Enlightenment philosophie was something very different from what professional academic philosophers mean by that term today, and Diderot’s writings are often ignored by modern philosophers because they do not appear to be philosophy as they know it.” (5)

Professor Kevin Guilfoy writes about the problem of limited information:

“Most of what we know of William of Champeaux's life and work has been refracted down to us through the prism of a man who hated him.” (6)

The size of the list grafted from the SEP, is not tremendous, but like any survey, there is a sample and a margin of error- one which, given the oddity of this data, I have not calculated. I acknowledge that there are far more impactful philosophers than the 371 accounted for in the SEP (after my selected cutoff). Nonetheless, the 371 are sufficient to conduct trend analysis and answer our materialist observer's question.

Additionally, I limit my personal research of philosophers’ lives to the secondary accounts as mediated by the SEP authors. In cases where biographical information is lacking, I utilize IEP and Encyclopedia.com information. I openly share my findings and my methodology at the bottom of the article, so that anyone with expertise who wishes to inform my study further, and thus improve it, may do so freely. This is draft one in a larger quest to understand the history of academia in the context of the social history of ideas.

While the biographical data is not perfectly complete from St. Augustine through Lewis, there is sufficient information to establish a reasonably confident data set. However, of the 371 biographies, 38 are flatly insufficient, because we know nothing about the circumstances of their birth. For that reason, they are not included in the trend analysis, but are included in era analysis. An additional 41 are sufficient enough to include in the trend analysis, but are flagged because the information is weak. Therefore, of the 371, 333 are included in the trend analysis and 293 are sufficiently complete to confidently analyze without any serious reservations.

In all too any cases, the historical record makes no mention of philosophers' births or childhoods. In an exemplary case, Hans Thijssen writes of Nicholas of Autrecourt (1295-1369):

“As is the case with many medieval thinkers, Autrecourt's biographical details are few.” (7)

In the case of over half of the 26 philosophers who joined monasteries, the historical record begins with them taking their oaths around the age of 14. (8) Of the hurdles that this data set has, this is only second to the problem of standardizing circumstances over so large a span of time.

Social, political and economic circumstances vary over 1500 years. This presents a standardization problem. In order to counter this problem, I created an index. For now, we will call it the “Birthright Index.”

The Birthright Index is a standardized measure of an individual’s status vis-à-vis their parentage. Three general categories are considered: social, political and economic. Each category is assigned 33.3 points, totaling 99.9 across the three. The higher the score, the higher the status and the more access the individual enjoyed to the means of study. Conversely, the lower the score, the lower the status and the less access the individual enjoyed to the means of study.

The Birthright Index emulates the way in which income is distributed in the U.S. The Index is not based on current American society, but the distribution of income is a fair representation of how our society, and any other, is divided in terms of overall status. It also shows how common or rare one status is compared to another. While social, political and economic systems differ, perhaps wildly differ, across time and place, the distribution of status is fairly consistent.***

Overall status in American society is generally based on income, and for that reason the income distribution is a fair representation of status distribution. Consider the distribution of Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) by percentile group. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2017 the top 10% of income earners accounted for 47.7% of all AGI. The top 25% accounted for 21.3% and the top 50% accounted for 20%. The bottom 50% account for only 11% of all AGI. If we assume that money is power, i.e. the means to direct others as one wills, and power is the principle ingredient of status, then we see in this distribution the rarity of upper status and the commonality of lower status. In a way, status is distributed in a bell curve format. In one place and time the bell curve moves to the right and in another place and time it moves to the left.

All things equal, which they clearly are not, society is now and always has been divided into hierarchies. The status of one will always be relative to the status of another. The way in which status is bequeathed, earned or something in between, changes, but the distribution remains. The subcategories of the Index capture the relative place of one individual relative to another in that given time and place. The Birthright Index is focused on one pinnacle byproduct of status: the means to study.

The focus on the means to study removes less significant era-contingent differences. For example, the means to write is the means to write. When one writes on a laptop or papyrus, one writes! The same goes for reading. Now, of course, a modest economic circumstance in the 12th century looks a lot different than a modest economic circumstance in the 19th century. This is true. However, it is also quite true that the world did not significantly improve materially until well after the Scientific Revolution (17th century) and the Enlightenment (18th century) (9). Even after the benefits of science and reason were realized, the term ‘modest’ retains its implication with respect to the means to study and the relative status of the parentage in the given time and place.

The son of a 12th century blacksmith enjoys a modest economic status. He is not a farmer, he is a professional. He is of a modest economic background. He is neither a distinguished member of society nor is he a lesser member. He is of a common social background. He enjoys no landed title. Therefore, he is of no notable political background. In all, the son of a 12th century blacksmith is of a modest-common background. On the Birthright Index, that gives him a score of 30 out of 99.9. In plain terms, a score of 30 equates to a modest access to the means of study.

Figure A: The Categories and Subcategories of the Birthright Index

Societies are very good at recognizing talent regardless of status. For example, the U.S. distributes Pell Grants to economically disadvantaged individuals. Meritorious scholarships are also offered to students of all statuses. Today, grants and scholarships are a vehicle of advancement regardless of status.

In 12th century Europe, the Catholic Church was the main vehicle by which many young middling or impoverished children advanced into positions which availed them the means to study. Very often, these children were identified by local pastors or secular authorities as gifted. They were then funneled into monastic orders or seminary schools. In both cases, the impoverished and middling children share a common social status. The institutions are different, mostly, and the duties and responsibilities are wildly different, but the principle remains true, that the social network functions to filter talent upward.

Jack Zupko writes of John Buridan (1300-1361):

"Despite his impoverished background he did receive a number of bursaries and stipends, and is even listed in a document of 1349 as being among those masters capable of supporting themselves without financial assistance from the University." (10)

Saul Fischer writes of Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655):

“At an early age, his instructors recognized great potential, and dispatched him at age sixteen to Aix-en-Provence for studies of further sophistication than his local schooling could provide.” (11)

Daniel A. Di Liscia writes of Johannes Kepler (1571–1630):

“Kepler came from a very modest family in a small German town called Weil der Stadt and was one of the beneficiaries of the ducal scholarship.” (12)

Almost half of the 333 philosophers were commoners (sufficient for era analysis). Of the 333, 114 came from common social networks and 21 came from less than common social networks. To be of a less than common background means that they were less likely to benefit from the social network function described above. Together, common backgrounds account for 41% of the philosophers. The rest of the philosophers come from higher than common backgrounds.

Social networks function a lot like how occupational networks function today. The bigger the network, the higher the chance of advancement to positions which avail the means of study. The Index accounts for three such networks: academic, spiritual and civil. If a parent is a professor, then there is an academic connection. If a parent is a minister, then there is a spiritual connection. If a parent is a civil servant or soldier, then there is a civil connection. Each of the three are further split into lesser derivations in order to capture another dimension of the connection. That is, they enjoy that social connection, but are lesser members of the network.

If the parent or family has one of the above connections in full, then the philosopher is assigned a social score of 30. If the connection is lesser, then the philosopher is assigned a score of 17. If both parents have connections to a combination of the three, then the philosopher is assigned a social score of 33.3. The 3.3 extra points is justified by the sheer size of the network. If the parents are not associated with any of the three networks but are noted by the biographers as being especially well-regarded or well-to-do, which in most cases are merchants or noblemen, then their social network is no longer common. Instead, it is distinguished, which is assigned a social score of 30.

Of the 333 philosophers, 121 enjoyed social connections to one or more of the three social networks described above. Additionally, 76 grew up in distinguished families. Therefore, 36% had strong social connections and 23% grew up in distinguished families known for their prosperity, renown or political clout. Therefore, more than half of the philosophers enjoyed social networks that were more than common.

Today, we often discuss economic divisions in terms of class: working, middle, upper and everything in between. We must restrain ourselves. It would be misleading to project upon the past a class centric way of understanding economic status. Additionally, class-laden discourse intertwines economic, social and political status, which is not what we are doing here. We wish to analyze the makeup of status in its triadic form and then sum up its parts. To maintain the standard of the Index and simplify the terms, there are four economic statuses that the philosophers can be assigned: impoverished, middling/modest, rich and wealthy.

The impoverished status is assigned to those whose parents were not engaged in a trade or profession and are not noted for being prosperous. Of the 333, only 26 (8%) meet this criteria. The impoverished status is assigned a score of 10.

Of special note is the transitory status of maybe middling/modest or maybe impoverished status. Of the 333, 21 are assigned the maybe/maybe status, which carries a value of 15. Essentially, the ‘maybe/maybe’ status’ captures a swath of philosophers from the middle ages whose economic status is unaccounted for in their biographies. I make a simple assumption. Since most of these philosophers joined monastic orders, it would be noteworthy that they abandoned their wealth or title. Since there is no note, then there is no definitive proof that they were either impoverished or middling, but it is highly probable that they were neither rich nor politically privileged.

Paul Spade and Claude Panaccio write of William of Ockham (1287–1347):

“Ockham led an unusually eventful life for a philosopher. As with so many medieval figures who were not prominent when they were born, we know next to nothing about the circumstances of Ockham’s birth and early years, and have to estimate dates by extrapolating from known dates of events later in his life.” (13)

The middling/modest status is assigned to those whose parents were engaged in a trade or a profession. If the biographer noted that the parent was especially successful or prosperous in their trade or profession, then they are assigned the rich status. If the parent is explicitly noted as being wealthy, then, simply, they are assigned the wealthy status. Likewise, if they came from privilege, i.e. nobility or aristocracy, and there is no note of poverty or modesty, then they are assigned the wealthy status by default.

Of the 333, 135 (41%) are middling/modest, 92 (28%) are rich, and 62 (19%) are wealthy.

Privilege is the main factor determining political status. In a strictly political sense, privilege is clearly possessed or it is not. Let me be clear, despite the US AGI analogy to explain status distribution, wealth does not mean privilege and privilege does not mean wealth (on a one-to-one basis).

Privilege is the reservation of land, office, grants or special tax status for select people by an authorized governing body. Please NOTE. For the purpose of this article, the definition of privilege does not include the rights of citizens or townspeople, novel positions historically speaking, with their own prerogatives and privileges.

I refer to such political privileges as those found in ancien regime Europe. For example, French nobility enjoyed privileges like tax exemption and rights to (sinecure) ministerial offices. In contrast, a successful merchant enjoys rich circumstances, but is subject to taxes and is not guaranteed government office. Therefore, he is unprivileged. However, successful merchants and bankers often purchased privileges if the government was amenable to the exchange. Privilege was exchanged in this manner for centuries throughout Europe.

The United States of America is a special case. No privilege exists as it is defined above. However, there is an aristocracy with advantages tangential to traditional privilege. Simply, where money buys special status in ancien regime Europe, money buys political influence, but not precisely, one-to-one, any special status. Everyone has a right to his property and no money in the world or political force can seize it (except under eminent domain cases, which can be abused but not without legal recourse, except in cases of sovereign immunity) If an American’s wealth is so substantial, like a Jeff Bezos portfolio, then they are classified here at most as aristocratic or at least as lesser noble- for a lack of better terms (and in the spirit of standardization).

The Index recognizes four political statuses: unprivileged, lesser noble, noble/aristocratic and royal. Of the 333, 70 (21%) are privileged. Of those 70, 22 are lesser noble, 45 are noble/aristocratic and 3 are royal. Naturally then, 263 (79%) of the 333 were unprivileged.

The scores can be broken down into four categories. First, a score below 30 indicates a less than common-modest status. There are 48 (14.4%) such philosophers. Second, a score at 30 indicates a common modest status. There are 73 (21.9%) such philosophers. Third, a score between 35 and 55 indicates a modest or rich economic status tied to a stronger than common social network connection. There are 82 (24.6%) such philosophers. Fourth, a score between 55 and 65 indicates a strong social connection and very strong economic standing. There are 61 (18.3%) such philosophers. Fifth, any score above 65 indicates high economic wealth, a strong social connection and political privilege. There are 69 (20.7%) such philosophers.

When we compare the distribution of U.S. AGI to the distribution of philosophers' statuses, we see that the distribution of philosophers' statuses is uniquely concentrated on the higher end of the spread. Visually, the bell curve shifts to the right. Therefore, philosophy has been affected by a distribution of individuals of a higher status than is otherwise found in the distribution of status of the general population.

212 philosophers (63.6%) were born to a status that enjoys at least a strong social network and strong economic standing. Meanwhile, of the 135 philosophers who came from a modest economic standing, 39 enjoyed a strong social network. However, 121 philosophers (36.3%) were born into families that lacked the advantage of a strong social network. The most common identifier among all the philosophers is a strong social network. This likely holds true beyond the scope of this Index.

There is a notable lowering in average status over time. After the high/late middle ages, 1100-1350, scores rose to all-time highs. It appears that from those highs, which occurred predominantly during the Renaissance (1350-1550), scores fell from the Scientific Revolution (1600-1700) on through the Second Industrial Revolution (1860-1920). Table 1 shows a more or less linear trend in terms of average score.

The Birthright Index depicts over 371 social, political and economic statuses spanning over a 1,500 year period. With this survey data, we reply to the materialist with a reasonable measure of certainty, that the great philosophers of (mostly) the Western world always hailed from all walks of life. However, for centuries philosophers came from more distinguished backgrounds. As the (Western) world became more literate, prosperous and free, the statuses of philosophers decreased significantly. More and more, people of a modest background contribute to the canon of philosophy.

Notes that make up the Index:

Notes Compilation.docx

Download DOCX • 1.76MB

Projection

For fun, I calculated the probability that a philosopher born after 1941 would score low, middle, upper-middle, or upper on the Index. Using the last 101 philosophers on the Index as my sample (b. 1872- b. 1941), I found that a philosopher today is 6% likely to score between 20-29 (lower), 44% likely to score between 30-35 (middle), 35% likely to score between 36-55 (upper-middle-upper), and 16% likely to score 56 or above (upper). Fun.

For information (but not biographical/demographic information) regarding the current philosophical profession, see the American Philosophical Association's "State of the Profession: 1967–2017" report:

https://www.apaonline.org/page/stateofprofession

Citations:

1) Lennon, Thomas M. and Michael Hickson, "Pierre Bayle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/bayle/>.

2) Papy, Jan, "Justus Lipsius", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/justus-lipsius/>.

3) Bryan Magee, “Bryan Magee talks to John Searle about Ludwig Wittenstein.” Posted by Philosophy Overdose, February 26, 2016. 79,607 views as of June 2, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIK3E9U4Xec

4) Clarke, Desmond, "Blaise Pascal", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/pascal/>

5) Wolfe, Charles T. and Shank, J.B., "Denis Diderot", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/diderot/>

6) Guilfoy, Kevin, "William of Champeaux", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/william-champeaux/>.

7) Thijssen, Hans, "Nicholas of Autrecourt", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/autrecourt/>

8) See Annex C, "Monastic/Mendicant Orders."

9) Professor Joe Kaboski, “But up until the late eighteenth century nearly everyone lived on at most on the equivalent of a few dollars a day. Historically, high civilization was characterized by the arts, high population, literature, government, trade and technology, but not by high living standards for the masses." (with evidence like price and wage data, life expectancy data, and height data)

Joe Kaboski. “What Would a Moral Economy Look Like? Values and Metrics." Lumen Christi Institute. June 1, 2012. Published June 23, 2014. 529 views as of 12/16/2018.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gahu2aP3Lcg

Milton Friedman, “From every important economic point of view we have a greater volume of resources now than we had then [19th century].”

Milton Friedman. “Is Capitalism Humane?” Original air date unknown (approximately 1980). Published April 23, 2012. 284,315 views as of 12/2/2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q6S1LjU92Y

10) Zupko, Jack, "John Buridan", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries

11) Fisher, Saul, "Pierre Gassendi", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/gassendi/>.

12) Di Liscia, Daniel A., "Johannes Kepler", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/kepler/>

13) Spade, Paul Vincent and Panaccio, Claude, "William of Ockham", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/ockham/>

***That said, geographic factors of a place such as a bay, river, mountain, plain, etc. contribute to the kind of industry which is conducted there and how many underlying merchant activities are there to prop it up. For example, while there are hardly any middle class in 19th century Russia, the merchant-focused city of St. Petersburg, Russia was bustling with trade and a middle class. An all too banal point, so I'll leave the example to that, but I recognize that the distribution of status is not always the same in any one time or under any one sovereign. The point remains that there is a distribution and it is metered out in a bell format shifting left or right. Never has status been equally distributed (a single vertical line) and it never will be.

Annex A: Exile

Exile is the “the state of being barred from one's native country, typically for political or punitive reasons.” (Oxford Languages) In total, 43 (11.6%) philosophers were exiled from their homes sometime during their lives. Interestingly, exile did not occur regularly throughout the 1500 years covered in this study. Instead, it occurred predominantly during two distinct periods: the Renaissance into the Counter-Reformation and the Second Industrial Revolution into World War II. Of the 43, 16 were exiled in the first period and 18 were exiled in the second. Not all exiles occurred during these periods, but the majority (81%) did.

Maimonides (1138–1204) was born to a distinguished jewish family in southern Spain. Muslim invaders arrived and imposed their rule, which dictated that the conquered convert, self-exile or die. The family chose self-exile.

Francis of Marchia (b. 1285-1290 d. 1344 or so) joined the Franciscan order around the age of 15. In 1328, he took a controversial position on apostolic poverty. For years he fled papal authorities, writing in opposition to the pope and the order. He was captured around 1341 and by 1343 he was compelled to retract his comments by inquisitors. After that event of 1343, Marchia is never heard from again. (see SEP)

Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) achieved the eerie distinction of being excommunicated by the Catholic Church and two Protestant churches (Lutheran and Calvinist). He entered the Dominican order at the age of 17. He left the order by 1576 and spent 14 years as a vagabond exile, but was captured. So, after years of challenging the Church, he was led to a wooden stake with a metal clamp on his tongue, stripped naked, and burned alive. Such was the character of persecution in the years of Protestant upheaval.

Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639) lived a wild life. His story begins at the age of 14 when he entered the Dominican order. By age 24, he was subject to the inquisitors. By age 26, he was arrested on the suspicion of heresy. By age 30, he influenced a conspiracy to overthrow the Spanish viceroy of Naples. He was arrested again and imprisoned for 27 years, avoiding the death penalty by successfully pleading insanity. When he got out of prison, he went into exile in France to avoid still more accusations of conspiracy and heresy.

Dante Alighieri (1265-1321) was extremely productive while in exile. Exiled due to a political settlement in which his political faction was not favored, Aligieri did not affect political life in Florence again. Instead, he spent his days writing and publishing some of the works that we enjoy today, including his most famous work, the Divine Comedy (1320).

A few other notable exiles include: Niccolo Machiavelli (1473-1543) in 1513, Martin Luther (1483-1546) in 1521, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in 1640, Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694) in 1679, and Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) in 1681.

Christian Wolff (1679–1754) was exiled in 1723 for his position in favor of the theory of causation called “pre-established harmony.” The king of Prussia Friedrich Wilhelm I banned Wolff’s work and gave Wolff two options: leave or die by hanging. Wolff immediately left Prussia in exile. In 1736, the ban on Wolff’s teachings was lifted. In 1740, 17 years after his exile began, Wolff returned to Prussia by invitation from the new Prussian King Friedrich II.

Jumping forward to the Pre-World War II era, philosophers like Hans Reichenbach (1891-1953), Rudolph Carnap (1891-1970) and Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), among many others (not covered by the SEP), fled Germany and other neighboring countries under the threat of persecution by the Nazis.

Annex B: Women

“As she explained to Thomas Burnet of Kemnay, 'a woman’s name would give a prejudice against a work of this nature; and truth and reason have less force, when the person, who defends them, is prejudged against.'"

Of the 371 philosophers, 26 (7%) are women. The average birthright score for 25 of the 26 women is 54.2, which is 6.1 points more than the average of the total (there is insufficient information to include the 26th woman). While most of the women were excluded from official university affiliations, they were born into families which enjoyed strong social connections. Any deficiency in their official affiliation was largely made up by unofficial communication with scholars vis-à-vis their families' social connections. In one exemplary case, Professor Sarah Hutton noted that Damaris Cudworth’s [Masham] (1658-1708) experience, “unlike most women of her time, Damaris Cudworth had the relative advantages of a family and a friendship that enabled her to develop her interest in philosophy.” Case in point, Masham enjoyed correspondence with John Locke (1632-1704) and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716). Two philosophers noted as being among the greatest who ever lived.

Others like Lady Anne Conway enjoyed an education directed by Henry More (1614-1687). Margaret Lucas Cavendish (1623-1673) enjoyed the regular company of famous scholars like Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes, Marin Mersenne, Pierre Gassendi, and Kenelm Digby participating in what was dubbed the “Cavendish Circle.” Émilie Du Châtelet (1706-1749) was tutored by Pierre Louis de Maupertuis, Alexis-Claude Clairaut, Samuel Koenig and was the long-time lover of François-Marie “Voltaire” d’Arouet (1694–1778). These women lived extraordinary lives and were able to participate in the study of philosophy despite significant institutional barriers. In the 1500 years covered in this study, it was more common for women philosophers to be of a high status than of a lower status.

Citation:

De Tommaso, Emilio Maria. "Catharine Trotter Cockburn (1679?—1749)." Citing Cockburn, Catharine (née Trotter). 1751. The Works of Mrs. Cockburn, Theological, Moral, Dramatic, and Poetical, Several of Them Now First Printed, Revised and Published with an Account of the Life of the Author by Thomas Birch. 2 vols., London: J. and P. Knapton: 155. Accessed 6/12/2021. https://iep.utm.edu/cockburn/

Annex C: Monastic/Mendicant Orders

For millennia, an education at a European university ended with a license to preach Christian doctrine. For this reason, it is not surprising that many philosophers were ministers or rectors. What is surprising is how participation in monastic orders blossomed during the High Middle Ages, then gradually trickled off to zero participation by 1800. Of the 369 philosophers, 26 joined monastic orders.

The bulk of philosophers who joined monastic orders show lower than average Birthright scores. While the average score among the 333 (scored) philosophers is 48.3, the average score among those who joined monastic orders is 38.3. The majority of these philosophers came from impoverished or middling backgrounds and joined the orders at very young ages, including: Robert Kilwardby )b. 1215), Peter John Olivi (b.1248), Dietrich of Freiberg (b.1250), John Duns Scotus (b.1265), Peter Auriol (b.1280), Robert Holkot (d. 1349), Walter Chatton (b. 1290), Adam of Wodeham (b. 1295), Gregory of Rimini (b. 1300), William Crathorn (d. ~1330), and Gorampa Sonam Senge (b. 1429).

Some of the philosophers who joined monastic orders came from high status families. For example, Paul of Venice (1369-1429) and Marin Mersenne (1588-1648) were born into noble families. Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) was born into a lesser noble family. But again, the majority of philosophers who joined monastic orders were born into lesser circumstances.