You are on page 1of 422

In rem em brance

A L B E R T O C O FFA (1935-1984)
Professor of History and Philosophy of Science
Indiana University-Bloomington
WILLIAM C O L E M A N (1934-1988)
Dickson-Bascom Professor of Humanities and
Professor of History of Science and Medicine
University of Wisconsin-Madison
V I C T O R E. T H O R E N ( 1 9 3 5 - 1 9 9 1 )
Professor of History and Philosophy of Science
Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge Indiana University-Bloomington
The Pitt Building, Trurnpington Street, Cambridge CB2 IRP
40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA
10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia
© Cambridge University Press 1996
First published 1994
Reprinted 1996
First paperback edition 1996
Printed in the United States of America
Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available.

A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN 0-521-43344-4 hardback
ISBN 0-521-56509-X paperback
12 ON CELESTIAL MATTER 245

During the Middle Ages, all were agreed with Aristotle and his com­
mentator, Averroes, that generation and corruption were processes asso­
ciated inherently with sublunar matter compounded o f the four elements.
O n celestial matter: Can it O nly the latter, and the bodies compounded o f them, could undergo change
from contrary qualities. W ithout contrary qualities, the celestial ether could
exist in a changeless state? not change and must therefore be incorruptible.
D id it follow that matter was something associated solely with terrestrial
bodies, whose never-ending succession o f contrary qualities produced in­
cessant change? D id the absence o f such contrary qualities in the heavens
also im ply an absence o f matter as well? O r did the heavens include matter
o f some kind, and were they composed o f matter and form? O n this issue,
That medieval scholastics regularly wondered whether the heavens, with like many others, Aristotle provided no clear guidance. Indeed, passages
all o f the planets and stars, possessed matter may at first glance appear from his many works could readily be selected both to support and to
strange or even starding. Because the planets and stars are readily visible, oppose the idea o f a celestial matter / The medieval controversy over celestial
and because visible effects were associated w ith matter,1 it should have been matter involved tw o issues. The first and prior issue pitted those who denied
obvious that some klhd o f matter must underlie the celestial appearances. its existence against those w ho affirmed it. Because most affirmed the ex­
Although most scholastics accepted the existence o f such matter, others istence o f some kind o f matter in the heavens, the secondary and more
found it contrary to the principles o f natural philosophy. widely debated dispute concerned the nature and properties o f an unchang­
The question as to whether matter existed in the celestial region was ing matter and the manner o f its existence.5
thrust upon the Middle Ages by Aristotle’s division o f the w orld into
radically different celestial and terrestrial (sublunar) regions. In Chapter io,
which concerned celestial incorruptibility, an issue that is intimately con­
nected to the problem o f celestial matter, w e noted Aristotle’s justification
for this division: the existence o f tw o radically different kinds o f motion in I. That matter does not exist in the heavens
the universe. One - finite, rectilinear, and therefore incomplete - was as­ As Buridan and others were well aware, “ philosophers are accustomed to
sociated with elemental bodies and bodies compounded o f those four ele­ use the term ‘matter’ in many w ays,” 6 some o f which clearly applied to the
ments; the other - circular and complete, without beginning or end - was heavens. Thus, i f matter is conceived as something composed o f quantitative
the motion o f celestial bodies alone. It followed for Aristotle that celestial parts, the heavens must obviously possess matter, since they are composed
bodies and the heavens in general consisted o f a substance - or ether - o f quantitative parts. The heavens would also possess matter i f matter were
different from any o f the four elements. Incorruptibility, and therefore defined as a substance that is the subject o f motion or other accidents.7 But
unchangeability, were its most fundamental properties, properties so amaz­ these were not the senses in which those who rejected the existence o f
ing that they made the celestial substance radically different from bodies in celestial matter - for example, Buridan, Godfrey o f Fontaines, Peter Aureoli,
the terrestrial region.2
We have also examined the theoretical basis for celestial incorruptibility:
the absence o f contrary qualities in the celestial region. In Galileo’s words, 4. For an excellent illustration o f h o w such juxtapositions were form ed, see ibid., qu. 5 (K),
1 0 3 - m (for the w a y in w hich A verroes cited A ristotle’s w orks against the existence o f
“ Whatever undergoes corruption has a contrary. . . ; and therefore. . . the celestial matter); m - 1 1 2 (for those w h o cited A ristotle in favor o f celestial matter); and
heavens, since they lack contraries o f this type, are incorruptible.” 3 More­ 1 1 2 - 1 1 5 (for citations concerning the idea that celestial matter differs from, or is identical
over, Aristotle buttressed theory with the empirical claim that no changes to, terrestrial matter). Inspection o f similar questions b y numerous other scholastic authors
w ou ld reveal the same pattern.
in the heavens had ever been detected or recorded. 5. In w hat follow s, I rely heavily on Grant, 1983.
6. “ N otan d um est quod multis solent philosophi uti hoc nom ine ‘materia.’ ” Buridan [D e
caelo, bk. 1, qu. 11], 1942, 49. O resm e [D e celo, bk. 1, qu. 11], 1965, 160-162, gives four
1. In Metaphysics 8.1.10423.24—26, Aristotle says that “ sensible substances all have matter.”
different senses o f “ m atter” and remarks that Aristotle speaks o f matter in a variety o f
See Aristotle [Ross], 1984.
w ays in the second bo ok o f his Physics.
2. In Metaphysics 12.7.10743.30—37, Aristotle em phatically denies that m atter can exist in
7. Buridan, ibid. For the locus o f these ideas, Buridan cites A ristotle’s Metaphysics, bks. 7
the heavens. For a brief discussion, see the beginning o f Chapter 12 and C hapter 12, Sec­
and 8, respectively. A lbert o f S axon y [D e celo, bk. 1, qu. 4], 1518, 89r, col. 1, w hose text
tion I.
is occasionally an almost verbatim c o p y o f Buridan’s D e caelo, gives virtually the same
3. Galileo [D e caelo, qu. 4 (J)], 1977, 98.
references to Aristotle.

244
246 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N ON CELESTIAL M ATTER 247

and Albert o f Saxony - considered the question.8 As Buridan explained, Peter Aureoli, a student o f Duns Scotus and a trained theologian, had
for them “ matter is called that from which a substance is composed with arrived at similar ideas in a much earlier discussion o f the subject in his
a substantial form inhering in it, which persists by itself, and which is called Commentary on the Sentences, where he also considered whether “ the au­
‘this something.’ ” 9 thorities o f Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Doctors” thought it objec­
B y the time Buridan wrote, the opinions o f Thomas Aquinas and Ae- tionable to assume that the heavens consist o f a simple, incomposite
gidius Romanus (which are described in Section II o f this chapter) were substance.14
taken as representative o f tw o rival theories in favor o f the existence o f Aureoli first describes arguments he attributes to Aristotle and Averroes.
celestial matter. Buridan considered and rejected both10*but admitted that These include their hostility to the conception o f the heavens as a composite
it was difficult to refute the claim for the existence o f celestial matter by o f matter and form and their conviction that the heavens have only fixed
demonstrating its opposite: namely, that matter does not exist in the heav­ dimensions that belong to them as an inherent property.15 He then presents
ens. Buridan agreed with Aristotle that something could not be made nat­ his ow n opinions, o f which the most striking is that the heavens not only
urally from nothing. Consequently, the only proper w ay to define matter consist o f a simple, incomposite substance, but that this substance is neither
was by means o f substantial transformations in which something, namely matter nor form .16 Aureoli also rejects the idea o f the heavens as a form,
matter, remained constant as a body was generated and corrupted, that is, or having a form, because form is something that determines and controls
as the same matter acquired and lost successive forms. But like all his fellow matter, accidents, and properties, and the heavens lack any mechanism with
scholastics, Buridan believed that such changes could not occur naturally which to control their properties and perfections.17 The explanation for this
in the celestial region, so that “ it is absolutely in vain and without cogent major difference between the terrestrial and celestial regions lies in the
reason that we should posit such matter in the heavens.” " variability in size o f animate and inanimate things in the former and, by
Admitting, however, that he could not devise a formal demonstration contrast, the invariability o f the figure and size o f bodies in the latter. In
for the nonexistence o f celestial matter, Buridan sought to achieve the same animate, terrestrial bodies, sizes vary within certain limits that are controlled
result by invoking the widely used principles that nature does nothing in by the soul; in inanimate bodies, variations in the size o f a thing are con-
vain and that it is useless to “ save the phenomena” with more when it can
(and then rejected) the opinion Buridan favored w hen he declared that supporters o f this
be done with less.12 Rather than assume the existence o f celestial matter, opinion say that “ there is no potentiality for substantial being, nam ely for a substantial
Buridan believed that all the phenomena could be saved by the assumption form . A n d this is the position o f the Com m en tator [i.e. Averroes] in the D e substantia
orbis and o f certain m odem s w h o say that the heaven is a certain form spread out and
o f a simple, uncomposed, celestial substance which, because it functions as
extended b y quantity, but w hich is supported b y nothing” (Hervaeus Natalis, D e materia
a subject for an extended magnitude, must possess the property o f extension. celi, qu. 3, 1513, 38V, col. 2). Th is opinion was also reported b y Peter o f A ban o in his
Indeed, this same celestial substance also serves as a subject for motion and Lucidator dubitabilium astronomiae, differ. 5, 1988, 288. A s Peter puts it, the planets and
stars are forms or dimensions that are not in matter, but are “ spiritual bodies” (corpora
other accidents.13
spiritualia) or can be said to possess matter equivocally. Averroes had assumed indeter­
minate dimensions as an inherent property o f the celestial bo dy (see Averroes, D e substantia
8. Galileo adds names to the list o f those w h o rejected celestial matter, including Durandus orbis [H ym an and Walsh], 1973, 3x2). These dimensions, w hich were associated w ith the
de Sancto Porciano, Duns Scotus, Marsilius o f Inghen, John o f Jandun, “ and all A v e r - celestial ether’s substantial form , w ere not divisible into determinate quantities, as were
roists.” Galileo, D e caelo, qu. 5 (K), 1977, 105. the indeterminate dimensions associated w ith prime matter in the terrestrial region.
9. “ Sed proprie loquendo materia vocatur ex qua cum forma substantiali sibi inhaerente 14. “ Articulus II: U trum ponere caelum et naturam simplicem et non com positam ex materia
com ponitur substantia per se subsistens quae dicitur ‘hoc aliquid.’ ” Buridan, D e caelo, et forma repugnat auctoritatibus sacrae Scripturae et D octorum C ath olico ru m .” Aureoli
bk. 1, qu. 11. I 94 2> 49- Hervaeus Natalis, D e materia celi, qu. 3 (“ Queritur utrum corpora [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1, art. 2], 1595-1605, 2:189 col. 1.
omnia superiora et inferiora com m unicent in m ateria” ), 1513, 38V, col. 1, put it in much 15. Ibid., 186-87. If the dimensions o f the heavens were as indeterminate as prime matter,
the same w ay when he declared that speaking “ m ore strictly, matter can be taken in the heavens w ould necessarily change their dimensions in the same manner as terrestrial
another w ay, namely, as that w hich underlies a substantial form and is part o f a com posite bodies. Thus if the heavens were to be assumed incorruptible, Aristotle and Averroes,
subject. A n d n ow w e shall speak about matter in this manner. ” (A lio m odo potest accipi and all w h o follow ed them, had to assume invariant celestial dimensions. T h e heavens,
materia magis stricte illud, scilicet quod substem itur form e substantiali et est pars sub- or any part o f them, are therefore not capable o f increasing or decreasing their size b y
stantie composite. Et sic nunc loquim ur de materia.) rarefaction or condensation or b y addition or subtraction o f any im aginable substance.
10. Buridan, D e caelo, bk. 1, qu. 11, 1942, 5 1 -5 2 . Albert o f Saxon y, D e celo, bk. 1, qu. 4, See Aureoli, ibid., 187 col. 1 ( D -F ). O n the difference between determinate and inde­
1518, 89r, cols. 1 -2 , also rejected the same tw o theories. terminate dimensions or quantities, see Weisheipl [M cM ullin], 1963, 1 4 7-16 9 .
xi. “ ldeo frustra om nino et sine ratione cogente ponerem us talem materiam in caelo.” B ur­ 16. “ C aelum esse quantum non com positum , scilicet ex materia et forma, nec forma, nec
idan, ibid., 53. materia, subiectum habens dimensiones tantum in actu su o.” Aureoli, ibid., 189, col. 1
12. Ibid., 52. Buridan attributed these ideas to Averroes, but the latter mentions on ly that (A)- , . , .
nature does nothing in vain (see Averroes [D e caelo, bk. 1, com m ent. 20], 15 6 2 -15 74 , 17. “ D e natura enim formae est quod sit in actu et determinet materiam et largiatur per
5: 1 5r, col. 2). Saving the phenomena w ith the fewest possible assumptions is more akin m odum exigentis et determinantis accidentia et proprietates. . . . Sed natura caeli non
to the principle o f O ck h am ’s razor. determinat proprietates suas et perfectiones postremas. Natura enim caeli in quantum
13 - Buridan, ibid. $2. Hervaeus Natalis, w h o w rote som e years before Buridan, described huiusm odi non determinat sibi tantam quantitatem .” Ibid., 188, col. 1 (E -F ).
248 THE CELESTIAL REGION ON CELESTIAL MATTER 249

trolled by its form. If a cow, for example, were made as long as a serpent, With most o f the traditional features o f the celestial region rejected and
it would cease to be a co w ,18 a possible catastrophe that is avoided by its virtually no really new ones available to replace them, Aureoli was left with
soul. Similarly, if a proper upward motion were absent in fire, the latter an extended magnitude possessed o f certain vital properties conferred by
w ould lack a form . 19 an otherwise undescribed intelligence. B y offering so little information,
B y contrast, celestial matter and its bodies are invariant in size, shape, Aureoli could present the positive features o f his conception o f the heavens
and motion and therefore require no forms or souls to regulate and deter­ in but a few lines.
mine those properties. Indeed, nothing inheres within celestial bodies that Buridan, Aureoli, and others who rejected the existence o f matter in the
would enable them to determine their ow n properties and operations. Con­ heavens were ultimately supporters o f Averroes’ position. And yet Aver­
sequently, the heavens cannot possess a form, or form s.20 As i f to reinforce roes, despite his rejection o f the idea that the celestial substance was a
his argument, Aureoli observes that although the heavens are a finite entity, composite o f matter and form ,23 and his insistence that the celestial substance
they are also eternal and permanent. But a finite thing lacks the nature to had to be something simple and uncomposed, was prepared on occasion
determine an eternally permanent thing. N o intrinsic principle o f the ce­ not only to call that simple substance a form, but also to call it matter,
lestial substance - that is, no form or matter or combination th e re o f- could though clearly not matter in the ordinary sense, as described earlier by
have conferred such properties on the heavens. O nly an external power Buridan. In his commentary on De caelo, Averroes first concludes that “ the
could have bestowed them, a power which Aureoli identifies w ith the celestial body does not have matter,” 24 arguing that even if matter existed
celestial intelligences.'21 in the incorruptible celestial region it would be superfluous, because it could
If the heavens lack both form and matter, what kind o f an entity could never receive a new form (since there are no contrary forms) and thus could
they be? O n this crucial issue, Aureoli, w ho preceded Buridan, was some­ never change. Its potentiality would be forever frustrated and in vain, which
what more forthcoming. He judged the heavens to be an existing magnitude: is contrary to nature.
a quanta esse, as he described it. “Just as matter is not understood except in But later in the same commentary, Averroes speaks o f the “ matter o f the
relation to form ,” Aureoli explained, “ so w e cannot understand that the form o f a celestial body, which [matter] is actualized. ” 2S As “ actualized”
heavens have a definite [or fixed] quantity, figure, motion, and other prop­ matter, it obviously could not be conceived as the prime matter underlying
erties unless [these properties] are [understood in] relation to an intelli­ the four elements, which is a pure potentiality. Although celestial matter
gence.” 22 The quanta esse, or celestial magnitude, functions like a subject lacked any potentiality for substantial change (i.e., generation and corrup­
but has received its properties from an intelligence. W ithout matter and tion), or for qualitative or quantitative change and could not be stripped o f
form, the tw o fundamental principles o f all terrestrial things, the quanta esse its form, it did have a potentiality for place, as the celestial motions made
and its properties fitted none o f the traditional descriptions o f the heavens. evident.26 Thus, with the celestial bodies clearly in mind, Averroes declared,
in his commentary on the Metaphysics, that “ eternal things, which are not
x8. “ U n d e anima quaelibet determinat figuram certam sui corporis sine qua non potest esse:
generable but are moved with a translatory motion, have matter; not, how ­
facias enim bo vem longum sicut serpentem, statim amittet esse b o v is .” Ibid., 188 col. 2
(A). ever, generable matter, but [only] the matter o f those things that are moved
19. “ Si ergo ignis non haberet ex se m otum proprium eum , qui est sursum, qui est ei proprius, from place to place.” 27
iam sequitur quod ignis non est form a.” Ibid., (B).
20. “ Sic in proposito cum caelum sit determinatae quandtatis in actu quia in eo non sunt
dimensiones interminatae, cum etiam sit figurae rotundae et habeat m otum circularem 23. In his Commentary on D e caelo, Averroes declared that the heavens are not com posed o f
sine quibus im po ssible est esse et talia non determinet sibi per naturam propriam, cir­ matter and form as are the four simple elements, because “ forms that are in matter are
cumscripta amma. Patet quod caelum non est forma, cum forma quaelibet se ipsa, omni contraries, and i f a form existed in matter w ithout a contrary, then nature w ou ld act in
alio circumscripto, determinet sibi suas proprietates et operadones. Hanc radonem tangit vain, since no potentiality w hatever could exist in this matter because potentiality occurs
Com m en tator D e substantia orbis, tractstus 2 .” Ibid., ( B - C ) . on ly w hen a form can separate from [its] m atter.” See A verroes, D e caelo, bk. 1, com m ent.
21. “ H o c idem potest apparere de aetema eius permanentia quam sibi non determinat, ut talis 20, 15 6 2 -15 74 , 5:15^, col. 1.
natura est. N ulla enim natura, quae habet dimensiones finitas, videtur sibi ex se deter- 24. Ibid., bk. 1, com m ent. 21, 5:15V col. 2.
minare permanendam aetemam. Sed hoc habet ex determinatione extrinseca, scilicet 25. “ D icam us ergo quod ista natura neutra est, et non existens per se in actu, sed est materia
intelligendae, quae largitur ei omnes huiusm odi perfecdones consequentes, non effective, formae corporis celestis, que est in actu.” Ibid. bk. 1, com m ent. 95, 5:63V col. 2. Here
sed exigid ve et determinative tantum m odo, ut dictum est saepe.” Ibid., ( C - D ) . A verroes speaks o f matter and form.
22. N atura caeli est natura subiecd, et est esse quanta. U n de sicut materia non intelligitur 26. “ E t ideo in hac nulla potentia est qua denudari possit a sua forma et non habet nisi
nisi in analogia ad form am , sic non possumus intelligerc caelum habere determinatam potenriam ad u b i.” Ibid. 5:64r, col. 1.
quandtatem , figuram, m otus, et proprietates alias nisi in respectu ad intelligendam , ut
27. “ O mnia aetema quae sunt non gencrabilia, sed m oventur m otu secundum translationem,
Com m en tator 2 D e caelo et mundo dicit. N o n ergo est forma quia form a non est in poten- habent materiam; sed non habent materiam generabilium sed materiam eorum que m ov­
tia ad suas postremas perfecdones; nec est materia quia materia est in potentia ad ac­ entur de ubi in u b i.” Averroes [Metaphysics, bk. 12, com m ent. 10], 1562—1574, 8:296V,

tum primum. E rgo est quasi m edium , ut sic, ratio subiecd et essentia coniuncta.” Ibid., col. 2—297r col. 1. For Aquinas’ s interpretation o f these passages, see W ippel, 1981a, 286—
(E -F ). 287.
250 THE CELESTIAL REGION 251
ON CELESTIAL M ATTER

II. Tw o rival theories in support o f the existence o f celestial Despite the seeming total fulfillment o f celestial matter by its single,
matter unique, and permanent form, one aspect o f potentiality remained. The
uniform, circular motion o f the planets and stars compelled Thomas, as it
i. Aquinas and Galileo: Celestial and terrestrial matter differ had Aristotle, to concede that a celestial body was in potentiality at least
with respect to place,33 even if not with respect to being. Although celestial
Arrayed against Averroes and all who denied the existence o f celestial matter and terrestrial matter shared a potentiality for place, they otherwise had
were Thomas Aquinas and Aegidius Romanus, who, despite their agree­ nothing in common. Unlike the prime matter o f the terrestrial region, which
ment that the heavens are composed o f matter and form ,28 disagreed rad­ was a pure potentiality that could receive and lose all possible forms existing
ically as to the nature o f that matter, Thomas assuming it radically different in that region, celestial matter was created with a single form so complete
from, Aegidius identifying it with, terrestrial matter. These tw o differing that it precluded the receipt o f any other possible forms. Thus was the
interpretations by Thomas and Aegidius, along with the opposing opinion
incorruptibility o f the heavens preserved.
o f Averroes, lay at the core o f almost all discussions o f the problem o f Whereas Thomas considered the problem o f celestial matter briefly, in
celestial matter to the end o f the seventeenth century. Because o f their many treatises, Galileo, w ho was in essential agreement with Thomas,
obvious importance, we shall examine them in some detail. treated the problem at great length in only one treatise. In Galileo’s questions
Although Thomas, and many who followed him, argued that the celestial on De caelo, at least four o f the questions are relevant to the existence and
region consisted o f a composite o f matter and form, the matter he had in nature o f celestial matter.34 As he subdivides the major opinions into a host
mind “ was o f another kind than that o f inferior [i.e., sublunar] bodies.” 29 o f confirming arguments and objections, Galileo is the quintessential scho­
In the heavens, matter was in potentiality with respect to a perfectly ac­ lastic. Embedded within this rather heavy format are Galileo’s ow n opin­
tualized form that fulfilled all the possibilities o f that matter, which therefore ions, accompanied by objections to those opinions that are systematically
lacked a potentiality for any other form s.30 Consequently, changes o f sub­ answered at the end o f each question. O f the great number o f extant dis­
stance, quality, or quantity could not occur in the heavens. The Sun, for cussions on the problem o f the possible existence and nature o f celestial
example, was incapable o f changing into anything else, nor did it come matter, Galileo’s must rank as one o f the most thorough. A ll but one o f
into being by the transformation o f anything else.31 B y contrast, “ the matter the opinions are described with scholastic fullness o f detail and subtlety.
o f the elements is in potentiality with respect to an incomplete form which And, as was characteristic o f sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholastics
cannot limit [or fulfill] the potentiality o f the matter.” 32 - but not o f their medieval predecessors - Galileo cited a large number o f
authoritative sources; ancient, medieval, and Renaissance. Here we find
28. Galileo, D e caelo, qu. 5 (K), 1977. 1 11—112, cites numerous supporters o f this general
specific citations to the relevant works o f the supreme early authorities,
opinion, including “ all the Arabs, w ith the single exception o f A v e rro es,” specifically
mentioning A vem pace (ibn Bajja) and Avicenna; M oses M aim onides, Saint Bonaventure, Aristotle and Averroes, as well as to the works o f lesser early figures such
Thom as Aquinas “ and likewise all T h o m ists,” Aegidius Rom anus (Giles o f Rom e), A l- as Alexander o f Aphrodisias, Simplicius, John Philoponus, and Avicenna.
bertus M agnus, Alessandro Achillini, and Julius Caesar Scaliger.
Numerous medieval arguments are cited from eminent scholastic authors
29. Thom as Aquinas [De caelo, bk. 1, lec. 6, par. 63], 1952, 31, declares: “ quod materia
caelestis corporis est alia et alterius rationis a materia inferiorum corp o ru m .” Th is passage, such as Aquinas, John o f Jandun, Saint Bonaventure, Albertus Magnus,
and some thirty-six others (drawn from a variety o f T h o m a s ’s w orks) that reflect his Duns Scotus, Marsilius o f Inghen, Durandus de Sancto Porciano, and es­
view s on the relationship o f celestial and terrestrial matter, appear in Litt, 1963, ch. 3,
pecially Aegidius Romanus. From his contemporaries and predecessors o f
pp. 54-80; for the quotation, see p. 79; for similar statements from T h o m a s ’s Commentary
on the Metaphysics, and Quaestio disputata de anima, see Litt, ibid., 72, no. 22, and 77, no. the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Galileo invoked the opinions and works
31, respectively. For a fine, brief account o f T h o m a s’s view s, especially as they contrast o f Alessandro Achillini, John Capreolus, Cajetan (Thomas de Vio), Julius
with the opinions o f G od frey o f Fontaines, see W ippel, 1981a, 285-291. A lth ou gh he
makes no mention o f Thom as, Hervaeus N atalis, D e materia celi, qu. 3, 1513, 38V, col.
Caesar Scaliger, and Marsilio Ficino.
2, adopted the same position, dem onstrating it, h ow ever, not b y positive arguments but From this impressive parade o f authorities, w e should not infer that
b y the fairly com m on medieval practice o f refuting all o f its alleged rivals - in this case, Galileo had a deep familiarity with the vast literature on the problem ot
three other theories.
30. “ N am materia caelestium corporum est in potentia ad actum perfectum, idest ad formam
33. See Litt, 1963, 5 6 -57, especially note 3, w hich contains eight passages drawn from eight
quae com plet totam possibilitatem materiae, ut iam non remaneat potentia ad alias formas.
different treatises. O n page 56, Litt also cites four passages in A ristotle’s Metaphysics
Materia autem elementorum est potentia ad form am incom pletum , quae totam terminare
( 8 .1 .1024b.6; 8 .4 .1044b.7; 9-8.1050b.21; 1 2 .2 .1069b.2).
non potest materiae potentiam .” D e substantiis separatis c. 8, n. 82, as cited b y Litt, 1963,
34. These are questions no. 3 (I) (“ Are the heavens one o f the simple bodies or com posed o f
79 -
them ?” ), Galileo, D e caelo, 1977, 81-92; no. 4 (J) (“ A re the heavens incorruptible?” ),
31 . See Litt, 1963, 59; for T h o m as’s statement from his com m entary on B oethius’s D e trinitate,
ibid., 93-10 2; no. 5 (K) (“ A re the heavens com posed o f matter and form ?” ), ibid., 10 3 -
see page 63.
147; and no. 6 (L) (“ Are the heavens animated?” ), ibid., 148—58. T h e fifth question is the
32. For the Latin text, see note 30 in this chapter.
m ost relevant.
252 ON CELESTIAL MATTER 253
THE CELESTIAL REGION
yet another argument, w e are told that matter and form are the principles
celestial matter. As William Wallace has demonstrated, Galileo drew heav­
o f natural things: “ therefore, since the heavens are natural, they must be
ily, and perhaps wholly, upon a few published treatises and a larger number
o f unpublished lectures, or reportationes, that had been produced by the Jesuit composed o f matter and form ” (ibid., 117).
B y such arguments Galileo was convinced that matter o f some kind must
faculty o f the Collegio Romano between the 1570s and 1590s.35 Despite his
exist in the heavens. Like so many before him, he inquired next about the
heavy debt to the Jesuits o f the Collegio Romano, the selection o f the
nature o f that matter: Is it the same as, or different from, our terrestrial
arguments and the final organization o f the questions are probably Galileo’s.
variety? He concluded that “ the heavens are not composed o f matter o f the
If Galileo sincerely believed in the opinions that he adopted in these treatises,
same kind as the matter o f inferior bodies” (ibid., 132). T o defend this
one can only conclude that he was a deeply committed Aristotelian scholastic
position, Galileo found it necessary to attack in considerable detail the most
when he wrote them, a picture that stands somewhat at variance with the
important opposition thesis, namely Aegidius’s well-known arguments in
Galileo o f the other Juvenilia, the one w ho wrote the De motu and had clearly
defense o f the identity o f celestial and terrestrial matter (ibid., 13 2-13 9). In
broken with Aristotle on the problem o f motion in a vacuum.36
the process, Galileo turned Aristotle’s denial o f celestial matter to his own
In the question “ Are the heavens composed o f matter and form?” Galileo,
advantage by insisting that it was not to be taken categorically. It was only
as w e w ould expect in a scholastic treatise, considered both the negative
Aristotle’s w ay o f denying that “ there is in the heavens matter o f the same
and the affirmative positions. The champion for the negative side was A v ­
kind as the matter o f lower bodies” (ibid., 124; also 132). Galileo thus
erroes, who, as we%saw, had denied that the heavens were composed o f
convinced him self that he was in agreement with Aristotle when he assumed
matter and form .37 Following a lengthy description o f Averroes’ position
that celestial matter was something quite different from terrestrial matter.
(Galileo [De caelo, qu. 5 (K)], 1977, 1 0 3 - m ) , Galileo presented the case
If it existed in an incorruptible heaven, it had to be radically different -
for the affirmative side, which constituted the majority opinion during the
indeed, nothing less than incorruptible. Galileo, like all who adopted the
M iddle Ages and the Renaissance, when its supporters included such famous
same interpretation, was committed to a conception o f celestial matter that
authorities as Avicenna, Maimonides, Albertus Magnus, Aquinas, Aegi-
made it function in ways that were largely the opposite o f its terrestrial
dius, Bonaventure, Achillini, and Scaliger.38 Within the majority group,
counterpart. The tw o matters were as radically different as the heavens from
debate centered on whether celestial matter differed from terrestrial matter.39
O n the existence o f celestial matter, Galileo - “ following the common the earth.
The differences - and here Galileo relied on and agreed with Aegidius -
opinion o f the peripatetics” — aligned him self with those w ho believed that
derived from the causes o f corruption, which were always explained in
“ the heavens are composed o f matter and form, whatever the matter may
terms o f matter, form, and privation (ibid., 134—135). Corruption occurs
be” (ibid., 115). In support o f the claim for the existence o f celestial matter,
when matter that possesses a form seeks the contrary o f that form. The
Galileo presented numerous arguments, most o f which were variations on
privation o f that contrary form is thus identified as the cause o f the matter’s
a few basic medieval Aristotelian themes. For example, since our heaven is
corruption.4* The privation itself, however, “ arises from the fact that a form
conceived as a particular entity, which he terms “ this heaven,” and all
has a contrary” (ibid., 134). Unless that privation can be overcome, how ­
particular entities consist o f matter and form, the heaven must also be
ever, so that the matter can at some time possess that contrary form, it
composed o f matter and form. A brief syllogism drawn from the Metaphysics
would be perpetually frustrated and therefore opposed to the operations o f
constitutes a second argument: “ Sensible substances contain matter; but a
heavenly body is singular and sensible; therefore [it contains matter].” 40*In nature, which does nothing in vain.
If a form did not have a contrary, the matter that possessed that form
35. See Wallace, 1981, 281, 309. For a list o f the Jesuit authors on w h om Galileo seems to could not be in a state o f potentiality with respect to a contrary form.
have relied, see Galileo, D e caelo, 1977, 1 2 -2 1 . O f this group, Christopher C lavius is the
best know n.
Therefore that matter could not be deprived o f a contrary form, and pri­
36. Whether Galileo believed the opinions he presents in the Juvenilia is difficult to determine. vation w ould not, and could not, function as the cause o f corruption.
See m y review o f Wallace, 1981, in Science 214 (1981), 55-56 . Although such matter could not exist in the terrestrial region, Galileo
37. A s indicated earlier, Averroes occasionally spoke as i f matter and form existed in the
heavens, although not as a com posite.
declared that it did exist in the heavens. Celestial matter had only one form,
38. For these and other names, see Galileo, D e caelo, qu. 5 (K), 1977, x 1 1 - 1 1 2 . Galileo declares which lacked a contrary. W ithout a contrary, privation could play no role,
that all Arabian authors w ith the exception o f Averroes supported this opinion, as did and celestial matter could have “ no appetite for another form, for if it did,
all Th om ists. A n even larger list is furnished b y B artholom ew A m icus [D e caelo, tract.
4, qu. 1, dubit. 2, art. 2], 1626, 138, col. 2.
it would have an appetite to be deprived o f its ow n existence” (ibid., 135).
39. Galileo, ibid. 112. Galileo also identified a second major issue (ibid.) that turned on
whether the form that is associated w ith celestial matter is also an intelligence.
41. “ Hence the matter remains deprived, and is in potency to another form and therefore
40. Ibid., 116. T h e passage, where Aristotle says that “ sensible substances all have matter,”
has an appetite for it; then corruption results.” Ibid. 134.
appears in the Metaphysics 8.1. i042a.24-26.
254 THE CELESTIAL REGION ON CELESTIAL M ATTER 255
Celestial matter was thus incorruptible, because it had no inclination for thickness and transparency in the heavens except by [the assumption of]
any other form. N or did it have any inclination to destroy its only form, matter.” 48 From Aristotle’s declaration that “ everything that is perceptible
because that would indicate a desire for its ow n nonexistence, which is is in matter” and that our entire world is compounded o f matter,49 Aegidius
absurd (ibid., 141). concludes that our heavens are “ particular and sensible heavens” and nec­
Galileo did not consider his arguments for the existence o f an incorruptible essarily imply a form in matter.50 Convinced that matter must exist in the
celestial matter as demonstrative “ but only as highly probable; because with heavens, Aegidius, in the second question o f his De materia celi, determines
the single exception o f Averroes, it is that o f practically all the peripatetics whether the matter o f the celestial region is essentially the same as the matter
and because there is nothing that contradicts it, while there are many things o f the inferior, or sublunar, region and concludes that they are indeed
in its favor” (ibid., 124).42 identical. According to Aegidius, none o f the ancient doctors, saints, and
philosophers whose works have reached us was o f the opinion that matter
2. Aegidius and Ockham: Celestial and terrestrial matter are exists in the heavens and therefore none o f them believed that the heavens
identical are composed o f matter and form. Those among these venerable authorities
who did assume the existence o f matter in the heavens, however, did not
Although Aegidius Romanus agreed with Thomas Aquinas that the celestial think there was any difference between that matter and the matter here
substance was a composite o f matter and form, he differed from him by below, as “ some masters [magistri] and modern doctors [doctores])” assert.5'
arguing that heavenly matter was essentially the same as terrestrial matter. Bolstered by a conviction that ancient authorities who considered the
In De materia celi (On Celestial Matter), a treatise devoted solely to the prob­ problem allowed that if matter did exist in the heavens, it would be identical
lem o f the possible existence and nature o f celestial matter, tw o questions with its terrestrial counterpart, Aegidius insisted that the heavens are not
form the basis o f the work. In the first, Aegidius considers whether matter simple but are instead a composite entity made up o f matter and form, a
exists in the heavens43 and, on the assumption that it does, poses the second: judgm ent that followed from the admitted quantity, thickness, transpar­
Is it essentially the same as terrestrial matter?44 ency, and individuality o f the celestial region.52 But is the matter in this
T o show that the celestial substance is composed o f matter and form, compound o f matter and form a pure potentiality, or is it some kind o f
Aegidius directly opposes the opinion o f Averroes that the heavens are a
simple, incomposite, indeterminate, and indivisible entity - that is, a form pint o f water equals 10 pints o f air, a comparison that is possible only because air and
without matter. Aegidius stresses the evidence o f our senses, declaring that water share matter - not form - in virtue o f w hich one can say that water is “ thicker”
than air. T h e same kind o f relationship obtains betweeen stars and celestial orbs. Th e
we can observe that the heavens possess quantity and are therefore divisi­
ratio o f 10 to 1 between water and air was merely a hypothetical exam ple for Aristotle,
ble.45 But without matter, the heavens would be incapable o f receiving the although A egidius invokes it as a fact.
quantity necessary to make them divisible. Appealing again to sense,46 A e­ 48. “ E rgo non poterimus salvare spissum et dyaphanum in celo, sed solum ex materia.”
A egidius Rom anus, D e materia celi, 1 502b, 79V, col. 2.
gidius observes that one part o f the heavens is thicker than another, as
49. Aristotle, D e caelo, 1.9.278a.8 -1 6 [Guthrie], i960.
evidenced by the appearance o f stars, which are visible because they are 50. For a fuller discussion, see Grant, 1983, 16 5-16 7 .
thickened celestial matter in contrast to celestial orbs, which are rarefied to 51. “ D icen dum quod in hac questione sic procedemus quod primo ostendemus quod nulli
antiquorum doctorum nec philosophorum nec sanctorum de his qui pervenerunt ad nos
the point o f transparency.47 Aegidius concludes that “ w e cannot save the
secundum ea que vidim us fuerunt huius positionis: quod in celo esset materia et quod
corpus celi circumscripta intelligentia esset com positum ex duabus substantiis, ex materia,
42. A s we saw earlier, Averroes had Peripatetic followers in the M iddle A ge s. B y the late scilicet, et forma, et tamen materia ilia esset differens per essentiam ab tsta, sicut aliqui
sixteenth century, however, G alileo’s claim m ay have been correct. magistri et m odem i doctores posuerunt. Antiqui enim doctores vel negaverunt in celo
43 - “ Questio est utrum in celo sit materia vel sit celum corpus sim plex, ut posuit C o m m en ­ esse materiam, ut posuit C om m entator, vel si posuerunt ibi materiam dixerunt earn esse
tator. ” A egidius Romanus, D e materia celt, 1 502b, 78r, col. 2. For bibliographical refer­ eandem cum materia istorum inferiorum .” A egidius Romanus, D e materia celi, 1502b,
ences to the life and works o f Aegidius, see W ippel, 1981a, x i-x ii. 8ir, col. 1. A m o n g the saints w h o believed that celestial and terrestrial matter were
44 - “ Queritur secundo: dato quod in celo sit materia utrum ilia materia sit eadem per essentiam identical, A egidius mentions on ly Saint A ugustine, w hile he cites A vicenna as repre­
cum materia istorum inferiorum .” Aegidius Rom anus, ibid., 8ov, col. 1. sentative o f the philosophers (ibid., 8ir, cols. 1-2 ). In his discussion o f the question,
45. “ It is evid en t,” Aegidius insists, “ that the heavens have quantity, because to deny this W illiam o f O ckh am , asserted the opposite when, after declaring that “ there is matter in
men w ould have to hallucinate and deny the senses.” Ibid., 79V, col. 1. the heavens,” he justified this claim b y “ the statements o f the saints and doctors, w ho
46. Contrary to Aegidius, Francisco Suarez, Disputationes metaphysicae, disp. 13, sec. 10, 1886, say that, in the beginning, G o d created matter from w hich the celestial bodies and other
1:436, col. 2, in the late sixteenth century, denied that one could dem onstrate b y any things were form ed.” O ck h am [Sentences, bk. 2, qu. 18: “ U trum in caelo sit materia
visible effects whether the heavens were com posed o f form alone, as A verroes, w ould eiusdem rationis cum materia istorum inferiorum” ], 1981, 5:399.
have it, or o f matter and form, as Thom as argued (and, o f course, A egid ius, w h o is not 52. “ A d h u c celum non est corpus sim plex, ut posuit C om m entator, quod probabamus et ex
mentioned).
quantitate eius, et ex spissitudine, et ex dyaphanitate quas videm us in ipso et ex indivi-
47. T o reinforce his position, Aegidius appeals to the second b o o k o f A ristotle’s O n Generation duatione ipsius.” A egidius Romanus, ibid., 8 iv , col. 1. In this opinion. A egidius says
and Corruption (2.6.3333.21-24) where, according to A egidius, Aristotle declared that 1 that he does not differ from other theologians (nec in hoc discordamus ab aliis theologis).
256 THE CELESTIAL REGION ON CELESTIAL MATTER 257
actuality? Aegidius argues for the former, insisting that i f the matter were ing. ” 58But it does not share in any o f the properties o f those extremes. “ For it
actualized it could not form a single essence with the actualized form, is not properly a being, because it is not something in act; nor is it absolutely
“ because one thing is never formed essentially from tw o actualized nothing, because it is something in potentiality. ” 59 O r to put it another way,
things.” 53 Celestial matter must, then, be “ pure potentiality” {purapotentia), if matter “ became something that had less being than pure potentiality, it
and therefore identical with the matter o f inferior things.S4 would immediately become nothing, because it w ould be neither actual nor
Aegidius offered three arguments to support his claim that celestial and potential; but i f it had more o f being than pure potentiality, it would be nec­
terrestrial matter are essentially the same.55 The first relies on a “ principle essary that it become an actualized thing. ’,6° Thus matter can become neither
o f indifference, ” whereby Aegidius assumes that i f celestial and terrestrial o f these extremes without losing its unique status as pure potentiality. Be­
matter are both pure potentialities - as he believed — and if every form were cause the argument applies to both celestial and terrestrial matter, it follows
stripped from those tw o matters, they w ould not differ in any w ay, “ because that both are pure potentiality and must always remain so.
there can be no distinction in pure potentiality.” B y their “ indifference” For all these reasons, Aegidius concluded that not only does matter exist in
(per indifferentiam), or lack o f difference, the unity and identity o f the two the heavens but that as pure potentiality it is identical with the matter o f the
matters must be accepted.56 sublunar, or inferior, region. But, as Aegidius recognized, even i f this were
In the second defense o f the identity o f celestial and terrestrial matter, true, a major problem yet remained. If celestial and terrestrial matter are iden­
Aegidius attempts to compare celestial and terrestrial matter. He asks tical as pure potentiality capable o f receiving forms, w h y do generation and
whether matter that serves as the subject o f a higher form is not thereby corruption occur only in the sublunar region? In his response, Aegidius in­
more worthy, and therefore more actualized, than matter that is the subject vokes the three fundamental principles o f change: matter, form, and priva­
o f a less w orthy form. Since all w ould readily agree that celestial forms are tion, the last-mentioned serving as the contrary to a form. Generation and
nobler than terrestrial forms, w ould it not follow that celestial matter is corruption occur when all three are present. In the heavens, however, contrar­
more actualized than terrestrial matter, and therefore different from it? ies or privations o f a form are absent. Celestial forms lack any associated pri­
Aegidius denies the very basis o f the comparison by insisting that distinc­ vation (privatio admixta) and are, consequently, perpetual and incorruptible:
tions between matters that are pure potentiality could not arise from the
hierarchical status o f the forms which actualize those potentialities. If ce­ If, therefore, you wish to assign a cause as to why these [sublunar] things are
lestial and terrestrial matter are pure potentiality, no distinctions can be corruptible and not those [celestial] things, you should not assign this on the basis
assigned between them on the basis o f the greater or lesser nobility o f the of the diversity of matter, because the matter is essentially the same here and there.
forms they may support.57 But you should assign this [cause] based on the diversity of the form, because the
[sublunar] form has a contrary and [therefore] has an associated privation; but that
As his third defense o f the idea that all matter is pure potentiality, Aegidius
argues that as pure potentiality, matter is “ a mean between being and noth­ [celestial] form does not have a contrary, nor an associated privation. Thus these
[sublunar] things are corruptible, not those [celestial] things.61

53. “ N unquam ex duobus in actu sit unum per essentiam .” Ibid. The celestial and terrestrial regions operate in contrary ways. Here below, a
54. “ E o ergo ipso quod ponimus ibi puram potentiam , oportet quod ponam us ibi unam form with its associated privation is the cause o f corruption, even though mat-
materiam, et oportet quod ilia materia sit eiusdem rationis cum materia istorum infer­
iorum .” Ibid., col. 2. 58. “ Tertia via ad hoc idem sumitur ex eo quod materia est quid m edium inter ens et nihil.”
55. Galileo summarizes seven arguments in favor o f the identity o f celestial and sublunar A egid ius Rom anus, D e materia celi, 1502b, 82V, col. 1.
matter w hich he attributes to Aegidius (see G alileo, D e caelo, qu. 5 (K): “ A re the heavens 59. “ Ponim us in terminis materia istorum inferiorum est potentia pura et ideo est media inter
com posed o f matter and form ?” , 1977, 1 1 3 - 1 1 5 , pars. 42, 45, 4 7-4 9 , 52, 56). For G alileo’s ens et nihil. N o n enim est proprie ens quia non est quid in actu; nec est om nino nihil
rejection o f these seven arguments, seepages 138 -13 9 . O n pages 13 2 -13 6 , G alileo discusses quia est quid in potentia.” Ibid., col. 2.
other aspects o f A cgid iu s’s thoughts on this question. O n e m ay rightly infer that A e g i- 60. “ E t ut m agis dare ostendamus propositum dicamus quod potentia pura non potest per-
dius’s ideas were considered central in the debate on the relationship between celestial ficere in entitate nisi fiat ens in actu; nec potest in aliquo deficere in enritate nisi fiat nihil
and terrestrial matter. quia ex quo materia est pura. Si esset aliquid quod esset minus ens quam potentia pura
56. “ E t quia materia celi est potentia pura et materia istorum inferiorum est potentia pura, illud statim esset nihil quia nec esset actus neque potentia; sed si plus habeat de entitate
si absolverentur ab om ni forma, materia huius et ilia non haberent per quid differrent quam potentia pura oportet quod sit aliquid ens in actu.” Ibid.
quia in pura potentia non potest esse distinctio. C u m ergo dictum sit quod unitas materie 61. “ Si ergo vis assignare causam quare ilia sunt corruptibilia et non ista non assignes hoc ex
et identitas eius accipienda sit per indifferentiam eo ipso quod materia celi absoluta ab diversitate materie quia eadem est materia per essentiam hie et ibi. Sed assignes hoc ex
om ni forma non haberet per quid differret a materia istorum inferiorum sic absoluta, diversitate form e ut quia forma ista habet contrarium et habet privationem annexam; ilia
oportet quod sit una materia et eadem per essentiam et eiusdem rationis hie et ib i.” autem form a non habet contrarium nec privationem annexam. Ideo ista sunt corruptibilia,
Aegidius Romanus, D e materia celi, 1502b, 82r, col. 1. non ilia.” Ibid. 83r, col. 2. A s the source o f this opinion, Aegidius dtes A vicenna’s
57. For a fuller discussion and docum entation, see G rant, 1983, 16 8-16 9. Sufficientia, bo ok r.
258 THE C E L E S T I A L R E G IO N ON CELESTIAL M ATTER 259
ter, as pure potentiality, must receive that contrary. In the heavens, however, say the form o f fire or water, into celestial matter and thus subject the
the form cannot cause corruption because it lacks any contrary or privation. heavens to generation and corruption. In effect, the same substantial changes
Thus the purely potential matter, which is capable o f receiving another form, produced by natural agents in the terrestrial region could be caused in the
is never provided an opportunity to exercise that potentiality.62 celestial region by divine power.
Wielding his sharp, trusty razor, William o f Ockham also upheld the But Ockham even imagines a sitution where the celestial matter would
identity o f celestial and terrestrial matter,63 though for reasons quite different be acted upon naturally by a created agent. This might occur i f God intro­
from Aegidius’s. Ockham frankly admitted that the identity o f the two duces the form o f the element fire into celestial matter and if a quantity o f
matters was not demonstrable but quickly added that neither was any other water o f greater active power than fire was sufficiently near. Under these
opinion on this issue.64 H owever, by use o f his razor and the concept o f circumstances, the water could naturally corrupt the form o f fire and in­
G od’s absolute power, Ockham hoped to make his case the most persuasive. troduce the form o f water into celestial matter.67
Although the incorruptibility o f the heavens was routinely assumed, O ck­ Thus the mere possibility that God could — although he almost certainly
ham insisted that celestial incorruptibility was not absolute, because if it would not - effect the same substantial changes in the heavens that are caused
pleased God, he could corrupt and destroy the heavens. B y celestial incor­ by natural agents in sublunar things, led Ockham to conclude that “ the mat­
ruptibility, then, we must mean that the heavens are not corruptible by any ter in the heavens is the same kind as in inferior things.” For w hy should we
created agent. Thus the difference between terrestrial matter and celestial assume tw o different kinds o f matter when one will do? “ A plurality is never
matter reduces to this: in the former, God and/or some created agent has to be posited without necessity,” Ockham insists. T w o varieties o f matter
the power to corrupt one form and generate another, whereas in the latter ought not to be introduced, “ because all things which can be saved by the di­
only God can corrupt or destroy the form. “ Therefore,” Ockham argues, versity o f the nature o f matter can be saved equally well, or better, by the un­
“ whether the matter is o f the same kind or o f a different kind does not ity o f the nature [of matter].” 68 Because only one kind o f matter exists in
affect its corruptibility or incorruptibility.” 65 And even though the matter heaven and earth, and the matter in the latter is subject to generation and cor­
in each region is corruptible under different circumstances, the potentiality ruption, w e may infer that for Ockham the heavens were also subject to gen­
for corruption is always there. The “ difference between the matter here and eration and corruption, even though no potentially corruptive forms might
there,” Ockham explains, is that “ the matter here is in potentiality to other ever appear there to cause an actual generation and corruption.
forms that can be produced by a natural, created agent and [also] to some
which can only be created by God alone, as, for example, the intellective
form. But the matter o f the heaven is in potentiality to many forms, none III. Celestial matter in the late sixteenth and the seventeenth
o f which can be produced or induced in that matter by a natural agent but century
only by G o d ,”66 who, if he wished, could introduce any terrestrial form,
j. The focus o f the debate: Thomas or Aegidius?

62. “ Dicem us itaque quod econtrario contingit de corruptione in istis inferioribus et de cor- The impact o f these tw o rival thirteenth-century theories continued strong
ruptione in supercelestibus. N a m hec form a si est causa corruptionis hoc est propter
materiam; ibi autem est causa incorruptibilitatis propter formam. T o tu m tamen hoc
throughout the Middle Ages69 and into the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-
contingit quia in istis inferioribus est adm ixta privatio; in supercelestibus vero est carentia
privationis. Ideo ilia sunt perpetua; hec autem corruptibilia. ” Ibid. multas quarum nulla per agens naturale potest produci nec induci in ilia materia, sed
63. In his com m entary on the Sentences, bk. 2, qu. 18: “ U tru m in celo sit materia eiusdem solum a D eo possunt ista fieri.” Ibid., 403.
rationis cum materia istorum inferiorium. ” See O ckh am , Sentences, bk. 2, qu. 18, 1981, 67. “ N a m materia caeli, ex quo est eiusdem rationis cum materia hie, est in potentia non
5:395-409- tantum ad illas formas quae solum possunt causari a D eo et non .ab agente creato, sed
64. “ Secundo dico quod in caelestibus et in istis inferioribus est materia eiusdem rationis etiam ad formas quae possunt produci ab agente creato, puta ad formam ignis, aeris, etc.
om nino, licet haec pars non possit demonstrari sicut nec alia.” Ibid., 400. Such declarations Posito igitur quod Deus in materiam caeli induceret formam ignis, sicut est possibile
were not uncom m on. For similar statements in the sixteenth century, see John M ajor quia non includit contradictionem, si aqua tunc esset approximata et esset maioris virtutis
[SenrcMces, bk. 2, dist. 12, qu. 3], 1519b, 65r, col. 2, and 66v, col. 1, and Suarez, Dis- in agendo quam ignis, corrumperet formam* ignis et induceret formam aquae in materia
putationes metaphysicae, disp. 13, sec. 10, 1866, 1:436, col. 2; for the seventeenth century, quae prim o erat sub forma caeli. Et ideo materia caeli simpliciter est in potentia passiva
see Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 5, qu. 2, 1651, 234, col. 2, ad multas formas quas potest agens creatum producere.” Ibid., 403-404.
where Riccioli also attributes this attitude to the Conim bricenses, Hurtado de M endoza, 68. “ Sic igitur videtur mihi quod in caelo sit materia eiusdem rationis cum istis inferioribus.
and Roderigo de Arriaga. E t hoc, quia pluralitas nunquam est ponenda sine necessitate, sicut saepe dictum est. N un c
65. “ Ergo quod materia sit eiusdem rationis vel alterius nihil facit ad corruptibilitatem vel autem non apparet necessitas ponendi materiam alterius rationis hie et ibi quia omnia
incorruptibilitatem.” O ck h am , Sentences, bk. 2, qu. 18, 1981, 5:401-402. quae possunt salvari per diversitatem materiae secundum rationem possunt aeque bene
66. “ Et in hoc est differentia inter materiam hie et ibi quod materia hie est in potentia ad alias vel melius salvari secundum identitatem rationis.” Ibid., 404.
formas quae possunt produci per agens naturale creatum et ad alias quae non possunt 69. N ic o le O resm e presents an anomalous situation. A lth ough he seems to have accepted
creari nisi a solo Deo, puta formae intellectivae. Sed materia celi est in potentia ad formas celestial matter as a com posite o f matter and form (Oresme, D e celo, bk. 1, qu. 11, 1965,
260 THE CELESTIAL REGION ON CELESTIAL MATTER 261

tunes. M ost early modem scholastic authors rejected the opinion o f A v­ exist in the heavens. Suarez argued (Disputationes metaphysicae, disp. 13, sec.
erroes and his followers and were agreed that the celestial region consisted 10, 1866, 1:437, col. 1) that all mobile physical bodies are natural beings
o f an ether that was composed o f matter and form .70But within this majority and fall under the domain o f philosophy. He observes that in De caelo, book
group there was the same split between those who assumed the identity o f 1, chapter 2, Aristotle himself classifies the celestial bodies in the category
celestial and terrestrial matter and those who assumed a radical difference. o f natural beings. But in the first tw o chapters o f the second book o f his
The overall number o f arguments for each opinion seems to have in­ Physics, Aristotle explains that nature is nothing but matter and form. In­
creased. M any o f the traditional medieval arguments for the leading opin­ deed, w e do not even know another kind o f physical nature. Suarez, there­
ions were repeated and often elaborated. However, some elements were fore, concludes that celestial bodies, as natural, physical beings, must be
introduced that either played little role in the Middle Ages or were wholly composed o f matter and form. A common scriptural argument invoked by
new. In this regard, Tycho Brahe’s rejection o f hard, solid spheres and the Bartholomaeus Mastrius and Bonaventura Bellutus ([De caelo, disp. 2, qu.
gradual shift to the concept o f fluid heavens played a role. 2, art. 2], 1727, 3:492, col. 2, par. 57) emphasized that on the first day o f
The case for a matterless heavens in the traditional sense ascribed to creation God created all the matter from which the whole world, including
Averroes and his followers seems to have steadily lost support.71 B y the both terrestrial and celestial components, was made; therefore, matter must
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, additional arguments in favor o f a exist in the heavens.
heavens filled with a composite o f matter and form were available. It was The interpretation that the heavens consist o f matter and form easily
almost taken for granted that accidents such as quantity, along with rarity triumphed over the matterless concept o f Averroes and his followers. The
and density, that were common to terrestrial bodies also existed in the real struggle concerned the nature o f that matter: Was it identical with
heavens.72 Such properties were taken as evidence that matter must also terrestrial matter, as Aegidius and his followers maintained, or was it rad­
ically different, as Thomas Aquinas and his supporters would have it? Em­
162-164), he rqects A egid ius’s identification o f celestial and terrestrial matter (164-166);
inent scholastics o f the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries could be found
rqects the idea that a com pletely perfect form is associated w ith celestial matter and
negates the need o f the latter for other form s (166-168); and rqects T h om as Aquinas’s on both sides o f this issue. Thus Francisco Suarez (Disputationes metaphysicae,
theory that celestial matter is o f another nature than terrestrial m atter (168). B y both disp. 13, sec. 11, 1866, 1:440, col. 2), Raphael Aversa ([De caelo, qu. 33,
denying and affirming that celestial and terrestrial matter are identical, O resm e seems
sec. 6], 1627, 105, col. 2-109, col. 1), and Bartholomew Amicus ([De caelo,
caught up in a contradiction.
70. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 5, 1651, 232-233, distinguishes tract. 4, qu. 3, dubit. 1, art. 3], 1626, 146, col. 2) followed Thomas and
three com m on opinions: that the heavens are a simple b o d y not com posed o f matter and differentiated between celestial and terrestrial matter, whereas Mastrius and
form; that the heavens are com posed o f m atter and form; and a third opinion “ that each
Bellutus ([De caelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 2], 1727, 3:492, col. 2, par. 57), as
o f the first [tw o opinions] is probable” and attributes the third opinion to Duns Scotus
[Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1], Raphael A versa [D e caelo, qu. 33, sec. 5], 1627, 101, well as Giovanni Baptista Riccioli ([Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9,
cols, x—2, and Mastrius and Bellutus [D e coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 1], 1727, 490, col. 2 - sec. 1, ch. 5, qu. 2], 1651, 235, col. 1), and Melchior Comaeus ([De caelo,
492, col. 2. Riccioli mentions that the third opinion derives from the fact that one may
tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 1], 1657, 488-489) assumed that they were identical.73
argue from the authority o f Aristotle that the heavens are not a com posite o f matter and
form, whereas on the authority o f theologians one m ay argue that they are. Scotus does In this debate, the theory that preserved the popular Thom istic distinction
this in the very question cited b y Riccioli, except that Scotus substitutes philosophers for between celestial and terrestrial matter not only perpetuated the traditional
Aristotle. John Major, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 12, qu. 3, 1519b, 65r, col. 2, was not unusual
division between the celestial and sublunar realms, but also preserved the
in declaring as the first o f five conclusions that “ although in the natural light it cannot
be effectively proved that the heavens do not have matter and form , nevertheless, in the principle o f celestial incorruptibility. The contributions o f T ycho Brahe and
natural light the opposite [that the heavens do have matter and form] is more apparent.” Galileo during the late sixteenth and the first quarter o f the seventeenth
71. A good barometer o f its waning popularity is the list o f supporters assigned b y Riccioli
century seriously challenged both o f these ideas. For scholastics who, where
to the tw o major opinions. His list for A verro es’ opinion contains perhaps one seventeenth
century figure ([Philip?] Faber), whereas he mentions approxim ately six seventeenth- possible and feasible, were desirous o f adapting and adjusting scholastic
century supporters for the rival theory that the heavens consist o f matter and form. See
Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 5, 1651, 232, col. 2 -23 3 , c°l-
1. T o Faber, w e m ay also add T h om as C o m p to n -C a rleto n [D e coelo, disp. 3, sec. 3], ch. 2, qu. 4], 1598, 40; Suarez, Disputationes metaphysicae, disp. 13, sec. 10, 1886, 1:437,
1649, 406, col. 2, w ho after declaring, “ it is m ore probable that the em pyrean heaven col. 1; and M ajor, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 12, qu. 3, 1519b, 65V, col. 2. A egidius h im self
does not consist o f matter and form but is a simple b o d y ” adds, in the next paragraph, had emphasized the existence o f accidents in the heavens that were norm ally associated
“ it seems more probable to me that all the heavens are not com posed o f matter and form w ith matter and that were therefore go o d indicators that matter existed in the heavens.
but are similarly simple bodies. ” A lth o u gh C o m p to n -C a rle to n did not believe that it was T h e kind o f “ rarity and density” that m ost scholastics had in m ind was o f the static (i.e.,
impossible that matter could exist in the heavens, he thought it implausible, because permanent) kind rather than the dynam ic (or variable) type (see C h . 10, Sec. II. i.e). Their
whereas matter and form in terrestrial bodies w ere productive o f continuous, obvious sense o f quantity, h ow ever, must have been o f the terrestrial kind.
change, no such changes were visible in the heavens. H e concludes, “ w e have no basis 73. Riccioli expresses his choice this w ay: “ A lth ough w e cannot k n o w dem onstratively and
for asserting that in fact there is matter in them [i.e. the heavens].” Ibid., 407, col. 1. evidentally w hat the visible substance and nature o f the heaven is, it is nevertheless more
72. See Aversa, D e caelo, qu. 33, sec. 5, 1627, 104, col. 2; Conim bricenses [D e coelo, bk. 1, probable that it consists o f matter that is identical w ith elementary m atter.”
262 THE CELESTIAL REGION ON CELESTIAL M ATTER 263

cosmology to the latest scientific knowledge exemplified in the relevant unknown until the sixteenth century, as were the details o f his interpretation,
w ork o f Tycho and Galileo, the theory that identified celestial and terrestrial which included an attack on Aristotle’s ether, or fifth element, and the
matter was the only hope o f achieving a degree o f accommodation with attribution o f a fiery nature to the Sun and stars.76*But, as we saw at the
the emerging new cosmology. beginning o f this chapter, the advent o f Aristotle’s natural philosophy ren­
For it was only by the assumption o f a single cosmic matter that the rigid dered ideas about terrestrial elements in the heavens obsolete. Indeed, ce­
division between the celestial and terrestrial regions could be destroved, lestial corruptibility and the assignation o f terrestrial elements to the heavens
along with its associated idea that the different, nobler, and more perfect were discussed only for the purpose o f refutation, as Hervaeus Natalis (ca.
celestial region was incorruptible. A nd yet in his version o f the identitv 1260—1323) did in his De materia cell."
theory, Aegidius Romanus retained the rigid division o f the celestial and Alm ost four centuries after Hervaeus, during the second halt ot the sev­
terrestrial regions and the incorruptibility o f the former. He could do this enteenth century, at least four scholastic authors - Giovanni Baptista Riccioli
on the basis o f the standard assumption that celestial forms had no contraries, (1598-1671), Melchior Cornaeus (1598-1665), George de Rhodes ( i 597 ~
whereas terrestrial forms did. Thus, although the matter was identical, the 1661), and Franciscus Bonae Spei (1617-1677), all Jesuits except Bonae Spei,
lack o f contrary forms in the heavens prevented the kind o f change that who was a Carmelite - concluded that the heavens were corruptible. Ot
occurred in the terrestrial region.74 A dramatic conceptual change occurred the four, Riccioli is by far the most significant and best known. In his New
only when part or all o f celestial and terrestrial matter was made identical Almagest (Almagestum novum) ot 1651 (bk. 9, sec. 1), Riccioli considers
in more substantial ways than in Aegidius s widely held theory, where the “ The Creation and Nature o f Celestial Bodies,’’ within which context - in
two matters were considered identical only as pure potentialities but other­ chapters 5 and 6 - he discusses the problems relevant to our subject. The
wise radically different, the one incorruptible, the other corruptible. Sig­ fifth chapter79 is devoted to the nature o f celestial matter - whether it is a
nificant changes followed upon the newly emerging cosm ology, which was simple or composite body and whether it is the same as or different trom
based on the consequences o f the Copernican theory and the particular elemental matter. The decisions on these questions are relevant to the sixth
celestial discoveries o f Tycho and Galileo, who revealed a dramatically chapter,80 in which Riccioli specifically asks “ Whether the heavens are ge­
different kind o f heavens from the heavens as described in traditional me­ n e ra te and corruptible” (An caelum sit generabile et corruptibile).
dieval cosmology. The heavens that Tycho and Galileo described could After following the usual scholastic procedure and presenting the argu­
bring forth comets, new stars, and variable sunspots. In this altered at­ ments pro and con for the various relevant questions, Riccioli concludes
mosphere ol cosmological speculation, some scholastics assigned to celestial not only that the heavens are composed o f matter and form - a popu­
matter the same fundamental properties as one or more o f the terrestrial lar opinion (as we saw) in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries - but
elements. Despite centuries ot assumed celestial superiority, the great change that celestial matter is probably the same as the matter ot the sublunar re­
involved a terrestrialization o f celestial matter, whereby it came to be con­ gion,81 a thesis, as we noted, defended in the Middle Ages by Aegidius and
ceived as corruptible. Ockham.
From his assumption o f the essential identity o f celestial and terrestrial
matter, Riccioli drew a radically different consequence: ot the tour elements
2. Scholastic repudiation o f incorruptibility: the corruptibility o f
celestial matter burskv, 1962, 154—166; tor additional information, including a statement on celestial
corruptibility bvjohn Damascene, see Chapter 10, note 10.
The idea o f a corruptible heavens was o f ancient vintage and was well known 76. Samburskv, 1902, 158.
during the Middle Ages, when it was most prominently associated with 77. For a summary o f his critique, see Grant, 19S3, 163-164. O f the four elements. Hervaeus
thinks that only tire would be a plausible candidate as a celestial element. But it too tails
the name ofjo h n Philoponus, the sixth-century Christian Neoplatonist and to qualify because its naturally active qualities would consume the surrounding matter,
critic ot Aristotle. 5 Unfortunately, the relevant works ot Philoponus were nor could it account for the multiplicity o f effects that the heavens were assumed to cause,
such as coldness, wetness, and putrefaction.
74. For the details ot Aegidius’s theory, see Section II.; o f this chapter. 78., Book 9 is in the second part (pars secunda or pars posterior) o f the first volume, the only
75. In his commentary on De caelo, Thomas Aquinas, De caelo. bk. 1, lec. 6, 1952, 29, remarks / one o f the proposed three volumes to be published.
that Philoponus was one ot those who assumed that the heavens were, by their nature, 79. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 5, qus. 1-3, 1651, 232-236.
subject to generation and corruption. Thomas does not mention the source ot his mtor- 50. Ibid., ch. 6, 257-238.
mation, which was probably Simplicius s Commentary on De caelo !in the translation trom 51. Riccioli presents his opinion in the following conclusion: “ Licet non possit a nobis de­
Greek to Latin by William ot Moerbeke in 1271). For Simplicius's remarks, see Simplicius monstrative atque evidenter sciri, quaenam sit caeli visibilis substantia et natura, proba-
[De celo, bk. 1, comment. 20], 1540* i i v , col. 2 and I2r, col. 1. For a discussion ot bilius tamen est lllud constare ex materia eiusdem rationis cum elementari.” Ibid., ch. 5,
Philoponus's opinion in favor o f the identity o f celestial and terrestrial matter, see Sam- qu. 2, 235, col. 1.
264 THE CELESTIAL REGION ON CELESTIAL MATTER 265
(earth, fire, air, and water), the heavens must be composed o f one or more tion.” 88 But Riccioli informs us later that it was not only ideas from the
o f three o f the elements (fire, air, and water).82 Thus where Aegidius made Church Fathers and Scripture that led him to accept celestial corruptibility
prime matter the basis o f the identity o f celestial and terrestrial matter but also “ the arguments derived from experience concerning spots and
Riccioli made elemental matter the basis - that is, matter that had already torches near the solar disk that were discovered by the telescope and from
been actualized beyond the level o f prime matter. It was thus essential that certain comets that have come into being and passed away above the Moon.
Riccioli identify the elements o f which the heavens were composed. He These changes are more naturally explained by generation and corruption
concludes, for example: “ It is more probable that the heaven in which the than by other more violent means or by nonviolent miracles.” 89
fixed stars are is watery; the heaven in which the planets are is fiery.” 83 Perhaps because he was aware o f how radically he had departed from
Riccioli readily admitted that no genuine evidence or precise arguments traditional Aristotelian cosmology, Riccioli sought to salvage a remnant o f
could be offered in support o f the claim that the heaven o f the fixed stars celestial incorruptibility. Although, by their elemental nature, the heavens
was a congealed, watery solid and the heaven o f the planets a fiery fluid.*4 are intrinsically corruptible, they are not corruptible by any naturally created
Patristic authorities were, however, at hand. Some Fathers had held that external agent. Thus, for Riccioli, the celestial region was “ accidentally
the heaven consisted o f elemental water and others that it was composed incorruptible” (per accidens esse incorruptibile), because no natural, external
o f elemental fire.85 It therefore seemed a good compromise to identify the agent could corrupt it. This immunity from corruption by natural agents
sphere o f the fixed stars as the solid and watery sphere (both because the was perhaps a consequence o f the heavens’ great distance from the terrestrial
stars themselves remained fixed and unchanging and seemed to enclose the region, which was external to them, or perhaps attributable to the great
world and because the term firmamentum was used to describe the starry mass o f the celestial region, or possibly the result o f the distinctive nature
sphere) and to interpret the heaven through which the planets moved as a o f the primary qualities that God had placed in the heavens.90
fiery fluid, since the paths o f the planets varied.86 W hatever the reason, Riccioli’s concession to incorruptibility was o f little
Riccioli’s assumption o f a fluid planetary heaven was not o f itself a suf­ consequence, as is evident when he likens celestial incorruptibility to that
ficient indication o f a belief in celestial corruptibility,87 but his assertion that incorruptibility which applies to the whole earth and to the totality o f air,
these heavens consisted o f tw o terrestrial elements was. In his chapter on each o f which was really incorruptible as a totality even though its parts
the corruptibility or incorruptibility o f the celestial region, which follows suffered continual change. Despite their overall incorruptibility, parts o f the
immediately after the chapter that identifies celestial and terrestrial matter, heavens were nevertheless capable o f suffering corruption. In this the ce­
Riccioli declares the corruptibility o f the celestial region. O n the basis o f lestial region was just like the earth or air: it suffered change in its parts,
his assumption that the heaven o f the fixed stars is most probably watery but the whole endured unchanged.
and that the heaven o f the planets is fiery, he infers “ that from its very O n ly w ith regard to the empyrean sphere did Riccioli accept the tradi­
internal nature, the heavens have the capacity for generation and corrup­ tional opinion o f incorruptibility. The empyrean sphere was not, however,
a visible sphere, although it was required for the perfection o f the universe
82. B y om itting any discussion o f earth as a possible com ponent o f celestial matter, Riccioli
indicates his rejection o f it. and for the incorruptibility and eternal well-being o f our bodies.9'
83. “ Probabilius est caelum in quo sunt stellae fixae aqueum; caelum autem in quo sunt A m ong the other three seventeenth-century scholastic authors who re­
planetae igneum esse.” Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 5, qu.
jected celestial incorruptibility, Melchior Cornaeus did it in a single para­
3, 1651, 236, col. 1.
84. In chapter 7 (ibid., 238-244), Riccioli considers the question “ W hether the heavens are graph.92 Because Cornaeus believed in the identity o f celestial and sublunar
solid or whether, indeed, some or all are fluid” (An caeli solidi sint, an vero fluidi omnes matter, and because the latter is a principle o f generation and corruption,
vel aliqui). A t the end o f the question, in a “ unica conclusio,” Riccioli declares that (ibid.,
he inferred that the heavens were corruptible.93 Partial corruption in the
244, col. 1) “ although it is scarcely evident mathem atically or physically, it is much more
probable that the heaven o f the fixed stars is solid, that o f the planets fluid.” In Chapter
88. “ Sequitur caelos hosce esse ab intrinseco et natura sua generationis et corruptionis ca-
14, w e shall consider medieval and early m od em scholastic ideas about the hardness or
paces.” Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 6, 1651, 238, col. 1.
fluidity o f the celestial ether.
89. Ibid., 237, col. 2.
85. Ibid., ch. 5, qu. 1, 233, col. 2.
90. “ Q u ia tamen sive propter distantiam ipsorum, sive ob ingentem m olem , sive ob tem -
86. See ibid., qu. 3, 236, cols. 1 -2 .
peram entum insigne qualitatum secundarum cum primis quod Deus caelo indidit, non
87. A number o f scholastics had argued that the fluidity or solidity o f the heavens had no
datur agens ullum naturale creatum quod possit caelos transmutare substantialiter; idcirco
relevance to their corruptibility or incorruptibility. For example, see A m icus, D e caelo,
dixi per accidens esse incorruptibiles.” Ibid., 238, col. 1.
tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 1, 1626, 270. col. 2; Johannes Poncius, D e coelo, disp. 22, qu. 5, 1672,
91. Ibid.
620, col. 1; and Franciscus de O v ie d o [D e caelo, contro. 1, punc. 2], 1640, 1:462, par. 2.
92. Cornaeus, D e coelo, disp. 2, qu. 1, dub. 3, 1657, 489.
O vied o , indeed, believed that the heavens w ere both fluid and incorruptible. Ibid., 464.
93. In the next section, Cornaeus rejects the existence o f a celestial ether, or fifth element,
col. 1, par. 17.
and suggests that fire is the m ost probable matter o f the heavens. Ibid., dub. 4, 490-491.
266 ON CELESTIAL M ATTER 267
THE CEL EST IAL REGION

heavens was also evident from the many new stars that had been reported substantial generation and corruption could and did occur in the celestial
from as far back as 125 b . c ., including those o f 1572, r6oo, and 1604. region. In answering the charge that Aristotle had declared the heavens to
Corruptibility was also implied by scriptural predictions o f a Judgment Day be immutable and incorruptible, Cornaeus even declared that
in which the heavens will be destroyed. And finally Cornaeus argued that
the Sun, the most beautiful part ot the heavens, was corrupted almost daily if Aristotle were alive today and could see the alterations and conflagrations that
by fires. we now perceive in the Sun, he would, without doubt, change his opinion and join
George de Rhodes went beyond Riccioli and argued for the fluidity o f us. Surely the same could be said about the planets, of which the Philosopher knew
the entire heavens, including the sphere o f the fixed stars.94 Like Riccioli, no more than seven. But in our time, through the works of the telescope, which
however, he believed that although parts o f the heavens were corruptible, was lacking to him, we know tor an absolute certainty that there are more.'"’
the heavens, taken as a whole, were incorruptible.9'1 And also like Riccioli,
he judged the empyrean sphere to be absolutely incorruptible, whereas all Even some traditionalists like Aversa were prepared to break with Aristotle
other planets and spheres were corruptible. De Rhodes mentions Tycho, and allow that new stars and sunspots are celestial, rather than terrestrial,
who, he explains, showed that the new star o f 1572 was truly in the heavens. phenomena.
De Rhodes concludes that new stars could appear only in the celestial region, But w hy did scholastic Aristotelians yield on this seemingly important
because they are newly generated there. Thus generation as well as cor­ element in Aristotle’s cosmology? O n this, we can only speculate. Although
ruption can occur in the heavens.96 many scholastics denied a celestial location to the new phenomena, others
Following a series o f appeals to Scripture in favor o f celestial corrupti­ must have realized, as did Aversa, that astronomical data from the most
bility, Franciscus Bonae Spei grounds his belief in celestial corruptibility on respected astronomers o f the day could not be ignored indefinitely. Thus
“ the various generations and corruptions in the heavens revealed by the the first breakthrough — to concede the celestial location o f the new phe­
most certain observations o f the mathematicians’’ — that is, astronomers. nomena — was probably made rather painlessly, because it was still teasible,
Indeed, Bonae Spei insists that it is safer to accept the observations made and even easy, to insist that such phenomena represented only accidental
with the telescope and other instruments than to follow the philosophers, rather than substantial changes.
who, “ because o f the very great distance [of the sky] and the weakness o f The eventual transition to the concept o f celestial corruptibility was prob­
their eyes, are easily deceived.” 97* ably aided in no small measure by a widespread belief in the sixteenth and
In the seventeenth century, scholastic opinions about celestial incorrup­ seventeenth centuries that Plato, Scripture, and many Church Fathers were
tibility changed rather dramatically from what they had been during the agreed that the heavens were composed o f one or more terrestrial elements
period between the Middle Ages and the end o f the sixteenth century. Even and that the heavens were therefore capable o f substantial change.99 Indeed,
if the majority o f seventeenth-century scholastics retained the traditional as we saw, the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars was often identified as the
opinion — and this is by no means certain — those like Riccioli, Cornaeus, frozen or crystalline form o f the scriptural waters above the firmament.
de Rhodes, and Bonae Spei were prepared to abandon it and concede that Other Church Fathers had followed the Platonic idea that the heavens were
made o f the fourth and purest element, fire. Although such ideas were
94. De Rhodes [De coeio. disp. 2. qu. 1, sec. a], 1671, 278, col. 2-280. col. 1. De Rhodes known during the late Middle Ages, Aristotle’s conception o f a fifth in­
specifically refutes the explanations that new stars are not "new ” but have been in the
heavens all the time but are seen only when they become sufficiently dense fa view corruptible element, or ether, had replaced Platonic and patristic interpre­
attributed to Vallesius) and that new stars are produced by an accidental generation of tations.
opacity (a theory he rightly attributes to A versa; see ibid.. 279. col. 1). Since de Rhodes In addition to the works containing ideas about the corruptibility ot the
died in 1661 and his work was first published in 1671, the actual date o f composition is
unknown. heavens that had been available since the Middle Ages, others became avail­
95. “ Coelum licet corruptible sit, nunquam tamen posse corrumpi to turn; element.! enim able in the sixteenth century; for example, the works o f Plato, Philoponus,
tamersi sunt corruptibilia, semper tamen integra perstant sine ulla linminutione. Contin- and Saint Basil. In the developing anti-Aristotelian climate o f the sixteenth
gunt ergo in partibus coeli saepe mutationes.” Ibid., 279. col. 2. For what it is worth. /
de Rhodes makes no mention o f Riccioli in this section.
96. “ Dico primo celum empvreum omnino incorruptible; coeios autem sidereos esse cor- 98. “ Si Aristoteles hodie viveret et quas modo nos in sole alterationes et conflagrationes
ruptibiles.” Ibid., 278, col. 2. deprehendimus. videret absque dubio mutata sententia nobiscum faceret. Idem sane est
97. “ Probatur secundo ratione variae contingerunt generationes et corruptiones in coelis, ut de planetis quos Philosophus septenis plures non agnosat. At nos hoc tempore opera
constat ex certissima mathematicorum observatione, quos utpote per tot saecula obser- telescopii (quo ille caruit) plures omnino esse certo scimus.” Cornaeus [De coeio. disp. 2,
vatiombus et tubis opticis ahisque instrumentis, certissime collimantes tutius est sequi qu. 3, dub. 3], 1657, 303.
quam philosophos qui, propter longissimam distantiam et visus oculorum per se debi- 99. Riccioli, Alma^estum novum, pars, post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 0, 1651, 237, col. 1-238. col.
litatem, facile decipiuntur.” Bonae Spei [De coeio, comment. 3, disp. 3, dub. 4]. 1652. 1, discusses all three and provides a lengthy list o f passages from the Bible and the Church
to, col. 2. Fathers.
268 THE CELESTIAL REGION
ON CELESTIAL MATTER 269
century, celestial corruptibility was an opinion that became more difficult
an anticipation o f the final rejection in the seventeenth century o f the tra­
to ignore than during the Middle Ages. The dramatic celestial discoveries
ditional distinction between the heavens and the earth. Such a temptation
o f the late sixteenth and the early seventeenth century provided the scientific
should be resisted. Aegidius’s identification o f celestial and terrestrial matter
basis for abandoning incorruptibility. Scholastics w ho found the celestial
as pure potentialities was made in the context o f an Aristotelian universe
discoveries o f Tycho and Galileo compelling could justify support for ce
in which the celestial region was assumed incorruptible and thus utterly
lestial corruptibility by direct appeal to Plato and, more significantly to
superior to a continually changing terrestrial matter.
the Church Fathers. O r they may have found the astronomical arguments
It was not Aegidius but John Philoponus who anticipated the seventeenth-
compelling only because o f the corroborating statements o f the Church
Fathers. century concept o f a universal matter everywhere subject to change. During
the Middle Ages only the idea was known, but not the works o f Philoponus
Although I shall discuss in Chapter 14 the transition from the concept o f
in which it was developed and justified. The dominance o f Aristotle’s phys­
solid heavens to that o f fluid heavens, it is relevant to inquire at this point
ics and cosm ology would have made such a bold idea unacceptable. About
whether the gradual acceptance o f the idea o f fluid rather than solid heavens
the time Philoponus’s works became available in the sixteenth century, the
played a significant role in the abandonment o f belief in celestial incorrup­
Copemican theory, which made the earth just another planet, was at hand
tibility. T ych o’s claim that the comet o f 1577 was m oving among the planets
to dissolve the medieval distinction between the terrestrial and celestial
clearly implied the nonexistence o f solid planetary spheres.100 For those who
regions. As the Copemican theory was gradually disseminated and adopted,
accepted comets as supralunar, a gradual but inexorable shift toward the
it became inevitable that the earth and its sister planets would be conceived
concept o f fluid heavens began. But did the idea o f fluid heavens imply
in terms o f the same matter.
corruptible heavens? A t least one Jesuit scholastic, Antonio Rubio, in a
What was strongly implied in Copernicus’s profound conceptualization
work o f 1615, believed that fluid heavens would have to be corruptible
was rendered graphically real by Galileo’s telescopic observations some
(presumably because o f divisibility) and therefore rejected them .101 But, as
sixty-five years after the publication o f De revolutionibus and only some
we have seen (n. 87 o f this chapter) others - for example, Amicus, Poncius,
fifteen to twenty years after Galileo had himself vigorously upheld the
and Oviedo - thought that the solidity or fluidity o f the heavens was ir­
incorruptibility o f the heavens and assumed the existence o f a celestial matter
relevant to the issue o f incorruptibility. Indeed, O viedo believed that the
that was radically different from its terrestrial counterpart. Beginning in
heavens were both fluid and incorruptible. For some scholastics, then, flu­
1610, however, with the publication o f the Sidereus nuncius (The Starry
idity alone did not necessarily entail divisibility. The matter o f the heavens
Messenger), Galileo rendered the centuries-old tradition o f celestial incor­
might be such that it was capable o f receiving only a single form, or celestial
ruptibility untenable.
matter might be incorruptible by virtue o f its form, a form that adhered to
Although Galileo did not explicitly declare the corruptibility o f the heav­
its matter so firmly that another could not be received.102 A seventeenth-
ens in the Sidereus nuncius, it was an obvious inference from the comparisons
century scholastic could therefore accept both fluidity and incorruptibility.
he made between the earth and the M oon, as when he observed that “ the
Although the shift from solidity to fluidity was a significant change from
terrestrial roughnesses are far smaller than the lunar ones” 103 and that the
the medieval tradition, it was not crucial for the issue o f celestial incorrup­
tibility. earth “ is movable and surpasses the M oon in brightness” and “ is not the
dump heap o f the filth and dregs o f the universe.” 104 In his Second Letter on
Sunspots, Galileo made the corruptibility o f the heavens explicit,105 and he
also argued for celestial corruptibility at great length in his Dialogue Con­
IV. Some concluding observations about celestial matter and cerning the Two C hief World Systems,'06 where, as evidence for corruptibility,
incorruptibility he cited comets, new stars, sunspots, and the M oon’s rough surface.107 A ll
the planets and stars were declared alterable by Galileo, even though the
From the various interpretations described earlier, it may be tempting to M oon and other planets might differ from the earth because their similar,
view Aegidius Romanus’s identification o f celestial and terrestrial matter as
103. Galileo, Sidereus nuncius [Van Helden], 1989, 51.
104. Ibid., 57-
100. Because the parallax o f the com ets placed them below the fixed stars, one could continue
105. Galileo, Letters on Sunspots (1613) in Drake, 1957, 118. The Second Letter on Sunspots is
to believe, as did Riccioli, that the fixed stars were embedded in a solid sphere. (Donahue,
dated A u gu st 14, 1612, and was printed in 1613.
1972, 117. holds that the sphere o f the fixed stars was the last element o f the old cosmos
to go.) 106. Galileo, Dialogue , First D a y [Drake], 1962, 4 1-10 0 .
101. Donahue, 1972, 105. 107. Ibid. 51, 72, 100. Galileo did not, however, believe that the M o o n ’s matter was like
102. O vied o, D e caelo, contro. i, punc. 2, 1640, 1:462, col. 1, par. 2. that o f our earth, and from this he inferred that i f plants and animals existed on the
M oon , they w ould be unlike those on earth.
270 THE CELESTIAL REGION

if not identical, matter was affected differently by the Sun and other en­
13
vironmental conditions.
Despite possible differences in lunar and earthly matter or even between
the earth and any other planet, Galileo w holly rejected the traditional con­
ception o f the earth's inferiority with respect to celestial bodies, an inferiority
The mobile celestial orbs:
that was based on the alleged immutability o f the heavens as contrasted to
the alterability o f terrestrial bodies. Through Sagredo, his spokesman in concentrics, eccentrics,
the Dialogue, Galileo posed a question, the answer to which would have
been assumed as self-evident in the Middle Ages. W hy should immutability
be more noble than mutability? “ For my part,” Sagredo replies,
and epicycles
I consider the earth very noble and adm irable precisely because o f the diverse al­
terations, changes, generations, etc. that o ccu r in it incessantly. If, not being subject
to any changes, it w ere a vast desert ot sand or a m ountain o f jasper, or if at the As we saw earlier (Ch. 1, Sec. II.2 and n. 12), the term caelum, which
time ot the flood the w aters w hich covered it had frozen, and it had rem ained an signifies heaven or heavens, was used to designate the entire celestial region
enorm ous globe ot ice w here nothing was ever born or ever altered or changed, I and occasionally even the spheres o f the elements below. Indeed, Thomas
should deem it a useless lum p in the universe, devoid o f activity and, in a w ord, Aquinas conceived all seven planetary spheres plus the sphere o f the fixed
superfluous and essentially nonexistent. T h is is exactly the difference betw een a stars as part o f a single “ sidereal heaven.” The customary usage o f the term
livin g animal and a dead one; and I say the sam e ot the m oon, o f Jupiter, and o f caelum was, however, more restricted and was intended to designate the
all other w orld globes. sphere or spheres that carried a single planet around, as when Galileo de­
clared; “ w e maintain that there are ten movable heavens [caelos mobiles], and
These words were written nearly one hundred years after the publication beyond these, that there is an eleventh, immovable heaven.” ' Although in
ot Copernicus s De revolutionibus. Despite the repudiation o f celestial im­ this chapter occasions will arise where the term “ heaven” (caelum) will be
mutability by Tycho in the late sixteenth century and by Kepler in the applied to a single orb or to the spheres o f a single planet, I shall more
second decade o f the seventeenth century. Galileo thought it necessary to regularly use the terms “ sphere(s)” or “ orb(s).” 2 The term “ heavens,” or
devote most o f the discussion o f the first day o f his Dialogue to that same “ heaven,” will continue to be used to designate the celestial region as a
theme. There his interpretations o f his ow n telescopic observations reduced whole.
the issue o f celestial incorruptibility to a nullity. After Galileo, scholastics,
as we have seen, were much less likely to assign incorruptibility as a property
o f celestial matter.10
8
I. O n e h eaven (or sphere) or m any?
108. Ibid., 58-59.
Despite the multiplicity o f planets and stars, it was not immediately obvious
to Aristotelian natural philosophers that the heavens were filled with in­
dependent orbs to which those celestial bodies were in some way attached
and which functioned to carry them around in their orbits. In his Metaphysics
(12.8.1074a.30-37 [Ross], 1984), Aristotle declares that “ there is but one
heaven.” For if more than one existed, matter would necessarily exist in
the heavens, because “ all things that are many in number have matter.”
But matter cannot exist in the heavens. Moreover, “ that which is moved
always and continuously is one alone; therefore there is one heaven alone.”
But in the same Metaphysics (12.8.1073b. 17-10743.16), immediately pre-

1. Galileo [De eaelo, qu. 1 (G)], 1977, 63. The Latin is from his Juvenilia, in Galileo. Opere
[Favaro], 1891-1909, 1:41.
2. On the largely ignored distinction between the terms “ orb” and “ sphere.” see Chapter 6.
note 37.

271
272 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 273
ceding his declaration that the heavens are one, Aristotle describes and tures.” 7 Indeed, we cannot even be certain that we know the number o f
expands upon the famous astronomical systems o f Eudoxus and Callippus. planets, since other planets might exist that are invisible to us but which
N ot only did he increase the 33 spheres o f Callippus to 55, but he also might play a role in the generation o f sublunar things.8 In arriving at a
conceived o f the spheres as physical bodies, rather than as convenient math­ judgm ent about the oneness or multiplicity o f the heavens, scholastic natural
ematical constructions in the manner o f Eudoxus and Callippus. In De caelo philosophers frequently had to consider whether the celestial orbs were
Aristotle declares emphatically that each planet is carried around in its own continuous or contiguous, and the latter question occasionally involved opin­
sphere.3 Was there a conflict here? W ould the existence o f spheres divide ions about whether the celestial region was composed o f a fluid substance
the celestial region into a multiplicity o f heavens? And would a series o f or a series o f hard celestial spheres. Indeed, in the seventeenth century,
distinct spheres imply divisible, rather than indivisible, heavens? Both pos­ when “ solid” sphere was synonymous with “ hard” sphere (see Ch. 14, Sec.
sibilities were contrary to basic Aristotelian principles. VII), Roderigo de Arriaga declared that for those who assumed a fluid
In the sixth century, John Philoponus, an important Greek commentator heaven, the problem o f the number o f spheres was easy to resolve. They
on the works o f Aristotle but also a Christian, wrote a significant com­ would “ assume only one heaven [conceived as a single sphere] through
mentary on the six days o f creation. In it, he assumed that in Genesis Moses which the planets and stars move as [do] fish in the sea, or birds in the air.
was describing a single heaven, or firmament, which included all the planets The difficulty lies in the case in which the heavens are solid.” 9
and stars. Although astronomers were free to save the appearances by imag­ A t the outset, we must draw attention to an apparent ambiguity in the
ining as many orbs and motions as they wished, they had never demon­ medieval interpretation o f “ one heaven(s),” which was understood as syn­
strated the existence o f such entities. Indeed they did not themselves agree onym ous with the whole celestial region. Some conceived o f such a single
on the number o f these extra orbs and m otions.4 In his commentary on De heaven, or heavens, as devoid o f orbs, while others thought o f it as sub­
caelo, Averroes conceived o f the totality o f celestial orbs as a single heaven. divided into orbs that were either continuous or contiguous. B y contrast,
Indeed, he thought o f it as a single animal, whose partial orbs were like its some, perhaps most, assumed a celestial region that embraced numerous
members: that is, the motions o f the partial orbs were like the motions o f separate heavens in the form o f independent orbs that were regarded as
the members o f an animal. It was because o f this oneness that the whole contiguous to, and therefore distinct from, one another.
heaven could be moved with a single daily m otion.5 Those w ho believed in a single, physical heaven without orbs‘° under­
During the Middle Ages, scholastics frequently inquired whether the stood by this the entire celestial region, which embraced all o f the planets
heaven was one, continuous, indivisible body or a divisible entity comprised and stars and for some even extended down to the region o f the air. In this
o f a series o f distinct spheres, including one sphere for all the fixed stars system, the planets, which are not attached to orbs, are moved either by
and at least one sphere for each planet. Robert Grosseteste considered the themselves or by an intelligence. Although John Damascene and John C hry­
question on the oneness or multiplicity o f the firmament, which for him sostom may have adopted such an interpretation, and Robert Grosseteste
embraced everything from the M oon to the fixed stars, difficult.6 He con­ at least entertained it,11 an orbless heaven found few supporters during the
fessed an inability to answer it, asserting that “ no one can declare anything
certain about the number o f heavens or their motions or movers or na­ 7. “ N ullus potest de numero celorum aut eorum motibus aut motoribus aut ipsorum naturis
aliquid certum profiteri.” Ibid., part. 3, ch. 8, 3, 109, lines 7-9. Confessions ofign oran ce
about the firmament were not unusual. Durandus de Sancto Porriano [Sentences, bk. 2,
3. “ B ut the upper bodies [i.e., the planets] are carried each one in its sphere.” Aristode, D e dist. 14], 1571, 155V, col. 2, reports that Bede identified the firmament w ith the sidereal
caelo 2.7.2893.30 [Guthrie], i960. In his thirteenth-century translation, M ichael Scot ren­ heaven (coelum sydereum) that divides the waters from the waters, w hile som e thought
dered this passage as “ stellae autem, quae sunt in orbe superiori, procedunt in suo orbe.’ the firm am ent was air, others that it was water and yet others that it was fire. “ What
For M ich ael’s transladon in the edition o f A verroes’ commentaries, see Averroes [D e caelo, these are and for w hat they were created,” asks Durandus, “ are k n ow n on ly to the one
bk. 2, text 42], 15 6 2 -1574 . 5:124V, col. 2. w h o created [them]” (Quales autem sunt, et ad quid conditae, ille solus no'vit qui condidit).
4. D uhem , L e Systeme, 19 13-19 59 , 2 :1 1 1 -1 1 2 , 498—499, describes Philoponus’s interpretations 8. “ Sed unde scietur quod non sint plures stelle erratice nobis invisibiles, generacioni tamen
as he found them in the latter’s Greek text o f D e opificio mundi libri V II edited in 1897 by in inferiori m undo necessarie et utiles?” Hexaemeron, part. 3, ch. 8, 3, 108, lines 24-25.
Walter Reichardt. A s his source, D uhem gives bo o k 3, chapter 3, pages 1 1 3 - 1 1 6 . Tow ard T h e existence o f such planets could on ly be k n ow n b y revelation (“ U n d e igitur sciri
the end o f the fifteenth century, in Italy, G iovanni G ioviano Pontano (1429-1503) rejected posset, nisi a divina revelacione, an non sint plurime huiusm odi stelle invisibiles nobis,
the existence o f physical orbs and assumed that the orbs o f the astronomers were simply quarum quelibet suum habeat celum movens ipsam ad profectum generacionis in mundo
convenient devices to aid the understanding. H e believed that the planets were self-m oving. inferiori?” ). Ibid., lines 27-30.
See Trinkaus, 1985, 455. Even before T y c h o Brahe’s discoveries, the Jesuit Robert Bel- 9. “ N o v a hie Celebris occurrit de caelorum numero difficultas. Q u i caelos fluidos dicunt
larmine rejected the existence o f orbs in favor o f a fluid celestial m edium (see C h . 14. Sec. facile se ab hac quaestione expediunt: ponunt enim unum tantum caelum per quod planetae
VIII). astraque discurrunt, sicut pisces in mari aut aves in aere. Difficultas est casu quo caeli sint
5. See Averroes, De caelo, bk. 2, com m ent. 42, 1562-1574, 5:125V, col. 1. solidi.” Arriaga [D e caelo, disp. 1, sec. 4], 1632, 504, col. 1.
6. Grosseteste asks: “ Q u e sit autem huius firmamenti natura, et quot sint celi contend in hoc 10. Because o f its special nature, the empyrean heaven was always treated as a separate entity.
uno celo quod dicitur firm am entum .” Hexaemeron, part. 3, ch. 6, 1, 1982, 106, lines 1-2- 11. A lth o u gh John Damascene assumed that the firmament embraced all seven planets (he
274 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 275
Middle Ages but came into vogue following upon Tycho Brahe’s famous they had to be carried around by gigantic orbs in which they were embed­
rejection o f hard, celestial orbs in favor o f a fluid, or soft, celestial region.12 ded.17 O n the further assumption that every motion attributed to a planet
The concept o f a single heaven divided into spheres was, however, not required its own unique orb, it followed that every orb moved with a single,
uncommon. Thus Thomas Aquinas assigned the seven planets and the fixed unique motion, in a single direction, but that different orbs could move in
stars to a single heaven, the “ sidereal heaven,” distinguishing eight spheres, diverse directions. The motion o f a single orb in a single direction could
one for each planet and the fixed stars.” Whether Thomas assumed a con­ not account for the astronomical phenomena.
tinuous heaven is uncertain, but Aegidius Romanus leaves no doubt that The need to account for the celestial phenomena was the reason why
he himself viewed the seven planets and the fixed stars as part o f one celestial orbs were deemed essential. They had been part o f the Greco-
continuous heaven that nevertheless contained deferents and eccentrics that Arabic legacy o f treatises that were translated into Latin in the twelfth and
were contiguous and therefore discontinuous. Aegidius thus insisted on a thirteenth centuries. More particularly, discussions about celestial orbs were
heaven that was continuous in one sense but discontinuous in another. (How embedded in the extensive Anstotelian-Ptolem aic body o f astronomical and
he presented this important and rather influential concept is described in cosmological literature. N o serious opposition to their acceptance appeared.
Section III.9.) More common, however, was Christopher Clavius’s inter­ Despite the assumption o f a multiplicity o f orbs, however, some scholastic
pretation o f a separate firmament o f fixed stars, under which there are seven authors conceived o f the celestial region as one continuous body, because
separate planetary spheres.14 thev assumed that the surfaces between successive spheres were continu-
Until the seventeenth century, when the effects o f T ych o ’s authoritative ous.,H Others denied such continuity and argued for the contiguity o f the
repudiation o f the existence o f solid celestial spheres began seriouslv to surfaces, and therefore for the distinctiveness o f each sphere. Still others
affect scholastic thought, almost all scholastic authors assumed the existence assumed a single, continuous heaven with diverse planetary channels or
o f real, physical spheres in the heavens.'5 The most fundamental reason for cavities that functioned as deferent or eccentric orbs. These interpretations
the postulation o f celestial orbs derived from the long-observed diversity depend on Aristotle’s definitions o f the continuity and contiguity o f surfaces.
o f planetary motions. Because planets were thought incapable o f self­ However, before defining these terms and examining the manner in which
movement and therefore unable to move through the celestial ether “ like thev were applied to the celestial orbs, we shall first describe the kinds ot
a bird through air or a fish through w ater,” as the popular phrase w ent,"’ spheres about which medieval cosmologists were concerned.
speaks ot “ the seven zones ot the firmament” [septem zonis tirmamenti], where each
zone contains a planet), he appears not to have assumed a division into orbs but rather II. C o n cen tric versus eccen tric orbs
into “ zones. He states, “ they say that there are seven zones ot the heavens, one better
than the other (Septem vero zonas aiunt esse caeli, aliam alia excelsiorem). See lohn
Damascene. De fide orthodoxa, 1955, 80, 82. Whether Damascene included the tixed stars 1. Aristotle's system o f concentric spheres
in the firmament is unclear, but Thomas Aquinas seems to have thought so (see Ch. 5,
Sec. VI.2). Between approximately 1160 and 1250, two rival cosmological systems
12. For example, Francisco de Oviedo ([De each, contro. 1, punc. 4], 1640. 471. col. 2), who entered western Europe and vied for acceptance. The first was derived from
rejected the existence o f hard orbs, held that a single, overall heaven could be conceived
as consisting ot several subheavens, “ because part ot a heaven through which the Moon the works o f Aristotle, where it was assumed that the stars and planets were
moves can be called the 'heaven ot the M oon,’ and another part through which the Sun carried around on, or in, concentric or homocentric spheres. As concentric
is moved can be called the ‘heaven ot the Sun,’ and the same for the other parts [of the spheres, they shared a common center, which was both the geometric center
heaven] through which the other planets are moved."
13. See Thomas Aquinas, Sinnma theohfiae. pt. 1, qu. 68, art. 4, 10:89. In the seventeenth o f the world and the center o f the earth. In this system, which he derived
century. Amicus included ail ot these in the tirmament. After arguing that “ the soliditv from his predecessors Eudoxus and Callippus, and which he describes all
that we proved applies to the tirmament. probably also applies to all the heavens o f the
planets, he declares that in Scripture "the term firmament not illy signifies the heaven orbs as fish are moved in water” (Aegidius Romanus, Opus Hexaemeroti. 1555, 49r, col.
o f the fixed stars but also [those] o f the wandering st.,rs.” Amicus [De eaelo, tract. 3, qu. 2). Duhem translates the section in Le Systeme, I9H-I959. 4014- One or the other of
5, art. 3], 1626, 279, col. 2. Amicus accepted the existence o f celestial orbs. the two descriptions appears in Conimbricenses [De eoelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 1, art. 1],
14. Clavius [Sphere, ch. 1], Opera. 1611, 3:23. M98, 246; Clavius [Sphere, ch. 4], 1593, 515; Aversa [De eaelo, qu. 32, sec. 6], 1627, 66,
15. As we saw in note 4. Pontano denied their existence. But Pontano does not qualify as a col. t; Amicus [De eaelo, tract. 5. qu. 4, dubit. 3, art. 1], 1626, 266, col. 1; Arriaga. De
scholastic author (see Trinkaus. 1985, 449). eaelo, disp. 1, sec. 3, subsec. 1. 1632, 499, col. 2; and Oviedo, De eaelo, contro. 1, punc.
16. Buridan declares that a planet can be imagined to be selt-moving “ bv dividing the orb 4. 164.0, 1:471. col. 2. For Robert Bellarmine’s use o f the metaphor, see Chapter 14,
itself just as a bird hies through air or a tish swims in water, or even as a man walks in Section VIII and note 76.
air.” See Buridan [De eaelo. bk. 2, qu. 18], 1942, 210-211. Many others used either the 17. Flow those orbs were thought to move is considered in Chapter 18.
bird or fish analogy. For example, see Aegidius Romanus’s discussion ot eccentrics and 18. For example, Saint Bonaventure [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, pt. 2, art. 1. qu. 1], Opera.
epicycles, where he declares that it is unreasonable to sav that “ the planets are moved in 2:332. col. 1.
276 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 277
too briefly in book 12, chapter 8, o f the Metaphysics,19 Aristotle assumes Aristotle fails to mention or further explicate the unrolling spheres anywhere
the existence o f 55 spheres. O n the basis o f his study o f Eudoxus and else in his w orks, a close examination o f what the real physical relations o f
Callippus, Aristotle assigned 33 concentric spheres to account for the mo­ these spheres might be yields little but frustration and confusion.22 It is with
tions o f the seven planets. O f these 33 spheres, 4 each were assigned to good reason that Dicks (1970, 203) has suggested that Aristotle may have
Saturn and Jupiter and 5 each to Mars, Venus, Mercury, the Sun, and the considered it only “ an interesting speculation, but one that would not stand
Moon. Then Aristotle declares (ibid., 1073^38-10743.5): up to close scrutiny.”
If Aristotle was spare in the description o f his system o f concentric
It is necessary, if all the spheres put together are going to account for the observed spheres, his Greek commentators - Sosigenes, Simplicius, and Philoponus,
phenomena, that for each of the planetary bodies there should be other counteracting for example - were more lavish and made some effort to explain Aristotle’s
[literally “ unrolling” ] spheres, one fewer in number [than those postulated by Cal­ meaning and intent. From the thirteenth to the seventeenth century, Ar­
lippus for each set] and restoring to the same function each time as regards position istotle’s system and number o f concentric orbs were rarely discussed in
the first sphere of the planetary body situated below; for only thus is it possible for questions on the Metaphysics, although they did receive consideration, if
the whole system to produce the revolution of the planets.20 only summarily, in section-by-section commentaries on the Metaphysics,2}
N ot only were commentaries on the Metaphysics rarer than questions on
Thus did Aristode assign 22 additional “ unrolling” spheres, for a total the Metaphysics, but the difficulty and obscurity o f Aristotle’s purely con­
o f 55. D. R. Dicks (1970, 200-201) has described the relationship between centric system tended to discourage full-blown discussions. Indeed, it was
the regular and unrolling spheres o f Saturn as follows: supplemented, if not largely supplanted, by a second system that also
reached the Latin West in the great wave o f Greco-Arabic translations o f
Thus for the four spheres of Saturn A, B, C, D, a counteracting sphere D' is
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
postulated, placed inside D (the sphere nearest the earth and carrying the planet on
its equator) and rotating round the same poles and with the same speed as D but
in the opposite direction; so that the motions of D and D' effectually cancel each 2. Ptolem y’s system o f eccentric spheres
other out, and any point on D will appear to move only according to the motion
of C. Inside D' a second counteracting sphere C ' is placed, which performs the In the second system derived ultimately from Claudius Ptolem y’s Hypotheses
same function for C as D' does for D; and inside C ' is a third counteracting sphere of the Planets, the planets were assumed to be carried around by a system
B' which similarly cancels out the motion of B. The net result is that the only o f material eccentric and epicyclic spheres, whose centers were geometric
motion left is that of the outermost sphere of the set, representing the diurnal points that did not coincide with the earth’s center.24 Despite its momentous
rotation, so that the spheres of Jupiter (the next planet down) can now carry out role in medieval cosmology, the Hypotheses o f the Planets was not translated
their own revolutions as if those of Saturn did not exist. In the same manner, Jupiter’s into Latin during the Middle Ages. In some as yet unknown manner, how ­
counteracting spheres clear the way for those of Mars, and so on (the number of ever, its fundamental ideas reached western Europe, probably in works
counteracting spheres in each case being one less than the original number of spheres translated from Arabic. The precise treatise, or treatises, in which these
in each set) down to the Moon which, being the last of the planetary bodies (i.e. ideas were embedded have yet to be identified. Although works attributed
nearest the earth), needs, according to Aristotle, no counteracting spheres. to Alhazen (ibn al-Haytham), Alfraganus (al-Fargani), and perhaps Thabit
ibn Qurra included descriptions o f material eccentric and epicyclic spheres,
This is indeed the extent o f Aristotle’s “ detailed” account o f the number
and interrelationships o f the concentric spheres that carry the planets around 22. D icks (1970, 203) declares that “ i f the heavens really operated in this, manner, w ith the
counteracting spheres effecting their respective cancellations o f planetary motions, how
the sky. N ot only is it exceedingly brief, to the point o f obscurity, but did astronomers ever m anage to m ake the obervations that lay behind the original Eudoxan
Aristotle even left scholars in confusion over the actual number o f spheres, schem e w ith its planetary loops and retrogradations?”
suggesting that if one subtracts certain motions from the Sun and Moon, 23. Jean Buridan’s Questions on the Metaphysics lacks such a discussion, while Thom as Aquinas’s
Commentary on the Metaphysics includes one (Thomas Aquinas [Metaphysics, bk. 12, lesson
the total number o f spheres would be 49 (10743.12-14). Some have argued 10], 1961, 2:904-907).
that 55 is required, while others reject 55 and argue for 49 or 61.21 Because 24. In this section, I rely on Grant, 1987b, 189 -19 5. D uhem , L e Systeme, 19 13 -19 5 9 , vols.
3 -4 , describes the controversy between the defenders o f concentric orbs and those w ho
19. Indeed, this is the on ly place am ong the currently extant w orks o f A ristotle in which he sided w ith Ptolem y and assumed eccentric and epicyclic orbs. D uhem chose to treat this
provides any details about his system o f concentric spheres. im portant topic b y taking up a series o f individual authors in chronological order. T h e
20. T h e translation is by D . R. Dicks, 1970, 200. concentric-eccentric controversy was but one o f a number o f themes discussed for each
21. Dicks accepts 55 (1970, 202-203), w hile Hanson (1973, 69) argues for 49 or 61, with the author. Sections o f varying lengths are thus isolated w ithin descriptions o f individual
latter preferable. authors and are nowhere adequately summarized or synthesized.
278 THE CELEST IAL REGION M O BIL E CELESTIAL ORBS 279

the basic scholastic version ot eccentrics and epicycles described in this the most important medieval description ot eccentrics and epicycles, as these
chapter finds no counterpart in the Latin translations o f these Arabic trea­ were understood by natural philosophers, forms the basis o f this discussion.
tises.2'' Because Bacon and subsequent authors regularly assumed at least three
References to epicycles and eccentrics appear in widely used thirteenth- eccentric orbs tor each planet,29 I shall frequently refer to the “ modern"
century works like Sacrobosco’s On the Sphere and in the anonymous Theo- theory as the "three-orb system ,” but I shall also refer to it as the "A ris-
rica planetarum, although neither author implies or suggests that they might totelian-Ptolemaic system,” since Aristotle’s concentric spheres were as­
be real, material, solid orbs.226 It Roger Bacon (ca. 1219—ca. 1292) was not
5 signed a significant role within the system o f eccentrics.
the first to mention material eccentrics and epicycles in the Latin West, he
may well have been the first scholastic natural philosopher to have presented
j. The system o f eccentrics: Roger Bacon
a serious evaluation o f their cosmological utility.27 After some hesitation
and ambivalence. Bacon rejected physical eccentrics and epicycles and opted After demonstrating the impossibility o f any system comprised o f eccentric
for Aristotle's system o f concentric spheres. Ironically, it was his description orbs in which the eccentricity is due to an eccentric convex surface, an
o f the system o f eccentrics and epicycles that was most widely adopted by eccentric concave surface, or the eccentricity ot both surfaces. Bacon intro­
medieval natural philosophers and whicn still found defenders well into the duces another interpretation - “ a certain conception of the moderns,” as he
seventeenth century. Although many scholastics ignored the topic o f ec­ put it3° - in which the external surfaces ot each planetary orb are concentric
centrics and epicycles, those who gave it more than a cursory glance in­ but which contain at least three eccentric orbs. To illustrate the system,
cluded, in the thirteenth century, Albertus Magnus and Duns Scotus; in the Bacon describes the motions o f the Sun and Moon. Because the Sun has
fourteenth century Aegidius Romanus, John o f Jandun, Jean Buridan, and only an eccentric orb, it will be useful to follow his account o f the Moon,
Albert o f Saxonv; in the fifteenth century Pierre d’A illy,28 Cecco d’Ascoli, which has both an eccentric and an epicyclic orb.
Johannes de Magistris, Johannes Versor, and Thomas Bricot; in the sixteenth In the diagram (Fig. 8),31 let T be the center o f the earth and world and
1. cntury John Major, the Coimbra Jesuits, and Christopher Clavius; and in also the center o f the lunar orb. The entire sphere o f the M oon lies between
the seventeenth century Bartholomew Amicus. Bacon’s account, perhaps the convex circumference A D B C and the concave circumference O Q K P,
which are both concentric to T. Between these two circumferences, three
25. Although it has been said (Pedersen [Lindberg], 1978, 321 and then 3 19) that the machinery orbs are distinguished (namely a', b', and c') by assigning another center,
o f the material spheres suggested by Ptolemy's Hypotheses of the Planets was presented to V, toward the M oon’s aux, or apogee. Around V as center are two cir­
Western astronomers in two brief cosmological treatises by Thabit ibn Qurra, namely
Thabit's De hiis quae indigent antequam legatur Almagesti and De quantitatihus stellarum et cumferences, A G F E and H N KM , which signify the surfaces that enclose
planetarum et proportio terrae, an examination o f these treatises reveals nothing relevant for the lunar deferent and form the eccentric orb b’ . Surrounding the eccentric
the problem ot material or physical eccentric and epicyclic spheres (for the texts, see orb or deferent is the outermost orb, a', lying between surfaces A D B C and
Thabit ibn Qurra jCarmodv], i960, 131-139, 145-148). What Thabit may have passed
on to the West on the subject o f material eccentric spheres will be seen later in this chapter. A G F E ; and surrounded by the eccentric orb is the innermost orb, c', lying
26. For Sacrobosco s discussion, see Sacrobosco, Sphere, 1949, 113-114 (Latin), 140-141 (En­ between the concave surface H N K M and the convex surface O Q K P . Be­
glish). For the Theorica, see Olat Pedersen’s translation in Grant, 1974, 452-465 (eccentrics tween the surfaces o f the middle, or eccentric, orb is a concavity that contains
are defined on page 452). In speaking ot “ real, material, solid orbs,” I deliberately refrain
from signifying whether those orbs were conceived as hard or soft, a problem that will a spherical epicycle. The latter may be conceived in two ways: either as a
be considered later. solid globe, which Bacon calls a "convex sphere” (spericum connexion), which
27. Sometime in the 1260s, Bacon presented almost identical accounts in his Opus tcrtlum and resembles a ball (pila) because it lacks a concave surface; or as a ring with
in the second book o f his Communia tiaturalium, or the De celestihus, as I shall refer to it.
In the latter. Bacon added a significant chapter on whether eccentrics and epicycles were two surfaces, one convex (K L F I), the other concave (R Y S ©), wrhere the
consistent with Aristotelian cosmology and followed this with a lengthy description o f
the Ptolemaic system. See Bacon, Opus tertium. 1909, where Bacon's discussion on ec­ 29. See Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913—1959, 4:112.
centrics and epicycles extends over pages 99—137. For the De celestihus, see Bacon, Opera, 30. “ De quadam ymaginatione modernorum." See Bacon. Opus tertium, 1909, 125 (and 125-
fasc. 4, 1913, 419-456. A. C. Crombie and J. D. North believe the Opus tertium was 134 tor the exposition and critique ot' the modern theory) and Bacon, De celestihus. fasc.
written sometime between 1266 and 1268 (see their article on Bacon in Dictionary of 4, 1913, 438 (and 437-443 tor the modern theory). Although the “ modern” theory seems
Scientific Biography, 1970-1980, 1:378) and suggest that Bacon may have written his Com­ ultimately derived from Ptolemy’s Hypotheses of the Planets, Bacon's immediately pre­
munia naturalium in this same period. By contrast, Lindberg [Bacon], 1983, xxxii, who ceding discussion (Opus tertium, 119—125; De celestihus, 433-437), concerning the impos­
accepts 1267 as the date o f composition for the Opus tertium, believes that no firm date sibility o f a total planetary orb being composed o f eccentric orbs where one or both of
can be attached to the Communia naturalium and concludes: “ all that can be said is that it the external surfaces is eccentric, may have derived from an earlier attempt to materialize
represents the early stages ot the broadening o f Bacon's outlook, the usual guess placing eccentrics on the basis o f Ptolemy’s description in the Almagest.
it in the earlv 1260s.” 31. The figure appears in Bacon, Opus tertium, 1909, 129; the relevant text is on pages 128-
28. If d'Ailly’s treatment was perhaps less extensive than Bacon's, it was nevertheless lengthier 13 1. The figure was used in Grant, 1987b, 191. To identity the three distinct orbs, ! have
than most others. added the letters a', h‘ , c'.
280 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 281

thirteenth, and even into the fourteenth, century, there were scholastic
natural philosophers w ho refused to embrace, without qualification, a world
constructed almost w holly o f eccentric orbs. In a number o f places in his
writings, Thomas Aquinas was either noncommittal (De trinitate) or rejected
eccentric orbs (Commentary on the Metaphysics). In his last treatise (De caelo),
he argued that the existence o f eccentrics and epicycles was undemonstrated,
because even though they are useful for saving the astronomical appearances,
they might not be physically real.3s Although John ofjandun was convinced
that the three-orb system could save the astronomical appearances - indeed,
he proclaimed that he knew o f no argument that could repudiate it - he
rested content in the end to proclaim it as merely “ possible.” 36
Such reservations and hesitations were, however, more and more the
exception by the end o f the thirteenth and the early fourteenth century.
Scholastics increasingly came to assume the existence o f real, material ec­
centric orbs, as did, for example, Albertus M agnus,37 Duns Scotus, Aegidius
Romanus (ca. 1245-1316), and Durandus de Sancto Porciano (d. 1334).

4. The system o f eccentrics: Pierre d ’Ailly

Figure 8. Representation of the Moon’s concentric, eccentric, and epi- By the end o f the fourteenth century, some 130 years after Bacon’s account,
cyclic orbs as described in Roger Bacon’s Opus tertium. (Diagram from the three-orb system had received its definitive scholastic form. N o one
Bacon, Opus tertium, 1909, 129.) expressed it better than Pierre d’A illy, who presented as detailed an account
as could be expected from a natural philosopher who was not a technical
central core belongs w holly to the eccentric orb and forms no part o f the astronomer. Keeping in mind Figure 8, it will be useful to sketch d’A illy’s
epicyclic sphere itself. The M oon (luna in Figure 8), or planet, is a solid description o f the three-orb system as he presented it in his 14 Questions on
spherical figure which has only a convex surface and is located within a the Sphere o f Sacrobosco,38 N ot only does he em ploy a technical terminology
concavity o f the epicyclic orb. The eccentric sphere is assumed to move that is largely absent in Bacon, but the objections he raises and the solutions
around its center, V, carrying the epicycle with it; the epicyclic sphere, in he proposes were representative o f the way material eccentrics and epicycles
turn, has its own simultaneous motion and carries the planet with it. I shall were interpreted by most natural philosophers from the late Middle Ages
first describe medieval concern for eccentrics and then consider epicycles. to the end o f the sixteenth century.
When extended to all the planets, it was this system that was widely According to d’Ailly, the heavens are made up o f a combination o f con­
adopted during the late Middle Ages. Even those w ho did not accept the centric and eccentric orbs. The totality o f every sphere or orb (orbis totalis)
three-orb system believed it saved the astronomical appearances better than is concentric and includes within it all other orbs necessary to produce the
did the systems o f concentric spheres proposed in Aristotle’s Metaphysics position o f the planet. Within the concentric surfaces o f each planetary orb
(I2.8.i0 73b.n-I074a. 14) and in al-Bitrujl’s more technical De modbus ce- are the eccentric orbs. Each eccentric orb or sphere, usually described as a
lorum.32 N ot even Averroes’ strong support for Aristotle’s concentric as­ “ partial orb” (orbis partialis),39 contains the center o f the world as well as
tronomy and cosm ology33 could entice medieval natural philosophers from
35. For these passages, see Litt, 1963, 348, 350-352. T h o m as’s position is akin to that o f
the conclusion that Ptolemaic eccentric orbs were superior for saving the
M oses M aim onides (see M aim onides, Guide [pt. 2, ch. 24], 1963, 2:322-327).
astronomical phenomena. Indeed, only a few unambiguous defenders of 36 . John o fja n d u n [Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 20: “ W hether a plurality o f eccentric orbs and
Aristotle’s purely concentric cosm ology can be identified.34 But during the epicycles is really in celestial bodies” ], 1553, I4 ir, col. i - i4 2 r , col. 1.
37. A lth o u gh Albertus M agn us accepted the existence o f eccentrics, his arrangement o f them
32. T h e Latin text appears in Bitrujl [Carm ody], 1952. differed from B acon ’s popularly accepted description.
33. Averroes’ defense o f Aristotle was made in his middle com m entaries on D e caelo and the 38. Pierre d’ A illy devoted the thirteenth o f his fourteen questions on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco
Metaphysics. T h e relevant passages have been collected and analyzed b y C arm o d y, I 95 2- to the question “ Whether it is necessary to assume eccentric and epicyclic circles to save the
556-586. appearances in planetary m otions.’’ See d’A illy, i4Q uestions, qu. 13, 1531, 163V-164V.
34. For exam ple, W illiam o f Auvergne, Alexander o f Hales, and Saint Bonaventure. See 39. A lth o u g h the expression orbis partialis was rather com m on, d ’A illy did not use it. Clavius,
Duhem , L e Systeme, 19 13 -19 5 9 , 3:404. Sphere, ch. 4, 1593, 502, how ever, did use and define it, saying that a w hole sphere was
282 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 283

its own proper center that is eccentric with respect to the center o f the With these definitions and concepts, d’Ailly describes next the three-orb
world. scheme in a manner that differed little from Bacon’s earlier description o f
Like Bacon, d’Ailly distinguished th,ree types o f eccentric orbs but divided the theory o f the “ moderns.” 44 According to d’A illy, astronomers imagine
them into two classes: one, called eccentricus simpliciter, has the same center three eccentric orbs as constituting the whole sphere o f a planet. T w o o f
for both its concave and convex surtaces; the other, designated eccentricus these orbs are eccentrics secundum quid, that is eccentric with respect to one
secundum quid, has the center o f the world as the center o f one surface and surface only. One o f them is the outermost orb and the other the innermost
a point outside the center ot the world as the center o f the other surface. orb. As eccentrics secundum quid, the outermost orb is eccentric only with
The former surface is concentric, the latter eccentric. Thus the eccentric respect to its concave surface, while the innermost orb is eccentric only
surface o f an eccentric orb secundum quid may be either convex or concave, with respect to its convex surface. Between these tw o orbs lies the third,
yielding two different types ot eccentric orbs for a total o f three.40 Because which is eccentricus simpliciter, because both o f its surfaces are eccentric.
it has two eccentric surtaces, an eccentricus simpliciter will always be o f uni­ Indeed, the middle eccentric is constituted ot the concave surface o f the
form thickness and is called the “ deferent” orb because it carries the planet. outermost eccentric sphere and the convex surface o f the innermost sphere.
The deferent orb is divided into four equidistant points: the aux, which is The middle orb is called the “ deferent orb” and carries the planet itself.
most distant trom the center o f the world; the opposite o f the aux, which With the exception o f the outermost and innermost orbs o f the world, each
is the point on the deferent nearest to the center o f the world; and the twro orb was conceived as a ring-like figure that contained other ring-like orbs
opposite points, located between the aux and opposite o f the aux, are called and was contained by other ring-like orbs.43 Raphael Aversa provides further
the mean distances (lonqitudities mediae).4' B y contrast, the eccentricus secundum details when he explains that
quid, with one surface concentric and the other eccentric, is thicker in one
part and thinner in another.4" When eccentric orbs are moved, the thin part the planet itself, w hich is carried in such an orb [i.e., in the eccentric deferent], n o w
o f one moves with the thick part o f another and conversely.43 arrives o ver the thicker part, n o w o ver the thinner part o f the extrem e lo w e r orb.
A n d so for h a lf o f its path it recedes a bit from the earth, and in the other h a lf it
composed ot partial orbs (orbes partiales). Philip Melanchthon (1550, 52V) also spoke of draw s nearer [to the earth]. A n d it also takes m ore tim e in the thicker h a lf than in
the geometers who fashion three partial orbs for the Sun (“ Solis tres partiales orbes” ). the thinner half, because that part o f its circuit is greater. T hus it seems to turn
40. Without employing the terms eccentricus simpliciter and eccentricus secundum quid. Albert of
Saxony ([De celo, bk. 2, qu. 7: “ Whether for saving the appearances of the planetary m ore slo w lv then. [Finally], w hen it is in the sum m it o f the thicker part, it is said
motions, it is necessary to assume eccentric orbs and epicycles” ], 1518, io6v, col. 1) to be in the aux: and w hen it is in the thinner part it is said to be in the opposite
divided eccentric orbs into the same three types as did Bacon and d’Aillv. Because d’Aiily's o f the aux. T h e aux is called apogee; [the] opposite [o f the aux is called] p erigee.40
arguments are similar to. and even follow the order of, Albert's, it is not unreasonable
to suppose that d’Ailly may have used Albert’s question as one o f his chief sources.
Among authors who wrote after d’A illy, Johannes de Magistris [De celo. bk. 2. qu. 3],
5. E p ic y c le s
1490, 21, col. 1. expressed the same threefold distinction when he said, "there is a certain
eccentric with respect to each surface [i.e., its convex and concave surtaces are eccentric];
another [kind] is eccentric with respect to only one surface [i.e., either to the convex or
Although the deferent orb carries the planet, it does so by means o f an
concave surface]” (Quidam est eccentricus secundum utramque superficiem. alius est epicycle, thought o f as either a solid globe or a ring (and depicted in the
eccentricus secundum unam tantum). Thomas Bricot repeats the same xiea (Bricot [De
celo. bk. 2], i486. 2iv, col. 2), as does John Major ([Sentences, bk. 2. dist. 14, qu. 4), 2, dist. 14, qu. 4, 1519b. 7sv, cols. 1-2, seems to say much the same thing, when he
1519. 75V. cols. 1—2). In the late sixteenth century. Clavius spoke o f the same two classes declares that '‘the differences o f thickness are so arranged that the thicker part of one
o f eccenuics and used the same terminology as d’Ailly, as did Aversa, Amicus. Mastrius ahvays corresponds to the thinner part o f another” (Sunt dittormes spissitudims sic ordmati
and Bellutus, and Cornaeus in the seventeenth century. See Clavius, Sphere, ch. 4, 1593, ut semper parti spissiori umus pars tenuior alterius respondeat). Aversa, De caelo. qu. 52.
499; Aversa, De caelo, qu. 32. sec. 5, 1627, 58, col. 2; Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 4, sec. 5, 1627, 58, col. 2. and Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2. qu. 1, art. 2, 1727,
dubit. 3, art. 3, 1026. 267, col. 1; Mastrius and Bellutus [De coelo. disp. 2, qu. 1, art. 2], 3:488, col. 2, par. 22, also held the same opinion.
1727, 3:488. col. 2, par. 22; and Cornaeus [De coelo, disp. 2. qu. 2. dub. 3], 1657, 494- 44. With this proviso: d’Ailly's range o f technical terminology was much greater.
495. As we shall see. ot chis group only Cornaeus rejected eccentrics and epicycles une­ 45. In the seventeenth century, Aversa gave a thorough summary o f the three-orb system
quivocally. along the same lines and with much the same terminology in De caelo, qu. 32, sec. 5,
41. The same four points are mentioned by Major [De celo. bk. 2, qu. 2], 1526, 15. 1627, 58, col. 2-60, col. 2. For d’A illv’s description o f an orb as a ring-like figure with
42. Although the diversity ot thickness in eccentrics secundum quid was obvious, it was ex­ a convex and concave surface, see my discussion in Chapter 6, note 37.
plicitly mentioned by some: for example. Clavius, Sphere, ch. 4, 1593. 499; Aversa. De 46. “ Unde sit ut ipsum astra, quod in tali orbe defertur, modo incedat super partem cras-
caelo, qu. 32, sec. 5. 162-. 58, col. 2-59, col. 1; Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 4, dubit. siorem, modo super tenuiorem orbis extremi inferioris. Et sic pro medietate sui circuitus
3, art. 2, [626. 266, col. 2: and Cornaeus, De caelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 3, 1657, 495. paulatim altius a terra recedat: pro altera medietate proprius accedat. Atque etiam plus
43. See d’Aillv, 14 Questions, qu. 13, 1531. 163V. Duns Scotus agreed when he declared that tempons connciat in medietate crassiori quam tenuiori quia inaior est ilia pars sui circuitus.
“ the thicker part o f one lies against the thinner part o f another, and conversely” (Semper Et ita pro tunc videatur tardius gyrare. Atque dum est in summo partis crassions dicitur
enim spissior pars umus est contra partem minus spissam alterius, et e converse). Duns esse in auge; dum est in imo partis subtilions dicitur esse in opposito augis. In auge dicitur
Scotus [Sememes, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 2], Opera, 1639, 6, pt. 2:732. Major, Sentences, bk. apogaeum; in opposito perigaeum." Aversa. ibid., 59, col. 1.
284 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 285

diagram as the circle KLFF). D ’A illy describes the epicycle as “ a small circle - namely the surface o f the outermost eccentric orb and the concave surface
on the surface o f the deferent orb that does not contain within itself the o f the innermost eccentric orb - had to be concentric. This was, o f course,
center o f the world; and the body o f the planet is imagined to be in it. And a primary feature o f the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic compromise that saved the
this epicycle is assumed to be contiguous, and not continuous, with the geocentric system. Because a concentric orb has the geometric center o f the
eccentric deferent because it is moved with a motion other than the motion world as its center, d’A illy explains that “ the first movable sphere [the
o f the eccentric deferent.” 47 Like the eccentric deferent, the epicycle has primum mobile, sometimes equated with the sphere o f the fixed stars] is a
four equidistant points: the aux o f the epicycle; the opposite o f the aux o f concentric orb, and generally every total orb is concentric, where ‘total orb’
the epicycle; and two points equidistant from the aux and the opposite of [orbis totalis] is taken as the aggregate o f all the orbs required to save the
the aux called “ stations” (stationes), one o f which marks the point at which total motion o f a planet.” 50 In this manner, Aristotle’s cosm ology o f con­
the planet begins its retrograde motion (point I o f the epicycle in Figure 8), centric spheres was saved, even though, in violation o f his physical prin­
the other o f which marks the point where it begins its direct motion (point ciples, eccentric orbs with centers other than the center o f the world formed
L in Figure 8).48 the basis o f the compromise system.
Like eccentric orbs, epicyclic orbs represent the various observed motions Here, then, was the compromise that produced the three-orb system in
and dispositions o f the planets, which, according to d’A illy, are o f three which three partial eccentric orbs are encompassed within tw o concentric
types: direct motioQ, retrogradation, and station. When a planet is in the surfaces that together form a single concentric orb (see Figure 8). The latter
aux o f its epicycle, its motion is said to be direct and quickest, because the was then perceived as representing the total motion o f the planet. The three-
direction o f its motion on the epicycle is the same as that o f the eccentric orb system was forced upon Aristotelian natural philosophers because A r­
deferent. But when the planet is in the opposite o f the aux o f the epicycle, istotle’s straightforward concentric system could not account for the astro­
its motion is retrograde and slower, because it now moves in a direction nomical phenomena. Thomas Bricot observed that there are numerous
opposite to that o f the eccentric deferent. Should the planet arrive at one irregularities in the celestial motions, but not all require the assumption o f
o f the points o f station, it would m ove neither with the deferent nor contrary eccentrics or epicycles.51 But one irregularity that definitely requires an
to it, so that its speed will seem neither to increase nor decrease and it will eccentric is the variation in a planet’s distance from the earth.52 It was the
appear stationary.49 most fundamental reason w hy almost all scholastic natural philosophers felt
compelled to accept the compromise and abandon Aristotle’s purely con­
centric system. They consoled themselves with the thought that the total
6. The great compromise: the three-orb system
orb (orbis totalis), which contained the three eccentrics, was concentric and
Although d’A illy’s three-orb system incorporates the three types o f eccentric that in some sense one could still speak o f a concentric world system. The
orbs that he, Bacon, and many others distinguished, the enclosing surfaces difficulty in all this was the fact that although the earth remained the center
o f the concentric orbs, it could not function as the center o f the eccentric
47. D ’A illy, 14 Questions, qu. 13, 1531, i6 3 v -i6 4 r . For the position o f the epicycle, see Figure
8. Sacrobosco defines an epicycle as “ a small circle on w hose circumference is carried the orbs. Because most scholastics could see no plausible alternative, it was an
bo dy o f the planets, and the center o f the epicycle is always carried along the circumference anomaly they had to accept. That is why, although d’A illy mentions rival
o f the deferent.” Sacrobosco, Sphere, ch. 4, 1949, 141 (Latin text, 114). M ajor, Sentences,
interpretations which rejected epicycles and eccentrics, he regards the Pto-
bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 4, 1519b, 75V, col. 2, also says that the epicyle is contiguous, rather
than continuous, w ith its deferent, “ because it is m oved w ith another m otion than the
m otion o f the deferent” (quia m ovetur alio m otu quam m otu deferentis).
48. D ’A illy, ibid., i64r. B rief definitions o f the points o f station appear in Sacrobosco’s Sphere 50. “ U n d e orbis concentricus diritur orbis sub utraque eius superficie continens centrum
(ch. 4, 1949, 141) and in the Theorica planetarum (for both, see Grant, 1974, 450 and 461, m undi et habens eius centrum cum centro mundi. Isto m odo prim um m obile est orbis
respectively). Major, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 4, 1519b, 75V, col. 2, identifies the
;i| concentricus et generaliter quilibet orbis totalis est concentricus et ibi capitur orbis totalis
same four points. H ow ever, the four points on the epicycle are in fact not equidistant, pro aggregato ex om nibus orbibus requisitis ad salvandum m otum totalem unius pla-
as d ’A illy and M ajor assert. A lth o u gh the first and second stations m ust alw ays be equi­ netae.” D ’A illy , 14 Questions, qu. 13, 1531, 163V.
distant from the true apogee (aux) o f the epicycle, the points o f station alw ays fall nearer 51. H e describes five such irregularities, or dififormities (difformitates planetarum), and declares
to the perigee o f the epicycle (opposite o f the aux) than to the apogee. It follow s therefore that “ such irregularities can be saved b y the assumption o f several m otions in the same
that the four points on the epicycle m entioned b y d’A illy cannot be equidistant. See celestial b o d y w ithout the assumption o f eccentrics and epicycles” (Et tales difformitates
Cam panus o f N ovara, Theorica planetarum, 19 71, 225-227, 231, 313. I am grateful to my possunt salvari per positionem plurium m otuum in eodem corpore celesti sine positione
late colleague, V ictor E. Thoren, for bringing this to m y attention, eccentricorum vel epiciclorum). Bricot, D e caelo, bk. 2, i486, 29r, col. 2. A m o n g the
49. In the thirteenth century, B artholom ew the Englishm an provided an earlier descriptive irregularities, Bricot includes a planet’s proper m otion, w hich is contrary to its daily
version o f eccentrics and epicycles (bk. 8; 1601, 398-399). A lth o u gh he speaks o f equant, m otion; m ovem ent along the zodiac from tropic to tropic; and variations in latitude with
deferent, and epicyclic circles and also o f direct and retrograde m otion, as w ell as or respect to the ecliptic.
station, B artholom ew ’s account lacks the more sophisticated term inological distinctions £ i 52. “ Sed est alia difformitas in approprinquatione planete ad nos et in elongatione eius a nobis.
found in d’ A illy ’s treatise. E t talis non potest salvari sine eccentricis, sed bene posset salvari sine epiciclis. ” Ibid.
286 THE CELESTIAL REGION M O BILE CELESTIAL ORBS 287

lemaic theory o f eccentrics and epicycles as “ more com m on” (est magis situations and to reconcile eccentrics and epicycles with Aristotelian cos­
communis) and unambiguously adopts it. m ology and physics.
Until the seventeenth century, most.scholastic authors assumed the truth In what follows, I shall describe the manner in which medieval natural
o f the three-orb compromise. In that century, however, Tycho Brahe’s philosophers coped with materia] eccentrics and epicycles within the frame­
analysis o f the comet o f 1577, which indicated the nonexistence o f solid, w ork o f Aristotelian cosmology and physics. An early account — probably
hard spheres o f any kind, began to make its influence felt. The gradual one o f the first - o f the problems inherent in a system o f eccentrics and
acceptance o f a fluid celestial region led even some scholastic authors to epicycles appears in Vincent o f Beauvais’ Speculum naturale, where, some­
abandon the idea o f eccentric and epicyclic spheres. But the traditional time around 1244,34 in a chapter titled “ Whether there is any space between
opinion continued to hold the allegiance o f some important scholastics in the spheres o f the planets,” ” Vincent asked whether there is any body or
the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century, including Clavius, Amicus, void space between spheres or whether the spheres mutually touch.5* Citing
Mastrius and Bellutus, and perhaps A versa.’3 O f this, however, more will an author whom he calls “ Avenalpetras,” who is probably the Arabian
be said when we consider scholastic opinions on the hardness or fluidity o f astronomer al—BitrujI, ” Vincent relates that Avenalpetras assumed that the
the celestial region. N ow , however, we must examine the physical and celestial orbs are in contact and, further, denied that there are planetarv
cosmological consequences that followed from the assumption that eccen­ eccentrics, epicycles, or elevations and depressions o f the planets. Should
trics and epicycles were real, material spheres. such things exist in the heavens, they would clearly imply that the fifth
body, or celestial ether, is divisible. For if a planet were elevated or depressed
— that is, varied its distance from the earth - it would follow that the
supposedly indivisible fifth element, or ether, would in fact be divided.
III. C o sm o lo g ic a l p ro b le m s w ith eccentrics and ep icycles
Under such circumstances, either the ether would fill the places left vacant
By enclosing each set o f eccentric planetary orbs within concave and convex by the planet as it moved higher or lower, or the places from whence the
surfaces that were themselves concentric with respect to the earth’s center, planet withdrew would remain void. Since neither o f these alternatives is
Ptolemy himself had seemingly made a strong gesture toward reconciling naturally possible, Avenalpetras rejected the existence o f eccentrics, epi­
his own cosmology with that o f Aristotle. In both systems, the earth’s cycles, and planetary variations in distance.5 *58
3
center was the center ot motion tor each total planetary orb. Natural phi­ Some fifteen or twenty years later, many o f the cosmological objections
losophers could thus continue to believe that the fundamental structure o f that were raised against the three-orb system o f material eccentrics and
Aristotle’s system was preserved: the external surfaces o f every planetary epicycles also appear, though not always clearly expressed, in Roger Bacon's
sphere were concentric with the earth. Ptolemy sharply diverged from treatises o f the 1260s. Perhaps the best statement o f them and their incom-
Aristotle, however, by his assumption that within the external concentric
54. For this approximate date, see William Wallace's article on Vincent in Dictionary of Scientific
surfaces that comprised each total planetary sphere or orb were three or
Biography. 1970-1980, 14:34-35.
more partial eccentric orbs with centers other than that o f the earth. In 55. “ Utrum aliquod spacium sit inter sphaeras planetarum.” Vincent o f Beauvais. Speculum
violation o f Aristotle’s dictum that all celestial spheres move with uniform naturale, bk. 3, ch. 104, 1624, ircols. 230-231.
56. “ Utrum inter sphaeras sit corpus aliquod vel spacium illud sit vacuum; an spnaerae
motion around the earth as center, Ptolemy assumed the motion o f all his
contingant se invicem." Ibid., col. 230.
eccentric spheres to be around points other than the earth's center. Although 57. For other instances o f Vincent’s mention o f “ Avenalpetras.” see ibid., cols. 226 (ch. 971
most scholastics recognized that eccentric orbs and epicvcles explained pla­ and 228 (ch. ioo). In a discussion o f Albertus Magnus’s Sumtna de creaturis, Gilson (1955.
281) identifies the name “ Anavelpetra” with the famous Arabian astronomer al-BitrujI
netary variations in distance and latitude that went unaccounted for in Ar­ (Gilson has “ al-Bitrogi” ). Is “ Anavelpetra" the same as “ Avenalpetras” ? But in his com­
istotle’s system ot concentric spheres, they were also aware o f a number ot mentary on De caelo, Albertus refers to al-Bitrujl as “ Alpetrauz” or “ Alpetragius.” but
significant problems in the received system o f eccentrics and epicycles that not Anavelpetra or Avenalpetras (see Albertus Magnus. De caelo, 1971, 276, under “ Al-
Bitrujl” ). Vincent, however, savs that Avenalpetras rejects eccentrics and epicycles, as
were potentially subversive of Aristotelian cosm ology and physics. As de­ indeed did al-Bitrujl (see BitrujI, 1952, 11). Thus the identification o f al-Bitrujl with
fenders o f the three-orb system, they sought to explain these anomalous Avenalpetras gains plausibility. In his Lucidator, differ. 6, 1988, 315, line 1, Peter o f Abano
refers to al-Bitrujl as “ Avempetras.”
53. Clavius. Sphere, ch. 4, 1593, 525; Amicus. De caelo, cract. 5. qu. 4, dubit. 3. art. 3, 1626, 58. “ Et dicit Avenalpetras quod ille sese contingunt. Sed ipse ponit quod non sunt eccentrici.
267, col. 1; Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 1. art. 2, 1727, 3:488. col. 2. nec epicycli, nec elevationes, nec depressiones planetarum, quod dicit ea ratione: quia
Aversa. De caelo, qu. 32. sec. 6—7. 1627, 66, col. 2—74. col. 1, seems to think o f his secundum naturam quintum corpus non est divisible. Si autem esset elevatio ac depressio
eccentrics and epicycles as cavities or channels in a firm, material celestial region. With planetarum tunc oporteret quod corpus illud divideretur ac succederent stellae elevatae
some reservation, we mav classify him as a qualified supporter o f eccentrics and epicycles. ac depressae in locum suum; aut quod locus unde recederet Stella vacuus remaneret.
Clavius’s lengthy discussion o f eccentrics and epicycles may be the most detailed and Quorum utrumque est impossibile secundum naturam. " Vincent o f Beauvais, Speculum
significant of all scholastic accounts (see Clavius. Sphere, ch. 4, 1593, 499—525). naturale, bk. 3, ch. 104, 1624, i:col. 230.
288 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 289

patability with Aristotelian cosm ology was presented by Cecco d’Ascoli sibilities were ruled out by Aristotle and most o f his followers. A t the other
(1269-1327), who, in his De eccentricis et epicyclis, where he upheld the side o f the eccentric orb, the thinnest part will be unable to fill the space
existence o f eccentrics and epicycles, summarized the major impossible formerly occupied by the thickest part. In these circumstances, either a
consequences that opponents o f eccentrics and epicycles believed would vacuum will form, or, in order to prevent a vacuum, matter adjacent to
result from their existence. Cecco explains that “ if there were eccentrics orb c' must instantaneously fill any empty spaces. Under these circumstan­
and epicycles, then rarefaction or condensation would occur, which is im­ ces, either void spaces exist in the heavens, or celestial matter is divisible
possible by the first [book] o f [Aristotle’s De] celo et mundo; or a vacuum and capable o f rarefaction to fill a potential vacuum. In the Aristotelian
would occur, which is impossible, as is said in the fourth [book] o f [Ar­ physical world, neither alternative was acceptable.
istotle’s] Physics-, or there would be a separation o f the spheres, which is
impossible, as is obvious in the second [book] o f De celo et mundo; or there
would be a penetration o f bodies, which is false, as is obvious in the fourth 2. Are the celestial spheres continuous or contiguous?
[book] o f the Physics.” 59
The problems for Aristotelian cosm ology that Cecco d’Ascoli raised about
eccentrics were primarily about the relationships between the external sur­
1. Vacua and condensation and rarefaction in the heavens
faces o f any tw o successive orbs - that is, between the convex surface o f a
In Pierre d’A illy ’s language, these possibilities apply only to eccentric orbs contained sphere and the concave surface o f its containing sphere. In A r­
that are secundum quid, that is, eccentric orbs that have one eccentric surface istotelian terms, there are three possibilities: (1) the surfaces are continuous,
and one concentric surface. Bacon, d’A illy, and many others well into the that is, they coincide; (2) the surfaces are contiguous, that is, they are distinct
seventeenth century considered such eccentric orbs to be o f unequal thick­ but in direct contact at every point; or (3) they are w holly or partially
ness because the points o f apogee and perigee were unequally distant from distinct and without contact. Aristotle distinguished tw o kinds o f contact.
the center o f the w orld.60 The absurdities described by Cecco d’Ascoli In one w ay, things that are in succession and touch are said to be “ contig­
derived from the rotations o f such orbs. For example, if w e assume that uous.” Thus each o f tw o distinct surfaces in contact at all points would be
eccentric orb c' (see Figure 8) has rotated 180 degrees, it follows that the successive and contiguous and have the same shape.61 But if those two
thickest and thinnest parts o f it w ill have exchanged places. Because the surfaces became one and the same, they would be considered “ continuous.”
thickest part o f c' will occupy more space than the thinnest part, it must Indeed, “ continuity would be impossible if these extremities are tw o .” T o
make a space for itself by pushing away some o f the surrounding matter emphasize his point, Aristotle further explained that “ i f there is continuity
that now occupies the place it must enter; or it must occupy the same place there is necessarily contact, but if there is contact, that alone does not imply
with that matter. If it displaces the matter presently in that place, the dis­ continuity; for the extremities o f things may be together without necessarily
placed matter, in turn, must find a place for itself and therefore must divide being one.” 62 Aristotle used the concept o f continuity in his definition o f
adjacent celestial matter. Within the set o f planetary orbs that contains orb the “ place” o f a thing, which he defined as “ the boundary [or inner surface]
c', matter must condense somewhere, so that the thicker part o f c' can o f the containing body at which it is in contact with the contained body.”
occupy a greater place. T o accommodate the rotations o f such orbs, celestial Instead o f tw o surfaces, however, the surface o f the container and the surface
matter must be conceived as divisible and condensible, both o f which pos­ o f the thing contained formed only one surface and were therefore contin­
uous. O r, as Aristotle expressed it: “ place is coincident with the thing, for
59. “ Si esset ponere excentricos et epiridos, tunc m odo esset rarefactio aut condensatio, quod
boundaries are coincident with the bounded.” 63
est impossibile, ut patet prim o C e li et mundi; aut vacuum , et hoc est impossibile, ut dicitur
4° Phisicorum ; aut scissio sperarum, quod est impossibile, ut patet 2° C e li et mundi; aut Perhaps the first one to apply the concept o f contiguity to celestial orbs
corporum penetratio, quod est falsum, ut patet 40 Phisicorum.” C ecco d’ A scoli, D e eccen­ was Ptolemy, who, after presenting the distances from the earth o f the
tricis [Boffito], 1906-1907, 161. In her edition o f Peter o f A b a n o ’s Lucidator dubitabilium
successive planetary spheres in his Hypotheses o f the Planets, declares that
astronomiae, Graziella Federid V escovin i has reedited this w o rk o f C e c c o ’s as Appendix
II (Peter o f Abano, Lucidator, 1988, 383-394). B oth editions were made from the same
manuscript and are virtually identical. C e c c o ’s Latin text, as d ted in this note, appears
on page 384, lines 19-24. R oger Bacon also insisted that “ it is impossible to assume an 61. In D e caelo 2-4 .287a.6-7, Aristotle [Guthrie], i960, declares that “ w hat is contiguous to
eccentric orb o f any planet, because then it w o u ld be necessary that the celestial bo dy be the spherical is spherical.”
divisible; or that tw o bodies be in the same place; or that a vacuum exist.” Bacon, Opus 62. Aristotle, Physics 5 .3 .2272 .9 -12, 2 1 -2 3 [Hardie and Gaye], 1984.
tertium, 1909, 119; Bacon, D e celestihus, pt. 5, ch. 13, Opera, fasc. 4, 1913, 433-434. 63. Ibid., 4 .4 .2 12a. 5 -6 and 212a. 30. A ristotle’s doctrine o f place was as applicable to nested
60. For exam ple, in Figure 8, a' is thickest between points F B , where F is the point o f perigee, celestial spheres as it was to terrestrial objects, as is evident from his denial o f the existence
and thinnest at point A , the point o f apogee; whereas eccentric sphere c' is thickest at o f places beyond the w orld (D e caelo 1.9.2792.8-15), thereby im p lyin g the existence o f
OH, w here H is the point o f apogee, and thinnest at point K, the point o f perigee. places everyw here w ithin the world.
290 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 291

If (the universe is constructed) according to our description o f it, there is no space convex surface o f one planetary sphere was exactly equal to the distance o f
between the greatest and least distances (of adjacent spheres), anci the sizes o f the the concave surface o f the next-highest celestial sphere. As Campanus ex­
surfaces that separate one sphere from another do not differ from the amounts we pressed it, “ the highest point o f the lower [sphere] coincides with the lowest
mentioned. This arrangement is most plausible, for it is not conceivable that there point o f the higher.’’6' In this brief passage, did Campanus consider the
be in Nature a vacuum, or any meaningless and useless thing. The distances o f the relevant surfaces continuous or contiguous? We cannot say with any cer­
spheres that we have mentioned are in agreement with our hypotheses. But if there tainty, since either alternative is compatible with the equality o f the distances
is space or emptiness between the (spheres), then it is clear that the distances cannot o f those surfaces. Also compatible with continuity or contiguity is Cam -
be smaller, at any rate, than those mentioned /'4 panus’s conviction that only by a fusion o f these two celestial surfaces could
waste space be avoided, either in the form o f a vacuum or as some kind o f
Campanus o f Novara repeated the substance o f Ptolem y’s position, as separate matter distinct from the orbs themselves. The Aristotelian defi­
we shall sec in the next paragraph. But when justification o f contiguity or nitions o f contiguity and continuity are compatible with the virtual or actual
continuity was required, scholastics turned to Aristotle. Christopher Clavius fusion, respectively, o f two successive surfaces, so that not only are their
reveals how Aristotle’s definitions o f contiguity and continuity were applied distances equal but nothing can lie between them. Without discussion o f
to celestial orbs. If a line were drawn from the center o f the world and the alternatives, or even any realization o f the issues involved or any aware­
intersected with the ninth and tenth heavens or spheres, Clavius argues that ness o f the choice they had made, most scholastic authors unknowingly
the point on the ninth sphere and its immediate neighbor on the tenth sphere opted for one or the other alternative, confident that they had neither fallen
would be two distinct points in the mind but one and the same point in into difficulty about planetary distances nor allowed matter or void to
actuality. Despite the oneness, and therefore the continuity, o f the successive intervene between successive spherical surfaces. O nly a few, including C lav­
points on the surfaces o f the tw o successive orbs, Clavius was aware that ius, were sufficiently knowledgeable to articulate the issues.
the ninth and tenth spheres had different motions and therefore insists that Even if the distinction between continuity and contiguity o f successive
the convex surface o f the ninth orb and the concave surface o f the tenth celestial surfaces could be ignored with respect to planetary distances and
orb were contiguous rather than continuous. Indeed, Clavius insists not intervening matter, it was o f crucial importance with regard to the diversity
only that the successive and immediate surfaces are contiguous but that o f celestial motions, as Roger Bacon recognized when he declared that
nothing can lie between them, tor otherwise an infinite process would result. continuous surfaces would cause those orbs to “ be moved with equal ve­
For example, if a globe were assumed in air, nothing could lie between the locity, even with the same motions, which is contrary to experience.’’66
convex surface o f the globe and the concave surface o f the air surrounding Although Bacon’s contemporary, Robertus Anglicus. thought he could
the globe. For if something, say body a, could intervene between the two reconcile continuity o f celestial surfaces with diversity of celestial m otions,67
surfaces, then something else would have to intervene between the convex Bacon, and probably most other natural philosophers and astronomers,
surface o f the air and the concave surface o f body a, as well as between the including Richard o f Middleton, Nicole Oresme, Albert o f Saxony, John
convex surface o f body a and the concave surface o f the air; and so on ad xMajor, and Christopher Clavius, believed that the obvious facts o f astron­
infinitum. In order to allow for distinct and even contrary motions and for om y required a denial o f continuity and the assumption o f contiguity.6S The
the motion o f a superior orb to be communicated to an inferior orb, Clavius
settled for successive celestial surfaces that were one and the same in reality 65. “ Per hoc enim sequitur quod supremum interioris sic intimum superions sue." Campanus
but conceptually distinct. Moreover, he chose to characterize them as con­ o f Novara, Theorica planetarum, 1971. 331; see also 331-337 and 53-55. From the Latin
text, we observe that Campanus uses no term for “ coincides." It was usually assumed
tiguous without the possibility o f intervening matter (Clavius [Sphere, ch.
in medieval Islamic and Latin astronomy that the distance from the earth o f the convex
i], Opera, 1611, 42). surface o f one planetary sphere was equal to the distance from the earth o f the concave
Clavius has made an important point, one that was probably implied in surface o f the next sphere (see the tables of distances and dimensions in ibid., 356—363).
In effect, since the two distances were identical, so were the surfaces. xMthough the
medieval discussions: if the convex surface o f an orb is continuous with or
distances o f the innermost and outermost circular surfaces were fixed, the distances of
contiguous to the concave surface o f the next successive superior orb, those the planets varied within their respective epicycles.
two surfaces will be equidistant from the center o f the earth. Whether 66. Bacon. Opus tertium, 1909, 123; Bacon, De eelestihus, pt. 5, ch. 13, Opera, fasc. 4, 1913,
successive spherical surfaces were continuous or contiguous was thus o f no 436 .
67 In his commentary on the Sphere of Sacrobosco, written around 1271. Robertus avoided
consequence with regard to the measurement o f planetary distances. In his the major problem with continuous orbs by assuming that the outer surfaces o f celestial
widely used Theorica planetarum, Campanus o f Novara declared that the6 4 orbs were immobile, with only their middle parts, which he likened to a fluid, being
capable o f motion. Under these conditions, each orb could move independently o f the
others. See Sacrobosco, Sphere, 1949. [4“ (Latin) and 202-203 (English).
64. From Ptolemy [Goldstein;. 1967. 8, col. 1. See also Ptolemy [Toomer], 1984, 4.40, n. 4- 68. Richard o f Middleton [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. ), qu. 1], 1591, 2:184, col. 1; Oresme.
292 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 293

different directions in which planets were carried by their orbs or the diverse impossibilities were it not for an otherwise unexplained synchronization o f
speeds at which they rotated made it obvious that successive celestial surfaces motions. O n the assumption that eccentric orbs move uniformly, d’Ailly,
could not form a single unified, continuous surface but had to be distinct for example, held that when the thickest part o f one eccentric is moved
entities, in contact at every point: that is, contiguous. Although Campanus toward its opposite side, another eccentric orb moves uniformly in the
o f Novara failed to express the distinction between continuity and conti­ opposite direction. When the tw o eccentric orbs, say a and b, have simul­
guity, the diversely directed motions o f the spheres makes it almost man­ taneously moved 180 degrees, the thickest part o f orb a will have come to
datory to attribute to him an assumption o f contiguity.69 For around five occupy the place formerly occupied by the thickest part o f orb b\ and
centuries, scholastics who assumed the existence o f celestial orbs probably similarly, the thinnest part o f orb a will also have come to occupy the place
assumed that the surfaces o f successive orbs were contiguous rather than formerly occupied by the thinnest part o f orb b . 70 In this manner a balance
continuous. is always maintained, and the dreaded impossibilities are perpetually
There was thus little reason to believe that extraneous matter or the avoided. H ow and w hy such synchronization o f orbs should occur is no­
dreaded void could intervene between successive surfaces o f celestial orbs where explained, but the idea was already presented early in the fourteenth
solely because they were contiguous or continuous. A more serious source century by Cecco d’Ascoli and repeated long after d’A illy by Georg Peur-
o f fear that intervening matter or void might intrude between surfaces arose bach in the fifteenth century and Christopher Clavius in the sixteenth and
for a quite different reason, namely from the idea that an eccentric material seventeenth centuries.71
orb that possessed Tane concentric surface and one eccentric surface was not
only o f unequal thickness but was ovoid in shape. If so, then Aristotle may 3. The rejection o f continuity and contiguity: the assumption o f
have furnished the basis for this mistaken notion when, in demonstrating matter between two orbs
the sphericity o f the heavens, he declared that if the w orld were not spherical
but “ lentiform, or oviform, in every case we should have to admit space The existence o f material eccentrics was made to seem viable in yet another
and void outside the m oving body, because the whole body would not way: b y the assumption o f intervening matter between the orbs, which
always occupy the same room ” (Aristotle, Decaelo 2.4.287a. 12-24 [Stocks], implied the rejection o f spheres that were either continuous or contiguous.
1984). In a brief though important passage, Vincent o f Beauvais describes such an
In commenting on this passage, N icole Oresme distinguished different opinion when he reports:
circumstances under which oval-shaped planetary orbs would or would not
produce the impossible consequences described earlier. He argues ([Le Livre Some say that the spheres do not mutually touch and that a body of the same nature
du del, bk. 2, ch. 10], 1968, 391) that “ if the planetary spheres were oval lies between them. Indeed [that body] is divisible by the spheres but is not trans-
in shape, being moved in a manner different from the sovereign [or last] mutable into another species, and in it eccentrics and planets are elevated and de­
heaven and on different axes. . . , either there w ould have to be an empty pressed [i.e., vary their distances from us]. Nevertheless, some ancients say that
place or penetration in the heavens — that is, one heaven w ould pierce
70. See d ’A illy, 14 Questions, qu. 13, 1531, 163V, for the argument and 164V for d ’A illy ’s
through the other —or there would have to be condensation or compression, brief response.
all o f which are impossible in nature.” 71. B etw een 1322 and 1327, C e c c o d ’Ascoli, D e eccentricis [Boffito], 1906, 166, described the
same mechanism for synchronizing the motions o f eccentric orbs b y what he called
Judging from certain responses, some scholastics seem to have believed
“ proportional m otions” (proportionates motus). A lth o u gh C ecco, w h o defended the exis­
that eccentric orbs o f uneven thickness would indeed produce the alleged tence o f eccentrics and epicycles, thought the idea o f “ proportional m otions” was a good
idea, he denied that P tolem y had it in mind. Peurbach, Theoricae, 1987, 10, used the same
expression, “ proportional m otions,” when he declared that “ the deferent orbs o f the
Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 9, 1968, 385; A lbert o f Saxony, D e celo, bk. 1, qu. 4, 1518,
apogee o f the Sun m ove b y their ow n proportional m otions, so that the narrower part
89V, col. 1; and Major, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 4], 1519b, 75V, col. 1. In his D e
o f the superior is always above the wider part o f the inferior, and go around equally
multiplicationes specierum. Bacon declares unequivocally that “ the spheres are contiguous
fast.” Som e tw o hundred years after d ’A illy, C lavius approvingly presented the same
and possess distinct surfaces” (Bacon [Lindberg], 1983, 119). In the late sixteenth century,
explanation. See C lavius, Sphere, ch. 4, 1593, 521 (for a description o f the impossibilities)
Clavius insisted that the celestial orbs are contiguous, w ith each superior orb including
and 523 (for the response). T h e idea m ay be traceable to Bernard o f Verdun, at the end
its imm ediately inferior orb “ and there is no m edium between one and the other, as in
o f the thirteenth century. A fter m entioning the usual charge that eccentrics w ould produce
the peels o f an onion, where everyw here w e see the upper [peel] surround a low er [peel]”
the dreaded impossibilities, Bernard explains that the “ different parts” o f eccentric orbs
(Sunt autem omnes orbes coelestes contigui prorsus et im m ediati inter se, ita ut semper
“ succeed themselves continually in the points or places o f the farther and nearer distance”
superior inferiorem indudat. nihilque inter unum atque alterum sit m edium non secus ac
- that is, in the points o f apogee and perigee - “ that are im agined in the con vexity o f the
in tunicis caeparum videm us superiorem undique circundare inferiorem). Clavius, Sphere,
surrounding orb.” T h e translation is mine from Grant, 1974. 523 (I have here replaced
ch. 1, Opera, 1611, 3:10.
“ longitude” w ith “ distance” ). Bernard did not use an expression comparable to “ pro­
69. As do Benjamin and T oo m er (see Cam panus o f N ovara, Theorica planetarum, 1971, 412,
portional m otion(s).”
n. 47), and Aiton, 1981, 90.
294 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 295
eccentrics and planets traverse the b o d y that lies betw een the spheres but yet do not “ Because o f this,” Albertus concludes, “ I say that they [the successive
divide it. T his occurs because ot the form ality o f these bodies, ju s t as light [lumen] spheres] never touch but that intervals [or gaps between the spheres] in
traverses through the air [and does not divide it].7' some particular place are sometimes greater and sometimes smaller, and
that a rare or dense body existing between the circles [or spheres] fills them .”
Whereas Vincent o f Beauvais was content to report the opinions o f others Albertus adopts this interpretation and identifies it with “ the opinion o f
using the anonymous phrase “ some say,’’ Albertus Magnus not only pro­ Thebit, a wise philosopher, in a book which he composed on the motion
vided a much clearer and more complete account in his commentary on De o f the spheres.” 77 Thus every sphere is separated from its immediate neigh­
caelo,7
273 but he unhesitatingly adopted the concept o f a divisible matter in­ bors by a certain kind o f celestial matter that is capable o f rarefaction and
tervening between the planetary orbs. Like Bacon, Albertus seems to have condensation.
considered eccentrics as ovoid in shape and was therefore convinced that if That Albertus adopted such an opinion - and it seems that he did - is
eccentrics are nested one within the other their motions would cause gaps quite astonishing. It marked a radical departure from Aristotle’s cosmology.
between their surfaces.74 Because Albertus believed that these gaps or spaces Indeed, Albertus distinguished the matter that lies between orbs from the
could not be void, one ot two alternatives must occur: either the various ether, or fifth element, that composes the rest o f the celestial region. Unlike
eccentric spheres would rarely and condense, to prevent formation o f a ether, which is incorruptible, indivisible, and therefore suffers no rarefaction
vacuum; or another body must intervene between any two successive ec­ or condensation, the intervening matter can rarefy and condense and must
centric spheres. therefore be divisible. Although the creator o f the celestial orbs made some
To refute the first alternative, Albertus argues that if the circles or spheres parts permanently rarer and some parts permanently denser than other
rarefied and condensed, their shapes would vary. Hence their motions parts,78 he made “ the intervening body contractable and extendable so that
would be essentially unknowable, and the data derived from those motions 77. "Et haec est sententia Thebit philosophi sapientis in libro, quern composuit de motu
would be false.75 If, however, we say that the circles, that is, spheres, sphaerarum.” Ibid. Hossfeld, the editor o f Albertus’s De caelo, identifies his source as
themselves are sometimes in direct contact because no medium intervenes Thabit’s (or Thebit’s) De motu octavae sphaerae (see Hossfeid’s note to line 29 on page 30).
In Carmody’s edition o f this treatise (see Thabit ibn Qurra [Carmody], i960, 102-107),
between their surfaces, then, when the surfaces o f these eccentric orbs do there is no such passage. Hossfeid’s claim, however, is based on a single manuscript,
separate because o f their shapes, a new body that did not exist there before Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, t'onds latin, MS. 7195, I40vb-i43va, which is but one o f
cannot be generated to fill the void which must inevitably occur. That no a number o f manuscripts that Carmody used for his edition. If such a passage existed in
Thabit’s De motu octavae spherae, it is unlikely that all traces o f it would have disappeared
other body could have existed there before the separation o f the surfaces is from Carm ody’s edition. Indeed, the theory o f intervening matter between the celestial
obvious, because if such a body did exist there before separation, then two orbs does not appear in any other o f Thabit’s works that were translated into Latin and
bodies would have occupied the same place, which is impossible."6 which have been edited by Carmody.
However, according to Bernard Goldstein (1986, 277-278), Albertus, in an unpublished
part o f the fourth book o f his Sentences, cited "a passage from Thabit’s lost treatise. Libro
72. “ Quidam etiam dicunt quod sphaerae non contingunt se et corpus eiusdem naturae est de exccntricitate orbium," in which "w e are told that there is a subtle matter that fills the
inter eas. Divisible quidem a sphaeris sed non transmutabile in speciem aliam et in illo space between the spheres. This matter is uniform, transparent, and subject to division
elevantur et deprimuntur eccentrici et planetae. Quidam tamen antiqui dixerunt quod [i.e., fluid], but not to alteration.” Moses Maimonides also describes a similar interpre­
eccentrici et stellae transeunt per corpus quod est inter sphaeras et tamen ipsum non tation and attributes it to Thabit (Guide, pt. 2, ch. 24, 1963, 2:325). But it is probably
dividunt. Et hoc contingit propter formalitatem ipsorum corporum. sicut et lumen transit from Maimonides, rather than Thabit (B. Goldstein, ibid., 278), that Levi ben Gerson
per aerem.” Vincent ot' Beauvais, Speculum naturaie, bk. 3, ch. 104, 1624, i:col. 231. derived the idea that the celestial region "consists o f planetary shells separated by fluid
73. Albertus Magnus. De caelo, bk. t, tract. 1. ch. 11. Opera. 1971. vol. 5, pt. 1:29-30. lavers with certain properties that allow us to compute their thicknesses” (ibid., 273). In
Weisheipl (19K0. 27) believes that Albertus wrote all ot' his Aristotelian paraphrases, the Hebrew text o f his Astronomy, Levi sought to compute these thicknesses, but the
including that on De caeio, between 1250 and 1270. Thus his account may have been calculations were apparently not incorporated into the Latin translations o f his treatise
written after Vincent’s report. (ibid., 285). Precisely what Thabit may have had in mind is thus lelt vague. On Mai­
74. Because Albertus assigned only one eccentric to each pianet, we may infer that he was monides and Thabit, see also Duhem’s brief discussion, Le Systeme, 1913—1959, 2:118—
not reporting Bacon’s "modern” three-orb system. U 9-
75. “ Si enim nos diceremus, quod ;psi circuli ranficantur et inspissantur. tunc non semper The ultimate source ot the theory o f separate matter lying between successive orbs
tenerent figuram eandem, et sic non posset sciri motus eorum, quod constat omnibus may have been Ptolemy himself, when, after describing the contiguity and contact o f
illis esse falsum. qui sciunt canones motus excentricorum. ” Albertus Magnus, De caelo, successive surfaces o f orbs in his Hypotheses of the Planets, he allows that " if there is space
bk. 1, tract. 1, ch. 2, Opera, 1971, 5, pt. 1:30, col. 1. or emptiness between the (spheres), then it is clear that the distances [between successive
76. "Et si nos diceremus. quod aliquando ;ta se tangunt circuli, quod nihil est medium surfaces o f successive planetary orbs] cannot be smaller, at any rate, than those men­
ipsorum, tunc oporteret nos concedere, quod tunc intercideret vacuum inter cos. quando tioned.” See Ptolemy [Goldstein], 1967, 8, col. 1 (for the full passage, see Sec. III.2 o f
per motum distant a tali situ coniunctionis. quia quando seiunguntur, non generatur ibi this chapter).
novum corpus, quod prius non tuit. Prius autem nullum potuit esse medium, si omnino 78. See the distinction between static and dynamic rarity and density, in Chapter 10, Section
et in omni parte se tangendo impleverunt, quia si fuisset ibi tunc aliud corpus, fuissent II. 1. c. Albertus Magnus denies dynamic rarity in the regular celestial ether from which
duo corpora in eodem ioco, et hoc est impossibile.” Ibid. thbqarbs are composed but allows it for the special matter that lies between orbal surfaces.
296 THE CELESTIAL REGION
MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 297
it should fill what lies between the spheres.” 79 Thus did Albertus abandon
orbs, the external surfaces o f which are concentric.83 Here, o f course, was
the important Aristotelian concept o f celestial homogeneity and assume
the fundamental feature o f the compromise between Ptolemaic astronomy
instead the existence o f tw o different kinds o f eternal celestial substances:
and Aristotelian cosmology. With the extreme surfaces o f every planetary
one divisible, and therefore changeable; the other indivisible and unchange­
sphere assumed concentric with respect to the earth, the eccentric orbs
able. Moreover, in his interpretation, the celestial orbs were no longer in
contained within those concentric surfaces could possess their ow n centers
direct contact.
without any adverse effect on Aristotelian cosmology.
Few chose to follow Albertus’s radical theory.80Convinced that eccentrics
were essential to account for the astronomical phenomena, Albertus was
obviously prepared to abandon certain important Aristotelian concepts in 5. Eccentrics and the problem o f a plurality o f centers
favor o f a system that would save the phenomena and also preserve a viable
But even i f the earth could serve as a center o f the universe, the existence
cosm ology. As we shall see, others proceeded in a similar fashion.
o f at least one other center for the eccentric orbs would involve at least tw o
different centers for celestial bodies. If tw o such centers existed, could a
4. I f eccentrics exist, can the earth lie at the center o f the world? heavy body m ove naturally downward to its natural place, when the latter
is defined as a unique center, coincident with the earth’s center, that func­
Although the potential impossibilities just described were probably consid­
tions as a terminus ad quern? According to d’Ailly, some denied that a heavy
ered the most serious cosmological difficulties for scholastic authors, a num­
body could reach its natural place at the center o f the world, arguing that
ber o f other objections appeared rather regularly. D ’A illy reports that some
a heavy falling body would either have to m ove to both centers simulta­
questioned whether, if eccentrics existed, the earth could lie at the center
neously or, because it could not choose between them, would not move at
o f the universe.8' This objection was apparently based on the assumption
all.84 D ’A illy responded that despite the different centers, every heavy body
that all celestial orbs are eccentric. If so, the earth could not be their center,
w ould nonetheless move toward the center o f the world, because the latter
by definition. But d’A illy and others replied that the earth lies at the center
is the center o f the “ total orb,” that is, the center o f all the concentric
o f the “ total orb,” that is, it lies at the center o f all the concentric surfaces
surfaces which enclose all the eccentric orbs.85 In a similar vein, Johannes
that serve as boundaries for each set o f planetary orbs.82 As Albert o f Saxony
Versor argued that a plurality o f eccentric and concentric centers would not
explained, the absence o f the earth from the center o f eccentric orbs posed
render meaningless the idea o f a unique, absolute “ dow n” location. “ D o w n ”
no problem, because eccentrics are included within the totality o f planetary
in the universe, Versor explains, was usually taken “ in relation to the whole
heaven, or in relation to a w hole orb, but not with respect to partial circles
79. Albertus M agnus, D e caelo, bk. 1, tract. 1, ch. 2, 1971, 5, pt. 1:30. Albertus adds that
this is also the opinion o f Avicenna (in the D e caelo et mundo o f the latter’s S u fficie n t)
[or orbs].” 86 But the heaven, “ is concentric with respect to each o f its
and Averroes (in the D e substantia orbis, w hich Albertus cites as Liber de essentia orbis). extremal surfaces; and the same holds for any orb, even though a partial
80. O n e w h o did was C ecco d’Ascoli, w h o declared that “ orbs are neither continuous nor
contiguous, but there is an intervening b o d y between them, w hich, according to Thebit
83. A lbert o f Saxony, D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 7, 1518, io6r (mistakenly foliated 107), col. 2, for
and Albertus, is capable o f being com pressed.” For the Latin text, see C e c c o d ’Ascoli,
the objection; io 6v, col. 2, for the reply.
Sphere, 1949, 353. In the seventeenth century, G iovanni Baptista Riccioli cited this very
84. D ’A illy, 14 Questions, qu. 13, 1531, 163V, w ho reports this argument, speaks o f on ly tw o
passage as evidence that C ecco believed in the fluidity o f the heavens (see Riccioli, Al~
centers, one for the w orld and the other for all eccentric orbs. B u t eccentric orbs had
magestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 1651, 239, col. 2). In his D e eccentricis et
m any centers, because differences in their planetary eccentricities precluded a com m on
epicyclis, C ecco makes no mention o f bodies intervening between successive orbs. A l­
center. Paul o f Venice, Liberceli, 1476, 31, also spoke o f tw o centers, but A lbert o f Saxon y
though he seems not to have adopted it, T h om as Aquinas mentions the theory without
spoke o f “ m any centers” (plura centra) (De celo, bk. 2, qu. 7, 1518, io6r, col. 2, for the
reference to Albertus when he explains (in his com m entary on Boethius’s D e trinitate)
objection; io 6v, col. 2, for A lb ert’s reply).
that supporters o f eccentrics and epicycles believe that this opinion avoids the dilemma
85. D ’ A illy, ibid., 164V. Paul o f Venice offered the same solution (Liber celi, 1476, 31),
that tw o bodies m ight have to occupy the same place and that the substance o f the spheres
explaining that the earth is “ in the m iddle o f the total orb o f the planets, because the orb
could be divided. Thom as describes the intervening matter as “ another substance, which
is totally concentric to the w orld ” (tamen est [i.e., the earth] in m edio totalis orbis
lies between the spheres and w hich, like air, is divisible and w ithout thickness, although
planetarum eo quod orbis totaliter est concentricus m undo). A lb ert o f Saxony, D e celo,
[unlike air] it is incorruptible.” For the Latin text, see Litt, 1963, 348. Robertus Anglicus
bk. 2, qu. 7, 1518, io6r, col. 2, presented the same objection w ith much the same response
mentions “ another opinion” (alia tamen opinio) in w hich matter is assumed between
orbs. See Robertus Anglicus, Sphere, lec. 1, 1949, 14 7-14 8 (Latin); 203 (English). on io 6v, col. 2.
86. Versor [D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 9: “ W hether eccentric, concentric, and epicyclic circles (i.e.,
81. D ’A illy, 14 Questions, qu. 13, 1531, 163V.
orbs) are to be assumed in the heavens to save the appearances o f the planetary m otions” ],
82. Ibid., 164V. Paul o f Venice accepted the same argument and also used the expression
1493, 22v, col. 1, for the objection, and 23r, col. 1, for V ersor’s reply. Here w e see the
“ total orb o f the planets” (totalis orbis planetarum); see Paul o f Venice, Liber celi, 1476, 3
com m on distinction that m ost natural philosophers drew between “ the w hole orb” (orbis
col. 2 (the last tw o lines; because the w o rk is unfoliated and is provided w ith few sig­
totalis, or as Versor put it, orbis integer), which embraces three or more eccentric orbs,
natures, the page numbers have been determined b y counting from the beginning o f the
Liber celi et mundi). and a “ partial circle” or “ orb” (circulus [or orbis) partialis), w hich refers to o n ly one o f the
constituent eccentric orbs o f a “ w hole orb.”
M O BILE CELESTIAL ORBS 299
298 THE CELESTIAL REGION
earth in this manner, it could do so only by a rectilinear motion or by a
surface o f one part o f the orb has a center distinct from the center o f the
w orld.” motion compounded o f rectilinear and circular motion. T o move toward
or away from the earth rectilinearly, a celestial body would have to be either
Although the concentric surfaces at each planetary sphere enabled the
heavy or light, or compounded o f both; or it might have an entirely different
earth to retain its cosmic centrality, and although the earth remained the
nature. But rectilinear motion toward or away from the earth and out o f a
natural place o f heavy bodies, the defenders o f solid eccentrics and epicycles
circular orbit would involve a celestial body in violent action, which was
had made a significant departure from Aristotelian cosmology: they allowed
contrary to the nature o f the celestial ether.89
celestial bodies to move around more than one center. Eccentric orbs were
The usual response was to deny that variations in planetary distances were
assumed to move around their own centers rather than around the earth as
the result o f rectilinear motion. D ’A illy argued90 that upward and downward
center. To accept the three-orb system as truly representative o f the physical
motion could happen only where generation and corruption occurred,
cosmos was to admit that, contrary to Aristotle, Averroes, and Maimonides,
namely in the terrestrial region.91 Paul o f Venice met the same objection
planetary spheres could rotate around geometric points other than the center
by a different argument (Liber cdi, 1476, 3 1, col. 2). To qualify as rectilinear
o f the earth, that is, other than the geometric center o f the universe. Most
ascent and descent, motions must be measured along a radius o f the world.
scholastics passed over this significant shift with little or no comment, but
Such measurements were therefore not applicable to circular motion, from
a few, like Cecco d'Ascoli, Nicole Oresme, and Jean Buridan met the issue
which it followed that the motion o f planets on circular eccentrics and
head-on. Because he believed that the celestial orbs were not all o f the same
nature and that celestial bodies differed in matter and form and in their epicycles did not qualify as rectilinear.
motions, Cecco insisted: “ it is therefore not absurd that they [the planets]
should have different and immobile centers.” 878 Oresme flatly declared:
7. The problem with epicycles
“ whether Averroes likes it or not, w e must admit that they [the heavenly
bodies] move around various centers, as stated many times before; and this It would appear that the acceptance o f eccentric orbs also implied a com­
is the truth” (\Le Livrc du del, bk. 2, ch. 16], 1968, 463). Buridan firmly mitment to epicyclic orbs. But at least one scholastic, Jean Buridan, accepted
stated: “ The Commentator [Averroes] speaks improperly when he says that the former but not the latter. Epicycles posed a special problem, because
the spheres are located by a [common] center; . . . modern astronomers [as- o f the M oon’s observed behavior. Since the Moon always shows the same
trologi] do not concede that all celestial spheres have the same center; indeed, face to us, Aristotle had argued that it cannot be said to rotate or revolve. /
they assume eccentrics and epicycles” ([De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 14], 1942, 191, O n the assumption that all planets are alike in their basic properties, he
lines 19-23). inferred (De caelo 2.8.290a.25-27) from the M oon’s behavior that no planets
rotated around their own axes. Aristotle’s denial o f rotation to the Moon
and ether planets played a significant role in arguments about the reality o f
6. Would planets move with rectilinear motion i f eccentrics
and epicycles existed? material epicycles.
Although the fundamental problem about epicycles is traceable to Roger
Because a key purpose o f eccentrics and epicycles was to account for changes Bacon in the thirteenth century,92 it was Jean Buridan and Albert o f Saxony-
in planetary distances from the earth, it was alleged that eccentrics and in the fourteenth century who described the two approaches available to
epicycles would cause planets to ascend and descend rectilinearlv as they natural philosophers.91 Buridan discussed the issue in a question on
alternately approached and withdrew from the earth. Following Albumasar,
Bacon held that motion is threefold: namely, from the center o f the world
89. “ But there is no violence in the heavens, as Aristotle says in the book On the Heaven and
(media)- toward the center; and around the center. '* Celestial bodies move the World ami in the eighth [book] ot'the Physios-, and it is obvious that nothing perpetual
only around the center o f the world, that is around the earth. For if a planet is violent.” Bacon, ibid., 444, lines 26-29.
moved around another center, it would sometimes be nearer the earth and 90. D ’Aillv, 14 Questions, qu. 13, 1531, 163V.
91. Ibid., 164V. Albert o f Saxony had earlier presented the same objection and resolution (see
sometimes farther away. But if a celestial body varied its distance from the his De celo, bk. 2, qu. 7, r5 r8, io6r. col. 2, for the objection, and io6v. col. 2, for the
87. In replying to an argument against eccentrics. Cecco declares: “ Si dicatur omnes orbes response).
92. Bacon, Opus tertium, 1909, 130—131; the De celestibus omits this section. Duhem, Le
esse eiusdem nature, quod est t'alsum, ut diat Albertus in libro Cdi ft numdi, et quia
Systeme, 1913-1959, 3:436, conjectures that Bacon may have been the first to propose
corpora celestia diversa sunt in torma et materia, et in mom diversa erunt: non ergo erit
this objection to the existence o f solid epicycles. Since Bacon speaks as if others had
inconveniens quod habeant diversa centra et inmobilia." Cecco d’Ascoli. De eccentricis,
already proposed the criticism, this seems unlikely.
1906, 167; see also the edition in Peter o f Abano. Lucidator, 1988, 393.
93. See also Chapter 17. Section IV.3a.1ii. for a further discussion o f these ideas in connection
88. Bacon, De celesttbus, pt. 5, ch. 17, Opera, fasc. 4, 1913. 444, lines 10-11, cites Albumasar’s
De conjitncaonibus as his source. with the Moon and its spots.
300 THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 301
“ Whether epicycles are to be assumed in celestial bodies.” 94 He based his Buridan then derives the following consequence: if the M oon does not
opinion on the behavior o f the “ man in the M oon ,” that is, the spot on have a proper motion around its ow n center, it cannot have an epicycle.
the lunar surface that had the appearance o f a man whose feet always point For i f the M oon had an epicycle but lacked a proper motion, the head and
toward - or lie at - the bottom o f the Moon. Buridan argued that if the feet o f the man in the M oon would change positions every time the epicycle’s
Moon had an epicycle, the man’s feet should sometimes appear in, or point apogee and perigee rotated 180 degrees. Because no such change is observed,
toward, the upper part o f the lunar disk. Thus if the man’s feet are at the Buridan concludes that the M oon can have no epicycle, from which he
bottom o f the lunar disk when the M oon is in the aux, or apogee, o f the generalizes that “ if an epicycle is not posited in the orb o f the Moon, it
epicycle, the feet ought to be in the upper part o f the lunar disk when the ought not to be posited in the orb o f the other planets, since all the reasons
Moon reaches the opposite o f the aux, or perigee, o f the epicycle. But such which apply to the other planets should also apply to the M oon” (Grant,
an occurrence is never observed. The feet always remain at the bottom o f 1974, 525). Thus did Buridan conclude that “ all appearances can be saved
the lunar disk, thus calling for the rejection o f an epicycle.95 Buridan suggests by eccentrics [alone] without epicycles” (ibid., 526).
a way to account for this phenomenon and retain the epicycle. We would O ne response to Buridan was to allow that a particular planet might
have to assume that “just as this epicycle is moved around its proper center, indeed behave differently from its sister planets. Albert o f Saxony adopted
so also is the body o f the M oon m oved around its proper center in a motion just such a strategy. After describing the problem much as Buridan had,97
contrary to that o f the epicycle and with an equal speed” (Grant, 1974, 526). Albert assumes that the M oon possesses a proper motion around its own
O nly in this way will the upper part o f the man always appear in the upper center in a direction that is contrary to the motion o f its epicycle. As for
part o f the lunar disk.
those w ho say that “ other planets do not have proper morions around their
Assuming with Aristotle that all planets possess the same fundamental proper centers, therefore the M oon does not,” Albert counters, without
properties, Buridan infers that i f the M oon has a proper rotatory motion, elaboration and perhaps with Buridan in mind, that the M oon’s nature
all the other planets should also possess that same motion. In agreement differs from that o f the other planets because the M oon’s upper and lower
with Aristotle, however, he was convinced that no planet could rotate parts can affect sublunar things differentially. Its proper motion around its
around its own center. Planets not only m ove from one position to another; ow n center is, therefore, not superfluous but brings the lower part o f the
they also cause transmutations in sublunar bodies. Consequently, i f planets M oon to the upper part and the upper to the lower. Because the M oon’s
rotated around their own centers, the rotations ought to affect the way in proper motion is contrary to the motion o f its epicycle, we do not observe
which they cause sublunar effects. That is, each planet ought to produce these continuous and regular turnings o f the spot in the M oon.98
differential effects; otherwise its rotatory motion w ould be superfluous. A lbert’s interpretation prevailed and was repeated with the same argu­
Taking the Sun as exemplar, Buridan argues that it does not produce such ments by Christopher Clavius in the numerous editions o f his commentary
differential effects, probably because it is a uniform, homogeneous body on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco that appeared in the late sixteenth and early
whose upper and lower parts are identical. A n y rotatory motion by the Sun seventeenth century.99 Although both Albert and Buridan sought to save
around its own center would therefore be superfluous, because no sublunar the observed behavior o f the spot in the M oon, they did so in radically
changes would result. “ But i f the Sun does not have such a motion, it does different ways. Whereas Buridan insisted on the uniformity o f planetary
not seem reasonable that the M oon should have it, since the Sun is much behavior and properties, Albert permitted divergence. Buridan sought for
nobler than the M oon.” 96 consistency: either all planets rotated around proper centers, or none did;
94. Buridan [Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 10], 1518, 73 r- 73V. T h e quotations are from m y either all planets moved on epicycles, or none did. The astronomical ap-
translation o f this question in Grant, 1974, 524-526.
95. Buridan is only partially correct. I f the M o o n were carried on an epicycle but lacked 97. A lbert o f Saxony, D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 7, 1518, io6r, col. 2 (the fifth principal argument).
rotatory motion, the appearance o f the M o o n w ould indeed change. B u t the change 98. A lth o u gh A lb ert o f S ax on y admitted that he had often seen a black spot in the M oon ,
w ould not be as Buridan describes it. T h e “ man in the M o o n ” w ould not turn upside
he denied that it resembled a man.
d ow n from apogee to perigee, but rather a terrestrial observer w ou ld see the man in the 99. In agreem ent w ith A lb ert’s position w ere d ’A illy (14 Questions, qu. 13, 1531, 163V, for
M o o n for awhile and then not see him. For this interpretation, I am indebted to m y the objection, and 164V for the response) and Paul o f Venice, Liber celi, 31, col. 2, for
student, M r. James Voelkel, and to an anonym ous reader.
the objection and 32, col. 1, for the response. Paul argued that because the M o o n has
96. “ E t si sol non habeat talem m otum nec videtur rationabile q uod luna habeat, cum sol sit “ diversity in its parts,” it requires a proper m otion, whereas the other planets lack diversity
m ulto nobilior quam luna.” Buridan, Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 10, 1518, 73V, col. 1. and need no proper m otions. W ithout in vokin g diversity, Bernard o f Verdun (Grant,
Buridan believed that planets were also unlikely to have proper m otions, because each
1974, 523-524) retained the lunar epicycle and also assumed that the M o o n som ehow
such m otion w ould require a special m over. W e w ould then have to assume “ as many
turns, or is turned, so that “ the spot always appears to us in the same shape [or form ].”
intelligences as there are stars in the sky, because each star w o u ld require a special mover A lth ou gh this interpretation was quite traditional b y the time C lavius wrote, he attributes
for its special m otion.” B ut “ Aristotle did not assign [or concede] such a multitude [of it to Jean Fem el (1497-1558). See Clavius, Sphere, ch. 4, 1593, 522, for the objection,
motions and intelligences].” Ibid. (Latin) and Grant, 1974, 526 (English).
and 525 for his response.
M O BILE CELESTIAL ORBS 303
302 THE CELESTIAL REGION
system o f concentric spheres as he described it in the twelfth book o f his
pearances could be saved only i f planetary homogeneity and uniformity
Metaphysics was inadequate. They sometimes reacted to that description in
were preserved. B y contrast, Albert o f Saxony thought it more important
strange ways. Thus in the seventeenth century, a Scotistic commentator,
to save the appearances than to preserve the uniformity o f planetarv be­
perhaps Hugo Cavellus (1571-1626), offered a lengthy analysis o f Aristotle’s
havior. In Albert’s scheme, it was not necessary that all planets should move
concentric spheres, explaining how Aristotle arrived at 55 and how one
on epicycles (the Sun did not). N or, as we saw, was it necessary that either
could reduce this to 47, which he mistakenly believed was Aristotle’s final
all planets or no planets move around their own centers. If the phenomena
total.103 O ur commentator declares that a single, uniformly moving, con­
could be saved by assuming that some planets really moved around their
centric sphere could not properly represent the motion o f a planet, because
own centers and others did not, Albert was satisfied.10010 2
planets alter their speeds and seem to change directions, m oving sometimes
In the seventeenth century, Melchior Cornaeus agreed with Buridan and
directly and sometimes retrogressively. T o take these anomalies into ac­
rejected the existence o f a lunar epicycle. As we shall see later (Ch. 14. Sec.
count, Ptolemy and other astronomers utilized deferents (presumably ec­
VIII. i.b.iii), however, the context o f his discussion and the reasons for his
centrics) and epicycles. But Aristotle also recognized that a single planet
decision were radically different.
had more than one motion and accounted for this by building on the systems
o f Eudoxus and Callippus: that is, he assigned a plurality o f concentric
8. Summary o f differences with Aristotle spheres to account for the motion ot each planet.104 In describing how
Aristotle did this, our commentator makes no further mention o f eccentrics
Although a few other arguments were sometimes cited for and against or epicycles. Indeed, it is as if he had equated the two systems simply
eccentric and epicvclic spheres,'01 those mentioned here were unquestion­ because both assigned a plurality o f spheres - not just one - to account for
ably the most important for cosm ology. Despite the widespread conviction the motion o f each planet. In light o f this, we are not surprised that, despite
that eccentrics and epicycles saved the astronomical phenomena and that writing in the seventeenth century, our commentator finds no reason to
Aristotelian concentric astronomy did not: scholastic natural philosophers mention Copernicus or the Copernican system. Aristotle’s system is ana­
were also aware that those same eccentrics and epicycles appeared to violate lyzed as if the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems had never existed.
important aspects ot Aristotelian cosm ology. In order to save the astro­
nomical phenomena and avoid alleged cosmological impossibilities, some,
and in a number ot instances many, natural philosophers made significant 9. On the physical nature o f eccentrics
departures from Aristotelian cosmological principles. Am ong the most sig­ Despite a rather large number o f authors who considered the suitability o f
nificant were the assumptions that (1) eccentric celestial orbs move with eccentrics for astronomy and cosmology, relatively few ventured opinions
circular motion around centers other than the earth; (2) that the M oon and about the nature o f such spheres, especially the deferent orbs. Were they
all other planets have proper motions around their own centers in a direction hollow and void, or filled with some rare or dense substance? O r were they
opposite to that o f their epicycles; (3) that successive orbs are not in direct solid? Were the spherical epicycles carried around as immobile bodies within
contact and the space between those orbs is occupied by a celestial substance their deferent orbs? O r did they move through the orb itself? Were the
that is divisible, though incorruptible; and, finally, (4) that celestial bodies, planets carried within an epicycle, or were they self-moved? As we shall
and therefore the celestial substance, need not be hom ogeneous.104 see, most o f those who did consider the internal nature o f the orbs did so
Scholastic commentators were aware that Aristotle’s description o f his in the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century. Few scholastics troubled
to describe the nature o f the spheres themselves, especially the deferent orb,
100. Nonetheless, one may ponder why Albert did not infer from the lunar rotation the which carried a spherical epicycle.
rotation o f all planets around their respective axes. Perhaps he thought, as did Paul ot
Venice later (see note 99 to this chapter), that they lacked the Moon's diversity and 103. See Cavellus, Metaphysics, bk. 12, summa 2, ch. 4, 1639, 4:448-450. Aristotle offered
therefore did not require axial rotation as they were carried by their respective epicycles. 49 as an alternative to 55.
101. For example. Bacon argued that although the surface o f an eccentric sphere is spherical, 104. “ Notandum etiam quod ultra motum diurnun. qui est motus primi mobilis, depre-
the sphere itself is nonuniform, as is evident from its varying thickness. Natural phi­ hensum est plures esse lationes planetarum secundum instrumenta mathematica, puta
losophers, however, insist that celestial bodies must be simple and homogeneous, and astrolabium et quadrantem, etc. Et etiam per rationem quatenus motus plmetae apparet
therefore invariant with respect to thickness. This is but another aspect o f the homo­ quandoque velocior, quandoque tardior; et planeta quandoque videtur directus, quan­
geneity argument. See Bacon, Opus tertium, 1909, 133 (for a few additional arguments, doque retrogradus, quandoque stationarius statione prima, vel secunda: quod non potest
see 132-137); Bacon, De ceiesribus, pt. 5, ch. 15, Opera, fasc. 4, 1913, 440 (and 439-443 esse secundum motum sphaerae, cum ille sit ommno umformis. Et ideo ad salvandum
for the same additional arguments). hos diversos motus Ptolemaeus et alij periti Astrologi investigaverunt circulos planetarum
102. As is evident by the assumption that the substance between orbs differs from that ot praeter sphaeras, scilicet deferentem et epicyclum, etc. Et ideo bene ait Phiiosophus quod
the orbs themselves; that the planets have different basic properties; and, as we saw in astrorum errantium plures sunt lationes quam una.” Ibid.. 448, col. !.
the preceding note, that one and the same sphere may vary in thickness.
304 THE CELESTIAL REGION
M O BILE CELESTIAL ORBS 305
One o f the few who did was Aegidius Romanus, whose discussion in
and surrounded it as being “ like marrow in a bone,” Aegidius implies that
his Hexaemeron appears to have had some influence in the seventeenth cen­
the overall heaven is hard and solid, like a bone, and that the eccentric
tury, when not only was it cited explicitly by Mastnus and Bellutus but its
cavities are filled with a soft or fluid material, akin to the marrow o f a bone.
key ideas were adopted by others.,0-i Convinced that eccentrics and epicycles
The other analogy o f blood in the veins conveys a similar relationship.
existed in the heavens and that only they could save the astronomical phe­
Aegidius asserts that the soft matter in each deferent is contiguous with
nomena, 0 10
5
1 6 Aegidius provides a brief physical interpretation for the eccentric
respect to its immediate surrounding surfaces. Thus each eccentric deferent
system. He assumes that the celestial region, from the concavity o f the lunar
is really a hollow cavity filled with a soft substance. Within each deferent
orb to the fixed stars, or eighth sphere, was one single, continuous body
orb is a spherical epicycle carried around by its deferent. The epicycle in
or orb. But just as a man or a lion is said to be one body but yet contains
turn is discontinuous, or contiguous, with respect to the eccentric. Because
within itself things that are discontinuous - such as, for example, marrow
each o f them is discontinuous, the eccentric and epicycle each has its own
in a bone, or blood in the veins - so also does the continuous single orb
proper motion by which the planet effects its retrograde or direct m otion.109
embracing the region from the M oon to the sphere o f the fixed stars contain
The relationship o f the soft matter in the eccentric deferent to the matter
discontinuities within it.107 Those discontinuities are represented by the
surrounding it is, however, left unclear. Are the two matters the same or
seven eccentric or deferent planetary orbs, which are embedded discontin-
different? The analogies indicate differences, but such an inference would
uously within the mass o f continuous matter that comprises the single orb
imply two unchangeable substances, or one unchangeable and one change­
that stretches from the Moon to the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars.
able, as Albertus Magnus had assumed earlier. Indeed, Aegidius may have
Thus did Aegidius attempt to integrate unity - the unity o f a single orb
thought o f them as the same substance, with differing densities. Once again
from the Moon to the fixed stars - and diversity - the diversity o f the seven
resorting to an analogy with animals, Aegidius observes that “just as in
eccentric deferents, one for each o f the seven planets. As he put it: “ because
animals, all parts are not equally dense, because the bone is denser than
o f the unity o f the whole body, there is one sphere and one heaven; and
flesh, so also in the heavens, all parts are not equally dense, because a star
because o f the diversity o f deferents and eccentrics, we can [also] say that
[or planet] is denser than an orb.” " 0 But whereas the rare part o f an animal
there are many spheres and many heavens.” '08 T o ensure that his readers
is more changeable than a denser part, this is untrue for the celestial region,
were in no doubt about his conception, Aegidius, as we saw, reinforced
which is unalterable and incorruptible and where every part always remains
his description with vivid analogies.
at the same level o f rarity or density.1"
Because he described the mode o f existence o f an eccentric deferent
Aegidius’s ideas about a single heaven between the Moon and fixed stars,
embedded within the continuous substance o f the single orb that contained
containing within itself eccentric deferents as hollow cavities, were adopted
105. For Aegidius’s account, see Opus Hexaemeron, pc. 2, ch. 32, 1555, 49r, col. i-54r, col. by Raphael Aversa and discussed, and perhaps adopted, by Mastrius and
1. The quotations are drawn largely from 49V, cols. 1-2 (Aegidius repeats his major Bellutus, who describe them as “ zones” (zonae) or rings (anuli)."2 They
ideas on 53v > col. 1). Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913—059, 4:110—119, gives a summary assumed a solid, single, presumably hard, starry heaven in which all the
account. For the statement about Aegidius by Mastrius and Bellutus, see note 112 of
this chapter. fixed stars and planets are embedded. Since the planets do not move them­
106. Aegidius, ibid., pt. 1, ch. 16, 1555, 15V, col. 2, says “ Advertendum etiam quod nos selves, each is carried around in its zone by an epicycle. According to Aversa,
dicimus esse in caelo eccentricos et epicyclos.” Apart from saving the astronomical
phenomena, Aegidius opposed the idea that the planets could move themselves “just as
fish are moved in water” (sicut pisces moventur in aquis). The planets are ncc self- 109. Sed habent [that is, the deferents or eccentrics) suos propnos motus per quos deferuntur
moved, because “ then there would be a division [scissio] o f the orb, or there would be planetae et epicycli, ubi sunt tixi planetae non sunt continui ipsis circulis deferentibus.
a vacuum, or two bodies would be m the same place” (quia tunc esset scissio orbis, vel Et inde est quod habent suos motus proprios per quos dicitur planeta retrogradus vel
esset vacuum, vel essent duo corpora in eodem). Ibid., pt. 2. ch. 32, 49r, col. 2. These directus.” Ibid.
same arguments also served to attack the existence o f eccentrics, as can be seen in Cecco 110. “ Advertendum etiam quod sicut in ammali omnes partes non sunt aeque densae quia os
d’Ascoli’s description o f them (see the end o f Section III and all o f Section III. 1 of this est densius carne, sic in huiusmodi coelo omnes partes non sunt aeque densae quia Stella
chapter). est densior orbe. ” Ibid.
107. “ Advertendum autem quod unum animal, ut puta unus homo vel unus leo, dicitur esse h i . “ Differunt tamen haec in animalibus et in coelo quia in animalibus partes magis rarae
unum corpus, non tamen omnia quae sunt in ipso sunt continua, ut medulla non est sunt magis passibiles, sed in coelo ita est impassibiles et ita inalterabilis et se mota ab
continua ossi, sed contigua; et sanguis non est contmuus venae, sed contiguus. Sic potest omni peregrina impressione pars rara, sicut et densa. ” Ibid.
a globo lunan usque ad octavam sphaeram; includendo ipsam sphaeram octavam did 112. Aversa, De caelo, qu. 32, sec. 7, 1627, ~2: Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu.
unum corpus propter continuationem totius. Non tamen omnia quae sunt in eo sunt 1, art. 2, 1727, 3:489, cols. 1-2, par. 28. Mastrius and Bellutus also mention that Aegidius
continua quia deferentes sive eccentrici non sunt continui cum huiusmodi coelo.” Ae­ seems to teach this opinion in his Hexaemeron, pt. 2, ch. 33 (Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913 —
gidius, ibid., pt. 2, ch. 32, 49V, col. 2. 1959, 4:111, correctly cites chapters 32 and 36). The term “ zones” (zonae) may derive
108. “ Propter unitatem totius corporis est una sphaera et unum coelum; propter diversitatem from John Damascene, who. as we saw earlier (note 11 o f this chapter), conceived of
autem deferentium et eccentricorum possunt dici multae sphaerae et coeli multi.” Ibid. the firmament as a single body divided into seven zones. On page 490, column 2, Mastrius
and Bellutus offer quite a different opinion (see this volume. Ch. 14, n. 134)-
M O BILE CELESTIAL ORBS 307
3o6 THE CE L E S T IA L REGION
a river traverses the whole space o f the waters up and down, once and
this single heaven is firm and solid, turning by itself from east to west with miS
again.
the daily motion as it carries all the celestial bodies with it. Within this The Coim bra Jesuits mentioned and rejected this interpretation even be­
single heaven, the seven zones, or bands, are discontinuous with the rest fore Hurtado de Mendoza w ro te ."9 If the celestial orbs are really channels
ot the heaven and are actually cavities within it.'" Although A versa denies in the sky through which the planets move by themselves, the substance
that these cavities are void, he does not indicate what fills th em ."4
that fills those channels must either be the same as the rest o f the heaven
Whereas Aegidius, Aversa, and Mastrius and Bellutus agreed that the or be o f a sublunary nature. Traditional Aristotelian arguments are invoked
planet was carried around by an epicycle, Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza, to reject both alternatives. Thus if the substance filling the interiors is o f a
according to A ve rsa,"5 assumed that the planets are self-moved rather than celestial nature, then, when the planet moves from one place to another
carried around by an epicycle. Like Aegidius and those who followed him, within the interior o f its orb, either another body succeeds it in the place
Hurtado assumed only one overall, presumably solid and- hard, heaven it iust vacated, or not. If not, then a vacuum would exist in nature, which
within which are channels that function as deferent orbs. Inside each deferent is absurd; if celestial matter succeeds into any place vacated by the planet,
orb is a planet, which is assumed to m ove by its ow n effort through its it could only do so by the processes o f rarefaction and condensation, which
orb, the interior ot which is assumed to be either void or filled with fluid. cannot occur in celestial matter. But if the interior matter is o f a sublunary
Aversa rejected the interpretation, because it has self-m oving planets and nature, the proponents o f such a theory would have assumed something
because he found a heaven that is part solid and part fluid objectionable.1,6
corruptible in the celestial region, which is also absurd.
The Coimbra Jesuits and Francisco de O viedo also rejected the concept
ot eccentric zones with self-moving planets. Citing Hurtado as a proponent
ot it, Oviedo argues'" that if the planets moved by themselves in these jo. On the assumed physical reality o f eccentrics and epicycles
celestial channels or cavities, almost the entire heaven would be hollowed
Whatever the reason for the seeming reluctance to speculate on the nature
out, because the Sun and planets do not m ove in a single track over which o f the orbs and their inner structure, it was not because o f any doubts about
they pass endlessly; rather they move over a broad band o f the sky. The
the physical reality o f eccentric and epicyclic orbs.
Sun, tor example, does not always m ove over the same path, but moves From discussions o f the three-orb system, it is obvious that those who
trom the equinoctial circle to each solstice. If Hurtado’s interpretation were accepted the “ new ” system believed in the physical reality o f material ec­
true, the Sun would require a hollow cavity that extended from one solstice
centrics and epicycles. The controversy in the Latin West was not between
to the other. The same reasoning would apply to planets like Mercury and those who argued for a system that merely saved the appearances regardless
Venus. Moreover, what tills the spaces in the cavities that are at any given o f physical reality and those who insisted that any astronomical system
moment unoccupied by the planet? O viedo thinks they would be void and must not only save the phenomena but also represent physical reality.120
that, as a consequence, we would be unable to see the stars, since the species
that enable us to see them would be untransmittable through celestial vacua. 118. “ Potest emm quodlibet astrum libere totum spatium caeli percurrere, sicuti potest piscis
Oviedo, who seems to have assumed the fluidity o f the region o f the in flumine totum aquarum spatium sursum et deorsum semel et iterum pertransire. ”
fixed stars and planets and to have treated the region as a single heaven, Ibid., 472, col. 2.
119. See Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 8. qu. 1. art. 1, 139‘L 3- 4 - In arguing tor a
denied the existence ot eccentrics and channels. Indeed he denied the ex­ fluid heaven and against solid orbs, George de Rhodes opposed the opinions ot both
istence ot any other heavens. For if the single heaven is really fluid, each Hurtado de Mendoza and Aversa. Without elaboration, he was convinced that the vast
planet must "traverse the whole space o f the heaven freely, just as a fish in13
7
*6
4 cavities which both assumed in the heavens implied the existence ot a vacuum and also
would result in collisions. De Rhodes [Dr coelo, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 2], 1671, 280, col.

113. Aversa mentions that some hold that Mercury and Venus do not have total orbs but 120. A tew did adopt the first alternative, including Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas.
move around the Sun by means ot epicycles (Imo plures iam sunt, qui convemunt in Sympathetic to Aristotelian cosmology but aware that it could not save certain crucial
hoc. ut Venus et Vlercurius non habeant alios proprios orbes et caelos totales. sed astronomical phenomena and also disturbed by the cosmological dilemmas inherent in
moveantur solum per epicicios circa solem). Aversa, De caelo. qu. 32, sec. 7, 1627, 72. any system o f solid eccentrics, they argued that the phenomena might perhaps be saved
114. In the third ot five opinions on the fluidity or soliditv ot the heavens, Riccioli, Almagestuin in ways that had not yet been understood or, as Maimonides put it (for Thomas, see
noinim, pars post., bk. 9- sec. i, ch. 7, 1631, 239, col. 2, describes a theorv similar to Sec. II.3 and note 35 o f this chapter), “ the deity alone fully knows the true reality, the
Aversa's. Like Aversa, he attributes it to Hurtado de Mendoza (in the latter's [De caelo. nature, the substance, the form, the motions, and the causes o f the heavens” (Maimon­
disp. 2, sec. 1 ], 1013; I have not found it there). ides, Guide, pt. 2, ch. 24, 1963, 4:327). Although what Aristotle says about the sublunar
113. Aversa, De caelo. qu. sec. 6, 1627, 63, col. 2. Oviedo also attributed this interpretation region “ is in accord with reason.” Maimonides believes that the heavens are too tar
to Hurtado (see Oviedo. De caelo. contro. i. punc. 4, 1640, 471, col. 1), as did Amicus away and coo noble for us to grasp anything “ but a small measure o f what is mathe­
(De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 3. art. 3, 1026. 284, col. 2). matical” (ibid., 326). Few in the Middle Ages shared the cosmological uncertainty
116. Aversa, ibid., sec. 7, 69, col. 1—-3, col. 2. exhibited by Aquinas and Maimonides. One who did, but went even further, was Henrv
117. Oviedo, De caelo. contro. 1, punc. 4, 1640, 1:471, cols. 1—2.
308 THE CELESTIAL REGION
M O BILE CELESTIAL ORBS 309
Rather the dispute involved a decision as to which system o f cosmic spheres
From the “ Catalog o f Questions” (Appendix I), we learn that the most
best represented physical reality - a purely concentric system or a mixture
popular question in medieval cosm ology (qu. 97) concerned the number o f
o f concentric and eccentric spheres. Repeated invocations o f dire physical
celestial spheres, “ Whether there are eight or nine, or more or less.” Scho­
consequences that might or might not follow from one or the other o f the
lastic natural philosophers faced a curious problem: should they count total
tw o rival systems serve only to confirm that medieval natural philosophers
orbs or only partial orbs? In fact, one could count either, as long as the sum
were arguing about the structure o f cosmic reality, not about convenient
was not represented as the total number o f celestial orbs. Such a move
and arbitrary arrangements o f geometric figures that might save the astro­
would have been redundant, since each total concentric orb was formed
nomical appearances. Clavius expressed traditional scholastic sentiments
from at least three partial eccentric orbs. Without the latter, there would
when he explained ([Sphere, ch. 4], 1593, 525) that eccentrics and epicycles
be no concentric orb. Pierre d’A illy makes all this quite clear when he
are not monstrous and absurd things but were adopted by astronomers for
declares that a celestial sphere is “ the aggregate o f all the orbs needed to
good reasons. Just because eccentrics have a diversity o f centers and some
save all the appearances concerning any planetary motion. In this way three
eccentrics vary in thickness should not cast doubt on them. After all, parts
eccentrics with an epicycle and with the body o f the planet are said to be
o f the Moon vary in density, as indicated by its spots. Indeed, different
only one sphere and this is how we speak about spheres in what is proposed
parts o f the heavens, not just the Moon, differ in density. W hy, then, should
here.” 123
eccentrics and epicycles be rejected because o f variations in thickness or
There were thus tw o basic ways to count orbs in the Aristotelian—Pto­
because o f a diversity oC centers? N ot until the end o f the sixteenth century,
lemaic compromise system. Duns Scotus, for example, assigned 5 eccentric
after the appearance o f the new star o f 1572 and the comet o f 1577, was
orbs to Mercury and 3 to every other planet, for a total o f 23 eccentric,
the physical existence o f eccentrics and epicycles seriously challenged.121
mobile orbs. T o this, he added 1 orb for the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars
and 1 for the ninth, or crystalline, heaven, for a total o f 25 orbs.124 O f these
IV . O n the n u m b er and order o f the m o b ile h e a v e n ly orbs 2$ orbs, at least 23 are eccentric.125 But if Scotus had counted only con­
centric, or total, orbs, he would have had only 9 orbs. Thus we may attribute
1. On the order o f the heavens to Scotus a total number o f partial, eccentric orbs, say 25, or a total number
o f concentric orbs, say 9. But w e may not speak o f their sum, or 34 cosmic
Earlier in this chapter (Sec. II.6), we emphasized the great compromise
orbs, because each concentric orb is but the sum total o f its eccentric orbs.
which produced the almost universally accepted union o f Aristotelian and
Fortunately, between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries most scho­
Ptolemaic ideas about the relationship o f the celestial spheres. The Aris­
lastic natural philosophers left little doubt about their intentions: when
totelian—Ptolemaic fusion, which Ptolemy had already made in his Hy­
inquiring about the number o f celestial spheres in the universe, they counted
potheses of the Planets, depended on a distinction between the concept o f a
only concentric orbs, although well aware that the latter were constituted
“ total orb” (orbis totalis) and a “ partial orb” (orhis partialis), to use medieval
terminology. The total orb was a concentric orb whose center is the center
123. “ Sed tertio modo dicitur aliqua sphaera una quia est aggregatum ex omnibus orbibus
o f the earth, whereas a partial orb was an eccentric orb, that is, an orb requisitis ad salvandum omnia ilia quae apparenc circa motum alicuius planetae. Et isto
whose center is a geometric point lying outside the center o f the world modo tres eccentrici cum epiciclo et corpore planetae non dicuntur nisi una sphaera et
The concentric total orb, whose concave and convex surfaces have the ita loquendum est de sphaeris in proposito." D ’Ailly, 14 Questions, qu. 2, 1531, I49r.
This is the third ot" three ways in which d’Ailly believes the term sphaera can be used.
earth’s center as their center, is composed o f at least three partial orbs (see In the second wav, each eccentric orb o f the aggregate is counted separately, as are also
Figure 8), one o f which, the eccentric deferent, carries an epicycle in which the epicycles. The first mode includes any spherical part o f the heavens that is not
a planet is embedded. Thus were the concentric orbs o f Aristotle fused with separated from the whole o f it, a definition that also includes spherical celestial bodies,
such as stars (ibid., 148V—I49r).
the eccentric orbs o f Ptolem y.122 124. Duns Scotus, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 2. Opera, 1639, 6, pt. 2:733: “ Saltern caeli
mobiles circundantes terram erunt vigindquinque, scilicet vigindtres planetarum et prae-
o f Langenstein, or Henry o f Hesse (1325-1397), who was convinced that eccentric and ter hoc caelum octavaum et caelum nonum.” In his widely used Theoricae novae plane­
epicyclic orbs were imaginary and were not to be found in the heavens. He devised a tarum, Peurbach assigned 24 orbs to the seven planets, allocating 3 to all except the
system that was “ a curious hybrid o f homocentric astronomy and an Arabic innovation Moon, which had 4, and Mercury, which had 5 (see Peurbach, Theoricae, 1987, 9—27).
introduced into Ptolemaic astronomy by Thabit ibn Qurra” (Steneck. 1976, 70). For Albertus Magnus, Metaphysics, bk. 2, tract. 2. ch. 24, Opera, 1964, 16. pt. 2:514, col.
more on Thabit’s innovation and Henry’s own system, see Steneck, 69—72. 1, describes Ptolemy’s system as one o f three proposed by “ modems.” Albertus assigned
121. Indeed, even before these two celestial phenomena appeared, Robert Bellarmine. some­ 49 orbs (he says 50, but is mistaken in his count) to Ptolemy’s system, attributing 3 to
time between 1570 and 1572, had already assumed a fluid heavens and rejected the physical the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars; 2 to the Sun; 5 to the Moon; 7 to Mercury; and 8
existence o f eccentrics and epicycles. See Chapter 14, note 75. each to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Albertus's source for this strange total is a
122. On the continuity or contiguity o f these orbs, see Section III. 2 o f this chapter. mystery.
125. The eighth sphere o f the fixed stars is concentric and perhaps also the ninth sphere.
3 io THE CELESTIAL REGION MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 31 I

o f eccentric, or partial, orbs. The concentric orbs o f the Middle Ages and and Mercury, a number o f different planetary orders were comm only pro­
Renaissance differed from the 5$ or 49 distinguished by Aristotle in Me­ posed. Albert o f Saxony, for example, mentions four different arrangements
taphysics 12.8.1073b.2—1074a. 14. The 7 orbs assigned by Aristotle to Saturn, that had at least some support. M oving from the outermost to the innermost
for example, were all concentric (though some turned on different axes) planet, one interpretation placed the sphere o f Saturn first, then those o f
and were not counted or conceived as a single orb. By contrast, the 3 partial Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury, Sun, and Moon. In another interpretation
orbs assigned to Saturn in the three-orb, Aristotelian-Ptolem aic compro­ the sphere o f Venus was placed above the Sun and the sphere o f Mercury
mise were all eccentric but could also be interpreted as forming a single below it. A third interpretation reversed the positions o f Mercury and Venus
concentric orb, because the outermost and innermost surfaces wrere con­ with respect to the Sun. A fourth interpretation placed Venus and Mercury
centric with the earth’s center. Schematic representations o f the celestial below the Sun, because it was thought more reasonable and elegant that
orbs made during the Middle Ages and Renaissance were not drawn from the Sun should be in the middle o f the planets, “ like a king in the middle
Aristotle’s cosmological system but from the concentric orbs in the three- o f his kingdom in order that the Sun should exercise its influence equally
orb compromise.12'’ above and b elow .” 128
If it was not Aristotle’s system o f concentric orbs that was incorporated O f these opinions, Ptolemy mentions the tw o which locate Venus and
into the three-orb compromise, why, then, do I designate the compromise Mercury either above or below the Sun (Almagest, bk. 9, ch. 1), thus ig­
“ Aristotelian-Ptolemaic” ? Since the compromise was ultimately the work noring the two in which Venus was placed above the Sun and Mercury
o f Ptolemy, would it not be more accurate to call it the Ptolemaic com­ belowy and vice versa. As his own choice, Ptolemy selected the order which
promise? Indeed it would. But the term Aristotelian-Ptolem aic seems more placed Venus and Mercury below the Sun, arguing that this conveniently
appropriate, because it emphasizes the most essential feature o f Aristotle’s separated three suprasolar planets, which could be any angular distance from
celestial system: the concentricity o f each planetary orb with the earth’s the Sun, from the tw o subsolar planets which could not.129 Although in the
center. It was that concentricity that enabled Aristotelian natural philoso­ Almagest Ptolemy chose not to specify whether it was Mercury or Venus
phers to embrace the system. Within the three-orb system, the order and that lay directly below the Sun, in his later Hypotheses of the Planets he locates
number o f the concentric heavens or spheres varied throughout the period Venus right below the Sun and Mercury below Venus, just above the
o f our study. All were agreed on the existence o f seven planets and the M oon .130 Thus Ptolemy favored an order o f planets in which the Sun was
fixed stars, and some included planets and fixed stars as part o f the fir­ the middle, or fourth, planet, whether counting downward from Saturn
mament.127 Here, then, was the basic core o f the celestial heavens. above or upward from the Moon below. Although this order may have
Disagreement arose, however, on the order o f the planets. Because ancient been the most popular, medieval justifications o f it rarely mentioned Pto­
and medieval astronomers could find no parallax for planets other than the lem y’s argument but rather emphasized the importance o f the Sun’s cen­
Sun and Moon, there was no way to determine the order o f the three trality, usually citing the popular metaphor o f the king in the middle o f his
superior planets. Nevertheless, Saturn was assumed farthest from the earth, kingdom .131
with Jupiter next, followed by Mars, an order that was based on the time
it took each o f them to complete its sidereal period: thirty years for Saturn, 128. “ De ordine autem talium orbium septem planetarum quidam posuerunt primo spheram
Saturni, deinde spheram Jovis, deinde spheram Martis, deinde sperarn Veneris, deinde
twelve for Jupiter, and two for Mars. Alm ost all astronomers and natural spheram Mercurii, deinde spheram solis et ultimam spheram lune. Ita quod llli posuerunt
philosophers agreed on this. The order o f Sun, Venus, and M ercury posed Venerem et Mercurium supra solem. Alii autem posuerunt Venerem supra solem et
quite different pioblems. Without detectable parallaxes, and because Venus Mercurium inFra; alii autem econverso. Sed quicquid de hoc sic rationabilius esse videtur
quod tres planete sint supra solem et tres inFra et sol in medio tanquam rex in regm
and Mercury always remained in the vicinity o f the Sun. the order o f these medio ad Finem quod supra et inFra possit equaliter influere et illuminare.” Albert ot
three planets was not determinable except on the basis o f arbitrary, non- Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1518, 105v. col. 1. Melanchthon (1550, 51V) described
astronomical reasons. The Moon, however, was universally assumed to be this order as “ the oldest and common opinion” (Sequamur lgitur vetustissimam et
communem sententiam, quae medium locum Soli tribuit, sitque hie ordo: Saturnus,
the closest planet to earth. Iupiter, Mars, Sole, Venus, Mercurius, Luna). For the widespread use oF "the king in
Because o f the various combinations possible between the Sun, Venus, the middle o f his kingdom” as a metaphor For the Sun, see Chapter 11, note 28.
129. In book 9, chapter 1, Ptolemy speaks oF the Five planets, thus excluding the Sun and
Moon. Perhaps he chose to exclude the Moon From the subsolar company oF Venus and
!2(>. For an 1 i-orb version, see the diagram in this chapter From Peter Apian’s Cosmographiais Mercury because the Moon could be any angular distance From the Sun. The Moon, ot
liber (Figure 9) and also see Reisch, Margarita philosophies 1517. 244; an 8-orb version course, had to be, and was aUvavs, counted among the planets below the Sun.
appears in Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, fonds latin, MS. 6280, 2or (12th century), 130. Van Helden, 1985, 20-23, has a detailed discussion.
which is reproduced in Grant, 1978a, 276. 13 1. See Chapter 11, Section 1.3 and note 28. Although Copernicus emphasized the Sun’s
127. One who did not was Clavius, who equated the Firmament solely with the sphere ot centrality in quite another way, by having all the planets revolve around it, the Sun’s
the Fixed stars. See Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1, Opera, 1611, 3:23. importance as the middle planet was heavily emphasized in scholastic cosmology.
M O BILE CELESTIAL ORBS 313
31 2 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N
closest when they are below the Sun, it follows that no fixed order exists,
Despite certain criticisms o f Ptolem y’s order o f the planets,'32 most fol­
but that Mercury, Venus, and the Sun vary their order with respect to the
lowed it,13 133 although they could have chosen another opinion (the first
2
earth. Although the concentric orbits that Martianus clearly attributed to
mentioned in my discussion o f Albert o f Saxony), one that placed the Sun
Mercury and Venus would be altered by the ninth century - indeed, they
below Venus and Mercury (that is, V enus-M ercury-Sun; or, with the po­
would usually be depicted as intersecting - the varied order o f Mercury,
sitions o f Venus and Mercury reversed, M ercury-Venus—Sun), leaving onlv
Venus, and the Sun remained.136*B y the seventeenth century, this variable
the Moon below it. Clavius called this the “ Egyptian system ,” as it was
arrangment o f the three planets was known as the “ Capellan” system and
known traditionally, and cited both Plato and Aristotle as supporters.134
was taken as the basis o f Tycho Brahe’s own Sun-centered system involving
A trace o f another kind o f planetary “ order” should be mentioned, one
five planets. The Capellan system had numerous supporters, many o f whom
that probably derives from The Marriage oj Mercury and Philology o f Mar-
were Jesuits (Schofield, 1981, 172-183).
tianus Capella, who may have composed it sometime between 410 and 439.
The varied order o f the inferior planets would appear again in the four­
Martianus was probably the first extant Latin author to have adopted an
teenth century in Jean Buridan’s Questions on De caelo. In Buridan’s discus­
arrangement o f the planets wherein Mercury and Venus are assumed to
sion, however, the orbits o f Venus and Mercury are neither concentric nor
orbit around the Sun, rather than the earth, for which reason Copernicus
intersecting, but eccentric and epicyclic. Observing that the inferior planets
mentioned Martianus as a precursor.'33 B y proposing Sun-centered orbits
traverse their orbits in less time than the superior planets, Buridan asks why
for Mercury and Venus, Martianus could not have accepted a single, fixed
Mercury, Venus, and the Sun seem to complete their orbits in the same
order o f the planets but was committed to a variable order, such that when
time, something no other planets do. In response to his own question,
Mercury and Venus are above the Sun with respect to the earth (that is,
Buridan declares:
farthest from the earth) their descending order is Venus-M ercury-Sun, but
when they are below the Sun (or nearest the earth) their descending order
some reply that this occurs because these three planets are fixed in the same sphere,
is Sun-M ercury—Venus (Eastwood, 1982, 147). Because M ercury is closest
although they have different epicycles and eccentrics within it. And this is probable
to the earth when the two inferior planets are above the Sun and Venus is
because, as the Commentator [i.e., Averroes] says, many ancients assumed that
Venus and M ercury were above the Sun, [while] others [assumed that] they were
132. Albert ot Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1518, 105V, col. 1, reports a counterargument below the Sun. [N ow] this could be [true], because when they are in the a u x e s o f
based on lunar eclipses. If the Moon, which lies between us and the Sun, can eclipse the
Sun, why do not Venus and Mercury also eclipse it? Some explain this by the greater their eccentrics and epicycles, they are higher than [or above] the Sun; and [when
transparency o f Venus and Mercury, which permits the Sun’s rays to penetrate them. they are] in the opposite o f the a u x e s , they are lower than [or below] the Sun.” 7
The lesser transparency o f the Moon blocks the Sun’s rays and creates an eclipse. A
second explanation is based on the principle that the closer an opaque body is to us, the
greater the eclipse it can cause as compared to a body, or bodies, that are more remote. Buridan’s description o f the variable order o f Mercury and Venus with
But Venus and Mercury are so far away from us that the part o f the Sun that they eclipse respect to the Sun seems equivalent to assigning them Sun-centered orbits
is not visible to us. In his Hypotheses of the Planets, Ptolemy suggests that the smallness within the frame o f the Ptolemaic system o f eccentrics and epicycles. To
o f Venus and Mercury may explain why so few o f their transits across the Sun have
been observed (see Van Heiden, 1985, 21). achieve these orbits, someone had boldly proposed that Mercury, Venus,
133. For example, Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1, Opera, 1611, 3:43. Additional supporters are men­ and the Sun be encompassed within a single sphere, although each planet
tioned in Chapter 11, Section 1.3 and note 28 o f this volume. would have its own eccentric deferent and epicycle. Buridan characterized
13-1- For Plato, Clavius mentions the Timaeus, and for Aristotle he cites De caelo, book 2,
chapter 12, and Meteorology, book 1, chapter 4, in neither o f which does Aristotle present this arrangement as “ probable” (probabile) because it reconciled the differ­
an order o f planets (see Clavius, Sphere, ch. r. Opera, 1611, 3:42). Indeed, Aristotle does ences o f opinion mentioned by Averroes, namely that some ancients placed
not even mention an order o f the planets in his famous discussion on the number ot Mercury and Venus above the Sun while others located them below the
spheres in Metaphysics 12.8.1073b. 18—1074a. 14. However, Clavius also mentions Aris­
totle’s De mundo, suggesting it might have been talsely attributed to Aristotle, as indeed Sun.'38 The interpretation Buridan describes saves both alternatives.
it was. In the pseudo-Aristotelian De mundo 3923.20—30 (see Aristotle [Forster], 1984)- If his report for a variable order for the Sun, Mercury, and Venus was
the author does indeed present the Egyptian order o f the planets, with Mercury, Venus,
and Sun in descending order. 136. Eastwood, 1982, 149—155, describes the transformation o f Martianus’s text.
[35. After rejecting Vitruvius. Chalcidius, and Macrobius as Latin sources for Sun-centered 137. “ Aliqui respondent quod hoc est quia illi tres planetae fixi sunt in eadem sphaera, licet
planetary motion, Eastwood (1982, 146, n. 1) argues that Martianus was the first Latin in ea habeant diversos epiciclos et diversos eccentricos. Et hoc est probabile quia sicut
author to propose heliocentric orbits for Mercury and Venus, a theory that Martianus dicit Commentator, multi antiqui posuerunt Venerem et Mercurium supra solem, alii
may have derived ultimately from Theon o f Smyrna (fl. ca. 130; Eastwood, ibid., G 1!- autem infra solem; quod poterat esse quia quando erant in augibus eccentricorum et
For Copernicus’s citation o f Martianus, see Copernicus, Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. i° epiciclorum suorum, tunc erant altius quam sol, et in opposito augium erant bassius.”
[Rosen], 1978, 20. Eastwood also shows (1992, 233, 256) that no evidence exists m Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 20, 1942, 220.
support o f the claim that Heraclides o f Pontus (4th c. a . d .) had previously proposed 138. Buridan does not say where Averroes made this remark.
heliocentric orbits for Mercury and Venus.
314 THE CELESTIAL REGION
MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 315
derived ultimately from Martianus Capella, Buridan gives no indication of
it. By contrast, Capella’s name is the only one mentioned by Copernicus, 2. The number o f orbs
although he also alludes to “ certain other Latin writers.” ' 39 Is it possible
(though perhaps unlikely) that Copernicus had in mind one or more Latin a. Do orbs exist beyond the eight orbs of the planets and fixed stars?
writers o f the late Middle Ages, perhaps Buridan himself? And who did
Whatever the order chosen, all were agreed that the planets and fixed stars
Buridan have in mind when he speaks o f “ some” (aliqui) who placed the
together accounted for at least eight concentric orbs or heavens. Cosm ol-
Sun at the center o f the orbits o f Mercury and Venus and encompassed the
ogists and astronomers were, however, soon compelled to decide whether
three planets within a single eccentric-epicyclic sphere? Is it plausible to
any spheres existed beyond the fixed stars and if so, whether they were
suppose that Buridan and Copernicus might have included one or more of
mobile or immobile. With respect to mobile orbs, responses usually de­
the same individuals? These are questions to which answers seem unlikely.
pended on the number o f motions assigned to the sphere o f the fixed stars.
Indeed, we cannot even propose a definitive reply to the question of
Throughout the Middle Ages, at least three motions were attributed to it:
whether Buridan was himself a supporter o f Sun-centered orbits for Mer-
(1) a daily motion from east to west; (2) a precession o f the equinoxes o f
curv and Venus. For although he calls that interpretation “ probable” (prob-
1 degree in 100 years, producing a complete revolution o f the starry sphere
abile), Buridan introduces an alternative opinion by observing that Ptolemy
in 36,000 years; and (3) a progressive and regressive motion o f the stars
adopted the fixed order o f Sun-Venus-M ercury, where the Sun is farthest
known as “ access and recess,” or “ trepidation,” a theory proposed by the
from the earth and Mercury nearest, and each planet has its ow n sphere.
ninth-century Arab astronomer Thabit ibn Q urra.144 Although Thabit’s
To explain how these three planets complete their independent revolutions
trepidation theory was intended as a substitute theory for the precession o f
in the same time, we would have to assume, says Buridan, “ a similar ratio
the equinoxes, not as an additional motion, many natural philosophers
o f moving intelligences to moved spheres.” '40 Which o f the two alternatives
treated them as two distinct motions, as we shall see.
Buridan favored is thus left unclear.'4'
If we accept the principle that every motion requires its own separate
What emerges from Buridan’s discussion that is o f considerable signifi­
sphere, a sphere would have to be added for every such motion. But this
cance is the fact that he reported sympathetically a limited heliocentric
did not signify that a sphere could not move with multiple motions. To
system involving Mercury and Venus, encompassed within a system ot
understand this, we must realize that medieval natural philosophers distin­
eccentrics and epicycles. Since Copernicus used Ptolemaic eccentrics and
guished between the “ proper” motion o f a sphere and those motions that
epicycles, Buridan seems thus far to have left us the first extant, unequivocal
were imposed upon it externally from the motions o f superior spheres. A
description o f limited heliocentric orbits within a system o f eccentrics and
sphere could have only one proper motion, usually characterized as a simple
epicycles.144 Echoes o f it were still heard in the seventeenth century.13143
2
0
14
9
motion. Thus the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars might have the motion
o f precession as its proper motion. But it also had a daily motion and a
139. Copernicus, Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 10 [Rosen], 1978, 20. Among “ other Latin writers,” motion o f trepidation. The sources o f these two motions had to be sought
Rosen suggests that Copernicus may have included Vitruvius, Architecture, IX, 6 (Cop­
ernicus, ibid.. 358). Although Eastwood has eliminated Vitruvius, Macrobius, and Chal- in orbs that were independent of, and distinct from, the eighth sphere. On
cidius as real believers in Sun-centered planetary motion, it does not follow that the universal principle that “ no sphere is ever moved with the motion o f
Copernicus and others would have viewed earlier, potentially relevant Latin authors in an interior sphere but is moved with the motion o f a superior sphere,” as
the same light. In his Almagestum novum, Riccioli considered the Egyptians as the in­
ventors o f the Capellan system and, in addition to Capella, also named Vitruvius, Pierre d’A illy put it,'45 the other two motions o f the eighth sphere were
Macrobius, and Bede as its supporters (see Schofield, 1981, 173 and 347, n. 23).
140. Here are Buridan's words on Ptolemy: “ Dicitur tamen quod Ptolomeus geometrice
invemt sphaeram solis esse supra sphaeram Veneris et sphaeram Veneris supra sphaeram noreworthv, however, that he makes no mention o f the Sun-centered orbits o f Mercurv
Mercurii. Et tunc causa propter quam illae sphaerae sic aequali tempore perticerent suas and Venus.
circulationes, esset similis proportio intelligenciarum moventium ad sphaeras motas. 143. For Amicus’s discussion, see Chapter 14, Section VIII.2.c.
Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 20, 1942, 220, lines 28-33. On the relationships ot intel­ 144. The theory o f trepidation arose from discrepancies in the observation o f precession (see
ligences to the spheres they move, see Chapter 18. Section II. Campanus o f Novara, Theorica planetarum. 19^ 1, 378—379. and Drever. 19^3, 276—2~7).
141. Although in his Questions on the Metaphysics (bk. 12, qu. 10, 1518, 73r~74r), Buridan Ordinarily, either precession or trepidation should have been employed, but some scho­
concludes that all astronomical appearances can be saved by eccentrics alone without lastics assigned both motions to the stars. Albertus Magnus, Metaphysics, bk. 2, tract.
epicycles (tor my translation, see Grant, 1974, 524—526), he speaks ot both eccentrics 2. ch. 24, Opera. 1964, 16. pt. 2:514, col. 1, attributes all three motions to the eighth
and epicycles in the heliocentric argument about Venus and Mercury. Nevertheless, he sphere and mentions Thabit, or Thebit. as the discoverer o f trepidation, which he calls
calls the latter argument “ probable” and raises no objections to the inclusion ot epicycles. “ the motion ot accession and recession” (motus accessions et recessionis). or "pro­
I am ignorant o f the order o f composition o f Buridan’s Metaphysics and his De caelo. gression and regression."
142. Albert o f Saxony considered the same question (De celo, bk. 2, qu. 16, 1518. m v , col. 145. This is the third ot tour assumptions, where d’Ailly says: "Tertio suppomtur quod aliqua
2—U2r, col. 2) as did Buridan and included most o f what Buridan discussed. It is sphaera nunquam movetur ad motum sphaerae inferiors sed bene ad motum sphaerae
superiors.” D ’Ailly, 14 Questions, qu. 2. 1531, 149s
MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 317
316 THE CELESTIAL REGION

quite naturally attributed to superior spheres: one motion to a ninth sphere •fcrimapara. £o!.<5.
and the other to a tenth sphere. Thus with three motions assigned to the
eighth sphere, it was usual to add two spheres; if four motions were assigned
to the sphere o f the fixed stars, three additional orbs were customarily added.
The spheres that allegedly existed beyond the eighth sphere were assumed
to be devoid o f celestial bodies and therefore w holly transparent and in­
visible.
For those who assumed only an east-to-west daily motion for the stars,
no additional orb was necessary; eight movable orbs sufficed.146 Others,
for example, Peter o f Abano, argued for nine spheres. Peter assumed two
motions for the sphere o f the fixed stars: one, the daily motion, he assigned
to the eighth sphere; the other, the precession o f the equinoxes, he attributed
to the ninth sphere.'47 In a somewhat different arrangement, Illuminatus
Oddus ([De coelo, disp. 1, dub. 14], 1672, 41, col. 2) assumed nine mobile
heavens, equating the ninth with the primum mobile and crystalline orb. But
Albert o f Saxony, Roger Bacon, Them on Judaeus, and Pierre d’Ailly,
among others, attributed all three motions to the fixed stars and therefore
assumed the existence o f ten mobile orbs.14814 0Thus Albert assigned the daily
5
9
motion to a tenth orb, the primum mobile; a motion o f trepidation to the
ninth sphere; and the motion o f precession to the eighth or starry sphere.'49
Clavius characterized the theory o f ten mobile orbs as “ the most cele­
brated that has appeared in the schools o f astronomy to this day” ' 50 but did
not himself adopt it, while the Coim bra Jesuits defended it as their opinion,
observing that not only astronomers, but also many Peripatetic philosophers
had embraced it.'5' Both Clavius and the Conimbricenses mention that a

146. Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1518, 105V, col. 1, explains: “ Ulterius sciendum
est quia aliqui philosophi non perceperunt octavam spheram moved pluribus modbus figu re 9. The movable celestial spheres, ranged in order from the lunar
sed unico, scilicet ab oriente in occidentem, dixerunt spheram octavam esse ultimam et orb to the “ first movable heaven” (prim um m obile). Encompassing the
nullam esse ultra.” D ’Ailly, 14 Questions, qu. 2, 1531, I49r, mentions the opinion ot whole is the immobile empyrean heaven, “ dwelling place o f God and
those who insist on the existence o f only eight orbs. They say that the eighth orb moves all the elect.” (Peter Apian, Costnographicus liber (1524), col. 6. Courtesy
with only one motion (the daily motion) and that there is no need to assume a ninth
Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington.)
orb. D ’Ailly rejects this opinion and observes that astronomers (astrologi) deny the at­
tribution o f only a single motion to the eighth sphere. Amicus, De caelo, tract, a, qu.
6. dubit. 2, 1626, 185, col. 2, also mentions the eight-orb interpretation and observes ten-orb scheme was accepted in a similar form by such great astronomers
that its proponents reject the motion o f trepidation.
147. See Peter o f Abano, Lucidator, differ. 3, 1988, p. 217, lines 21-22 through p. 218, line
as Albategnius (al-Battani),'5~ Thabit ibn Qurra, King Alfonso o f Spain,
2. Peter specifically argues against those who assume ten spheres. Georg Peurbach, and Regiomontanus, all o f w hom applied these three
148. Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1518, io6r [incorrectly foliated as 107], col. u motions to the eighth, ninth, and tenth spheres.'53 Thus they assigned the
d’Ailly, 14 Questions, qu. 2, 1531, I49r; and Bacon, De celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 3, Opera,
fasc. 4, 1913, 388; ibid., pt. 5, ch. 18, 447, 449; ibid., ch. 19, 455; for Themon Judaeus,
daily motion from east to west to the tenth sphere, which carried with it
see Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, 105. the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars and all the inferior planetary orbs; to
149. Although d’ Ailly assigned motion o f precession as the proper motion o f the eighth the ninth heaven they attributed a west-to-east motion that carried with it
sphere, he does not specify the motions o f the ninth and tenth orbs. It was usual, however,
to assign the dailv motion to the outermost moving orb, or primum mobile. It is therefore non solum Astronomi, quorum observatio et experientia hac in re fidem meretur, sed
likely that d’Ailly followed Albert o f Saxony and assigned the daily motion to the tenth etiam multi e Peripatetica schola nobiles Philosophi amplectuntur. ” Conimbricenses, De
orb and trepidation to the ninth orb. Clavius reports a different arrangement (see the coelo. bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. i, art. 1, 1598. 247.
next paragraph). 152. Only the Coimbra Jesuits mention Albategnius.
150. ‘‘Hie igitur denarius numerus orbium coelestium in scholis astronomorum celebernmus 153. The same interpretation is also reported, though not accepted, by Amicus, De caelo,
ad hanc usque diem extitit.” Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1, Opera, 1611, 3:23. tract. 4, qu. 6, dubit. 2, 1626, 185, col. 2—186, col. 1.
15 1. “ Haec igitur sententia de denario coelestium sphaerarum numero nobis probatur quaih
318 THE C EL EST IA L REGION
M O BILE CELESTIAL ORBS 319
the firmament, or sphere o f fixed stars, and all the inferior planetary orbs;
carried no star or planet. With this in mind, Clavius posed an interesting
and finally, to the eighth orb o f the hxed stars they assigned the motion o f
objection against himself. He explains that in the twelfth book o f his Meta­
trepidation.'54 The functions assigned to the eighth to tenth orbs could vary,
physics, Aristotle insisted that every motion o f an orb directly represents
as when some assigned the motion o f precession to the ninth orb rather
the motion o f a star or planet, or, as the Conimbricenses explain it ([De
than to the eighth o rb .'55
coelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 1, art. 3], 1598, 250), Aristotle argued that a celestial
Clavius moved from the ten-orb system to one with eleven mobile orbs.
motion exists for the sake o f a planet or star. Since no star or planet exists
In this, he was influenced by Copernicus, whom he called “ a most learned
in the ninth through eleventh orbs, would this not signify a vain and su­
man and most praiseworthy” (vir longe doctissimus, omnique laude dig-
perfluous existence? Clavius replies that although no star or planet exists in
nissimus). According to Clavius, Copernicus assigned four, not three, mo­
those orbs, the motion o f each such orb, as we have seen, exercises a direct
tions to the fixed stars.15 1156 In apparently following Copernicus, Clavius
4
influence on a planet or star that exists in another heaven. The Coimbra
assumed three mobile orbs beyond the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars and
Jesuits argued further (ibid., 251) that orbs do not exist solely to cause the
assigned the four motions to orbs eight to eleven. T o the eleventh orb, he
motion o f planets or stars, as is evidenced by the common assumption that
assigned the daily motion from east to west; to the tenth orb, a motion
all parts o f an orb - even those parts that are distant from the celestial body
from north to south and south to north; to the ninth orb, he assigned “ a
it carries - exercise an influence on inferior bodies below the Moon.
certain unequal libration from east to west and west to east” ; and to the
Clavius was apparently satisfied with his response to the objection but.
eighth sphere o f the fixed stars, a proper motion from west to east, which
like all o f his predecessors and contemporaries, ignored the fact that the
appears to represent the precession o f the equinoxes.157
extra orbs simultaneously affected a given celestial body or bodies. Thus
Although Aristotle had assigned multiple orbs to each planet (but only
the three or four orbs (i.e., orbs nine to eleven or twelve) assigned to
one to the fixed stars), he devised a system in which the orbs o f one planet
represent each o f three or four motions assigned to the eighth sphere o f the
could not effect the orbs o f another. M oreover, since the planet itself was
fixed stars act continuously and simultaneously on the eighth orb. The fixed
carried by only one o f the multiple orbs assigned to it, the remaining orbs
stars would thus be subject to three or four simultaneous motions, which
is what was supposed to be avoided by invoking one orb for each motion
154. Since both texts are substantially similar, I shall cite only that o f Clavius: “ Post Ptole- o f any celestial body. If one were merely saving the phenomena geometri­
maeum deinde. anms mteriectis M CX L fere, Tebith, Alphonsus Hispanorum rex Anno
Domini M CC L, Georgius deinde Peurbachius et Ioannes de Regiomonte insignes as-
cally, the number o f spheres assigned to represent the total number o f
tronomi, deprehenderunt quidem in stellis fixis duos motus praedictos, sed eas praeterea motions would be irrelevant and without physical consequences. But for
observarunt tertio quodam motu, quern accessus et recessus dixerunt, ut paulo post Clavius and other astronomers and natural philosophers, the orbs were
declarabitur agitari. Quare cum corpus simplex unico tantum motu fern sit aptum, ut
volunt Philosophi non potest nonum coelum esse pnmum mobile, sed supra ipsum erit assumed physically real, and all motions were real motions. In the end, the
aliud statuendum coelum quod sit primum mobile. Ita enim fiet ut decimum hoc coelum fixed stars would be subject to contrary motions, since the orbs above would
motu diurno quern habet proprium ab oriente in occidentem, secum trahat omnes coelos act simultaneously on the orb o f the fixed stars. Such problems were ap­
inferiores atque adeo Firmamentum quoque cum stellis fixis spacio 24 horarum; nonum
deinde coelum circumvehat suo proprio motu quern obtinuit ab occidente in onentem parently ignored. Indeed, once the multiple motions o f a planet or the stars
et Firmamentum et reliquos omnes coelos infra ipsum; octavum denique coelum, seu were assigned to independent orbs, the problem was considered resolved.
Firmamentum, in quo stellae fixae existunt, moveatur tanquam proprio motu, accessu At least one medieval natural philosopher opposed the assumption o f a
illo et recessu, quern praefati astronomi repererunt.” Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1, Opera. 1611,
3:23. The Conimbricenses declare that the motion o f access and recess is also called ninth sphere beyond the eighth. Nicole Oresme, noting that astronomers
trepidation (“ Et denique firmamentum motu sibi proprio moveatur, accessu illo et re­ had determined that the eighth orb o f the fixed stars had a movement
cessu, quern titubationis, seu trepidationis, motum vocant"). Conimbricenses, De coelo, composed o f several different motions, for which reason they assumed the
bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 1. art. 1, 1598. 247.
155. As reported by Amicus, De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 6, dubit. 2, 1626, 185, col. 2.
existence o f a ninth sphere, thought such a move superfluous. Unfortu­
156. “ Nostra denique tempestate Nicolaus Copernicus, vir longe doctissimus, omnique laude nately, Oresme rests content merely to inform his readers that in an earlier
dignissimus, non solum tres in stellis fixis motus observavit, sed quatuor." Clavius, w ork he had explained how two different, simultaneous motions could be
Sphere, ch. 1, Opera. 16r 1. 3:23.
157. “ Nam ad motum undecinn coeli, seu primi mobilis, moventur omnia astra ab ortu in assigned to the starry orb without invoking a starless ninth orb .158
occasum; et ad motum decimi coeli a septentrione in austrum et ab austro in septentri- But if we are ignorant o f Oresm e’s way o f avoiding a ninth orb, there
onem per 24 minuta sub coluro solstitiorum; ad motum vero noni coeli habent libra- were apparently other suggestions for obviating the need for additional orbs
tionem quandam inaequalem ab ortu in occasum et ab occasu in ortum sub ecliptica
decimae sphaerae per minuta 140; motu denique proprio octavi orbis stellae fixae cir- beyond the eighth. Albert o f Saxony reports one in which two intelligences
cumvehuntur ab occasu in ortum.” Ibid., 23—24. Amicus, De caelo. tract. 4, qu. 6, dubit. are assigned to the eighth orb, one to move it from east to west, the other
2, art. 4, 1626, i88, col. 2, rejects the eleven-orb system, believing that an eight-orb
system is more probable.
158. Oresme, Le litre dti del, 1968, 488-491. Oresme does not name the earlier treatise.
M O BIL E CELESTIAL ORBS 321
320 THE CELESTIAL REGION

to move it from west to east, a solution that Albert rejects because it violates Although some Greeks thought o f the celestial region as composed o f
Aristotle’s dictum that to one and the same orb only one motive intelligence the four elements, which therefore included water, most would have denied
can be assigned.'59 One might also argue for the existence o f only eight the existence o f a large mass o f water beyond the fixed stars. Indeed, Ar­
orbs by assuming that the eighth orb does not itself move with a plurality istotle denied the possible existence o f water beyond the concave surface o f
o f motions - three, to be precise. Thus tw o o f the motions most frequently the lunar sphere.'63 Biblical exegesis, however, demanded that the waters
assigned to the eighth orb o f the fixed stars might be assigned to the earth, above the firmament be conceived as real, although their precise nature was
namely a west-to-east motion, which would account for the daily motion open to debate.
o f the heavens from east to west, and the progressive and regressive motion Relatively early in the history o f Christianity, those waters were con­
o f trepidation, which Thabit ibn Qurra had discovered.15 160 In this scheme,
9 ceived as crystalline, a term which, as we saw earlier, was sometimes
only the motion o f precession is assigned to the eighth sphere.'6' Because thought o f as applying to fluid waters and sometimes to waters that were
there is no direct evidence to demonstrate that the earth moves in these congealed and hard like a crystal. The latter gained support from Ezekiel
ways, Albert expresses reservations about this interesting opinion, although 1.22, which speaks o f an awesome crystal stretched like a vault over the
he then tantalizingly suggests, without elaboration, that one might devise heads o f the animals o f the firmament.164*Thus for Saint Jerome and Bede
a way to avoid the difficulties.162 the waters above the firmament were conceived as crystal-like, which sig­
nified hardness, whereas for Saints Basil, Gregory o f Nyssa, and Ambrose
they were fluid. Whether fluid or hard, however, during the early Middle
b. The theological heavens: the firmament and the crystalline orb Ages, say from the fifth to the mid-twelfth century, the crystalline orb was
The sacred text o f Genesis 1.6 demanded that waters o f some kind be usually located above the sidereal heaven, or firmament o f fixed stars, and
assumed to lie above and beyond the heaven o f the firmament, or fixed below the empyrean heaven.'65
stars, thus giving rise to tw o theological heavens or orbs: the firmament Whether tw o or three in number, the starless and planetless orbs were
and the crystalline orb. Earlier in this study (Ch. 5, Secs. VI-VII), we assumed to be not only material, physical entities but also transparent and
considered some o f the essential features o f these two orbs. We saw that invisible. It was therefore easy to identify one or all o f them with the waters
the firmament (Jirmamentum) was given a number o f interpretations. A few above the firmament, or the crystalline sphere, as those waters were often
associated it with the air beneath the heavens; others identified it with the described. Some considered the identification o f waters with one or more
region between, and including, the M oon and the fixed stars; while some orbs above the firmament, or above the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars,
limited it solely to the eighth orb o f the fixed stars. Either o f the last two essential on theological grounds,'66 or at least viewed it as a sphere that was
interpretations was compatible with the three-orb compromise system. For named “ crystalline” by theologians.167 Because o f their “ clarity and trans­
even if one counted all the planets and stars as comprising the firmament, parency,” Clavius identified the ninth through eleventh orbs with the crys­
the planets were still conceived as subdivided into seven orbs, while the talline sphere.168 For the same reason, as well as for the freezing power that
fixed stars were embedded w holly in an eighth sphere; or one could simply they allegedly have, the Coimbra Jesuits identified the ninth and tenth
assign the term “ firmament” solely to the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars. mobile orbs with the watery, or glacial, heaven, above the firmament, which
O n either interpretation, the end result was identical. The waters above the is usually characterized by one common name: “ crystalline.” '69 Occasionally
firmament, however, required a somewhat more complex interpretation
163. See Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913-1959. 2:488.
before they could be assimilated into the secular cosm ology o f the Aris­ 164. “ Et similitudo super capita animalium firmamenti, quasi aspectus crystallis horribilis,
totelian—Ptolemaic compromise system. et extenti super capita eorum desuper.” See Bible (Vulgate), 1965; also Campanus of
Novara, Theorica planetarum, 1971, 393-394, n. 54.
159. Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1518, 105V, col. 2—106 [mistakenly foliated 165. Thomas Aquinas [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1. art. 4], 1929-1947, 2:354, cites Rabanus
Maurus (ca. 776-856) as one who assumed seven heavens: empyrean (empyreum), crys­
I07]r, col. 1.
160. “ Aliter potest sustineri quod non essent nisi octo orbes et quod octava sphera non talline (chrystallimim), sidereal (sidereum), fiery (igneunt), olympian (olympium), ethereal
moveretur pluribus modbus sed quod ipsa apparet moveri pluribus motibus est ex eo (aethereum), and airy (aereum).
quod terra movetur ab occidente in orientem et per unum alium motum terre possit 166. See Campanus of Novara, Theorica planetarum, 1971, 183, and Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1,
salvare apparenda motus accessus et recessus octave sphere que invenit Thebit.” Ibid.. Opera, 1611, 3:24.
167. Michael Scot declares (Sphere, 1949, 283): “ Secundum celum dicitur nona sphera que a
106 [mistakenly foliated I07]r, col. 1.
161. For further discussion o f the earth’s possible axial rotation, see Chapter 20, Section V. theologis dicitur cristallinum.”
162. “ Sed istud non videtur esse omnino tutum quia non apparet prima facie quid terrain sic 168. Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1, Opera, 1611, 3:24.
moveret. Nihilominus forte qui niteretur in defensionem huius opinionis posset excog- 169. “ Nonum et decimum, quos, ut alibi retulimus, theologorum nonnulli significari putant
itare faciliter modum hoc evadendi et plura alia dictam opimonem multum colorantia. in sacris literis nomine aquarum cum Geneseos 1., dicunt Deum aquas ab aquis interposito
Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1518, 107 [really io6]r, col. 1. firmamento secrevisse. et in Psalmo 148, cum dicuntur aquae esse super coelos aquae,
322 THE CELESTIAL REGION
MOBILE CELESTIAL ORBS 323
there was hesitation in such identifications. Convinced on theological
it was not the heaven created on the first day with which Christian natural
grounds that there was a crystalline sphere, Campanus o f Novara was
philosophers and theologians eventually identified the ninth orb - and even
initially uncertain about identifying it with the ninth orb, though he even­
tenth and eleventh orbs. It was rather with the waters above the firmament,
tually did so.170 Peter o f Abano went further and insisted that those who
which they often described as a crystalline orb.
theologized more spheres by “ assuming a crystalline, or aqueous [sphere]
In these brief and general descriptions and allusions to a ninth sphere, we
and an empyrean, or fiery [sphere]” did so on the basis o f revelation, not
learn o f certain significant features. During the thirteenth century, some
reason or experience, on which he based his w ork.' 1
authors - Robertus Anglicus and Michael Scot, for example - upheld the
The concept o f a ninth orb probably entered western Europe within the
existence o f a ninth orb, despite a degree o f uncertainty. Robertus admits
corpus o f Greco-Arabic astronomy and cosm ology that was translated from
that he was aware o f no authority who had demonstrated the necessity for
Arabic into Latin. Thus Roger Bacon held that in some translations of
more than eight orbs. Nevertheless, because two motions were associated
Aristotle’s Metaphysics a ninth orb is assumed,172 as it was in works by
with each o f the eight planetary orbs, as well as with the eighth starrv orb,
Thebit and Al-BitrujI (Alpetragius).171 The introduction o f a ninth orb was
he thought it reasonable to assume that a ninth orb existed which possessed
made within a secular and astronomical context, having no connection with
only a single, simple motion - presumably the daily east-to-west motion.
theology. A ninth orb was therefore sometimes, and perhaps even often,
But the ninth orb exercised a cosmic influence not only by motion but also
mentioned without any reference to the waters above the firmament or the
by light, which was evenly distributed over the orb, in contrast to planet­
crystalline sphere. It was the first astronomical sphere beyond the sphere
bearing orbs where light was concentrated around and near the celestial
o f the fixed stars and was usually assigned one o f the motions associated
b o d y .177 Michael Scot offered very nearly the same argument.178
with the latter. John o f Sacrobosco, for example, says no more about the
A t some point, however, perhaps during the initial influx o f Greco-
ninth sphere than that it is the “ first mobile orb” (primutn mobile), or the
Arabic astronomical and cosmological literature, the starless, transparent
“ last heaven.” 174 Other thirteenth- and fourteenth-century authors - for
ninth orb was linked with the biblical waters above the firmament and
example, Robertus Anglicus and Cecco d’Ascoli - also mention it without
thereafter identified with the crystalline orb. The two are already joined in
any reference to its “ crystalline” character or its theological connection.
Vincent o f Beauvais’ Speculum naturale, probably composed over the period
Precisely who linked the biblical account with a ninth and starless orb
1244-1254.1 9 Although, as we saw, not everyone explicitly made the con­
may never be known. As early as the sixth century, John Philoponus iden­
nection when discussing the ninth orb, many did, so that throughout the
tified the ninth sphere,175 not with the waters above the heaven, but with
period o f this study the ninth sphere was frequently equated with a ervs-
the heaven created on the first day, which he described as a transparent,
talline orb o f biblical origin.
starless orb that surrounds the firmament created on the second day.176 But
We have now considered all the mobile orbs in medieval cosmology but
quae super coelos sunt, laudent nomen Domini. Neque incongrue hi duo orbes aquarum have yet to examine the final theological sphere, the immobile, empvrean
nomine designari possunt propterea quod cum nullae in iis stellae fulgeant, sed admodum heaven. Because the latter was widely discussed and always problematic, a
translucidi et perspicui sint aquarum referunt similitudinem turn quia pertrigerandi vim
habere creduntur. Quare a quibusdam coelum aqueum, sive glaciale, ab aliis Christal-
separate chapter (Ch. 15) will be devoted to it.
linum uno communi nomine appellantur.” Commbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu.
177. Robertus Anglicus. Sphere, lec. 1, 1949, 148 (Latin), 203 (English).
1. art. 5, 1598, 252.
170. He was uncertain in the Theorica planetarum but not in Tracuuus de sphera. See Campanus 178. Michael’s discussion is embedded in a question format. See Michael Scot, Sphere, lec.
2, 1949, 259-260.
of Novara, Theorica planetarum, 1971. 183 and 393, n. 53.
171. “ Propter secundum sciendum quod theologizantes plures speras, sive celos, figurant, 179. In his lengthy discussion on the crystalline sphere (bk. 3, chs. 90-100. cols. 221-229;.
super octavam, quidem, ponentes cristallinum sive aqueum, et empireum seu igneum, Vincent focuses mostly on its theological aspects, but in chapters 97 and 100. columns
de quibus in presentanum nihil, cum potius que ipsorum, revelatione quam ratione 226 and 228, respectively, he links it explicitly with an astronomical ninth heaven.
sciantur, aut experientia, quibus hoc opus nititur sistere. ” Peter ot Abano, Lucidator.
differ. 3, 1988, 214, lines 4-8.
172. Nowhere in the works o f Aristotle is there even a vague hint o f a ninth orb beyond the
fixed stars.
173. Bacon, De celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 2, Opera, fasc. 4, 1913, 387-388.
174. See Sacrobosco, Sphere, ch. 1, 1949* 118—119.
175. He attributed the discovery o f a ninth sphere to Hipparchus and Ptolemy. In the Hy­
potheses, Ptolemv seems to have assumed a ninth sphere, whose functi* m was to move
the starry sphere but which was not connected with the precession os the equinoxes.
See Ptolemy, Hypotheses, 1907, 122, 125, and Pedersen, 1974, 249, n. 7.
176. For a summary o f Philoponus's views in his De opijicio mundi. see Duhem, Le Systeme,
1913—1959* 2:496-501.
ARE THE HEAVENS H ARD OR FLUID? 325
14 possible. Thus to inquire about the possible hardness or softness o f celestial
orbs is to ask an irrelevant question.
Perhaps in order to avoid posing such questions, William Donahue sup­
poses that the Peripatetics conceived o f the heavens and its orbs as “ im­
Are the heavens composed of material or quasi-material” entities, whatever these terms may signify/ A
similar position is adopted by Edward Rosen, who denies (1985, 13) that
hard orbs or a fluid Aristotle argued for the existence o f solid celestial orbs. Because Aristotle
denied the existence o f corruptible terrestrial matter in the incorruptible and
substance? unchanging ethereal heavens, it followed, Rosen argued, that his celestial
ether was not material and therefore could be neither solid nor hard, as
Pierre Duhem had claimed. Indeed, by similar reasoning (though Rosen
does not draw the inference), it could not be fluid either. From a narrow,
strict-constructionist standpoint, one might defend such an approach. In
reality, however, this interpretation misunderstands Aristotle’s intent, and,
Prior to the impact o f Tycho Brahe’s astronomical research, scholastic au­
if applied to the Middle Ages, would distort medieval opinion. It will be
thors found no reasop to devote even a single question to consider whether
well to eliminate this second interpretation before proceeding.
the celestial orbs might be hard or soft. Tycho, however, had made the
Although Aristotle may have denied that alterable matter like that on
question virtually unavoidable. The issues he raised challenged the very
earth could exist in the heavens, his ether may be construed as a fifth kind
existence o f eccentric and epicyclic orbs and inevitably posed questions
o f substance, or element - a quinta essentia, as many commentators would
about the hardness or softness o f the celestial ether. Although it was Tycho
call it — with properties, as we have seen, radically different from those o f
who first made the ether’s hardness or softness an issue central to cosmology,
the four sublunar elements. Whatever Aristotle may have thought about
the problem had a long, but vague and even muted, history. Because me­
the properties o f the celestial ether, there is no doubt that in De caelo he
dieval scholastic natural philosophers rarely discussed the matter directly or
assumed the corporeality, and therefore phvsicalitv, o f the heavenly orbs.3
in useful detail, information about the hardness or fluidity o f orbs must be
As nonspiritual, corporeal, and therefore three-dimensional physical entities
gleaned indirectly from discussions in other contexts.
composed o f ether, celestial orbs had to be something akin to hard or soft
- even though Aristotle himself was committed to a formal denial o f con­
trary qualities such as hardness and softness, hotness and coldness, and rarity
I. M odern in terp retation s o f m ed ieva l orbs and density. In the course o f discussions on the celestial orbs, one would
sooner or later find it necessary to speak o f their physical nature, despite
A widely held opinion today is that scholastic authors thought the celestial Aristotle’s strictures. Were they hard or soft? If one or the other, then could
orbs were solid, where “ solid” is taken as synonymous with hard or rigid.' they also be said to be, in some sense, dense or rare? But Aristotle seems
Here the image is one o f transparent glass or crystalline globes. Hardly in to have precluded such analyses. Perhaps this is w hy he chose to ignore the
contention as to popularity with the first opinion today is a second, which physical nature o f celestial spheres and w hy he offered no helpful clues as
assumes that medieval thinkers faithfully adhered to Aristotle’s dicta about to how one might speak about them.
the celestial ether. Thus the orbs or spheres could be neither solid nor fluid Indeed, this may well explain w hy his medieval scholastic commentators
because Aristotle had argued that contrary qualities such as hardness and also chose to ignore the problem. Butjust as many scholastic authors ignored
softness, density and rarity, and so on, were inapplicable to the incorrup­
tible, celestial ether o f which they were composed. Nicholas Jardine ob­ 2. Sec Donahue, 1973, 251. 256-259, 275.
3- In De caelo 2.12.2933.8, Aristotle declares that “ the last sphere moves round embedded in
serves (1982, 175) that to pose a question about the hardness or softness ot a number ot'spheres, and each sphere is corporeal." Aristotle [Guthrie], i960. In the Latin
celestial spheres would have been considered a “ category mistake.” Hard­ translation o f Aristotle’s De caelo that accompanies Averroes’ commentary, the Latin trans­
ness and softness are qualitative opposites found only in terrestrial matter. lation o f Aristotle's second phrase is “ et omnis orbis eorum est corpus.” See Averroes [De
caelo, bk. 2, text 70], 1562—1574, 5:70r, col. 1. In his Hexaemeron, Robert Grosseteste
Since pairs o f opposite qualities are the source o f all terrestrial change, they reports: “John Damascene also implies in his book o f Sentences that the existence o f an
must o f necessity be absent from the celestial region, where change is im-1 immaterial body, that which is called a fifth body among the wise men o f the Greeks, is
impossible," but he declares that Aristotle and his followers did assume the existence o f
a “ fifth body” in addition to the four elements. Grosseteste, Hexaemeron. part. 3, ch. 6,
1. For a lengthy list ot" scholars who hold this opinion, see Grant, 1987a, on which I rely tor 1. 1982, 106. John may have had in mind the passage from Aristotle just cited.
much o f what follows. See 153.
326 THE C E L EST IA L REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S H A R D OR FLU ID? 327

Aristotle’s famous dictum that neither place, nor void, nor time could exist agreement about the nature ot the different traditional divisions o f the heav­
beyond the outermost sphere ot the physical world and began to inquire ens, which often influenced the properties that were assigned. By the
what indeed might lie beyond, so, to a lesser extent, did some o f those seventeenth century, Giovanni Baptista Riccioli distinguished five different
same scholastic authors reveal an opinion or judgment, usually indirectly, interpretations concerning the hardness or softness o f the heavens.5 There
about the hardness or softness ot the celestial orbs, which they all assumed were those who believed that all the heavens were w holly solid - that is,
to be physical bodies. hard - while others thought them w holly fluid. The last three opinions
To my knowledge, no medieval natural philosopher rested content to assumed a partly solid and partly fluid celestial region. Thus Riccioli reports
depict the celestial orbs as immaterial entities devoid o f physical properties. a third opinion wherein the fluid part apparently consisted o f ring-like
This remains true, despite the tact that many denied in the abstract that the channels filled with a subtle or tenuous air-like substance. The surfaces and
celestial ether could possess terrestrial attributes such as hotness and cold­ everything else were presumably hard. A fourth opinion assumed that the
ness, or rarity and density. O nly when confronted with specific problems extremities o f the celestial region were solid, namely the heaven, or sphere,
about the spheres themselves - that is, about their arrangement and the o f the fixed stars and the heaven, or sphere, o f the Moon. Everything
relationships between successive surfaces — do scholastic natural philoso­ between these two extremes was o f a fluid nature. The fifth and final opin­
phers speak in a quite different vein and reveal, perhaps inadvertently, a ion, which Riccioli says is “ now the most celebrated” (nunc celeberrima
concern about real, physical spheres. Indeed, we have already seen that opinio) - indeed it wras a direct legacy from Tycho Brahe - assumed a solid
numerous medieval discussions about possible physical problems that might sphere for the fixed stars with the planetary heavens being o f a fluid nature.
affect eccentric orbs — for example, whether vacua can occur between suc­ A m ong the numerous partisans o f these opinions that Riccioli mentions,
cessive celestial surfaces or whether two orbs can overlap and occupy the few are from the late Middle A ges.6 Indeed, Riccioli includes only the names
same place simultaneously - provide ample evidence that the spheres were o f Thomas Aquinas, who, he says, took no position on the fluidity or
conceived as physical bodies. I am aware o f no instance in which physical solidity o f the heavens; Michael Scot and Cecco d’Ascoli, who assumed
considerations were dismissed because the celestial orbs were deemed im­ that the heavens were fluid; and Saint Bonaventure, who assumed that the
material or quasi-material. Despite Aristotle’s well-known attitude, those heavens were partly fluid, partly solid.7 Although, as we shall see, other
orbs were judged to be physical, and it was therefore difficult to avoid the names may be added, the paucity o f medieval names is probably no ov­
attribution o f some physical properties to them. Although the attribution ersight but reflects the fact that tew medieval scholars expressed opinions
o f contrary qualities to Aristotle’s ethereal orbs is a “ category mistake” on this interesting problem, which only became a major issue in the late
w'ithin Aristotelian cosmology, some o f Aristotle’s legions o f commentators sixteenth and the seventeenth century. It was during this later period that
often found it unavoidable to attribute terrestrial qualities to celestial bodies. the expression “ solid sphere” became virtually synonymous with “ hard
With the second interpretation eliminated from further consideration, we sphere” or “ rigid sphere.” From the seventeenth century on, the association
shall now attempt to determine whether, during the late Middle Ages, the o f “ solid” with “ hard” was applied retrospectively to the Middle Ages and
celestial orbs were conceived as hard and rigid or fluid and soft, or perhaps became fixed in the subsequent literature o f the history o f astronomy and
some combination o f these properties. The problem o f the hardness or cosm ology. Thus it is that when modern scholars speak o f “ solid” orbs in
softness o f the celestial region is rather complex. The fact that a natural the Middle Ages, they usually mean orbs that are hard and rigid.8 But was
philosopher may have assumed the existence o f celestial orbs does not permit this the medieval understanding o f a celestial orb? To ascertain whether the
us to make any inference as to whether he thought them hard o: soft. description o f an orb as solid also implied its hardness or rigidity, we must
Ptolemy himself may have aided the confusion by his apparent assumption
in the Almagest that planets move about in fluid media, a view he seems to 5. See Riccioli, Almagestum novum. pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 1651, 238, col. 2-240, col.
have abandoned in the Hypotheses oj the Planets.* M oreover, there was dis-4 *
6. Most are from the ancient period (Greeks and Romans) and from the sixteenth and sev­
enteenth centuries, which would have been the modern period for Riccioli.
4. Duhem, Le Systeme. 1913—1959, 2:479, explains chat in the Almagest Ptolemy regarded the 7. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 1651, 239, cols. 1—2. Bonav-
heaven as a fluid in which the stars moved freely but that he abandoned this idea in his enture’s position is unclear. Although he accepts the existence o f orbs, he also insists that
later Hypotheses. In his translation, Talialerro has Ptolemy say that the planets “ can all they are continuous, subtle, and rare like water. Indeed, they have no terminating surfaces
penetrate and shine through absolutely all the fluid media” (Ptolemy, Almagest, bk. 13, as do solid bodies (see Bonaventure [Sewena’s. bk. 2, dist. 14, pt. 2, art. 1, qu. rj, Opera,
ch. 2 [Taliaferro], 1952, 429). in Toomer’s translation (Ptolemy. Almagest, bk. 13, ch. 2, 2:352, cols. 1-2). Bonaventure’s heavens seem more fluid than solid. Nevertheless, Amicus
1984, 601), however, Ptolemy says that the nature o f the heavens “ is such as to afford no also attributed to Bonaventure heavens that were a mixture ot fluid and solid (Amicus [De
hindrance, but o f a kind to yield and give way to the natural motions o f each part, even caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5. art. 2], 1626, 275, col. 1).
if [the motions] are opposed to one another.” Is a substance that yields and gives way to 8. For example, Jardine, 1982. 175, assumes that solidity is the opposite o f fluidity and is
the motions of other parts also a fluid substance or merely elastic? therefore equivalent to hardness.
328 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE HEAVENS HARD OR FL U ID ? 32 9

examine the meanings that were assigned to the term solidum during the [i.e., the convex surface] that a round solid is contained, because it includes every­
Middle Ages.

II. T h e m ean in g o f the term so lid u m in the M id d le A ges


|
j
thing within itself, leaving nothing outside.

Is there a parallel between the respective threefold senses o f the terms "solid”
and "surface” ? Since Michael obviously intended three senses o f the term
At the beginning o f his famous thirteenth-century treatise On the Sphere 1 surface, may we also infer that he intended three distinct senses o f the term
(De spera), John o f Sacrobosco defined a sphere by citing Euclid and Theo­ | solid? If so, then he may also have intended that celestial bodies be conceived
dosius, both o f whom considered it a solid body.910As a consequence, it j of as continuous but not hard, or at least not necessarily hard.
became usual, in commentaries on Sacrobosco’s Sphere, to inquire about An examination o f a discussion by Robertus Anglicus, in the latter’s
the nature o f a sphere and occasionally to ask about the sense in which a I Commentary on the “ Sphere” of Sacrobosco, written around 1271, lends support
sphere was a solid. In a commentary on the Sphere ascribed to Michael Scot, ] to this possibility. In a passage that he may have drawn, and perhaps even
we learn that the term solidum is spoken o f in three ways: 1 copied, from Michael Scot, Robertus describes the same three senses o f the
« terms solidum and superficies. 12 He assumes the existence o f nine celestial
in one way, it is the same as hard, just like earth; in another w ay solid is the same orbs and also proclaims the immutability o f the material from which they
as continuous, and thfhs the elements and supercelestial bodies are called solid; in a are composed. The orbs are distinguished as being larger and smaller orbs
third way it is like a three-dimensional thing, and thus it is the same as a bodv. by means o f "greater and smaller intelligible [i.e., imaginary] circles.” That
Therefore it is not superfluous to say that a s p h e r e is a s o l i d b o d y .'0 is, an orb, or sphere, is the space that is cut o ff between two such circles
and is the place where each planet is carried.'3 Robertus illustrates the ar­
Although this significant passage poses serious problems, it is striking that rangement o f the nine celestial orbs by imagining nine wheels o f such sizes
Michael - for convenience, let us assume that he was the author — invokes that they can be arranged concentrically. These nine nested wheels are
earth to exemplify the meaning o f a hard solid, but mentions celestial bodies" assumed to be in the air and to move around the same center. Robertus
(and the elements) to illustrate the meaning o f a continuous solid. Does this now explains that the quantity or volume o f air between any two wheels
signify that Michael thought o f the celestial bodies as continuous but not is like a celestial orb which carries around the planet that lies within it. By
hard? This may depend on whether the term ‘‘elements’’ (elementa), in the choosing air enclosed by wheels as his analogy with celestial orbs, Robertus
second sense o f solid, includes or excludes earth. Was Michael, in effect, leaves the impression that he conceived o f the celestial orbs as somehow
dividing the elements into hard (earth) and soft (water, air, and fire), with fluid in nature - or at least fluid in their interiors, if not in their surfaces.
only the latter assumed continuous? If so, the celestial bodies would also This interpretation gains credibility when Robertus later considers
be continuous and soft, just like water, air, and fire. whether the celestial spheres are continuous (continue) or contiguous (con-
Another possibility suggests that Michael had something else in mind, tigue) and decides that they are continuous, which means that the convex
namely to signify that solid bodies possessed all three attributes: hardness, surface o f one sphere is identical with the concave surface o f the next-
continuity, and tridimensionality. This interpretation seems less plausible, superior o rb .'4 But if the successive surfaces o f successive orbs are contin­
because, in a sentence immediately following the one proclaiming his three­ uous, Robertus acknowledges the following problem:
fold sense o f the term solidum, Michael provides a clue that he may have
intended three quite distinct senses o f solid rather than to suggest that a since the orbs are moved by contrary motions. . . . then one and the same [surface]
solid possesses all three attributes. For he says: would be moved by contrary motions, which is impossible. Also, it would then
follow that, if one orb were moved by some motion, all the other orbs would be
It is also known that a surface [supe rf ici es ] is threefold: it is plane, as in a wall: it IS moved by the same motion, which, nevertheless, we know to be im possible.'5
concave, as in a tub; [and it is] convex, as in a mountain. And it is by such a surface
12. For the Latin passages, see Robertus Anglicus. Sphere, lec. 1, 1949, 145 (and 200 for
9. See Sacrobosco, Sphere. 1949, 76—77 (Latin) and 118 (English). Thorndike’s translation). Robertus substitutes the expression corpora celestia for Michael
10. “ Item nota quod solidum dicitur tribus modis: uno modo est idem quod durum, sicut Scot’s corpora supercelestia. Aiton, 1981, 90, mentions Robertus’s discussion o f the term
terra; alio modo solidum idem quod continuum, et sic elementa et corpora supercelestu “ solid” and correctly explains that “ The Earth was solid in the first sense, while the
solida dicuntur; tertio modo. id est, quod trina dimensio. et sic idem est quou corpus, celestial bodies were solid in the second and third senses, but were not necessarily hard.”
unde non est ibi negatio, Spera est corpus solidum." Ibid., 256. r3- Robertus uses the terms spera and orbis interchangeably.
11. By the expression corpora supercelestia, I assume that Michael means all celestial bodies J4 - “ Ad primam questionem dicendum quod omnes orbes novem sunt continui.” Robertus
that is, both planets and spheres. Anglicus, Sphere, lec. 1, 1949, 147. If the surfaces were distinct, the orbs would be
contiguous. This discussion appears in ibid., 146-147 (Latin), 202-203 (English).
! r5- Ibid., 202. These arguments have already been described.
330 THE C E LESTIA L REGION ARE THE HE A V E N S H A RD OR FLUID? 33 1

In replying to this difficulty, Robertus indicates that orbs are fluid when he may be drawn from the discussions o f our two thirteenth-century com­
says: mentators on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco: when the term solidum, or any o f
its variants, occur in the context o f a discussion on celestial orbs, they may,
We suppose the outer edge o f the orb im m obile and the middle o f the orb to be in the absence o f any other decisive criteria, refer to either hard or soft
moved, just as we see that the center o f water is moved, yet at its sides the water spheres. The modern interpretation, which always equates solid with hard,
is still. And it seems much more likely that this can be done in the orbs, which are is unwarranted.
much simpler than water. N or, as is now clear, need all orbs be m oved when one But a m ove toward equating solid with hard may already have been
orb moves, although they are continuous, just as it is not necessary that, when a under w ay in the fourteenth century. We may infer this from Pierre d’Ailly,
part o f the water is moved, all the water should be moved, although the water is who, by the end o f the fourteenth or early fifteenth century, said that solidum
continuous.1'' is taken in three ways, the first o f which assumes that it is “ firm or hard,
just like iron or stone, and this is the common u s a g e . I n the course o f
Whatever Robertus may have meant by these examples, the fact that he the sixteenth century, and certainly by the seventeenth century, the earlier
used water to illustrate the continuity and motion o f celestial orbs suggests ambivalence vanishes: fluid then was regularly opposed to solid, with the
that he thought o f those orbs as continuous and fluid rather than as con­ latter unequivocally equated with hard, as when Johannes Poncius declared:
tinuous and hard.'7 Moreover, his description is o f great interest, for he “ some say that the heaven is a continuous body and fluid, like a ir. . . ; and
seems to say that the surface o f an orb can be assumed to be immobile while other moderns think that the firmament is a solid [i.e., hard] b ody.” "'' For
the part toward its center is in motion. Thus the planet itself is somehow Michael Scot and Robertus Anglicus, and perhaps tor other natural philos­
carried by the fluid part o f the orb lying within its immobile surfaces. But ophers during the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, the concept o f a solid
what is the nature o f an orb’s immobile surfaces? The water analogy indicates body may have entailed a fluid state. But during that very period the iden­
fluid surfaces, since the latter are in no w ay differentiated from their mobile tification o f hard with solid was well under way.
content.
By adopting an approach in w’hich only the inner part o f an orb was
assumed to move while its outermost surface lay immobile, Robertus
avoided the seemingly impossible dilemma that would have resulted from III. T h e three m ajor positions
an assumption o f the continuity o f the celestial orbs. For on that assumption, From m y summary o f Riccioli’s five opinions on the fluidity or hardness
two separate but successive and immediately proximate orbs would nec­ o f the heavens, it is evident that these opinions reduce to three alternatives:
essarily move in the same direction, because the convex surface o f the inner (1) all are hard; (2) all are fluid, or soft; and (3) some are hard and some
sphere would be continuous - that is, identical - with the concave surface fluid.'0 M ost scholastics appear to have adopted the third, or mixed, inter­
ol the next-superior orb. Despite the assumption o f continuity, however, pretation, assuming some orbs to be hard and others soft. A prime example
Robertus could now declare that although the convex surface o f the pla­ is Aegidius Romanus, who assumed a hard overall orb from the Moon to
netary orb ot Mars and the concave surface o f the sphere o f Jupiter, for the sphere o f the fixed stars but conceived o f the eccentric deferents as
example, wrere one and the same, those tw o planetary spheres could, none­ channels filled with a soft substance. Thus far the authors whom we have
theless, move in different directions, because only the middling parts of sampled have spoken only in generalities. We must now examine medieval
each sphere or orb - not the surface itself - would move.
Although the evidence is stronger for Robertus Anglicus, both he and
18. “ Esc advertendum quod tnpliciter solet capi solidum. Primo modo prout tantum valet
Michael Scot appear to have thought o f the celestial orbs as soft rather than sicut firmum vel durum sicut terrum vel lapis et sic eo utuntur vulgares.” D ’Ailly [14
hard. Whatever the merits o f that claim, however, one strong inference16 *
7 Questions, qu.i], 1531, rqSr.
19. Poncius wrote these remarks in his commentary on book 2 of Scotus’s Sentences. See
Poncius [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 2] 1639, vol. 6. pt. 2:727, col. 1. Poncius observes
16. Ibid.. 202-203. that the solidity - that is. hardness - o f the heavens is an opinion "more common" to
17. Bonaventure seems to have held the same opinion (see note 7 o f this chapter). Aegidius Peripatetics (727. col. 2). Although Amicus accepted solid and hard celestial orbs, he
Romanus may have had Robertus in mind when he attacked, as a “ fatuous” opinion, the reports that “ in bk. 1, ch. 1 o f his Almagest, it seems that Ptolemy assumes that solid and
idea that "just as water that remains continuous can be moved according to one part to hard bodies are mutually distinct" (Videtur Ptolomaei I, Almeg. c. 1 . . . supponit esse
one place and according to mother part to another place: thus the orbs should be able to corpora solida et dura inter se disuncta). See Amicus, De caelo. tract. 5. qu. 5, art. 2.
do the same thing. But thf> cannot occur without the division o f the water. Hence this 1626, 275, col. 2.
cannot be applied to the orbs without division o f the orbs." Aegidius Romanus, Opus 20. Among authors who distinguish these three positions are Amicus, ibid., 275, col. 1 and
Hexaemeron, pt. 2, ch. 32, 1ss>, 49r. col. 2. Aegidius regarded the heavens as solid overall, Roderigo de Arriaga [De caelo, disp. 1, sec. 3, subsec. 1], 1632. 499, cols. 1-2. Both
with softness confined to the channels marking out the eccentric deferents. present four different opinions.
332 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE H EAVENS H A R D OR FLUID? 333

opinions about the orbs or heavens themselves. Because so few considered declares that the waters above the heaven (i.e., firmament) are not in a
the various parts o f the heavens systematically, information must be gleaned vapory form but are suspended by icy solidity (glaciali soliditate) to prevent
from a variety o f sources, often from discussions o f this or that particular their fall.234 Here we find the conviction that in liquid form the waters would
12
heaven or o f the heavens as a whole. Therefore, I shall now describe what surely flow downward; only if they were frozen or congealed would they
medieval natural philosophers thought about the hardness or softness o f the remain suspended above the firmament.
tw o major celestial subdivisions, namely the crystalline heaven and the Those who assumed that the waters above the firmament were fluid
firmament, the latter, as we saw (Ch. 5, Sec. VI. 2), often including the formed the larger group during the Middle Ages and included Ambrose,
planetary orbs, which were frequently conceived as subdivisions of John Damascene, Alexander o f Hales, Robert Grosseteste, Richard o f Mid­
the firmament. dleton, Saint Bonaventure, Vincent o f Beauvais, and an anonymous author
o f a French encyclopedia written around 1 4 0 0 . Within this group, some,
like Richard o f Middleton and Saint Bonaventure, provide little or no de­
scription o f the other alternative, namely that the supraheavenlv waters
IV . T h e crysta llin e orb might be hard like a crystal. They were agreed, however, that although
In its theological aspect, the crystalline sphere developed from commentaries these waters were unlike ordinary elemental water, they did share with it
on Genesis 1.7, which spoke o f a division o f waters between those above a few important properties, namely, transparency (perspicuitas) and coldness
the firmament and those below. From the time o f the Church Fathers, the (jrigiditas), and for Richard also the property o f wetness (humidum). Vincent
meaning and significance o f the waters above the firmament were, as we o f Beauvais, who assumed that the waters were immutable, believed they
have seen, much debated. Because the biblical text spoke o f waters above were luminous (luminosum), transparent (perspicuum), and subtle (subtile).2A
the firmament, Christian authors, following Saint Augustine, were gen­ Although terms like “ crystalline” and “ icy solidity” seem to imply hard­
erally agreed on the necessity for a literal interpretation o f this particular ness, they could be interpreted otherwise. In commenting on Peter Lom­
text and were therefore committed to the existence o f waters o f some kind bard’s passage on the icy solidity o f the waters above the firmament,
above the firmament (see Ch. 5, Sec. V I).'1 All else was seemingly arguable. Bonaventure insists that the sense o f solidity that implies that those waters
Indeed, the debate hinged on the interpretation placed on the terms “ waters” are heavy and held in position above the firmament by violence is contrary
(aquae) and “ firmament” (firmamentum), the latter largely determining the to the order o f the universe. We should rather understand that “ those waters
meaning o f the form er.'' compare with icy solidity [glaciali soliditati] not because o f heaviness but
From the time o f the Church Fathers to the end o f the Middle Ages, a because o f continuity and stability because they do not ebb or flow, nor do
variety o f interpretations o f the waters above the firmament were proposed. they descend dow nw ard.” 27 Bartholomew the Englishman is even more
The interpreters divide essentially into two groups: those who thought of explicit when he explains that the waters above the heaven (firmament) are
the waters as solid and hard and those who considered them fluid. Among called “ crystalline, not because they are hard [durum] like a crystal but
the former we may include Saint Jerome and Bede, the latter likening the
24. See Peter Lombard [Sentences, bk. 2. Hist. 14, ch. 4, par. 1], 1971, 396.
waters to “ the firmitv o f a crystalline stone” (cristallini lapidis quanta jtrrtn- 25. Saint Ambrose, Hexameron. 3rd homily (bk. 2. the 2nd day), ch. 3, 1961. 51-59; John
tas).ZJ In his famous and widely used Sentences, composed in the twelfth Damascene, The Orthodox Faith, bk. 2, ch. 9 [Chase], 1958, 37:224; Alexander ot Hales,
Summa theologica. mquis. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 2, ch. 5 (“ Qualiter lllae aquae dicantur
century, Peter Lombard indicates an awareness o f Bede’s opinion when he
caelum crystallinum” ), 1928. 2:341; Grosseteste, Hexaemeron. part. 3, ch. 5, 4. 1982, 104;
Richard o f Middleton [Sentences, bk. 2. dist. 14, qu. 1 (“ Utrum coelum crystallinum
21. One who was not was William o f Conches (fl. 1120-1149), who. in his Philosophia mundi. dictum sit naturae aquae")], 1591, 2:167-168; Bonaventure, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, art.
denied that waters could exist above the firmament and insisted that the scriptural passage 1, qu. 1 (“ Utrum caelum crystallinum sit natura aquae” ). Opera. 2:335—338; Vincent ot
in which this is asserted must be interpreted allegorically. See Lemay. 1977, 231. Beauvais, Speculum naturale, chs. 90—roo, 1624, cols. 221—229, especially col. 224; tor the
22. To see how the meaning o f “ firmament” determined the meaning o f the “ waters” above statement in the French encyclopedia, see Hvatte and Ponchard-Hyatte, 1985, n .
that firmament, and to obtain an excellent sampling o f the different interpretations placed 26. Richard is silent, whereas Bonaventure mentions only that Bede believed that the waters
on both o f these terms, see Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologiae, pt. 1, qu. 68, arts, i above the heavens rested, and were sustained, by virtue o f their solidity: "Et ibidem
(“ Was the firmament made on the second day?” ); 2 (“ Are there any waters above the aquae illae quiescunt et sustentantur vel sua soliditate. sicut videtur Beda dicere, vel sua
firmament?” ); and 3 (“ Does the firmament separate some waters from others?” ), I964_ subtilitate, vel etiam Dei virtute, quae sic ordinavit. ’ Bonaventure, ibid., 337, col. 2. For
1976, 10:71-77. 77-83, and 83—87, respectively. Aquinas explains (79): “ we maintain that Vincent, see Speculum naturale. bk. 3, ch. 95, 1624, i:col. 224. Vincent also describes the
these waters are material. Just what they are must be explained in different ways depending alternative opinion that the waters are congealed like a crystal and rejects it because he
on various theories about the firmament.” He then proceeds to offer a number ot inter­ can find no cause that would congeal the waters; ibid., col. 221. Grosseteste described
pretations (for some o f them, see Ch. 5, Sec. VI). the opinion that the waters above the firmament were like a hard, crystalline stone (cristallus
23. For the relevant passages from Jerome and Bede, see Campanus of Novara, Theortca lapis) and also rejected it (Hexaemeron, part. 3, ch. 3, 4, 1982. 104).
planetarum, 1971. 393—394, n. 54. 27. Bonaventure, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, pt. 1, art. 3, qu. 2, dub. 1, Opera, 2:350, col. 1.
334 THE CE LEST IA L REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S HARD OR FLUID? 335

because they are uniformly luminous and transparent. Moreover, it [i. e., unusual for natural philosophers to extend the firmament to include not
the crystalline heaven] is called watery insofar as water is moved by virtue only the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars but also the planetary orbs. N ow
o f its subtlety and mobility. ” ‘ s A similar description is provided by the we must determine whether that firmament was conceived as hard, or fluid,
author o f a French encyclopedia, who, around 1400, declared that or some combination o f these contrary properties
Arriving at an opinion was not often easy, as two o f the greatest Church
Others call it [the ninth sphere] the “ crystalline sphere” or the “ crystalline heaven” Fathers, Augustine and Basil, illustrate. Despite his observation (in his com­
[or sky], not because it is o f hard and solid material like crystal, but for its luminosity mentary on Genesis), that too much subtlety and learning had been ex­
and its great transparency and uniformity. And it is also the heaven [or sky] that pended on explicating the nature o f the firmament,31* Augustine advised
theologians call “ w atery,” not because there are waters such as those which are here those who analyzed the meaning ot the firmament to “ bear in mind that
below, rather they are light [s o u b ti ll e s ] waters o f a noble nature similar to the heaven the term ‘firmament’ does not compel us to imagine a stationary heaven:
[or sky] in clarity and luminosity/'' we may understand this name as given to indicate not that it is motionless
but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between
Vincent o f Beauvais declares that the waters above the firmament should the waters above and the waters b elow .” 5* Without choosing between them,
not be understood as the element water but rather as a kind o f diffuse matter Augustine thus explained the “ firm ity” o f the firmament in two ways: it
(materia confusion::) that has within itself “ hotness, dryness, wetness, and is firm either because it is motionless or because it is solid and prevents the
coldness, luminosity, darkness, transparency, and opacity.” 2 30 Hardness is
9
8 passage o f waters from above or below. He gives no indication that those
not even mentioned. who assumed a “ solid” and impenetrable firmament meant also to signify
For many, if not most, ot those who considered the suprafirmamental that it was hard. However, elsewhere in the same commentary on Genesis,
waters “ crystalline,” the latter term did not signify the hardness o f the Augustine speaks o f air and fire as material constitutents ot the heavens,
waters but rather their immutability, transparency and luminosity. When thereby suggesting soft and fluid heavens.33*
medieval authors spoke o f the crystalline sphere, they usually had in mind Saint Basil suffered from similar equivocation, which he exhibited over
those properties o f a crystal such as luminosity, transparency, and even a the span o f a few lines o f his Hexaemeron, where he wrote:
quasi immutability, rather than hardness.
N ot a firm and solid nature, which has weight and resistance, it is not this that the
word “ firmament” means. In that case the earth would more legitimately be con­
sidered deserving o f such a name. But, because the nature ot superincumbent sub­
V . T h e firm am en t and the p la n etary orbs
stances is light and rare and imperceptible. He called this firmament, in comparison
In Chapter $, we saw the variety o f meanings that attached to the term with those very light substances which are incapable o f perception by the senses.14
“ firmament” (firmamentum), the heaven that God created on the second day
(Genesis 1.6-8) to divide the waters above from the waters below and in With his denial o f solidity to the firmament, Basil goes on to deny as well
which he placed the luminaries on the fourth day (Genesis 1.14—19) to divide that it could be composed o f the simple elements or o f any combination o f
day and night. Because o f the explicit biblical assertion that the luminaries them .35 Despite his uncertainty about its composition, Basil seems to incline
were in the firmament (“ Fiant luminaria in firmamento caeli” ), it was not toward a fluid firmament.
28. “ Et ideo in summo dicitur crystallinum non quia durum sicut crvstallus, sed quia uni- 31. Augustine proclaimed that he himself had “ no further time to go into these questions
tormiter est luminosum et perspicuum. Aqueum autem dicitur quemadmodum aqua ex and discuss them, nor should they have time whom I wish to see instructed for their own
sua subtilitate et mobilitate movetur. ” Bartholomew the Englishman, De rerum proprie- salvation and for what is necessary and useful in the Church.” Augustine, Genesis, bk.
tatihus, bk. 8, ch. 3 (“ De coelo aqueo sive crystallino"), 1601, 379. As we saw, Vincent 2, ch. 8, 1982, 1:60-01.
o f Beauvais held a similar view about the crystalline sphere. 32. Ibid.
29. Hyatte and Ponsard-Hvatte, 1985, 11. I am grateful to Prof. Reginald Hvatte. who not 33. See Chapter 10, note 4.
only called mv attention to the reference but also translated the relevant passage. 34. Basil, Exeqetic Homilies (Hexaemeron), homily 3, 1963, 47. Earlier m homily 3 (p. 43),
30. “ Nos itaque dicimus quod ubi dicitur Deus divisit per firmamentum aquas ah aquis, non Basii had denied that the firmament could be compared to water that is "like either frozen
sumitur aqua pro elemento, sed pro materia confusionts, quae habet in se calidum et water or some such material which takes its origin from the percolation o f moisture, such
siccum, humidum et frigidum, luminosum et tenebrosum, perspicuum et opacum.” Vin­ as is the crystalline rock which men say is remade by the excessive coagulation o f the
cent of Beauvais, Speculum na>urale, bk. 3, ch. 95, 1624, i:col. 224. Later, in ch. 95, col. water, or as is the element o f mica which is formed in mines.”
225, Vincent explains that “ this heaven [the crystalline] is not crvstalline with respect to 35. See Chapter 10, note 4. But in homily 3, Basil seems to equate the heavens with the
every property o f a crystal, but according to the property o f transparency." (Dicimus firmament when he declares (ibid., 49-50): “ w'e have observed in many places that the
quod coelum lllud non est chrystallinum secundum omnem propnetatem chrvstalli. sed visible region is called the heavens due to the density and continuity o f the air which
secundum propnetatem perspicui.) clearly comes within our vision and which has a claim to the name of heavens from the
336 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE HEAVENS HARD OR FLU ID? 337

A solid, hard firmament had at least one important defender in late an­ During the late Middle Ages, most authors were vague and noncommital,
tiquity. Approximately tw o hundred years after Saint Basil, John Philo- despite the fact that the very name firmamentum, with its implications o f
ponus considered the nature o f the firmament in his commentary on the strength, power, stability, and even o f solidity and hardness, seemed to
six days o f creation. Defending the account o f Moses in Genesis, Philoponus invite an explanation and thus to provide an occasion for the expression ot
insisted that the latter had given a better explanation o f the firmament than opinions about its possible hardness or softness. Few, however, chose to
either Plato or Aristotle. Whereas Plato had assumed a heaven composed avail themselves o f an opportunity to explain why, in Genesis, the term
o f the four elements and Aristotle had invoked the existence o f a fifth firmamentum was used for the heaven created on the second day.41 T w o who
corporeal element, the ether, Moses, by contrast, had assumed that the did were Vincent o f Beauvais and Campanus o f Novara. Vincent declared
firmament was formed in the midst o f the waters. Because the substance that the term was used because that heaven is ungenerated and incorruptible
o f the firmament is transparent and water and air are the only tw o elements rather than because it is immobile with respect to place. It is indeed indis­
that possess this property, Moses assumed that the transparent heavens are soluble, because it lies beyond the action and passion ot contraries.4* Cam ­
formed o f these two elements, though composed perhaps more o f water panus explains that the firmament is so called because “ its motion always
than air. The term firmamentum, implying solidity, also suggests that these seems to be firm and uniform and because the fixed stars seem to be firmed
tw o elements were transformed from their natural fluid state to a solid, and in it.” 43 B y describing the fixed stars as being “ firmed” in the firmament,
presumably hard, body.36 Campanus is perhaps implying the existence o f a hard firmament. The
Despite the seeming ambivalence or inconsistency o f Augustine and Basil, brevity o f his discussion makes judgm ent uncertain. Nowhere, however,
and Philoponus’s explicit support o f solidity, most Christian authors and do Vincent or Campanus explicitly associate solidity or hardness with the
Latin Encyclopedists during late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, and term firmamentum. Centuries later, Bartholomew Amicus also argued that
even into the thirteenth century, probably thought o f the heavens as fiery the term implied firmness and solidity.44 For Amicus, however, and all
or elemental in nature, and therefore fluid. In this category, Christopher other scholastics o f the seventeenth century, solidity signified hardness. By
Scheiner included Gregory o f Nyssa, Chalcidius, Isidore o f Seville, John of contrast, his seventeenth-century contemporary Roderigo de Arriaga in­
Damascus, Peter Damian, Hugh o f Saint Victor, Peter Lombard, Alexander sisted that nothing could properly be deduced from the term firmamentum
o f Hales, and Bonaventure,37 to which we may add Macrobius, Michael about the solidity or hardness o f the heaven called by that name.45 Just
Scot, Robertus Anglicus, and perhaps Peter o f Abano.38 A notable exception because this particular heaven is called “ firm” (firmus) does not warrant an
was Robert Grosseteste, who described the heavens not only as the most inference o f hardness, because the heavens could be “ firm, stable, and in­
subtle o f all bodies, but, relying on the words o fjo b 37.18, also characterized corruptible, even if they are not hard.” 46
it as the most solid o f bodies, like fused metal.30 Others undoubtedly offered Our information, such as it is, derives from brief statements in a variety
no opinion at all. For some o f these individuals, Scheiner inferred belief in of contexts. During the late Middle Ages, the hardness or softness o f the
a fluid heavens because they assumed that the Sun, or in certain instances celestial orbs was not judged a significant topic, as evidenced by the fact
even all the planets, were fiery bodies.40
(628, col. x); Isidore ot'Seville (634, col. 1); John Chrysostom (628, col. 1); Peter Damian
word ‘seen,’ namely, where the Scripture says: 'The birds ofthe heavens,’ and again, ‘the (629, col. 1); Hugh o f Saint Victor (631, col. 2); Peter Lombard (629, col. 2); Alexander
flying creatures below the firmament o f the heavens.’ ” o f Hales (629, col. 2); Bonaventure (629, col. 2), and others.
36. Here I follow Duhem, Le Systeme. 1913-1959, 2:499-500. 41. Although Bonaventure, for example, discussed the firmament in a few questions in his
37. Scheiner, Rosa Lrsina, bk. 4, 1630, 627—635. Scheiner devoted the fourth and dual book Sentences, bk. 2 (Opera, 2:338-341, 351-352), he nowhere considers why the term fir­
o f his Rosa Ursina to the themes o f fluidity and corruptibility o f the heavens by citing mamentum was used to describe the one or more heavens embraced by it. The same may
passages trom numerous authors who, in his judgment, had expressed explicit or implicit be said about Richard o f Middleton in the latter’s second book o f his Sentences.
opinions. Scheiner withheld his own opinion, declaring at the end o f this lengthy section, 42. “ Nos autem dicimus ad primum quod firmamentum dicitur a firmitate naturae quia non
that he would give his opinion at another time and in another place. Ibid., 773, col. i- generatur, nec corrumpitur et non ab immobilitate secundum locum. . . . Et propter hoc
38. For Michael Scot and Robertus Anglicus, see Section II o f this chapter; for Peter o f Abano, dicitur firmamentum quia indissolubilis est concensus ille cum extractus sit extra actionem
see Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913-1959, 4:253, where Duhem, in discussing Peter’s Lucidator. et passionem contrariorum. ” Vincent o f Beauvais, Speculum naturale, bk. 3, ch. 102, 1624,
says that in the latter Peter assumes that each planet moves within the medium of a fluid i:col. 230.
substance which constitutes its heaven. In her edition o f the Lucidator, Vescovini Fedenci 43. O f the firmament, which he identifies with the eighth sphere, Campanus says: “ Et dicitur
seems to arrive at the same conclusion about Peter’s acceptance o f self-moved planets, firmamentum quoniam ipsius motus semper videtur esse firmus et unitormis et quia
but she makes no claims about 1 fluid medium (Lucidator, 1988, 269—270). Indeed. Peter stellae fixe videntur firmari.” These words appear in Campanus, Sphere, 1531, I96r.
makes no mention o f a fluid medium. 44- For more on this point, see Section VIII.2 o f this chapter.
39. £st itaque celum corpus primum . . . quia subtilissimum; et tamen, ut dicit lob, solidissimum 45- “ Vides ergo ex nomine firmamenti nihil plane de soliditate deduci.” Arriaga, De caelo,
quasi ereJusutn.” Grosseteste, Hexaemeron, part. 3, ch. 16, 2, 1982, 117. For other references disp. 1, sec. 3, subsec. 4, 1632, 502, col. 2, par. 37.
to this frequently cited passage from Job, see note 51, this chapter. 46. “ Ubi caeli dicuntur firmi, nihil de soliditate contineri; sunt enim firmi, stabiles, et in-
40. In this group, Scheiner (Rosa L’rsina) includes Saint Basil (627, col. 2); Gregory ot Nyssa corruptibiles, etiamsi non duri.” Ibid., par. 38.
338 THE C E L E S T IA L REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S HARD OR FLUID? 339

that scholastics did not see fit to devote a questio to that theme. W hy did surface o f its eccentric deferent. Indeed, the planet itself is also contiguous
they ignore this question, which became so important in the seventeenth with the concave and convex surfaces ot the epicycle that surrounds it.
century? Perhaps because Augustine thought a Christian’s interpretation o f Richard was probably one o f the first in the Latin West to present the
the meaning o f “ firmament” was relatively unimportant,47 an attitude that case for heavens composed o f solid and hard orbs. Although he gives no
was reinforced by Aristotle him self who ignored the issue and provided clear indication as to which o f the two alternatives he preferred, it is likely
no guidance. that the hard-orb hypothesis was itself derived from some earlier account. 50
The hypothesis o f fluid heavens, which went largely unchallenged prior The justification from Job 37.18 was the most explicit biblical support
to the thirteenth century, came to have a rival after the introduction and available for belief in hard orbs and would be frequently cited - especially
dissemination o f Aristotelian—Ptolemaic astronomy and cosm ology in the in the seventeenth century — in defense o f hard orbs and against those who
thirteenth century. Whereas previously the idea o f fluid or soft heavens was believed in fluid heavens. ' 1 In this passage, Elihu asks Job whether, like
overwhelmingly dominant, the existence o f orbs and their possible hardness God, he could fabricate the heavens as if they were made o f molten metal, 54
now emerged as an opposition hypothesis. thus implying that God had made the heavens hard like metal.
Richard o f Middleton illustrates the change that had occurred. During Despite the general absence o f detailed and explicit discussions o f the
the course o f a discussion on whether the planets, or heavens, form one hardness or fluidity o f the celestial orbs in the Middle Ages, some scholastic
continuous body, Richard describes the tw o rival interpretations, without authors give evidence o f having assumed the hardness o f the spheres. During
choosing between them.48 The first opinion assumes that the heavens are the course o f the fourteenth century, Themon Judaeus and Henry o f Hesse,
o f a fluid nature, which Richard identifies with Aristotle’s fifth element, or and in the late fifteenth century Hartmann Schedel, explicitly argued for
ether. In this fluid theory, no distinction is made between orbs on the basis hard spheres, while in the fourteenth century Nicole Oresme did so indi­
o f different forms nor on the basis ot any discontinuity o f their surfaces, rectly, as perhaps did Pierre d’A illy in the early fifteenth century. Let us
as, for example, one stone is distinguished from another. Celestial orbs now consider the manner in which these few individuals indicated their
differ only because o f their diverse motions. But these diverse motions do preference for hard orbs.
not produce discontinuiutv in the fluid medium through which the planets In his questions on the Meteorology, Themon debated whether the sky or
can move readily and easily. Indeed, Richard may mean here that the orbs heavens are o f a fiery nature and rejected the possibility, arguing that if the
and planets are themselves fluid parts o f the overall ether and that celestial heavens had an elemental nature, they would be like earth and water rather
motions consist o f parts ot the ether m oving in different directions, as we than fire. This is because “ a heaven [i.e., orb] is a hard [durum] body without
can observe in water, “ when its different parts move to different positions.” capacity for flow ing.” 53 But “ fire in matter proper to it is not hard and
Under these circumstances, the water does not lose its form .4'4 lacking in the capacity to flow, as is obvious by experience, as we see in
Others, however, present a second opinion in which “ the fifth body flames. [Experience] also shows [that it is quite otherwise with] water, ice,
consists o f celestial solids that are not divisible. Thus [in] Job 37 it is said
that the heavens, which are most solid, are made o f metal. And the Phi­ 50. Perhaps from Grosseteste, who, in the first half o f the thirteenth century, had linked Job
losopher, in the second book o f De caelo, proves that the stars [planets] are 37.18 with a hard heavens (see Section V, this chapter).
51. Besides Richard, others who cited it were the Conimbricenses [De coeio, bk. 1, ch. 3, qu.
not moved from one part o f an orb to another part, because the orb would 1, art. 4], 1598, 70; Hurtado de Mendoza [De caelo, disp. 1, sec. s|, 1615, 366. col. 2:
be divided, which he assumes absurd. And also to many, it seems that if Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. s, art. 2, 1629, 273, col. 1 and art. 3, 278, col. 1: A versa,
the orbs were fluid and [therefore] divisible by nature, they should appear De caelo, qu. 32, sec. 6, 1627, 67; Arriaga, De caelo, disp. 1, sec. 3, subsec. 4, 1632, 302,
col. 1; Poncius. Sentences, bk. 2. dist. 14, qu. 2, 1A39, vol. 6. pt. 2:727, col. 2-728. col.
corruptible.” Because o f the contrary motions o f the orbs, those who 1; Compton-Carleton [De coeio, disp. 1, sec. 3], 1A49, 399, col. 1; Riccioli, Almagestum
adopted this interpretation denied the continuity o f the eccentric orbs and novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 1A51, 240, col. 2: Bonae Spei [comment. 3, De
not only assumed their contiguity with the surfaces that surrounded them coeio, disp. 3, dub. 7], 1652, 14, col. 1; Cornaeus [De coeio, disp. 2, qu. 2,], 1657, 499;
and Oddus [De coeio, disp. 1, dub. 12], 1972. 35, col. 1 (Oddus gives the correct text,
but also assumed that the surface o f an epicycle was contiguous with the
but the wrong reference, citing Job 3.32).
52. In the Vulgate, the text reads: “ Tu forsitan cum eo fabricatus es caelos, qui solidissimi
quasi aere fusi sunt.” The Douay-Challoner translation o f the Vulgate (ed. John P. O ’Con­
47. Judging from his discussion ot the firmament in the Summit theologiae, pt. 1, qu. 68, art. nell, Chicago: Catholic Press, 1950) renders “ qui solidissimi quasi aere fusi sunt” as “ which
1, 1967. 10:71-77. Thomas Aquinas was certainly one o f these. Grosseteste thought it are most strong, as if they were o f molten brass.” A recent translation from the Hebrew
would be tedious and prolix to present a detailed analysis o f the nature o f the firmament text provides a more graphic version to describe the rigid heavens: “ Can you beat out
(see Grosseteste, Hexa'emeron, part. 3, ch. 6, 1, 1982, 106). the vault o f the / skies as he does, / hard as a mirror o f cast metal?" Sew F.nglish Bible,
48. Richard o f Middleton, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 1, 1591, 2:184, col. 1. T976.
49. It is possible that Richard is reporting a version o f the opinion of Roberrus Anglicus, as 53 - See Themon Judaeus [Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 3 ("Utrum coelum sit nature ignis” )], 1518,
described in Section II ot this chapter. 157V, col. 2.
340 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE H EAVEN S HARD OR FLUID? 341
and earth. For earth [and water] can be made hard and even transparent it follows necessarily that the concave surface o f the sovereign heaven and the convex
[perspicua], as is obvious from glass and ice.” 54*5
6Since fire cannot be hardened surface o f the second or next heaven below must be absolutely spherical, with no
it cannot be the material from which the celestial orbs are composed. roughness or humps, and that these heavens must m ove one inside the other without
Around 1390, in a commentary on Genesis (Lecturae super Genesim), Henrv anv friction. Rather, the passage o f one surface above the other must be as smooth,
o f Hesse presented an unusual interpretation o f the celestial orbs. According as gentle, and as effortless as possible. The same holds for the second and third
to Steneck (1976, 61-62), Henry argued that the firmament created on the heavens and thus through all o f them in descending order down to the concave
second day was comprised o f “ a series o f concentric shells or spheres that surface o f the lunar sphere, which is concentric with the earth and with the heavenly
stretch from the region o f the Moon to the region o f the fixed stars. Thev body which contains or comprises or is composed o f all the partial heavens; other­
are clear, firm, impenetrable, and have thickness. . . . In fact, the image of wise, all this body taken together would be thicker in one part than in another,
glass globes spinning on fixed axes around the central earth, so commonlv which is neither probable nor reasonable. Therefore the concave surtace o f the lunar
used to describe the medieval conception o f the celestial orbs, seems to fit heaven must be perfectly spherical.'7
quite nicely the discussion in the Lecturae." The various orbs had congealed
like water or lead. Henry rejected Aristotle’s celestial ether, or fifth element, The perfect sphericity o f the concave lunar surface causes the convex
and insisted that the heavenly region was composed o f matter similar to surface o f the sphere o f elemental fire to assume a perfectly spherical shape.
that o f the earth. Moreover, he further argued that on the fourth day of Ordinarily, none o f the imperfect four elements could assume a perfectly
creation the planets were formed from mixtures o f elemental matter that spherical shape. The convex surface o f fire, which Oresme describes as
rose up through the various hard celestial orbs. Because Henry believed “ perfectly polished and spherical,” is, however, an exception. But “ this is
that the movement o f such relatively coarse matter through the hard, ce­ not due to the element o f fire itself, but to the concave surface o f the lunar
lestial orbs was physically impossible, and since he was not prepared to sphere which contains the fire and which is perfectly spherical, being every­
abandon his interpretation, he chose to explain it by miraculous interven­ where in contact with the fire without intermediate plenum or vacuum .” 58
tion. Hartmann Schedel conveyed his conviction o f a hard firmament in On the basis o f Oresm e’s discussion, it seems reasonable to assume that he
his Liber chronicarum o f 1493, by a simple declaration that God “ made [the judged the celestial surfaces to be hard. Otherwise the lunar concavity could
firmament] solid, out o f water congealed like a crystal.’’5' not have shaped the outermost surface o f grosser fire into a perfectly spher­
Few were as explicit as Themon Judaeus, Henry o f Hesse, and Hartmann ical surface.
Schedel. O nly indirectly and occasionally can we inter the apparent opinions The inclusion o f Oresme among those who probably thought ot the
ot others about the hardness ot the spheres. In this connection, Nicole spheres as hard is based not on his description ot the orbs as “ perfectly
Oresme’s discussion in his French translation of, and commentary on, Ar­ polished” but on his assumption that the lunar concavity shaped the con­
istotle’s De caelo is ot interest. Here Oresm e describes the surfaces o f all tiguous, convex surface o f the perfect, fiery sphere below. Similarly, one
celestial spheres as perfectly polished and sm ooth.5'’ Because no vacua can ought not to include an anonymous fourteenth-century author among pro­
exist between any two celestial surfaces, ponents o f hard spheres simply because o f an assertion that “ celestial bodies
do not rub together in their local motions because they are highly polished.
54. Here is the full text o f Themon’s second conclusion: “ Si celum esset nature elementalis Nor is there any friction between them that could generate heat.” '9
potius esset nature aque vel terre quarn ignis. Probatur conclusio: quia celum est corpus With Pierre d’Ailly, we complete our list o f those who directly or in­
durum mfluxibile, alias fieret permixtio astrorum et stellarum nimium irregularis propter directly indicated a world o f hard celestial orbs. D ’A illy reveals his belief
divisionem eius. Sed ignis in propria sibi materia non est durus et influxibilis, ut patet
per experientiam, videmus emm de flammis. De aqua autem et glacie et terra patet. Terra in hard orbs in the context o f a conclusion in which he informs his readers
enim potest indurari etiam perspicua fieri, ut patet de vitro et glaciebus. Ergo celum that Sacrobosco had demonstrated that the intermediary spheres o f the
potius esset nature aque vel terre, quod est propositum.” Ibid.
55 - Hartmann Schedel, Liber chronicarum, pt. 1 [Rosen], 1493. Although the book is unpa-
ginated, see “ On the Work o f the Second D ay,” lines 4-5. On the opposite page, the 57. Ibid., ch. 9, 387.
Latin text reads: “ Ex aquis congelatis in modum cnstalli solidavit et in eo fixa sidera.” 58. Ibid., ch. 11, 399.
Schedel seems to have conflated the crystalline sphere with the firmament. In note 34 ot 59. “ Dicendum est quod corpora celestia in suis monbus localibus non contncantur quia sunt
this chapter, we saw that when Basil also mentioned crystalline rock and the firmament corpora polidssima. Nec inter ipsa sit aliqua contricatio talis ex qua possit gigni calor.”
in the same passage, he sought to dissociate the two. See “ Compendium ot Six Books,” Bibliotheque Nationale, tonds Latin, MS. 6752, 214V.
56. “ The primary and sovereign heaven . . . does not push nor pull the heavenly sphere which For a description o f the contents o f the treatise, see Thorndike, 1923-1958, 3:568-584.
is immediately under it. In addition, this concavity or concave area is verv completely Sometime between 1570 and 1572, Robert Bellarmine, the future Cardinal Bellarmine
and perfectly polished, planed, and smoothed so that it could not be more s o . . ■ and who played a significant role in the Galileo affair, rejected hard, polished, contiguous
without any roughness or denticulation.” Oresme, Le Livre du del. bk. 2, ch. 5, orbs by arguing that such orbs had no tendrils, braces, or glue to enable them to cling
30- to each other so that one orb could drag another with it (see Lerner, 1989, 268, n. 35).
342 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE HE A V E N S H A R D OR FLUID? 343

celestial region are spherical with respect to both their concave and convex lationships o f celestial spheres, rarely did he see fit to interject an explicit
surfaces. This is true, d’A illy continues, only if we assume that “ the heavens judgm ent on their hardness or fluidity, as is evident from al- B itrujfs De
are not breakable [frangibile], [not] fluid [Jhtxibile], [not] augmentable, or motibus celorum, which Michael Scot translated from Arabic to Latin in 1217.
diminishable” and that there can be no penetration o f dimensions or exis­ Here BitrujI explains:
tence of a vacuum."0 B y denying fluidity and breakability, d ’ Ailly implies
the existence o f hard celestial orbs. It is well know n by all men that the whole heavens are composed o f mutually
different spheres and that one touches another in perfect contact. And because one
[sphere] is moved inside another, there is a hniteness o f the rotation and an equality
o f surfaces. And these [orbs] are continuous with each other because no other body
V I. O n the difficulties o f d e te rm in in g w h eth er natural
philosophers assum ed hard or fluid orbs in lies between them.
the late M id d le A ges And it is known that the concave surface o f a higher [orb] is the place oi the [orb]
next below it and between them there is neither a plenum ot another extraneous
From what has been described thus far about the problem o f the hardness
body, nor is there a vacuum, but one [orb] touches the other [orb] with its whole
or softness of celestial orbs, we perceive a gradual shift: the widespread
surface/2
assumption o f fluid heavens and orbs in the thirteenth century was yielding
to an assumption o f their hardness in the fourteenth century. Richard o f
Middleton described both theories but refused to choose between them. In this passage, BitrujI gives no indication o f his opinion on the hardness
Shortly after, Aegidius Romanus proposed a combinatory theory in which or softness o f the celestial orbs. But if the orbs are contiguous, as is likely
the overall heaven was hard but the eccentric deferents were fluid (see (see Ch. 13, Sec. III.2), or even if they are assumed continuous, does this
Ch. 13, Sec.III.9). As the fourteenth-century progressed, Them on Judaeus alone provide a clue about his opinion concerning the hardness or softness
and Henry o f Hesse explicitly opted for hard orbs, and Nicole Oresme o f the surfaces o f the celestial orbs? It does not. If an author simply opted
did so implicitly. Explicit defenders o f fluid orbs or heavens have yet to for continuity or contiguity without providing any additional clues about
turn up in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. B y the late sixteenth hardness or softness, we would have no good independent reasons tor
century, the hardness theory had become explicit and widespread. Tycho assuming either hard or soft orbs. In Chapter 13 (Sec. III.2), we saw that
Brahe acknowledged it as the major opinion he had to destroy. Even as Campanus o f Novara probably assumed contiguous orbs in order to avoid
the existence of hard orbs was losing support in the seventeenth century, the possibility o f the overlap o f two successive orbs or the possibility ot
it remained the rival theory to the concept o f a fluid heaven. void space between them. Because these are impossibilities in Aristotelian
Although in retrospect the hardness or softness o f the celestial orbs appears natural philosophy, the modern editors o f Campanus’s Theorica planetarum
to us an important cosmological problem, our medieval predecessors seem infer that Campanus “ supposes the spheres to be solid,” '’3 by which, it
not to have shared that judgment. They were quite content to discuss the seems, they mean hard. If so, the inference is unwarranted Even it the
celestial orbs without any explicit, or even implicit, indication as to their spheres were composed o f a single fluid substance, the same objection would
hardness or softness. The issue rarely surfaced. This reluctance was not obtain: the overlapping parts o f the two spheres could not possibly occupy
confined to Latin scholastics but is equally apparent in authors who make the same place simultaneously. Thus Campanus’s spheres may indeed be
up the Greco-Arabic tradition. Aristotle himself never saw fit to raise the solid, but whether that solidity is to be associated with hard or sott surfaces
problem. N or did Ptolemy in the Almagest, not even in the first book, and orbs cannot be determined.
Whereas Campanus and most others provided no useful clues tor deciding
where he presents a modest amount o f information about the nature o f the
physical w orld/” Even when an author specifically discussed the interre-6 1*
0 the issue, Robertus Anglicus, who really seems to have assumed the con­
tinuity o f successive surfaces, presents explicit information that enables us
60. “ Quinta conelusio est quod ratio autoris bene demonstrat caelum esse sphaericum quan­
to conclude that he considered the orbs fluid. In order to permit the different
tum ad superficies tarn concavas quam convexas sphaerarum intermediarum. Patet con-
clusio supposito quod caelum non sit trangibile, fluxibile, augmentabile, nec diminuibile; “ assumes that the [celestial heavens] are solid and hard bodies and mutually distinct
supposito etiam quod non possic esse penetratio dimensionum nec vacuum.” D ’Aillv. 14 (videtur Ptolomaei I Almeg.c. 1, ubi supponit esse corpora solida et dura inter se distinctai.
Questions, qu. 5, 1531, 153 v. 02. M y translation from BitrujI, De motibus celorum [Carmody], 1952, S2. The words “ there
61. During the seventeenth century, it was not uncommon for scholastic authors to classify is a hniteness o f the rotation” are an uncertain rendition ot the Latin “ ideo ipse est in fine
earlier authors as proponents o f hard or fluid heavens. These identifications were some­ rotationis.” For an English translation based on Arabic and Hebrew versions ot BitrujI s
times arbitrary and without foundation, as when Amicus insisted (De caelo, tract. 5, qu. treatise, see BitrujI, On the Principles ot Astronomy, 1971, 65-66.
5, art. 2. 1626. 27s, col. 2) that in the first chapter o f book 1 o f his Almagest, Ptolemy 63. Campanus o f Novara, Theorica planetarum, 1971, 412, n. 47.
344 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S HA RD OR F LU ID ? 345

orbs to have independent motions and to have continuous and identical


outer surfaces, Robertus assumed that the outer surfaces o f celestial orbs V II. W hen did “ solid o rb ” b ecom e syn o n y m o u s
were immobile but that their inner parts, which he likened to a fluid, were w ith “ hard o rb ” ?
capable o f motion/’4 Because his world system required an intersection between the orbits o f
The use o f the contiguity theory o f distinct and separate celestial surfaces Mars and the Sun, which would have been impossible if hard spheres ex­
that are everywhere in perfect contact to avoid the possibility o f void isted, Tycho Brahe used his knowledge that the comet o f 1577 was moving
space or extraneous matter between them may seem at first glance to in the celestial region beyond the Moon to deny the existence o f solid
indicate that the surfaces are hard. If the convex surface o f the planetarv celestial orbs and to suggest instead that the heavenly region was composed
sphere o f Mars were contiguous to the concave surface o f Jupiter’s orb, o f a fluid substance.66 The solid celestial orbs whose existence Tycho denied,
and if those tw o distinct, touching surfaces moved with different speeds were, o f course, o f the hard and rigid variety. In 1588, he explained that
and perhaps even in different directions, one might argue that they would he “ first showed and clearly established that by the motions o f comets they
retain their separateness and move independently o f each other only be­ [the heavens] are fluid and that the celestial mechanism is not a hard and
cause their surfaces were hard. But because o f the attributes traditionally impervious body filled with various real orbs, as has been believed by many
assigned to the celestial ether, the conditions just described do not bv up to this point, but that it is very fluid and simple, with the orbits o f the
themselves warrant the inference o f hard spheres. They are equally com­ planets free, and without the efforts and revolutions o f any real spheres.” 67
patible with soft and fluid spheres. After all, not only is the celestial ether From T y ch o ’s assertions that “ many” or “ very many” contemporaries be­
unalterable and incorruptible, but it was usually assumed to be more lieved that the heavens were composed o f hard, celestial orbs, we may infer
subtle than air and fire.665 With such properties, the ethereal orbs could
4 that this was the comm only held opinion o f his day. T ych o ’s influence was
be contiguous but fluid. Moreover, because o f their presumed unalterable so great that seventeenth-century astronomers and natural philosophers who
and incorruptible natures, fluid orbs could be in contact at every point mentioned solid spheres, whether or not they agreed with him, did so with
and also retain their perfect spherical shapes. Perfect, incorruptible, con­ the understanding that they were hard and rigid.
tiguous fluid surfaces, no less than hard surfaces, could be polished and Alm ost from the first formulation o f Tycho's radical interpretation, scho­
move without resistance or friction. If I earlier attributed to Oresme an lastic natural philosophers found themselves divided. As a direct reflection
implicit belief in hard spheres, it was not because o f his assumption o f o f that division o f opinion, scholastic authors introduced a new question
polished surfaces moving without resistance, but rather because o f his into their commentaries on Aristotle’s De caelo, one that was unknown to
declaration that the lunar concavity shaped the contiguous, convex surface the Middle Ages. They asked whether the heavens are solid or fluid. Al­
o f the fiery sphere below it. though some sided with Tycho and assumed fluid heavens without spheres,
Because the celestial ether was traditionally assigned properties that whereas others defended the existence o f hard spheres and still others argued
made it appear rare and fluid-like, it might seem that, in the absence o f for a combination o f hard and soft, almost all were agreed that a solid sphere
an explicit assertion in favor o f hard spheres, or indirect independent signified a hard sphere.68 Giovanni Baptista Riccioli underscores the pow-
evidence indicating rigid spheres, it would be more plausible to assume
that a medieval author considered the celestial orbs solid and soft rather
66. On this, see Thoren, 1979, 53—<>7.
than solid and hard. Such a judgm ent would also be unwarranted and 67. “ Ubi per Cometarum motus prius ostensum et liquido comprobatum tuerit. ipsam Coeli
misleading. In the absence o f reasonably compelling evidence, it is wiser machinam non esse durum et impervium corpus varijs orbibus realibus confertum. ut
to draw no inferences. hactenus a plensque creditum est, sed liquidissimum et simplicissimum. circuitibusque
Planetarum liberis, et absque ullarum realium Sphaerarum opera aut circumvectione."
Tycho Brahe, De tnundi aetherei, 1922, 4:59. On page 222 o f the same work, Tycho savs
much the same thing, emphasizing that “ very many modern philosophers . . . distin­
64. See Chapter 13, Section III.2 and note 67. guished the heavens into various orbs made of hard and impervious matter” (et recentiores
65. Aristotle nowhere says this, but it seems to follow from his ordering o f the four elements etiam Philosophos quamplunmos, qui Coelum ex dura et impervia materia Orbibus varijs
(earth, water, air, and tire), the latter three ot which become rarer and more subtle as distinctum); for a similar statement, see also page 223. T ycho’s De rnundi aetherei was
their distance from the earth increases. Since the celestial ether extends beyond tire, it reprinted in 1603 and 1610 and was thus widely known. For these and other references
should exceed the latter in rarity and subtlety. In the strict sense, o f course, Aristotle to Tycho, I am indebted to my late colleague. Professor Victor Thoren.
denied that contrary qualities such as rarity and density could be applied to the ether. But 68. For example, see Arriaga, De caelo, disp. 1. sec. 3, 1632, 499. col. 1—504, col. 1 (“ Whether
because physical attributions were sometimes unavoidable, the celestial ether was likely the heavens are incorruptible and solid” ); Serbellonus [De caelo, disp. 1, qu. 2, art. 4],
to be considered purer, rarer, and more subtle than any other substance. Even planets, 1663, 2:25, col. 1-28, col. 1 (“ Whether the celestial bodies are solid or liquid” ); Thomas
which were usually conceived as aggregations o f ether sufficiently dense to reflect light Compton-Carleton, De coelo, disp. 1, sec. 3, 1649, 398, col. 2-399, col. 2 (“ Whether the
and become visible to us, were hardly thought o f as “ dense” in the sense in which that heavens are solid or fluid” ); and Cornaeus, De caelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 3, 1657, 494-
term might be applied to any o f the four elements or bodies compounded o f them. 500 (“ Whether the heavens are hard and solid").
346 THE C E L E S T IA L REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S H A R D OR FLUID? 347

erful association o f solidity with hardness when he explains that although Reisch says that it may also be called “ crystalline because it is a nonconcave,
the term soliditas means three-dimensional, it also “ has associated with it transparent, and lucid solid body [corpus solidum] in which the subtle bodies
hardness [as] opposed to softness, as we say that marble is solid, and metal, o f the blessed move without resistance or penetration of dimensions. ” ~!
as long as it does not liquefy, and even ice before it melts. " (H > Here was a Despite an attribution o f transparency and lucidity to this crystalline solid
significant departure from the Middle Ages, when, as we saw, the term body, Reisch neglects to inform his readers whether it is hard or soft.
solidum could signify either hardness or softness. The powerful bond that was forged between hardness and solidity in the
But when did a solid orb come to imply a hard and rigid orb? From what seventeenth century was apparently not achieved by the time o f Copernicus.
has been said already, the indissoluble nexus between solid and hard prob­ Because Tycho claimed that many o f his contemporaries believed in hard
ably did not occur during the Middle Ages. Although Themon Judaeus, spheres, it is not unreasonable to assume that the firm connection between
Henry of Hesse, and Hartmann Schedel made explicit commitments to hard solidity and hardness became explicit and commonplace during the period
orbs, and a few others implied the hardness o f the celestial orbs, most offered between the emergence o f Copernicus’s De revolntionibus and T ych o ’s pub­
no opinion. Natural philosophers who commented on Aristotle’s De caelo lication o f his cometary researches in the late 1580s. H ow this occurred and
and theologians who commented on Peter Lombard’s Sentences either did who might have been instrumental in its development are unknown, and
not think about the problem at all or, if they did, felt no compulsion to I shall not pursue this further except to suggest that Clavius does not seem
discuss it. Astronomers were no different. Thus ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) to have been the disseminator o f hard and solid celestial spheres, as has been
and Georg Peurbach, whose treatises played instrumental roles in dissem­ argued.7+
inating knowledge about solid spheres during the late Middle Ages and the Indeed, despite T ych o’s assertion about his contemporaries, another hy­
Renaissance, undoubtedly spoke about real, material orbs, but neither gives pothesis may be equally plausible; that the firm connection occurred after
any indication whether those orbs are rigid or fluid.6 70*7
9 2Although it is likely T y ch o ’s publication o f 1588 and because o f it, not between the time o f
that Copernicus believed in the existence o f solid spheres, it does not follow Copernicus and Tycho. B y showing that the paths o f comets and the in­
that he, “ like every other astronomer o f his time, envisioned planetary tersection o f the orbits o f the Sun and Mars made hard orbs an untenable
models to be composed o f non-intersecting, rigid spheres. Nothing that assumption and virtually compelled acceptance o f an orbless, fluid heavens,
Copernicus said or implied in the De revolntionibus enables us to decide with Tycho himself forced the issue. To Tycho and his followers, the denial of
any confidence whether he assumed hard or fluid spheres. Copernicus fits fluiditv left only one meaningful option: hard orbs. In the debate that fol­
the pattern of the Middle Ages, when explicit opinions about the rigidity lowed, the word “ solid” came somehow to be inextricably linked with
or fluidity of the orbs were rarely presented. hardness, which, in turn, came to be the major qualifier o f the term “ orb.”
Approximately one-half century before Copernicus published the De re- Whereas once the word “ solid” signified any fluid or hard body that was
volutionibus, the same pattern is revealed in a widely read sixteenth-century o f a continuous nature - that is, without vacua - later the idea o f solid came
encyclopedia. In the Margarita philosophica, Gregor Reisch describes a sphere to be opposed to permeability and penetrability and was instead linked to
as “ round and solid’’ and characterizes it as “ a solid body contained bv a hardness. The divorce o f solidity from fluidity and its nexus with hardness
single surface.” 7" In a rather strange depiction o f the empvrean sphere, was not a necessary development but may have occurred as a consequence
o f T v ch o ’s contributions and influence. But the connection may not have
69. Controversia igitur est de soliditate presse sumpta quae praeter tnnam dimensionem taken hold until the seventeenth century. In any event, Clavius seems to
habct adiunrtam durniem mollmei oppositam. quomodo soiida dieimus esse marmora et
have ignored it in the numerous late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-
metalla quamdiu non liqueseunt et ipsa glaaes antequam dissolvatur." Riccioli, Alma-
gestum novum, bk. 9, sec. i. ch. 7, iftsi. 23s, col. a. century editions o f his commentary on Sacrobosco’s treatise. In these edi-
70. Svverdlow, 1976, who assumes that solid orbs or spheres were rigid, implies that in both
the Latin translation of ibn al-Haythams ‘On the Shape o f the Universe," which Swer- Vel sphera est corpus solidum unica superflcie contentum.” Reisch, Margarita philosophica.
dlow claims introduced “ solid sphere planetary models into medieval European astron­ bk. 7, ch. 1, 1517, 242; see pp. vi-vii For a brief summary o f Reisch’s life.
omy (117), and in Peurbach s Theoricae novae planetarum. the solid spheres were assumed 73. “ Dicitur etiam . . . crystallinum eo quod sit corpus solidum non concavum transparens et
hard and rigid (see 109—110, 116—117). I have examined both treatises and encountered lucidum in quo tamen corpora beatorum subtilia sine resistentia aut dimensionum pen-
only the usual silence on the issue o f hardness or softness. For ibn al-Havtham’s treatise, etratione ambulabunt.” Ibid., ch. 8. 247.
see ibn al-Haytham, 194a, 285-312; for Peurbach. I have used the edition included in 74. Donahue, 1975, 263. Although Clavius assumed material and physical orbs and even says
d Ailiy s Spherae traaatus (Venice, 1531)- As we saw earlier. Camp auis o f Novara also that “ the world is indeed a solid sphere” (Mundus siquidem est sphaera soiida; Clavius
ignored the issue. [Sphere, ch. 1). Opera. 1611. 3:9). to my knowledge nowhere in his Commentary on the
~i. Swerdlow, 1976, ion- 109. In the seventeenth century, Cornaeus (De caelo, disp. 2, qu. Sphere of Sacrobosco does he explicitlv characterize them as hard nor even imply it. Indeed,
2, dub. 3, 1657, 499) included Copernicus among those who believed in fluid heavens. like most o f his predecessors, he does not raise the issue. By “ solid sphere ’ Clavius meant
72. "Sphera est tale rotundum et solidum quod ab arcu semicirculi circumducto describitur. only that the world is a plenum.
348 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S H A RD OR FLUID? 349

tions, he proceeded like most o f his medieval predecessors: he defended the Francesco Patrizi, who, as early as 1591, insisted that the heavens were
existence o f solid orbs but found no reason to indicate whether they were neither hard nor solid. H owever, it seems unlikely that Patrizi was influ­
hard or soft. enced by Tycho, since he relied not on astronomical arguments but on
Whether orbs were hard or fluid, however, was much less important than metaphysical and general cosmological claims. For Patrizi, the basic building
whether planet-bearing orbs existed at all as opposed to a celestial region blocks o f our universe are things like light, heat, and space, none ot which
devoid o f orbs but filled entirely with fluid substances. The new celestial are hard or solid.77 But if nothing in the heavens is hard or solid, then the
discoveries - especially comets and planetary satellites - were not only heavens could not support stars or planets that are fixed in it like knots.78
destined to affect which alternative was chosen but even prompted solutions Patrizi concludes that “ all Philosophers and Astronomers err who teach that
that incorporated both. the planets [stellae] are fixed in the heavens like knots in tables.” 79
Belief in the existence o f solid spheres was nevertheless common in the
late sixteenth and the early seventeenth century. B y 1630, however, if not
earlier, it seems to have lost its dominance, lingering on as a minority
V III. T h e scholastic reactio n to T y c h o B rahe: hard orbs or
fluid heavens, or b o th , in the late sixteen th and opinion.80*In his Cursusphilosophicus o f 1632, Roderigo de Arriaga explained
the seven teenth century? that just a few years earlier celestial incorruptibility and hard solidity “ were
absolutely beyond controversy.” 8' B y the time his book appeared, fluid and
In Chapter io, we considered at some length the nature o f celestial incor­ corruptible heavens had largely replaced the two previously entrenched
ruptibility. Tycho Brahe’s investigations o f the new star o f 1572 and the concepts and had done so because “ o f the diligent observations o f certain
comet ot 1577 directly challenged that long-held, powerful Aristotelian mathematicians and astronomers, which [observations] were discovered
concept. N ot only did Tycho repudiate solid and hard orbs, but he replaced with the aid o f new and excellent instruments, especially the telescope. Thus
them with a fluid material through which the planets moved. Dramatic did some [individuals] begin to w holly invert the structure o f the heavens. ” 8‘
celestial changes o f the kind represented by new stars and comets convinced In one important sense Arriaga was typical o f seventeenth-century scholastic
Tycho and many others that not only were the heavens composed o f a authors. Most were well aware o f the arguments by Tycho, Galileo, and
fluid, rather than hard, substance but that changes did indeed occur in the Kepler on the nature o f the heavens. As the century moved on, a scholastic
heavens, which could no longer be conceived as incorruptible. literature developed which incorporated the arguments o f these great figures
Although it was Tycho who first gave scientific arguments for rejecting o f the new science and cosm ology. Scholastic authors could thus learn
hard orbs in favor o f fluid heavens, the fluid-heavens hypothesis had been indirectly o f these arguments from members o f their own group or directly
popular in the Middle Ages prior to the introduction o f the Aristotelian from the works o f these three astronomers. In one or both o f these ways,
ether and the gradual emergence o f hard orbs. It reemerged in the sixteenth most became aware o f the crucial observations and arguments. As they did,
century at the very time when the hard-orb theory was at its height. Between they gradually abandoned hard orbs for fluid heavens, so that by 1672,
the years 1570 and 1572, Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) emphatically re­
jected hard orbs - indeed orbs o f any kind75 - and insisted that celestial 77. “ Si vero e?t nostris fundamentis, e spado, ex lumine, ex calore, ex fluore, camquam ex
communibus rerum omnium elementis, celum dixerimus esse compositum verum equi-
bodies moved freely through a fluid medium “ like birds in the air and fish dem dicemus. sed non tanta posse esse duritie ac soliditate ut tarn vehementi rotatu. non
in the sea.” 76 dispergatur. Si vero coelum. quod Chaldaei docuerunt solum esc lumen, lumim nulla est
Another early opponent o f hard orbs and advocate o f fluid heavens was soliditas, nulla durities.” Patrizi, Painosmia, 1591, 89, col. 2.
78. “ Si nihil in coelo est durum, si nulla est in eo soliditas, nullam profecto tixionem. vel
nodorum, vel stellarum potuit suscipere.” Ibid.
75. In his Louvain Lectures o f between 1570 and 1572 (unpublished until 1984), Bellarmine 79. “ Toto ergo errarunt coelo et Philosoplu et Astronomi omnes, qui Stellas coelo hxas, uti
declared that “ such complex and extraordinary structures as epicycles and eccentrics are nodos tabulis esse docuerunt.” Ibid.
dreamed up so that that even the astrologers are reticient to speak about them.” Bellar­ 80. Donahue, 1975, 273, declares that “ by the end o f the 1620s the debate over the fluidity
mine, 1984, 22 (English), 23 (Latin). Although Bellarmine used the term astrologi, he o f the heavens was very nearly concluded.” The estimate seems reasonable. Thoren
clearly means astronomers. declares (1990. 254) that “ in the second half o f the sixteenth century at least, intellectuals
76. Bellarmine explains: “ Si assere velimus coelum sydereum non esse nisi unum, et illud in general and Tycho Brahe in particular believed that something real existed in the heavens
igneum, vel aereum: quod saepius conformius scripturis esse diximus: necessario iam to carrv the planets through their appointed rounds.” By 1587. however, Tycho came
diccre debemus. Stellas non moveri ad motum coeli, sed motu proprio sicut aves per to reject the existence o f hard orbs. Thoren. ibid., 258.
aerem, et pisces per aquam.” Ibid., 19 and 38, n. 88: also quoted in Baldini, 1984, 301- 81. “ Utrumque ante aliquot annos omnino extra controversiam tuerat. ’ Arriaga. De eaelo.
See also Lemer, 1989, 268. The brief translation is mine. Defenders o f orbs, whether hard disp. 1, sec. 3, 1632, 499, col. 1.
or soit, tound it difficult to believe that celestial bodies could be self-moved “ like birds 82. “ Propter quorumdam mathematicorum et astronomorum diligentes observationes quas.
in the air and fish in the sea.” See Chapter 13, note 16, where other users o f one or both novis exquisitisque instrumentis adiuti, invenerunt. et praecipue tubi optici subsidio.
ot these metaphors are also mentioned. caelorum structura penitus a nonnullis inverti coepit." Ibid.
350 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S H A R D OR FLUID? 351

when George de Rhodes published his discussion, he could say o f the pla­ priately listed with the fluid theorists, because the assumption o f fluidity in
netary heaven, “ no one now denies the fluidity o f the heaven o f the the heavens, whether for all or part o f it, marks a strong departure from
planets. ” 83 what was taken as the major opposition theory in the late sixteenth century,
Because hard orbs had been regularly linked with incorruptibility, it namely heavens conceived as totally solid and hard.
seemed natural to associate fluid heavens with corruptibility. Some scho­ What did terms like “ fluid” and “ liquid” mean to opponents o f hard orbs?
lastics, however, found these rigid pairings unwarranted, perhaps because In responding to the question “ Whether the heavens are fluid,” Roderigo
some wished to assert fluidity and nonetheless retain the concept o f celestial de Arriaga explained that the fluid he had in mind need not be a “ watery
incorruptibility. “ Crystal, stone, w ood, etc. are solid bodies,” observes liquid” (liquor aqueus), for “ it suffices if they [the heavens] are easily perme­
Arriaga, “ but are not incorruptible, and some substance might be easily able, much like our air, which is, nevertheless, not called absolutely fluid.” 88
permeable and yet not be corrupted.” 84 He was further convinced that Thus the heavens could range from a liquid to a gas and still be categorized
“ some experiences can be adduced for proving the fluidity o f the heavens as a fluid. The meaning o f fluidity was apparently extended in this manner
which do not thereby prove their corruptibility. Contrarily, other experi­ to avoid the charge that watery, liquid heavens would fall down upon us
ences can be adduced to prove that the heavens are corruptible which cannot in the form o f rain. A vaporized fluid, analogous to air, was more readily
show that they are fluid. Thus it is necessary to distinguish between them.” 85 conceived to remain in its celestial location high above us.89
Among late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scholastic natural phi­
losophers whose works play a significant role in this study, opinion was
divided on the issue o f fluidity or solidity. Those who defended the existence I. Scholastic arguments for fluid heavens
o f solid orbs were the Coim bra Jesuits, Bartholomew Amicus, and Thomas
Arguments for or against fluid heavens came from a variety o f sources.
Compton-Carleton, while the defenders o f fluid heavens included Pedro
Some were drawn from Scripture and the Church Fathers and were largely
Hurtado de Mendoza, Roderigo de Arriaga, Francisco de Oviedo, Giovanni
appeals to authority; others were derived from Aristotelian physics and
Baptista Riccioli, Franciscus Bonae Spei, Melchior Cornaeus, Sigismundus
cosm ology and the scholastic additions thereto. But the most significant
Serbellonus, and George de Rhodes. O f the eight defenders o f fluidity,
and most challenging drew on, or were responses to, the new discoveries,
seven published after 1632, thus strengthening the view that by 1630 most
or the “ new phenomena” (nova phaenotnena) as they were sometimes called,90*
scholastics had abandoned hard and solid orbs in favor o f fluid heavens.868 7
associated most prominently with the names o f Brahe and Galileo. We shall
O f the authors listed as supporters o f fluidity, some held a third opinion,
have occasion to consider all o f these types.
which envisioned heavens that were partly hard and partly fluid. In this
group we may place Hurtado de Mendoza, Aversa, Riccioli, and Serbel­
lonus.s_ They, and others who shared this interpretation, may be appro­
a. Scripture
83. “ Prima ergo pars de fluiditate coeli planetarum a nemine nunc negatur.” De Rhodes [De Just as the passage from Job 37.18 served as the most important biblical
coeio. bk. 2. disp. 2. qu. 1, sec. 2, pt. 2], 1671, 280, col. 1.
84. The full statement reads: “ Primo suppono non esse idem corpus esse liquidum et esse support for hard orbs, so did Isaiah 51.6 serve to uphold fluid heavens with
corruptible; neque e contrario idem esse corpus soli dum et incorruptibile: nam crystallus, the words “ quia caeli sicut fumus liquescent” (because the heavens appear
lapis, lignum, etc., sunt corpora solida et non sunt incorruptibilia; et potest esse aliqua as smoke).9' Indeed, a number o f scriptural quotations were arrayed on
substantia facile permeabilis, licet non possit corrumpi.” Arriaga, De caelo, disp. sec.
3, subsec. 1. 1632. 499, col. 1. each side o f the controversy and largely offset each other. One and the same
85. “ Hinc suppono secundo aliquas expenentias adduci ad probandum caelos esse fluidos quae
non propterea quidquam probant de eius corruptibilitate; alias vero e contrario ad pro­
bandum eos esse corruptibiles quae non ostendunt illos esse fluidos, unde eas oportet esse, planetarum autem fluidum). Riccioli, Almagestutn novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1,
valde inter se distinguere.” Ibid. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 1, 1626, 272, col. ch. 7, 1651, 244, col. 1.
1 also agreed with Arriaga’s position. 88. “ Tertio suppono, cum quaerimus an caeli sint fluidi non quaeri a nobis an sint quasi
86. The seventeenth century scholastic authors were not chosen for this study by virtue ot quidam liquor aqueus, qui facile labitur; sufficit emm si sint facile permeabiles ad modum
the opinions they held but largely because they seemed to include relevant discussions quo est noster aer, qui tarnen non vocatur absolute liquor.” Arriaga, De caelo, disp. 1,
and were reasonably well distributed through the century. sec. 3, subsec. 1, 1632, 499, col. 1.
87. Riccioli, for example, assumed it more probable that the heaven o f the fixed stars was 89. Illuminatus Oddus argues this way (De coeio, disp. 1. dub. 12. 1672, 35, col. 1).
solid and the heaven o f the planets fluid. Thus we read, in the enunciation o f his final 90. The expression nova phaenotnena probably meant "new celestial appearances.” For its use,
and sole conclusion, “ it is more probable, although hardly evident mathematically or see Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 2. [626. 273, col. 1 and de Rhodes. De coeio.
phvsicallv, that the heaven of the fixed stars is solid and that o f the planets fluid” (Prob- bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 2, pt. 2, 1671, 2S0, col. 1.
abilius multo est, licet nondum mathematice aut phvsice evidens, caelum fixarum solidum 91. The Latin is from the Vulgate.
352 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N ARE THE HE A V E N S H A R D OR FLUID? 353

author might even present scriptural passages in support o f each side 929 3 passages could be cited for each side o f the controversy, thus effectively
Nevertheless, such passages were invoked because scriptural authority was eliminating them as a critical factor in the ultimate outcome, individual
still deemed important. Moreover, because each side could muster biblical authors could still be powerfully persuaded by their personal interpretations
support, it was not unusual for scholastic authors to show that the biblical o f relevant scriptural texts, as we shall see when we examine Am icus’s
passages cited by their opponents were irrelevant or inappropriate. Thus defense o f hard heavens.
although Amicus ([De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 3], 1626, 278, col. 1) cites
the passage from Job in his argument in favor o f solid orbs, which he
believed the true opinion, he also cites an argument, in the section where b. The new discoveries
he presents the case for fluid orbs, to show that the same passage was The most significant arguments in favor o f fluid heavens were based upon
irrelevant to the case for solid, hard spheres.1,3 In this argument, we are told the observational achievements o f Tycho Brahe and Galileo Galilei, the
that the Job passage does not really attribute hardness to the heavens and former relying on the naked eye, the latter on the recently invented tele­
that the words are not those o f God or Job but o f Elihu, whose utterances scope. The cumulative impact o f their obervations and the inferences drawn
are not accepted as true.94 Indeed, Melchior Cornaeus rejected the relevance from them transformed cosmology. Comets that Aristotle had characterized
o f the passage because the words were those o f Elihu, an unlearned man, as sublunar phenomena were now placed by Tycho in the vicinity o f Mars
whom God subsequently denounces for uttering ignorant opinions (in Job in the celestial region. Tycho had also identified the new star o f 1572 as a
38.2).95 George de Rhodes went much further and simply denied the rel­ genuinely novel celestial phenomenon and thus challenged the traditional
evance o f the argument from Job, as well as three other biblical passages. opinion o f celestial incorruptibility. With his telescope, Galileo added to
Scriptural texts do not signify that the firmament is a hard, solid body, de these the satellites o f Jupiter97 and a picture o f celestial bodies that had
Rhodes insists, but only that it is “ a body that has a constant and perpetual irregularities, especially the Moon, whose mountains and valleys made it
state” ([De caelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 2], 1672, 280, col. 2). De Rhodes akin to the earth.98 Galileo proclaimed “ the earth very noble and admirable
even denied the relevance for either side o f Isaiah 51.6. “ When it is said,” precisely because o f the diverse alterations, changes, generations, etc. that
he argued, “ that the heavens [literally] pass away [liquescent]," this only occur in it incessantly, . . . and I say the same o f the Moon, o f Jupiter, and
signifies that they will be changed into a better state.96 o f all other world globes” (Two Chief World Systems [Drake], 1962, 58—59)-
Because they could be assembled for either side, biblical passages could Also significant for the debate about hard or fluid orbs were Galileo’s dis­
not play a crucial role in the debate over hardness and softness, as they did coveries o f the phases o f Venus and sunspots.99
in the Copernican controversy, where all relevant scriptural passages upheld
one side o f the dispute, namely the traditional interpretation o f the Sun i. Comets. O f the new discoveries, Tycho Brahe’s determination o f the
revolving around a stationary earth. Moreover, the Church never intervened celestial nature o f comets was perhaps the most dramatic event in turning
in the issue o f the hardness or fluidity o f the heavens. Although scriptural scholastic opinion from hard orbs to fluid heavens. T o appreciate the mo­
mentous challenge that T ych o ’s achievements posed to Aristotelian com-
92. For Riccioli's scriptural citations in behalf o f hardness, see his Almagestum novum, pars
post., bk. 9, sec. 1. ch. 7, 1651, 240. col. 2-242, col. r; for his citations in favor o f fluidity,
etarv theory, and therefore to Aristotelian cosm ology, it is necessary to
see ibid., 242, col. 1—244, col. 1; lor Amicus s citations ot biblical passages in favor ot describe briefly Aristotle’s theory o f comet formation as expressed in his
fluidity, see his De caelo. tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 2, 1626, 272, col. 2-275, col. 2 and in favor Meteorology. At the beginning o f the latter treatise, Aristotle declares that
ot solid hardness see 275, col. 2-278, col. 1. Arriaga cites the Job and Isaiah passages in
De caelo, disp. 1, sec. 3, subsec. 4, 1632, 503, col. 1, par. 39. the region o f the world with which meteorology is concerned is “ nearest
93. However, this was not his real opinion, as will be seen shortly. to the motion o f the stars” ( 1 .1.338b.20-22 [Webster], 1984), by which he
94. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 2, 273, col. 1. De Rhodes, De coelo. 1672, bk. 2, meant the region o f air and fire just below the M oon. The kinds o f phe­
disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 2, pt. 2, 280, col. 1, argues that these are only the words o f Job's
friend and also asserts that the words about the metallic solidity o f the heavens are meant
nomena that occur in this region include comets, meteors, and the M ilky
to apply to an immense extent o f air. Way. Comets are thus not celestial phenomena but occur in the upper
95. Cornaeus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 3, 1657, 499. Franciscus Bonae Spei, De coelo,
comment. 3, disp. 3, dub. 7, 1652. 14, col. 1, had, a few years earlier, used the same 97. Galileo also mistakenly identified the rings o f Saturn as satellites. See Drake’s article in
argument and the same appeal to Job 38.2. Without specifically citing Job 38.2, Serbel- Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 1970-1980, 5:241, col. 2. As a consequence, scholastics
lonus, De caelo, disp. 1, qu. 2, art. 4, 1663, 2:25, col. 2, repeated the same argument as occasionally mentioned Saturn's “ satellites.”
Cornaeus and Bonae Spei. 98. Galileo described the lunar irregularities and the satellites ofjupiter in The Starry Messenger
96. “ Cum dicitur quod coeli liquescent, sigmfleatur tantum quod mutabuntur in meliorem (Sidereus nuncius) o f 1610. For translations, see Galileo [Drake], 1957, 21-58, and Galileo
statum.” De Rhodes, De coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 2, pt. 2. 1671, 280, col. 2. The [Van Heldenj, 1989.
relevance o f this passage rested wholly on the term “ liquescent," which, in the context, 99. See Galileo’s Letters on Sunspots (1613) in Galileo [Drake], 1957. 87-144. Galileo discovered
did not even mean “ liquify" but rather signified “ pass away” or “ melt away.” the phases o f Venus in 1610. after he had written the Starry Messenger.

i
354 THE C E L EST IA L REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S H A R D OR FLUID? 355
atmosphere between earth and Moon. In the fourth chapter, Aristotle savs from below and meets it. The kind of comet varies according to the shape which
(ibid., i . 4.341b.7—25) the upper region is comprised o f two kinds o f ex­ the exhalation happens to take.'00
halations:
During the Middle Ages, most theories about comet formation remained
close to Aristotle’s account. If they diverged, it was not with respect to the
One kind is rather ot the nature o f vapour, the other o f the nature o f a windv
sublunar location o f comets. By placing the comet ot 1577 in the celestial
exhalation. That which rises from the moisture contained in the earth and on its
region and doing so on the basis o f carelul observation o f the comet’s
surface is vapour, while that rising from the earth itself, which is dry, is like smoke.
parallax, Tycho changed forever the debate about comets, as is readily
O t these, the windv exhalation, being warm, rises above the moister vapour, which
apparent by a glance at Riccioli’s lengthy section on comets in his Almagestum
is heavy and sinks below the other. Hence the world surrounding the earth is ordered
novum o f 1651,,0JI where he summarized virtually all the relevant arguments
as follows. First below the circular motion comes the warm and dry-element, which
with respect to the formation, substance, location, and distance o f com ets.102
we call fire, for there is no word fully adequate to every state o f the sm oky evap­
Opinions on the location o f comets ranged trom below the Moon, to above
oration; but we must use this term inology since this element is the most inflammable
the Moon, and to some comets below and some above. Theories about the
o f all bodies. Below this comes air. We must think o f what we just called fire as
matter from which comets were formed varied from the sublunar elements
being spread round the terrestrial sphere on the outside like a kind o f fuel, so that
in various manifestations to celestial matter either by means o f condensation,
a little motion often makes it burst into flame just as smoke does; for flame is the
by the alteration o f parts o f the heavens, and even by matter flowing from
ebullition o f a dry exhalation. So whenever the circular motion stirs this stuff up
the Sun and planets themselves.103 Toward the end o f what was surely one
in any way, it catches fire at the point at which it is most inflammable. The result
o f the lengthiest and most detailed studies o f comets in the seventeenth
differs according to the disposition and quantity o f fuel.
century, Riccioli arrived at certain cautious conclusions that conceded only
the probability, but not the certainty, o f supralunar comets. Because he was
From this physical arrangement o f the upper atmosphere, Aristotle explains not yet convinced that there had been any absolute demonstration that any
(ibid., 1.4.342a. 16-30) the formation o f various meteoric occurrences, in­ comets had occurred above the M oon ,104 Riccioli concluded in favor o f the
cluding comets: probability that some comets occurred above the Moon and some below.
History, he acknowledged, could furnish no information to help determine
When the phenomenon is formed in the upper region it is due to the combustion
cometarv locations.!0:i It was not only that comets moved across the heavens
o f the exhalation. When it takes place at a low er level it is due to the ejection o f in ways that made the existence o f hard orbs difficult to defend - comets
the exhalation by the condensing and cooling o f the moister exhalation; for this were thus frequently invoked in support ot fluid heavens, as Melchior C or-
latter as it condenses and inclines dow nw ard contracts, and thrusts out the hot
naeus argued100 - but the typical theory o f comet formation also made solid,
element and causes it to be thrown downwards. . . . So the material cause o f all these hard orbs seem impossible. Thus Sigismundus Serbellonus, who agreed
phenomena is the exhalation, the efficient cause sometimes the upper motion, some­
with Aristotle that sublunar exhalations could produce comets,107 was con-
times the contraction and condensation o f the air. Further all these things happen 100. See also Jervis. 1985, 11-13.
below the moon. 101. Riccioli devoted the eighth book to comets and new stars.
102. In Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 8, sec. 1. ch. 23. 1651, 117, col. 2—120. col. 1.
Riccioli cites the opinions o f others on the place, parallax, and distances o f comets from
Aristotle assumed that the dry and warm, or fiery, exhalation and a great the earth.
103. Ibid., ch. 13, 57. col. 2-58. col. 2.
part o f the air below it is carried circularly around the earth by virtue o f 104. Under the heading “ Conclusiones de distantia et loco cometarum," the second conclusion
the circular celestial revolution. In the process o f being carried around, and reads: “ Nullus adhuc cometarum demonstratus est absolute fuisse supra lunam, sed ex
under the right conditions, parts o f the dry and warm exhalation or the hvpothesi tantum probabili quidem, sed tamen incerta.” Ibid., ch. 23, 119, col. i.
105. Fourth conclusion: "Probabile est aliquos cometas fuisse supra lunam, aliquos vero infra,
upper air might ignite. “ We may say, then,” Aristotle continues (ibid. etiam ex illis de quorum loco ex nuda historia nihil constat." Ibid., col. 2.
1.7.3443.15-21), 106. He asserts that "the comet, which we saw in 161S, was, according to the common
opinion o f astronomers, in the heaven itself. Theretore the heaven is not hard, but
permeable and fluid, like air" (Cometes ille quern anno ibi8 vidimus communi astron-
that a comet is formed when the upper motion introduces into a condensation ot omorum consensu intra ipsum coelum fuit. Ergo coelum non est durum, sed permeabile
et liquidum ad instar aeris). Cornaeus, De eoelo. disp. 2. qu. 2, dub. 3, 1657, 499.
this kind a fiery principle not o f such excessive strength as to burn up much o f the
107. In opposition to Aristotle, however. Serbellonus also believed that comets could be
material quickly, nor so weak as soon to be extinguished, but stronger and capable celestial and that thev could be produced by effluences given off by planets. In short,
ot burning up much material, and when exhalation o f the right consistency rises they could also be produced by celestial matter.
356 THE CELEST IAL REGION ARE THE HE A V E N S H A R D OR FLUID? 357

vinced that comets demonstrate fluid heavens. N ot only are comets visible ii. New stars. We saw earlier how scholastics o f the sixteenth and seven­
below the Moon, but they are also seen above the Sun, Mars, and Saturn teenth centuries coped with the problem o f new stars in their efforts to
and have existed as far away as the region immediately below the firmament retain or abandon the traditional concept o f celestial incorruptibility.1,2 Few
ot the fixed stars. Because comets develop from exhalations given o ff bv linked new stars to the problem o f hard or fluid heavens, perhaps because
the earth, it follows that “ if the heavens were solid, they [comets] could many scholastics either denied that new stars were real celestial phenomena
not be seen above any heaven, but all would be below the M oon, which or, if they recognized them as genuine celestial occurrences, explained them
is contrary to the common observation o f the astronomers. Therefore the as some configuration o f already existing bodies. But George de Rhodes,
heavens are fluid, so that they could be penetrated by these exhalations.” ,oX who assumed that new stars were w holly new phenomena, found it easier
Riccioli used the same argument to deny hardness to the heaven o f the to imagine such events occurring in fluid heavens. Because astronomers
Moon, although he assumed that the sphere o f fixed stars was hard because judged the distance o f new stars to be the same as those o f the fixed stars,
it seemed the only way to preserve the distances between the stars and to he found it difficult to envision how, if the orb o f the fixed stars were hard,
avoid the assignation o f a separate mover for each star.10 109
8 a new star could suddenly appear.1,3
In one o f ten arguments in support o f fluidity, Riccioli declares that the
oblique and free trajectories o f comets above the Moon, which astronomers Hi. New discoveries concerning the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, and the satellites
have demonstrated,1IOwould be incompatible with solid eccentric, concen­ of Jupiter and Saturn. Other discoveries were, however, more directly rel­
tric, and epicyclic heavens. He implies that in a world o f solid orbs, epicycles evant. Melchior Cornaeus reveals the manner in which one or more o f these
would also be required to carry comets. But since comets appear only discoveries could be applied to the debate on the hardness or fluidity o f
occasionally, where would the matter come from to form a special epicycle celestial orbs. In the fourteenth century, as we saw earlier (Ch. 13, Sec.
for the occasion, and from whence would a place appear to accommodate III.7), Jean Buridan and Albert o f Saxony took opposite positions on
it? Because no such special adjustments seemed possible or plausible, Riccioli whether or not the M oon had an epicycle. Albert assumed not only that
concludes that the free trajectory o f comets demonstrates the fluidity o f the the M oon was carried around by an epicycle but that the Moon rotated
heavens, as Kepler, drawing on Tycho, argued in the fourth book o f his around its own center in the same period as the epicycle but in a contrary
Epitome of Astronomy. ' ' 1 direction. O nly in this way, he insisted, would we always see the same face
o f the Moon.
Cornaeus rejected this argument and the existence o f a lunar epicycle,
108. "Cum igitur cometae oriantur ab exhalatiombus, aut a terra elevatis aut a planetis pro-
fluentibus, si coeli solidi essent, non possent videri supra coelum aliquod, sed omnes the interior o f which would have to be either void or filled with matter. If
essent intra lunam, quod est contra communem astroiogorum observationem. Fluidi the M oon rotated around its own center as it was being carried by its
ergo sunt coeli, ut permeari possint ab ipsis exhalationibus.” Serbellonus, De caelo, disp. epicycle, the huge lunar mountains, which are greater and higher than those
i, qu. 2, art. 4, 1663, 2:25, col. 2. In my summary earlier, I omitted Serbellonus’s
assertion about the role o f planetary exhalations in comet formation. Not only was this on earth and which make the M oon’s surface rough and uneven, would
another incompatible addition to Aristotle’s comet theory (since Aristotle denied the necessarily sweep from one place to the next. As the Moon rotated, each
existence o f comets in the celestial region, no planet could have given o ff exhalations irregular lunar prominence would be carried from one place to another and
or participated in comet formation), but it makes what Serbellonus says inconsistent.
For despite the inability o f earthly exhalations to penetrate beyond the lunar orb, comets either move into a void or leave one behind, which is im possible;"4 or, it
could torm trom exhalations given o ff by planets themselves, even though their move­ the M oon’s epicycle is filled with matter, the peaks o f the lunar mountains
ments in a heaven o f hard orbs would pose serious problems. The formation o f comets would have to penetrate that matter, that is, occupy the same space with
trom matter given off by planets was a serious new theory in the seventeenth century
(see Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 8, ch. 13, 1651, 57, col. 2-58, col. 2). it, which is also impossible. Insofar as his argument applies to void space,
109. Ibid., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 244, col. 1. Cornaeus has here drawn on Aristotle’s demonstration-for a spherically
110. Although Riccioli believed in fluid heavens, the arguments presented here are drawn shaped world, which was popularized by Sacrobosco in the Middle Ages.
trom a variety ot sources. They are not necessarily his own. Indeed, a few paragraphs
earlier we saw that he thought it only probable, and not demonstrated, that comets occur A world that was not spherically shaped but had protruding angles that
above the Moon. revolved in a circle would, as Aristotle put it, “ never occupy the same
i n . M y interpretation is based on the following passage: "Quartum argumentum sumitur
a multiplici ac vago motu, seu libera et obliqua traiectione cometarum lllorum, quos 112. See Chapter 10. Section III.3.a, b; also Chapter 12, Section III. 1.
Tycho et alii censentur demonstrasse genitos et motos supra lunam fuisse. . . . Iam si celi 113. "Secundum est de novis illis stellis, quas nuper dixi apparisse saepius in coelo eandem
essent solidi, tota eorum moles cessisset in eccentncos, concentricos, et epicvclos pia- habere distantiam a terra quam habent reliquae stellae firmamenti, quod etiam cum
netarum, nec superesset materia aut locus pro epicyclis cometarum. Idcirco ex traiec- soliditate coelorum stare non potest. ’ De Rhodes. De coelo. bk. 2. disp. 2. qu. 1. sec.
tionibus cometarum fluiditatem celi demonstratum a Tychone putarunt Keplerus in 2, pt. 2, 1671, 280, cols. 1-2.
Epitome Astronomie, lib. 4, pag. 422." Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 114. In a briefer paragraph, Riccioli seems to say the same thing; Riccioli. Alma^estum novum.
1, ch. 7, 1651, 242, col. 2-243, col. 1. pars post., bk. 9, sec. i, ch. 7, 1631, 243, col. 2, par. 21.
35« T H E C E L E S T IA L R E G IO N ARE THE H E A V E N S HARD OR F LU ID ? 359

space, but owing to the change in position o f the corners there will at one it, would smash through any hard solar heaven or orb in which the Sun
time be no body where there was body before, and there will be body again was somehow fixed. T o reinforce the argument, Amicus mentions T ych o ’s
where now there is none.” "" Because a lunar epicycle, whether void or claims about an intersection o f the orbits ot Mars and the Sun, a situation
filled with matter, seems unable to account for the rotation o f a M oon that that would make it impossible for hard orbs to exist. The satellites ofjupiter
has an irregular surface, Cornaeus rejected epicycles and assumed that the and Saturn (these were in tact the rings o f Saturn, mistaken for satellites)
Moon moves through a fluid medium. would similarly smash through any hard orbs associated with these
For scholastic authors like Cornaeus, who were compelled to reject C op­ planets.1-0
ernicus’s ecclesiastically condemned heliocentric system but who accepted
T ych o’s geoheliocentric cosm os,"6 hard, solid orbs were virtually impos­
c. Other arguments
sible. In T ych o’s scheme, which departs radically from Aristotelian cos­
mology, a number o f planetary motions are centered on bodies other than In the preceding section we saw that hard orbs were suspect because o f the
the earth. Cornaeus mentions Mercury and Venus, which m ove around the various subsystems that had emerged from the w ork ot Tycho and Galileo.
Sun as center and are therefore sometimes above and sometimes below it, It was comm only assumed that Mercury and Venus, and even Mars, moved
a state o f affairs that was based on T y ch o ’s geoheliocentric system and around the Sun as center and that the satellites ofjupiter moved around the
Galileo’s discovery o f the phases o f V enus;"7 the intersection o f the orbits latter as center; even Saturn was alleged to be the center ot two satellites
o f Mars and the Sun, so that Mars is sometimes below the Sun, and some­ that perpetually circled it. With so many centers ot motion other than the
times above it;"* and finally the tour satellites o f Jupiter are also sometimes earth, the existence o f planetary orbs appeared untenable, because it was
above Jupiter and sometimes below it, and sometimes ahead o f it and some­ assumed that as the circling bodies moved above and below the body at
times behind it. And yet all these subsystems also m ove around the earth. the center, the orb supporting the latter would be smashed, thus disrupting
It would be impossible, says Cornaeus, for these celestial bodies to be fixed the normal movements o f the heavens. Riccioli took the matter a step further
in solid, hard heavens."9 On the assumption that these arguments were by presenting an argument which declared it vain to multiply so many real
obvious to his readers, Cornaeus offers no further elaboration. and solid planetary orbs and their motions. Such a variety o f motions created
Years earlier, however, Bartholomew Amicus, who rejected fluid heavens a mutual danger o f collision and obstruction between the planets and orbs
and was a supporter o f hard planetary orbs, mentioned (De caelo, tract. 5, and also unnecessarily caused the imagination to grow weary in the con­
qu. 5, art. 2, 1626, 273, cols. 1-2) all o f the same phenomena and briefly templation o f so many allegedly real and solid epicycles, eccentrics, con-
explained w hy partisans o f fluid heavens thought the theory was compatible centrics, and epicyclic eccentrics.
with that concerning the various celestial subsystems that Tycho and Galileo As the climax o f the argument, Riccioli invokes the doctrine o f simplicity,
had identified. The phases o f Venus could not occur, he explained, unless arguing that it was unlikely that the Divine Wisdom would create a vast
the heavens were fluid, for otherwise Venus, in circling the Sun (rather than and complex machinery o f orbs to carry around a single planet like Saturn
the earth, in an otherwise geocentric universe) and m oving above and below when he could have done it so easily by the use o f a motive intelligence.
Hard orbs appear even more incongruous when one realizes that a planet
its. Ironically, Aristotle was arguing for a spherical world, whereas Cornaeus was arguing
in behalf of an irregular Moon. For further discussion, see Chapter 6, Section II and is like a point with respect to the orb that carries it - indeed it bears a
note 39. smaller ratio to its orb than any drop o f water to the ocean. W’hy construct
116. Tycho assumed that the Sun moved around an immobile earth at the center o f the world a vast orb to carry a small planet? The implication is obvious: the Divine
- just as in the Anstocelian-Ptolemaic system - but that all the other planets moved
around the Sun as the center ot their orbits. For a description o f Tycho's world system, Wisdom would have rejected hard orbs and resorted to the simpler expedient
see Thoren, 1990, ch. 8, 236-264. o f fluid h eavens."1
117. The phases of Venus are explicitly mentioned by Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. $, art.
2, 1626, 273, cols. 1-2. 120. Scholastics usually presented the best-case scenario for the opposing viewpoint, as Ami­
118. Tycho Brahe made this an integral part o f his geoheliocentric world view in opposition cus does in this paragraph. De Rhodes, De coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 2, pt. 2,
to Copernicus's heliocentric system. See Thoren, 1990. 234. 1671, 280, col. 1, also cites the four satellites ofjupiter and the two attributed to Saturn
119. Cornaeus. De coelo. disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 3. 1657, 499. Although Cornaeus does not use as evidence that “ the stars [or satellites] are moved in fluid heavens, like birds in air with
the term "hard” (durum), it is clearly implied. Riccioli, who also mentions the satellites an angel moving them through a liquid space" (ut in caelo fluido moveantur stellae, ut
o f Saturn, explains that the satellites o f Jupiter and Saturn make it unfeasible to admit aves in aere movente lllas Angelo per spatium liquidum). For Amicus’s arguments in
solid, hard orbs, because the latter would impede the motions o f the satellites. Like favor o f solid, hard orbs, see Section 2.6 of this chapter.
Cornaeus, Riccioli does not explicitly mention hard orbs - he speaks only o f “ the solidity 121. Here is the relevant text: “ Tertium argumentum. Frustra multiplicantur tot orbes reales
o f the heavens" (soliditas cAi) - but they are surely the subject o f his discussion. For, as ac solidi planetarum et motus eorum. Immo non solum trustra, sed cum periculo mutuae
we saw earlier, "solid” and “ hard” were inextricably linked in the latter part ot the collisioms et impedimenti spectata tanta vanetate motuum vel certe absque necessitate
sixteenth and the seventeenth century. cogimur imaginationem defatigare in tot realibus ac solidis epicvclis, eccentricis, con-
360 THE C E L E S T IA L RE G IO N ARE THE H EAVEN S HARD OR FLUID? 36 l
One o f the main reasons for the introduction o f epicyclic orbs in the cycle.125 N o w it is the epicycle which is assumed to move through its
ancient world was to account for variations o f planetary distances from the eccentric deferent. Under these circumstances, the inside o f the eccentric
earth. In the seventeenth century, Cornaeus rejected those orbs and ac­ will be either a plenum or a void. If void, we would have an enormous
counted for variations in planetary distance within the context o f a fluid empty space in the universe, which Cornaeus denies; moreover, motion
medium. “ If a planet sometimes approaches the earth and sometimes recedes would occur in this void, which is also denied.
from it,” he declares, “ it [the planet] is not fixed in a solid body, but it is Should the space within the eccentric deferent be a plenum, the matter
necessary that it be in a liquid and permeable body, so that at times it can will be either solid or fluid.126 If solid, or hard, the planet and the hard
approach and at times w ithdraw .” 12* matter within the eccentric deferent must interpenetrate, because as hard
Cornaeus raises an obvious objection against his own position: eccentrics bodies neither will yield to the other. But if the matter within the eccentric
and epicycles can also account for variations in distance. W hy, then, reject is fluid, one ought to say that the whole heaven is fluid, not just a part. For
hard orbs in favor o f a fluid medium? In response Cornaeus invokes tra­ if the eccentric deferent is fluid and the two eccentric orbs that enclose it -
ditional arguments that had been raised against eccentrics and epicycles since namely the eccentric thai surrounds, the eccentric deferent and the one that
the thirteenth century and were neatly summarized by Cecco d’Ascoli (see is enclosed by it - are hard and solid, how will the outermost eccentric
Ch. 13, Sec. III). Taking as his illustration the Sun, which has no epicycle communicate a motion to the inner eccentric if the two solid eccentrics are
but only an eccentric, Cornaeus argues that as the Sun moves from its separated by a fluid orb?127
farthest point frorp the earth to its closest point, it would have to move Cornaeus includes yet another important, though brief, argument in favor
through its eccentric.123 But if it does so, there must either be a vacuum o f fluidity when he asks how a vast body like the heavens could be solid
for it to m ove through or, if matter exists in the eccentric, the Sun would and hard and yet be moved with such rapidity without suffering a violent
have to penetrate that matter, either by dividing it or occupying the same disruption o f its parts and without fire arising from its intense m otion.128
place with it.124 Cornaeus then takes up the case o f a planet with an epi- Roderigo de Arriaga thought the heavens were more likely to be fluid
than solid. Neither reason nor authority suggested abandonment ot the fluid
centrids, eccentricis epicvdis. . . . Deruque incongruum videtur Divinae Sapienfiae, ut
hypothesis. Indeed, fluid heavens seemed to save diverse celestial phenom­
propter motuum unius planetae, puta Saturni, qui facillime a se vel ab intelligentia moveri
potest, moveatur tanta et tam vasta machina quanta est totum caelum cuiusque planetae, ena better than an assumption o f solidity.129
qui comparatus ad suum caelum non est nisi instar puncti et minor est quam sit gutta
respectu oceani.” Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 1651, 242,
col. 2, par. 1$. 2. Scholastic arguments for hard spheres
Simplicity arguments were usually invoked for any advantage they might provide to
bolster one or another side o f an argument. Because Riccioli sought to present a thorough
case for each side, he also felt an obligation, perhaps, to defend against simplidty ar­ a. The heavens conceived as a combination of hard and fluid orbs
guments that were proposed against hard orbs (ibid., pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 33,
467, col. 2). Why would God make a world in which huge orbs had to travel at enormous A combination o f hard and soft orbs may be traced back at least to Aegidius
speeds and perhaps generate great resistances to those speeds? He could surely have Romanus in the early fourteenth century (see Ch. 13, Sec. III.9)- For Ae­
achieved the same results in a much simpler way. But these were irrelevant problems.
gidius, the eccentric deferent was like “ marrow in a bone” or “ blood in
If the celestial orbs could endure such speeds, the speeds would pose no serious problems.
Moreover, God, or the motive intelligences that move the spheres, would have no the veins,” thus associating a soft, or fluid, material with one that is much
difficulty in overcoming such potential resistances, however large they might be. Nor harder. A similar opinion, in which a solid heavens is divided into seven
indeed would our senses suffer ill effects from these great speeds, since they are regulated
by celestial intelligences. 125. Ibid., 498.
122. “ Si planeta aliquando appropinquat terrae, aliqando vero ab eadem recedit, ergo non est 126. Ibid.
in corpore solido infixus, sed necesse est ut sit in liquido et permeabili, ut aliquando 127. Here Cornaeus assumes that motion is transmitted from orb to orb.'When they specif­
possit accedere et recedere.’’ Cornaeus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 3, 1657, 497- As ically considered the motions o f the celestial spheres, scholastic natural philosophers
evidence tor distance variations, Cornaeus invoked the telescope (tubum opticum), bv assigned a separate mover to each orb, so that no orb depended on another for its motive
means o f which one could project an image o f the Sun in such a way that the Sun’s power. For a full discussion, see below. Chapter 18, Section II.
diameter would vary in size, thus indicating that its distance from the earth varied. 128. “ Vix cogitari potest quomodo corpus tam vastum et solidum tanta rapiditate moveri
Distance variations were also detectable from the observation o f eclipses. possit sine partium violentia disruptione, ac sine incendio ex nimia agitatione orto.”
123. lam not certain why Cornaeus assumes that the Sun would move through its eccentric Cornaeus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 3, 1657, 500. As part o f his defense o f the earth’s
rather than being carried by it. daily rotation, Copernicus explains that “ Ptolemy has no cause, then, to fear that the
124. “ Excentnci et epicvcli non expediunt nondum. 1: quia ut sol ex opposito Augis ex O earth and everything earthly will be disrupted by a rotation created through nature’s
veniet in / ad Augem, debet se necessano commovcre per suum excentricum. Quomodo handiwork. . . . But why does he not feel this apprehension even more for the universe,
autem hoc sit vel sine vacuo, vel sine penetratione?’’ Cornaeus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2. whose motion must be the swifter, the bigger the heavens are than the earth?” Cop­
dub. 3, 1657, 497, does not provide all the details but my description seems to represent ernicus, Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 8 [Rosen], 1978, 15-
his intent. The letters O and / are references to a figure on page 494. 129. See Arriaga, De caelo, disp. 1, sec. 3, subsec. 4, 1632, 503, col. 1, par. 41.
362 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S HARD OR FLUID? 363

zones or channels, was adopted in the seventeenth century by Hurtado de it as a “ very probable [valde probabilis] opinion enunciated by certain con­
Mendoza and Aversa, and was at least described by Mastrius and Bellutus. temporaries.” '14 O f the opinions they report, this may have been the one
But they cannot be said unequivocally to have combined hard and fluid they judged most plausible. Although Amicus was a defender o f hard and
parts, because they leave it unclear as to whether the hollow interior o f the solid heavens, he reported this opinion as acceptable to moderns because it
eccentric deferent o f each planet was filled with fluid matter. For those who was compatible with scriptural statements about the solidity o f the firma­
assumed it was, the hard and fluid interpretation is o f interest because it ment o f the fixed stars (probably Job 37.18, which he cites later) and also
represents an attempt to assume a degree o f fluidity while simultaneously seemed to account for the new discoveries which indicated that planets
retaining hard planetary orbs. But the most popular version that combined moved by their own motions through a fluid or airy m edium .'3''
hardness and fluidity was adopted by some o f those who abandoned all
planetary orbs except the sphere o f the fixed stars. Riccioli, who was perhaps
b. The case for solid, hard spheres
the most prominent o f this group, assumed that the sphere o f the fixed
stars was hard, whereas the region o f the planets was a fiery fluid. This Despite the inexorable, if gradual, abandonment o f hard orbs in favor o f
idea was, as he put it, “ the most celebrated contemporary opinion,” sup­ fluid heavens, a system o f hard orbs had its defenders. One o f the most
ported, according to Riccioli, by the likes o f Oviedo, Arriaga, and probably prominent was Bartholomew Amicus, some ot whose arguments were
Mastrius and Bellutus.'10 Although he recognized that this assumption was subsequently repeated by Riccioli, despite the latter’s defense o f fluid pla­
neither mathematically nor physically evident, Riccioli thought it was more netary heavens. With Amicus, scriptural arguments played a significant role,
probable than any other.'11 It seemed best suited to reconcile the numerous especially Job 37.18, which was traditionally invoked in tavor ot solid orbs.
opinions o f the Church Fathers and the theologians (that is, the scholastic Although God reproved Elihu’s discourse. Amicus interpreted this as a
doctors o f the Middle Ages). Fluidity in the region o f the planets was not moral rejection only, not one that pertained to natural things. O n the con­
only consonant with observations o f modern astronomers but required the trary, God seems to accept Elihu’s statement that the heavens are hard.'1"
least degree o f violence and the smallest number o f motions and devices. The very name firtnamentum, which applies to the heaven o f the fixed stars,
It was most compatible with the new discoveries, that is “ the phenomena implies firmness and solidity. Moreover, a solid body is required to divide
o f comets, o f Mars, Venus, and Mercury, . . . and the motions o f the sat­ the waters from the waters, since a liquid body has no proper boundaries.
ellites ot Saturn and Jupiter and o f sunspots.” ' 12 Without a solid, hard firmament to play this role, the waters would mix
As for the assumption o f a hard orb for the fixed stars, Riccioli thought with the things around them .'17 But the term frmamentum does not apply
it the best explanation to account for the unchanging distances between the only to the sphere o f the fixed stars but also to all the other heavens and
stars themselves and also the best means o f avoiding the needless multipli­ planets. After all, in Genesis 1.14 -17, which Amicus cites, God placed in
cation o f movers for the many stars.'31
134. “ Nota vero quod valde probabilis est enam quorundam recentiorum sententia ponens
The association o f a solid, hard heaven o f the fixed stars with a fluid coelum stellarum solidum in quo fixa existant astra ad motum coeli mobilia, deinde
heavens in which the planets are moved directly by intelligences without coelum aliud fluidum in quo planetae moveantur ab intelligentiis. Mastrius and Bellutus
the need o f orbs is also reported by Mastrius and Bellutus, who characterize13 2
0 [Decoelo, disp. 2. qu. 1. art. 2], 1727, 3:490, col. 2, par. 3S. Earlier we saw that Mastrius
and Bellutus described another opinion in which the heavens were divided into seven
zones or channels (see Ch. 13, Sec. III.9 and n. 112). The opinion they Favored is left
130. “ Et nunc celeberrima opinio.” Riccioli, Almagcstum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec 1. ch. uncertain.
7 , i<Mi. 240, col. 1. For the names ot its supporters, see 240, cols. 1-2. This “ most 13 s. “ Secunda opinio est dicentium caelos planetarios esse ex materia liquida quia tacilius
celebrated opinion was the tilth ot those that Riccioli categorized under the fluidity ot motus et apparennae planetarum salvantur caelum; vero stellarum tixarum esse solidum
the heavens. in quo stellae sunt Fixe ut nodi in tabula, unde non per se sed ad motum orbium moventur.
131. “ Probabilius multo est, licet nondum mathematice aut phvsice evidens, caelum tixarum Hanc significant dicentes Stellas in firmamento tixas esse; planetas vero per aerem vagan
solidum esse, planetarum autem fluidum.” Ibid., 244, col. 1. vario motu. . . .
132. “ Constat id arguments et responsiombus utnmque hactenus adductis: hac emm dis­ Hec tamen opinio potest a recentioribus accipi quia ex asserentibus liquiditatem ce-
tinction turn probabilitatis ab evidentia turn caeli tixarum a caeli planetarum conciliantur lorum est omnium probabihssimam satisfied scripturae tribuenti Firmamento solidita-
plurime opimones patrum ac doctorum inter se et cum astronomorum recentiorum tem, quod est celum stellatum tixarum. et sansFaciunt novis apparentiis dum planetas
observatiombus minorique violentia aut multiplicitate motuum ac machinarum; minon naoveri per se propriis motibus per orbem atterunt." Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5,
quoque penculo repugnantiae phvsice inter motus tarn vanos planetarum explicantur art. 2, 1626, 274, col. 2. In this report. Amicus seems to envision the planets as moving
phenomena cometarum, Martis. Veneris ac M ercuni. . . et motus comitum Saturni et through a fluid medium that is located within an orb.
Iovis et macularum solarium.” Ibid. This was essentially Arriaga's opinion (see Section 136. After citing the passage. Amicus says: “ Neque obstat quod illud sit dictum ab Elihu
VIII. 1 c o f this chapter-!. cuius discursus tint a Deo reprobatus c.38. nam ibi t'uit reprobatus discursus moralis
133. “ Si sphaera tixarum solida ponatur, prompdus redditur ratio cui servent perpetuo eam- quo Job sanctitatem innocentiam accusabat. Sed quoad naturalia ibi ducta a nullo sapiente
dem inter se distantiam; nec multiplicandi erunt innumerabiles motores tixarum.” Ric­ reprobantur, sed potius recipiuntur.” Amicus, ibid., art. 3, 278, col. 1.
cioli, Alma^cstum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, i As i , 244, col. 1. 137. Ibid., 278. cols. 1-2.
364 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N ARE THE HEAVENS H A RD OR FLUID? 365

that very firmament the luminaries he created on the fourth day. Planets If the celestial substance were really fluid, the enormous velocities o f the
and stars are all part o f the firm am ent.'3S gigantic celestial bodies that move through it would seem o f necessity to
Reason also tells us that solid, hard orbs are needed to carry the planets produce a loud noise, especially at the point o f im pact.'43 Although Amicus
perpetually at great velocities. Without them, the celestial bodies would fails to draw the inference, it is obvious: because we hear no such sound,
self-destruct and fail to preserve the order and constancy o f the heavens 139 the heavens cannot be o f a fluid nature.'44 On a more positive note, Amicus
Amicus demonstrates this with three brief arguments: (1) If the planets were declares that solid, interconnected, and interrelated orbs confer a greater
not embedded in solid orbs, one intelligence would be required for each nobility and system on the heavens than would be the case with stars and
planet and each fixed star; so great would be the number o f intelligences planets m oving through a fluid medium as fish move through the sea.'43
required that a needless multiplication o f entities would result.140 (2) A Amicus also argued that the attribution o f liquidity to the firmament was
mover for each planet would be a much less effective way o f preserving contrary to common sense. But though he was a staunch advocate o f solid
uniformity o f celestial motion, just as it would be if all the stars and planets orbs, Amicus conceded that solidity was originally an unnatural state for
were moved only by a single mover. For in the latter situation, the intel­ the heavens. When God created the heaven on the first day, he apparently
ligence, or angelic intellect, would, because o f its finitude, be less able to produced a fluid, watery heaven. The true nature o f the firmament was
attend to individual stars and planets.'41 Finally, (3) because angels move thus fluid. O n the second day, however, God, in dividing the heaven o f
bodies only when they are actually in touch with them, it follows that if the first day, made the solid firmament, which is really the fluid heaven o f
angels moved the stars and planets directly, each angel would have to be the first day made hard and solid. The solidity o f the firmament is therefore
moved right along with its ow n celestial body in order to assist it as it an accidental property o f the heavens, secondary to its true and original
moves along, a situation that is avoided if the planets are embedded in sohd fluid nature.'46 Amicus observes that there are those who believe that the
orbs.142 heavens are naturally fluid and remained that way and there are others who
hold that the heavens were originally fluid but were made unnaturally solid
138. “Secunda conclusio soliditatem. quam probavimus convenire firmamento, probabile est and hard. Because the fluidity o f the heavens seems natural in both theories,
convenire omnibus caelis etiam planetarum." Ibid., 279, col. 2.
139- “ Secundo probo racione: nam orbes sunt ordinau ad deferenda svdera perpetuo et or­
Amicus concludes “ that from authority, from the motions o f new stars,
dinate. At hie finis exigit soliditatem orbium quia alioquin per tantam velocitatem motus and from similar things, which [Christopher] Scheiner reports, it is suffi­
facile corpora dissparentur atque adeo non posset servan tanta constants et ordinatio ciently probable that the heavens are fluid. But I do not follow this [opinion],
motuum et corporum motorum.” Ibid.
NO- Turn quia si sydera pe se ct non infixa orbibus moverentur magnus exigeretur intel-
ligentiarum numerus ad tot Stellas presertim tixas ordinate movendas unde sine neces­ bodv to which it is assigned. For more on Riccioli’s ideas on the application o f impressed
sitate sutficienti multiplicarentur entia. Ibid. Riccioli s eighth argument in favor of solid forces to celestial bodies, see Chapter 18, Section II.6.a and note 226.
orbs is similar. Si non concedantur orbes sohdi, oportebit ad movenda corpora celestia 143. “ Conf. quia mirum est ex tanta velocitate motuum corporum liquidorum tarn ingentium
multiphcare innumerabiles intelhgentias, tot mmirum, inquit Tannerus, quot sunt stellae non gigni sonum adeo ingentem ut ad nos pervemat, nam sonus gignitur ex collisione
fixae, quotque maculae soils. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. corporum ad acrem, id est, corpus liquidum. Amicus, ibid.
7. 1651. 24.1. col. 2. 144. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 1651, 241, cols. 1—2, describes
141- Turn quia ex motibus factis a tot diversis motoribus non posset servari tanta uniformitas the same argument mentioning that the sounds should be akin to those hissing or
quia non possent semper attendere ad servandam tantam vel tantam velocitatem, et alias whistling sounds that emanate from stones launched in the air by slinging machines. He
circumstantias, ex quibus pendet uniformitas motus. Et hoc idem probat si omnes stellae also cites counterarguments trom Tycho Brahe, Christoph Rothmann, and Franciscus
moverentur ab eodem. nam licet mtellectus Angelicus comprehendat naturas rerum de Oviedo. Thus Rothmann denied that such sounds could reach our ears, because ot
corporalium, adhuc tamen ob sui fimtatem minus potest attendere ad singula, dum the great distances and the rarity o f the celestial ether. Oviedo’s response was predicated
plunbus lntendit.” Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 3. 1626, 280, col. 1. on the familiar analogy between the movement ot fish m water and planets in the heavens.
[*G- Turn quia cum Angeli non moveant corpora nisi sint sibi praesentia. necessano oporteret Just as there is no sound in the water itself when fish swim through it, so also there is
ipsos movcri cum ipsis stellis, assistendo lilis ut moveant, quae omnia vitantur si moven no sound in the fluid heavens as the planets move through them. Moreover, defenders
dicamus in orbibius infixas.” Ibid. Amicus probably derived the argument about the o f hard orbs ought to be asked why fire and air do not produce audible sounds as a
need for angels to be present where they act from Thomas Aquinas, who denied action result o f the circulation o f the lunar heaven.
at a distance even for spiritual creatures, including God (see Grant, 1981a, 146). In his “ Conf. secundo nam quo corpora sunt supenora eo magis sunt nobihora et maion
category of arguments in defense of hard orbs, Riccioli. Almagestum novum, pars post., quodam artificio ornata. At hoc artificiuin magis apparet ponendo multos orbes turn
bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 1651, 241, col. 2, presents the same argument. As a counterargument, mobiles inter se connexos et ordinate m otos. . . quam si ponatur unum liquidum per
he declares that an intelligence need not travel around with the body it moves but could quod stellae discurrant ut pisces per mare.” Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 3,
rather remain in a particular place and impress enough impetus into a star or planet to 1626, 280, col. 1.
carry it around tor one revolution. When the point at which the impetus had been “ Firmamentum secundo die productum sola sohditate ditfert ab eodem producto initio,
injected arrives again at the same place, the intelligence impresses the same quantity of sed soliditas, cum sit accidens, non variat naturam rerum, ergo neque naturam tirma-
impetus to carry the body around tor another revolution, and so on. But Riccioli also menti. Si prius erat liquidum ex natura. similiter ent natura liquidum sub soliditate. Hec
insists that no difficulties would arise if an intelligence moved around with the celestial autem variatio in caelo facta est ob bonum universi. Ibid., art. 4, 281, col. 1.
366 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE H E A V E N S HARD OR FLUID? 367

nor do I retreat from ancient opinion without an urgent reason and [also] cites one that was intended to show a fatal flaw in the theory o f fluid heavens.
because solidity [and hardness] conform more to Scripture to which every On the assumption that the planets move through fluid heavens that could
human intelligence is subjected.” '47 Although Amicus thought the fluidity have no void spaces and in which bodies cannot penetrate one another,
o f the heavens improbable on scriptural grounds, he conceded that the Riccioli explains that a planet m oving through such a fluid would cause
opinions drawn from scriptural texts and Church Fathers were not so clear either the whole fluid, or a part o f it, to undulate. This would occur by the
or obvious in support o f the solidity o f the heavens. M oreover many learned impact o f the planet’s forward motion, which would condense the fluid in
contemporary theologians, philosophers, and astronomers (he calls them front o f it. As this occurs, the matter behind the planet would necessarily
“ mathematicians” ) thought they were fluid. For these reasons, Amicus de­ rarefy in order to prevent formation o f a vacuum in the places that the
clares that despite the improbability o f fluid heavens, it was by no means planet has just vacated. But condensation and rarefaction are alien to the
rash to uphold this theory.14* heavens and are signs o f corruptibility. Fluid heavens would thus produce
Giovanni Baptista Riccioli represents another significant seventeenth- impossible consequences.
century source for arguments favoring celestial solidity and hardness. Al­ Riccioli also reports an argument in which hard orbs are judged better
though he rejected heavens filled with solid orbs. Riccioli, like many other for explaining the occurrence o f a plurality o f simultaneous, and even con­
scholastic authors, sought to present a balanced account in the dispute over trary, motions. Indeed, it is impossible for the same body to move with
fluid or solid heavens. Just as he did in his section defending fluid heavens, several motions simultaneously unless it achieves this with a motion o f its
he compiled arguments in favor o f total or partial solidity and hardness and ow n (per se) in one direction while the one or more remaining motions are
often included a common rebuttal o f each argument. Riccioli reiterated what produced by the motion o f the solid body to which it is affixed or in which
was probably obvious to everyone by his day: solidity signifies not only it is embedded.1' 3
three-dimensionality but also has an associated meaning o f hardness as op­
posed to softness.14149 As he did in his presentation favoring fluid heavens,
18
7 c. The new discoveries and solid orbs
Riccioli cites arguments from authority in support o f celestial solidity, draw­ T o defend solid, hard orbs, it was essential to deny that the new discoveries
ing upon Holy Scripture (including Job 37.18, the most frequently men­ implied fluid heavens and/or to deny or cast doubt on the new discoveries
tioned), the Church Fathers,1'0 and Aristotle. Thus we are told that in De
caelo (bk. 2, ch. 7) Aristotle declares that a heaven and the star or planet 152. “ Quartum argumentum: Si celum in quo moventur sidera esset fluidum et non admittatur
vacuum aut penetratio corporum, sequeretur ad motum sideris vel totum fluctuare celum,
that is part ot it are made o f the same material. But a star or planet is a vel partem celi a sidere impulsam condensan, partem vero a sidere destitutam raretien.
solid body; therefore, so is the heaven or orb that carries it.1' 1 At condensatio et rarefactio repugnant caelo et sunt indicium corruptibilitatis." Ibid. To
Leaving authority and moving on to more substantive arguments, Riccioli this argument, Riccioli presents a number o f replies. Some argue that in the celestial
region mutual penetration o f bodies is possible, or that rarefaction and condensation are
possible in incorruptible heavens; and some insist that the heavens are corruptible and
147. “ Ex quibus puto satis probabiie esse caelos esse fluidos ex auctoritate, et monbus novarum that therefore condensation and rarefaction can occur. During the entire period covered
steilarum et simihbus. quae affert Schemer. Sed earn non sequor. ne recedam ab antiquata bv this study, fear o f the consequences that bodies and celestial matter might interpe­
opimone sine ranone urgente et quia soiiditas est magis contormis senpturae cui omnis netrate and that celestial matter might rarefy and condense frequently compelled de­
humana intelligentia subdidebet.“ Ibid.. 282. col.i. fenders o f celestial orbs to explain how such dire consequences could be avoided (see
148. “ Ego vero in hac diversitate opinionem asserennum caelum esse liquidum existimo esse Ch. 13, Sec. Ill, especially 1-3 and n. 59).
quidem improbable, non tamen temerariam. Nam senpturae loca et Patrum testimonia 133. “ Sextum argumentum indicatum ab Anstotele et incuicatum a Pereiro sumitur a mul-
non in dare soliditatem caelorum expnmunt. ut interpretationem non admittant ut patet tiplicitate inotuum. Impossible enim est idem corpus moveri plunbus motibus et quidem
ex iis quae adversani adducunt. Idque confirmo nam nostre aetate multi sunt ex Theo- contrariis. quomodo constat moveri planetas. immo et hxas, nisi uno motu per se
logis, Philosophis, et Mathematicis, multae eruditionis, qui liquiditatem caelo convenire moveantur in unam plagam. reliquis autem moveantur ad motum corporis solidi. cm
nituntur probare quos non est aequum temeritans censura notan.” Ibid., art. 3, 281, sint affixa aut insidentia.” Ibid., 241, col. 2. As a counterargument, Riccioli declares
col. i. that even if another bodv were required to account for all the motions o f a single planet,
149. Riccioli, Alma^estum norum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. t, ch. 7, 1651, 240. col. 2-242, col. it would not have to be solid and hard. After all, fish are carried downstream by a
1. tor the arguments, and 238. col. 2, for the linkage between solidity and hardness. rapidly moving river while they simultaneously attempt to move upstream in the op­
130. Ibid., 240, col. 2-241, col. 1. posite direction. But Riccioli reports further that Clavius had countered this argument
i s i . “ Tertium argumentum est Aristotelis lib.2 De celo, cap.7, ubi ait congruum esse ration! by observing that if the planets were really moved freely through a fluid medium like
ut caelum sit ex eodem corpore cuius est sidus; sidus autem quodlibet esse solidum. ergo fish and birds, their motions would be just as indeterminate and uncertain. It would be
et celi corpus ex quo est." Ibid., 241, col. 1. For the passage in Aristotle, see De caelo as if they did not know that they were being moved in a fluid medium by an intelligence.
2.7.289a. 11 —12. In the counterargument, Riccioli concedes the identity o f the matter of Hence we could have no certain knowledge o f planetary motions. (“ Aliter hoc argu­
the planet and its orb or heaven but insists that they differ in other wavs, for otherwise, mentum proponit Clavius in cap. 4, sphere pag. 449. ait enim si moverentur ut pisces
it would follow that because a planet is luminous and opaque, so also would the whole et aves in fluido, liberum ac nimis vagum tore planetarum motum et sic nullam certain
heaven be luminous and opaque. But this is false. Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9. fore scientiam de ipsorum motibus. quasi vero nequeant ab intelligentia moveri in fluido,
sec. 1, ch. 7. 1631, 241. col. 1. servatis tamen legibus motuum." Ibid.)
368 THE CELESTIAL REGION ARE THE HEAVENS HARD OR F LU ID ? 369

themselves. Amicus did both. Following Tanner, Amicus argues that the the fluid heavens between two hard surfaces, with the planets and stars
new phenomena indicate that certain planets - presumably Mercury and distributed at various altitudes between th em .'57
Venus - do not have proper and distinct orbs that surround the earth but In a certain sense, the controversy had reached a stalemate. For although
are carried in epicycles around the Sun and actually lie within the Sun’s orb solid orbs seemed incapable o f explaining the occurrence o f celestial comets
Thus did Amicus, and others, accept that part o f T y ch o ’s system which or new stars, partisans o f solid orbs could, as we have seen, either deny
made the Sun, rather than the earth, the center o f the orbits o f Mercurv that such phenomena were celestial or invoke normally invisible celestial
and Venus. Indeed, the result was a variation o f traditional geocentric cos­ bodies that are carried in epicycles within larger spherical complexes and
m ology that resembles the medieval opinion reported in the fourteenth that somehow cluster together to produce a visible body. O n this approach,
century by Jean Buridan.'54 And just as Buridan thought this configuration change is accidental rather than substantial and involves a mere rearrange­
probable, so did Amicus assume that the epicycles - he makes no mention ment o f previously existing bodies. As for the various subsystems with
o f eccentrics - which carry Mercury and Venus around the Sun do so centers other than the earth, these were usually explained by the assumption
without any penetration o f one orb by another and without any crashing o f epicycles for the satellites themselves or for Mercury, Venus, and even
o f orbs.15
155
4 Mars. Sunspots were also explained in a similar manner. Although in ret­
rospect such constructions seem o f an ad hoc nature, they enabled a steadily
diminishing group o f scholastics to hang on to the chief elements o f the
» IX . T h e d iv e rsity o f o p in ion old system despite the ovewhelm ing challenge that confronted them.
Within the broad categories o f hard and soft, a wide variety o f interpre­
What do all these diverse and often conflicting opinions signify? Probably tations was formulated, with no decisive way to choose among them. The
an inability to determine convincingly the operational structure o f the heav­ seeming advantage o f the theory o f hard and solid eccentrics and epicycles
ens. Numerous opinions and variations on those opinions were inevitable, was that the planet was carried around within a hard epicycle. Although
because scholastic natural philosophers did not and could not know the true there were grave problems about the place o f the planet within the epicycle
nature o f the heavens. There was much room for disagreement about the itself and how the planet would relate to either a vacuum or some kind o f
hardness or fluidity o f the celestial region. Even some o f those who adopted matter within the epicycle, the planet was at least fixed within the epicycle.
a fluid medium for the planetary region opted for a hard orb for the fixed But if each planet seemed to be carried within its hard epicycle, the problem
stars, not only because it seemed more economical to have one mover for o f motion was certainly not solved; rather, it was removed one step to the
all the stars rather than one mover for each star, but perhaps also because orb itself. What caused the orbs themselves to move is a problem that I
it seemed more fitting that the whole o f the cosmos be enclosed by a firm, shall consider later (Ch. 18).
hard surface to keep it all together and prevent its dissipation into the region A nd yet the fluid theory o f the heavens emerged as the most appropriate
beyond.156 Indeed, Galileo himself seems to have thought it best to enclose interpretation o f the new celestial phenomena. It triumphed because it
seemed more congruent with those phenomena and made fewer incredulous
154- See Chapter 13, Section IV. 1, for a discussion and an English translation ofBuridan’s
text (n. 137 for the Latin text).
demands on reason. Fluidity did not, however, triumph because o f any
155. Ad tertium ductum ex novis phaenomenis, resp. Tannerus disp. 6, q. 3, d. 3, pa;. 6, overwhelm ing and certain arguments. Indeed, those who abandoned hard
ex horum planetarum motibus id solum consequi non habere proprios et distinctos orbes orbs in favor o f fluid heavens had to confront the problem o f planetary
terrain ambientes, sed solum epicyclos in orbe solari solem ambientes per quos planetae
motion directly. What enabled a planet to move in its orbit like fish in the
circa solem feruntur sine ulla vel penetratione, vel fractura orbis, quod stat cum caeli
soliditate et incorruptibilitate. sed his obstat communis sensus philosophorum et theo- water or birds in the air, as the popular analogies expressed it? For those
logorum, qui illis planetis tribuunt proprios orbes mobiles circa centrum mundi. Sed who not only assumed fluid planetary spheres but also a fluid zone for the
hoc non putant absurdum.” Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5, art. 3, 1626, 285, col. 1.
fixed stars, there was the additional problem o f assigning a motive cause
Amicus did not agree with those philosophers and theologians who insisted that all orbs
must have the earth as center. The new astronomical observations showed that Mercury to each o f the more than one thousand visible stars. For no longer could
and Venus moved around the Sun in proper epicycles. (“ At cum observatum sit per they rely on a single hard orb to carry around the fixed stars that had been
novas observationes illos planetas non moveri circa terram, sed circa solem; ideo negandi
previously imagined as fixed in their hard sphere like knots in a piece o f
sunt illis proprii orbes et ob id conceduntur propni epicvcli.“ Ibid.) Serbellonus, De
caelo, disp. 1. qu. 2, art. 4, 1663, 2:26, cols. 1-2, reports that not only are Venus and w ood. Although he recognized that if the firmament were solid, only one
Mercury contained in the solar orb in proper epicycles but so also is Mars. He rejects
the existence of solid eccentrics and epicycles because division, penetration, and fracture 157. Galileo, Dialogue, Third Day [Drake], 1962, 325-326. Although the words are put into
ot orbs would inevitably occur. the mouth o f Simplicio, they seem to represent Galileo's opinion. As early as March
[56. According to Van Helden (1985, 63), “ Kepler continued to believe,” to the very end ot 23, 1615 (in a letter to Monsignor Dini), Galileo had already rejected the real existence
his life, “ that the fixed stars were arranged in a spherical shell.” o f “ solid, material, and distinct orbs” (see Finocchiaro, 1989, 61-62).
370 THE CELESTIAL REGION

mover would be required to carry all the stars simultaneously, Melchior 15


Cornaeus preferred to believe that God did not create hard orbs but rather
assigned one angel to each star, o f which there were more than a thousand.
Alter all, God was not destitute o f angels, and a star was not so small that
it did not deserve its own m otive angel.,vS The immobile orb
Thus, where Kepler had proposed a causal, physical mechanism based
on magnetic forces to account for the motions o f orb-free planets in his
Astronomia nova (1609) and Epitome astronomiae Copenicanae (1617—1620),159
o f the cosmos:
scholastic natural philosophers, who assumed, as did Cornaeus, fluid heav­
ens, relied heavily upon angels or intelligences as celestial movers. But unlike
the empyrean heaven
Cornaeus, as we shall see in Chapter 18, some associated impressed forces
with angelic movers and thus tended to make the latter more mechanical
than spiritual. In so doing, they joined Kepler and others in a quest for
more impersonal forces to explain the motion o f orb-less celestial bodies. Thus far we have considered only mobile orbs, all ot which had astronomical
Until the theory o f universal gravitation in N ew ton’s Principia settled the functions and at least two o f which - the eighth (the firmament) and ninth
matter once and for all, there were only ad hoc theories, which w'ere no (the crystalline orb) - also had biblical sanction.1 In the chapter on creation,
more convincing than the causal explanations invoked for celestial orbs. we saw that in commentaries on Genesis the heaven, or orb, created on the
Nonetheless, the cumulative evidence inclined strongly and suggestively first day was often called the “ empyrean,” ' even though the latter is not
toward fluidity, and more and more scholastics embraced it as the most explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Bible. Its existence was derived trom
plausible alternative. faith, not rational argument. Inferences about it tashioned an invisible,
immobile orb that enclosed the world, a place that was conceived by many
158. Cornaeus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 3, 1657, 500, first raises an objection against
himself: "Si firmamentum non est solidum. ergo singulis asms assignandus est angelus as the “ first and highest heaven, the place o f angels, the region and dwelling
motor, qui per liquidum eonducat et certo itinera dirigat. Atqui si firmamentum sta- place o f blessed men’” or as “ the dwelling place o f God and the elect.” 4 If
tuamus solidum. unus sufficiet pro omnibus" and then replies: "Concedo sequel. Neque
the number o f mobile orbs is ?i, the empyrean orb was always numbered
tarn parva res est Stella ut angeli custodiam non mereatur, neque tarn inops angelorum
est Deus ut pro omnibus et singulis stellis non sit ei sufficiens eorum copia." We shall n + 1. In the most popular, ten-orb mobile system, it was the eleventh
learn more in Chapter iS about causal factors in celestial motion. and final orb.''
i>9- Kepler relied on two forces. According to Kovre (1973, 323). he assumed a rotation of
the Sun, which “ sends out into space (in the plane of the ecliptic) a motive whirlpool
which carries the planets round and impresses on them a circular motion round the Sun;
at the same time the planetary magnets, in accordance with a mechanism which has
been fully described above, causes the planets to approach and recede from the Sun. As I. Features and p roperties o f the em p yrean heaven
a result o f being subjected to this two-fold influence, the planets do not describe circles
in the sky, but describe ellipses having the Sun at one o f their foci.” According to Thomas Aquinas, the empyrean heaven had been recognized
much earlier by Venerable Bede and Walafnd Strabo/’ Without using the

1. The "crystalline orb" is biblical only when :t is interpreted as the congealed form ot the
waters above the firmament. As we saw earlier iCh. 13, Sec. IV.2.b). the tenth orb might
also be included within the concept o f a crystalline orb.
2. For a description o f some o f its salient features, see Chapter 6, Sections II and III.2.1
and g.
j "Coelum empvroeuin est primunr et sununum coelum. locus angelorum, regio et habi-
taculum hommum beatorum.” Bartholomew the Englishman, De rerum proprietatihus. bk.
8. ch. 4 ("De coelo empvreo"). 1601. 379-380. Although God is everywhere, Bartholomew
says that he is especially in the empyrean heaven.
4. "Coelum empirreum habitaculum Dei et omnium electorum" is the description found in
the figure o f the world that appears on column 6 ot Peter Apian's Cosmooraphiais liber
(Landshut: Johann Weyssenburger for Petrus Apianus, 1524), reproduced in this volume
as Figure 9.
5. For this eleven orb system, see Figure 9 -
6 . Sutnttiu tlteolo^toe, pt. 1, qu. 66 . art. 3, iqfw. 4*2- Although Saint Basil s role was incon­
sequential, Thomas included him as a third person involved in the development ot the

371
372 THE CELESTIAL REGION THE IM M O B IL E ORB: THE E M P Y R E A N 373

word empyreum, Venerable Bede had indeed, in the eighth century, distin­ to be a b o d y ,14 the empyrean heaven was the most subtle o f all bodies and
guished an immobile heaven created on the first day from the mobile, contained within itself the purest light in the universe. Albertus Magnus
observable celestial bodies created later.7 Without specifying immobilitv, envisioned it as formed from fire, the most noble o f the simple elemental
Alcuin did much the same thing in the ninth century.8 bodies, but Thomas Aquinas denied it any connection with the four elements
But the empyrean sphere did not emerge as a distinct entity called the and insisted rather that it was composed o f pure ether, the fifth element in
caelum empyreum until the twelfth century, when Anselm o f Laon, Peter Aristotle’s cosm ology.'5 Despite the empyrean’s purity and splendor, it was
Lombard, Hugh o f Saint Victor, and Roland Bandinelli (the future Pope invisible16 and its effects were imperceptible. Like the other celestial spheres,
Alexander III) furnished brief descriptions that gained acceptance in sub­ the empyrean heaven was thought incorruptible; unlike them, however, it
sequent scholastic literature. According to a description by Anselm o f Laon was always assumed immobile.
(d. 1 1 17) in the Glossa ordinaria,9 the empyrean sphere was understood as In the fourteenth century, Thomas o f Strasbourg (fl. 1345) ([Sentences,
“ fiery or intellectual, which is so called not by virtue o f its burning [or bk. 2, dist. 2, qu. 2], 1564, 134G col. 1-134V, col. 1) gathered much that
heat] [ardor] but from its brilliance [splendor], since it is immediately filled had been elaborated in the preceding century and presented a thorough
with angels.” 10 Not only did Peter Lombard, in his famous Sentences, quote discussion o f the properties o f the empyrean sphere, to which he assigned
the words o f Anselm, but he also identified the empyrean sphere with the four basic attributes. It is the most lucid, or light-filled, sphere. As the first
invisible heaven created on the first day and thus distinguished it from the and noblest o f celestial bodies, the empyrean ought to possess the noblest
heaven created on ihe second day and made visible on the fourth day.11 corporeal quality, which is light. Moreover, as the noblest o f bodies, it
Indeed, Peter believed that the empyrean heaven was created simultaneously should be independent o f all other celestial bodies. Because the latter receive
with the angels and all corporeal things.12 their light solely from the Sun, the empyrean should receive its light directly
During the thirteenth century, all the great theologians — William o f from God. Although it was filled with light, the empyrean sphere trans­
Auvergne, Alexander o f Hales, Albertus Magnus, Saint Bonaventure, Duns mitted no light to the celestial and terrestrial regions below. Empyrean light
Scotus, Richard o f Middleton, and Thomas Aquinas — had come to accept was effectively blocked by the nontransparent nature o f the eighth sphere
the empyrean heaven. B y then it had become the dwelling place o f God o f the fixed stars.
and the angels, as well as the abode o f the blessed.13 Although conceived B y contrast - and this is its second property - the empyrean sphere was
transparent and rarefied, made so to enhance the pleasure o f the blessed, so
concept o f an empyrean sphere. For a brief but useful account o f the empyrean sphere that each inhabitant could see friends in the same state.
as it developed in the late Middle Ages, see the article on it in the Dictionnaire de theologie Its third property was incorruptibility, which was inferred from Aris­
catholique. vol. 2, pt. 2. cols. 2503—2508. The earlier history is described by Maurach,
1968. An important collection ot Latin descriptions o f the empyrean sphere from Bede totle’s general attribution o f incorruptibility to the other planets. Because
to Thomas Aquinas appears in Litt, 1963, 255-258, n. 1. Duhem included a brief account the empyrean was nobler than all other celestial bodies, it must also be
in Le Systeme, 1913—1959, 7:197-202, o f which pages 197-200 have been translated in incorruptible.
Capek, 1976, 4.3-45. See also Grant, 1978a, 275-276. For an account o f the fate o f the
empyrean heaven in the first half o f the seventeenth century, see Donahue, 1972, 223-
Finally, Thomas o f Strasbourg argues that the empyrean heaven must be
259. immobile. Immobility is the only appropriate state for the blessed, who are
7. Bede [Genesis], 1967, 4, lines 35—41. The term empyreum had already been applied to the themselves in a perfect state o f rest. Although Aristotle denied the existence
extramundane region by Martianus Capella in the fifth century. In Campanus o f Novara,
Theorica planetarum. 1971, 393. n. 52, Benjamin and Toomer cite the Latin text from
o f immobile spheres, Thomas declares that this has no validity for Chris­
Dick's edition ot The Marriage of Mercury and Philology (De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii tians, “ who assume a certain body above the first movable body [pritnum
lihri VIIF), bk. 2. line 200. p. 76. mobile] itself, [a body] that is absolutely independent o f the first movable
8. For the passage, see Litt, 1963. 257.
9. During the Middle Ages, the Glossa was falsely ascribed to Walafrid Strabo (this attribution sphere, as is the empyrean heaven itself.” The empyreaft heaven is not,
is repeated by Benjamin and Toomer (see Campanus o f Novara, Theorica planetarum,
1971, 393 - n- 52)- On the assignation o f the Glossa ordinaria to Anselm, see Thomas the empyrean heaven with one o f the astronomical orbs, namely the ninth, or crystalline,
Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 1967, 10:40. n. 5. sphere. In 1241 and then officially in 1244. the bishop o f Pans condemned those who
10. My translation is from the Latin text quoted in Campanus o f Novara, ibid. The translation located the Blessed Virgin and the glorified soul in the ninth, or crystalline sphere, instead
first appeared in Grant. 1978a. 275—276. This assertion was frequently repeated (see, for o f in the empyrean heaven, or tenth sphere. Indeed. Michael Scot explains that the
example, Vincent of Beauvais. Speculum naturale, bk. 3, ch. 88. 1624. col. 220). empyrean heaven was introduced to serve as a moving cause prior to the first movable
11. The brief biblical description o f a seemingly distinct heaven created on each o f the first sphere, or primtim mobile. For all this, see Vescovini Federici s discussion in Peter o f Abano,
two days formed the basis for belief in an empyrean heaven. Because the heaven ot the Lucidator, 1988, 200—201. It appears that the ecclesiastical authorities wished to have a
second day was clearly intended as the firmament, only the vaguely described heaven ot place for the blessed that was distinct from any sphere that had an astronomical function.
the first day remained as a viable candidate for the empyrean. 14. See Alexander o f Hales, Summa theologica, inquis. 3, tract. 2. qu. 2, tit. 1, memb. 1, art.
12. Peter Lombard [Sente; es, bk. 2, dist. 2, ch. 5], 1971, 340; see also Litt, 1963, 256-257- 2. 1928, 2:329 and Dictionnaire de theologie catholique. vol. 2, pt. 2, col. 2506.
n. 1. 15. Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, vol. 2, pt. 2. cols. 2506—2507.
13. During the first half o f the thirteenth century, there was apparently an attempt to identity 16. See Chapter 16, Section I and note 7.
3 74 THE CELEST IA L REGION THE IM M OBILE ORB: THE E M P Y R E A N 375

however, inherently immobile, because, like any celestial sphere, God could Aristotle when he departs from Scripture,1" and Buridan subsequently dis­
move it if he wished. But the empyrean heaven is called immobile, because misses the arguments just described. As the noblest body, the empyrean
universal order does not require its motion and because God does not subject sphere does not require action or motion. And although it could indeed be
it to the power o f any other creature that could move it. moved supernaturally by God, the empyrean sphere has no inclination -
that is, no potentiality - for motion and therefore would not be eternally
frustrated by its failure to achieve it.
Despite his seeming defense o f the empyrean sphere on theological
grounds, Buridan’s commitment to it is doubtful. At the end ot the question,
II. A rgu m en ts fo r and against an im m o b ile sphere
he adds a section for those who wish to defend the Aristotelian position
Although an immobile empyrean orb was widely accepted on theological, and promptly offers guidance by refuting five arguments in favor o f the
rather than cosmological, grounds, its alleged immobility clashed with Ar­ empyrean sphere that he had previously presented.'0 One ot the favorable
istotelian natural philosophy, which cast serious doubt on such a possibility. arguments - the fourth - held that the earth was divided into two halves
It was, therefore, not unusual for scholastics to inquire whether an immobile by the equatorial circle. The half toward the antarctic pole is uninhabitable.
orb could exist beyond all the mobile orbs, as Jean Buridan makes evident The other half, toward the arctic pole, is divided into two quarters, one ot
in his discussion o f the question "W hether a resting or immobile heaven which is habitable, the other uninhabitable. Since the earth is ruled by the
should be assumed above the heavens that m o v e .'"7 heavens, it is essential that the heavens arrange things so that one ot these
two northern quarters is habitable and the other uninhabitable and covered
with water. But this arrangement cannot be caused by mobile heavens,

i. The arguments against


because the same parts o f the heaven and the same planets [and stars] are turned
First, Aristotle held that every natural body has a natural local motion, so u m fo rm lv o ver this quarter and o ver the other. T herefore it is necessary that this
that to every simple natural body, some natural simple motion must be be caused by a resting heaven, one part o f w hich - the one that is o ver us - has
assigned. O n this basis, the empyrean heaven could not be immobile. Sec­ influence and dom inion over the w ell-b ein g o f animals and plants, and the other
ond, the empyrean heaven ought to be nobler than the heavens that are has m ore dom in ion over the gathering ot waters.
moved, because the former is above them, contains them, and confers
powers on them. But it cannot be nobler, because motion is nobler and In rejecting this favorable argument, Buridan suggests that the habitability
prior to rest. Therefore bodies that are moved naturally are nobler than o f the earth might have been ordained from all eternity by God and be in
bodies at rest, which is why the immobile earth is the most ignoble of no way dependent on the empyrean sphere. Indeed, in the very next ques­
bodies. We are thus confronted with a contradiction: the empyrean heaven tion, he explains how the earth’s overall topography could have been pre­
would be both nobler and not nobler than the celestial spheres that are in served eternallv and does so without alluding to the empyrean sphere.''
motion. Finally, although the empyrean heaven is immobile, it could be And in a later question o f the same treatise, when he considers the possibility
moved by God. Therefore it has the potentiality for motion. But if it remains o f the earth's axial rotation, Buridan again rejects the empyrean sphere. To
forever immobile, it would fail to realize that potentiality and would be determine if the earth could rotate axially, Buridan asks whether rest or
perpetually frustrated. "T h u s,” the argument concludes, "it would be ab­ motion is nobler. Rest is nobler, he argues, when a body comes to rest
surd that the heaven should never be m oved.” |S following upon a motion toward its natural place. That is, the rest acquired
Despite these Aristotelian arguments, and "because o f the statements o f after the motion o f a body toward its natural place is superior to the motion
the theologians” (propter dicta theologorum), Buridan found it necessary that brought it to its natural place. B y contrast, motion is nobler than rest
to defend the existence o f the empyrean sphere. After all. Aristotle assumed for those bodies that are always in their natural places and which have no
many things contrary to the Catholic faith, because he sought only to derive other goal than to move in their natural places with their natural motions.
arguments from sensation and experience. Therefore one need not believe
19. “ Et potest responderi ad rationes Aristotelis. quod ipse multa posuit contra veritatem
catholicam, quia nihil voluit ponere nisi posset deduci ex rationibus ortum habentibus ex
17. “ Utrum sit ponendum caelum quiescens sive non motum supra caelos motos.” Bundan sensatis et expertis; ideo non oportet in nmitis credere Aristoteli, scilicet ubi dissonat
[De caelo, bk. a, qu. 6], 1042. 149. The empyrean heaven was a customary topic in sacrae scripturae." Ibid., 152.
commentaries on the second book o f Peter Lombard’s Sememes but also turns up in 20. Ibid., 153.
questions on De eaelo and in commentaries on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco. 21. Ibid., 150-151.
iS. For the three arguments, see Buridar ibid.. 151-152. 22. Question 7, “ Whether the whole earth is habitable." Ibid.. 154-160.
376 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N THE IM M OBILE ORB! THE E M P Y R E A N 377

This, o f course, describes the behavior o f celestial bodies, each o f which exegesis, and authority.28 Thomas o f Strasbourg argued that the existence
revolves with uniform circular motion in its natural place. Since motion is o f the empyrean heaven, which he identified with the tenth orb, could not
nobler than rest for celestial orbs, it would follow by implication (Buridan be shown necessary by reason29 but only by a probable argument.30 Cam -
does not explicitly mention the empyrean sphere) that an immobile em­ panus o f Novara spoke for many when, in his Theorica planetarum, he de­
pyrean heaven would be less noble than the mobile celestial spheres that it clared that “ whether there is anything, such as another sphere, beyond the
surrounds and contains.23 Because no one who accepted the empyrean sphere convex surface o f this [ninth] sphere, we cannot know by the compulsion
would have relegated it to a status more ignoble than that o f the mobile o f rational argument. However, we are informed by faith, and in agreement
celestial spheres contained concentrically within it, we may plausibly con­ with the holy teachers o f the church we reverently confess that beyond it
clude that Buridan’s support for the empyrean sphere was at best dubious.24 is the empyrean heaven in which is the dwelling place ot good spirits. 31
If Buridan’s opposition to the empyrean sphere was ambivalent, Albert Indeed, for some the empyrean heaven had no scriptural basis whatever.32
o f Saxony’s was not. Without naming the empyrean sphere, Albert flatly Its widespread acceptance was based on theological authorities who had
rejects the existence o f an immobile heaven.252 7His three arguments against
6 conceived it as a place for spiritual beings and who were then gradually
it are the same as those reported by Buridan. But whereas Buridan accepted committed to consider further the nature and properties o f that supreme
the immobile empyrean sphere by reason o f faith2" while simultaneously heaven, arriving at those that we have been examining.
furnishing reasons for rejecting it on natural grounds, Albert o f Saxony Although some adopted the empyrean heaven solely by reason o f faith,
ignores theology and,' on the basis o f the three Aristotelian arguments, arguments based on natural philosophy were also formulated for its exis­
rejects the existence o f an immobile sphere, thus becoming one o f the few tence. Without mentioning it by name, preferring to characterize it only as
who did. an immobile orb, Pierre d’Ailly, a staunch supporter o f the empyrean
Was the existence o f the empyrean heaven a matter o f doctrine and faith? heaven, discussed it at some length in his 14 Questions on the Sphere of
An error condemned by the bishop o f Paris in 1244 suggests that it was. Sacrobosco, where, in the second question, he gives three arguments as to
That error, according to Federici Vescovini. is “ the thesis that the glorified w hy an immobile sphere must exist beyond the ten mobile spheres (149V).
soul and the Blessed Virgin are not in the empyrean heaven with the angels The first opinion conceives ot the empyrean heaven as the place and con­
but in the aqueous, or crystalline, heaven and above the firmament, in fact tainer o f the world. It assumes that a mobile sphere must change place either
in the ninth sphere.’ ' In Paris, at least, the empyrean heaven seems to have as a whole or with respect to its parts, from which it follows that the mobile
had Church sanction. A long tradition o f general acceptance throughout sphere is in a place. The place o f that mobile sphere must surround and
Christendom may, in any event, have conferred upon the empyrean heaven contain it. Moreover, that surrounding place must also be immobile, a
a kind o f quasi-doctrinal status. If Albert o f Saxony violated church tradition consequence which d’Ailly does not actually establish. But the idea that all
or doctrine, there is no evidence that he suffered any penalty or adverse movable things ought to have an ultimate immobile place had earlier mo-
reaction.
28. In his Sentences [bk. 2, disc. 2, qu. 2. art. 1], 1929-1947. 2:71. Thomas Aquinas explains
that “ the empyrean heaven cannot be investigated by reason because we know about the
2. In defense o f an empyrean sphere heavens either by sight or by motion. The empyrean heaven, however, is subject to
neither motion nor sight. . . but is held by authority.
N o one can doubt that scholastics overwhelm ingly accepted the existence 29. As the first o f two conclusions in his Sentences, bk. 2. dist. 2, qu. 2, 1564, 133V, col. 1.
ot an empyrean sphere. And yet, because it was an invisible entity without Thomas o f Strasbourg declares: “ quod caelum decimum esse, quod sancti appellant em-
pyreum, non potest ostendi necessaria ratione.
detectable effects, belief in its existence was based largelv on conjecture, 30. Thomas o f Strasbourg’s second conclusion (ibid., 133V, col. 2) asserts “ quod caelum
empyreum esse potest aliquo modo declarari probabili persuasione.
23. These arguments appear in question 22, “ tertia persuasio” ibid., 228, for the arguments 31. Campanus o f Novara, Theorica planetarum. 1971. 183. I have made one change in the
in favor o f the greater nobility o f rest, and 230. lines 25-31, for the conditions under translation by Benjamin and Toomer. Following “ rational argument” they add “ alone,”
which motion is nobler. For more on the comparative nobility o f motion and rest, see which implies that rational argument, along with other methods, is used to arrive at the
this volume. Chapter 20, Section V.2.b. existence o f the empyrean sphere. In fact. Campanus. like Thomas Aquinas before him.
24. As we shall see in Section IV ot this chapter, Amicus used the rest—motion and noble- was arguing that rational argument was useless in determining the existence o f that special
ignoble dichotomies to defend the existence of an immobile empvrean heaven. sphere.
25. Albert o f Saxony [De caelo. bk. 2, qu. 8], 1518, loyr, col. i-io y v , col. 2. 32. Dictionnaire de theoloyie catholiijue. vol. 2, pt. 2. cols. 2505, 2508. Among those who tound
26. Buridan says that he accepts a resting, or immobile, heaven that lies beyond the mobile no scriptural basis tor the empyrean sphere were Thomas Aquinas. Durandus de Sancto
heavens “ because we assume an empyrean heaven there on faith (Arguitur quod sic, Porciano (ca. 1275-1334), and Cajetan (Thomas de Vio; 1468-1534). For Dante, it had
quia ex fide nos ponamus ibi caelum empvreum). Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1942, no real existence in space but only in the Divine Mind (see Conoioio. II.11i.II). For this
149. reference and for a thorough set o f citations to Dante's treatment o f the empyrean heaven,
27. See Peter o f Abano, Lucidator, 1988, 200. see Toynbee. 1968, 181 (“ Cielo empireo").
37-S THE CELESTIAL REGION THE I M M O B I L E ORB; THE EM P Y R E A N 379

tivated Campanus o f Novara to declare (1971, 183) that “ The empyrean’s pvrean sphere seemed remote and uninvolved with the governance o f the
convex surface has nothing beyond it. For it is the highest o f all bodilv world. Uncertainties about it were also attributable to the fact that “ the
things, and the farthest removed from the common center o f the spheres, saints,” as Saint Bonaventure expressed it, “ speak little o f this heaven be­
namely the center o f the earth; hence it is the common and most general cause it is hidden from our senses, and the philosophers [sav] even less.” 3”
‘place’ for all things which have position, in that it contains everything and From the thirteenth century onward, however, discernible efforts were
is itself contained by nothing.’’3’ Those who assumed this argument - and made to attribute some effects to the empyrean heaven and thus involve it
all who believed in the existence o f an empyrean orb did - agreed with in cosmic operations. Scholastics began to inquire whether the empyrean
Aristotle that our world was surrounded by an ultimate convex surface but heaven could influence inferior things. There was nonetheless some reluc­
departed from him by the assumption o f its im m obility.3 343
*
5 tance to involve the empyrean sphere in regular cosmic operations. Bar­
D ’A illy’s second argument is based on Aristotle’s claim (Qe caelo, bk. 2, tholomew the Englishman, for example, denied that the empyrean heaven
ch. 2) that the heavens possess absolute differences in directions, which he was needed for the continuation of generation among inferior things.37 One
identified as right and left, front and back, and above and below. D ’Ailly o f its functions was, rather, to complete the body o f the universe by serving,
insists that mobile spheres could not exhibit such directions if they turned, along with the earth, as one o f a pair o f immobile, bodily extremes. Whereas
because that direction which is now right would become left and the part the earth was opaque (and presumably the heaviest body in the universe),
that is up would become down. O nly in an immobile sphere can such the empyrean was the most luminous, most subtle, and least heavy body.
absolute directions and differences o f position be found. In his commentary on Sacrobosco’s Sphere, Michael Scot describes the em­
The third argument concerns possible celestial influences. Could an im­ pyrean sphere as immobile and uniformly filled with light, a light that can
mobile empyrean heaven influence terrestrial change and perhaps even be extend its influence only to the inferior heavens, though not uniformly,
essential tor that purpose? If so, it would not only have a theological role because those less perfect heavens are incapable o f receiving the empyrean
but an important and vital cosmic role as well. Because o f the potential light in a perfect w a y .38
signiticance o f such an empyrean heaven, we shall consider this problem, N ot all were so cautious or negative. Indeed, the anonymous thirteenth-
including d 'A illv’s third argument, at some length. century author o f the Suttima philosophiae, falsely attributed to Robert Gros­
seteste, made the empyrean sphere the most noble and powerful body in
the universe. “ The empyrean heaven,” he declared, “ is the original principle
o f rest o f all natural things.” Moreover, it was the empyrean heaven, not
III. C an the em p yrean h eaven influence the center o f the earth, with respect to which all the mobile spheres originally
the terrestrial region? moved. O n this basis, he proclaims that "the immobility o f the empyrean
Until the seventeenth century, when some raised doubts about its exis­ heaven is more the universal cause ot every transmutation of generable and
tence,3’ controversy about the empyrean sphere focused not on its existence corruptible things than the primum mobile and the other inferior spheres,
but on its function and influence. Although in a subsequent chapter (Ch. just as a primary cause is more a cause than a secondary cause.” 3'3
19), we shall address the crucial theme o f celestial influence as it pertained Although most scholastics assigned a causal role to the empyrean heaven.
to all the mobile orbs, in this chapter we shall consider the subject o f celestial
influences with reference only to the immobile, empyrean heaven. 36. “ Dicendum. quod quamvis Sancti parurn loquantur de hoc caelo. quia latet nostros sensus.
et philosophi adhuc minus.” Bonaventure [Sentences, bk. 2. dist. 2, art. 1, qu. 1J, Oy ra,
Throughout the five centuries embraced by this study, ambivalence best [885, 2:71, col. 2.
characterizes scholastic attitudes about alleged influences o f the empyrean 37. Bartholomew the Englishman. De rerum proprietatibus. bk. 8. ch. 4. 1601, 380.
heaven. As an invisible, immobile entity whose essential raison d’etre was 38. “ Et primum celum a theologis dicitur empvreum non ab ardore sed a splendore et est
umformiter plenum lumme et immobile, non uniformiter tamen induit lumen suum in
purely theological and which lacked explicit biblical justification, the em- inferioribus celis eo quod actio agentis non recipitur in passum per modum ipsius agentis
sed etiam per modum patientis. ut dicitur in libro De substantia orbis.” Michael Scot [Sphere,
33. This passage is also translated in Duhem [Anew], 19S5, 17s. Dante also savs that the lec. 4], 1949. 283.
empyrean heaven “ contains all bodies and is contained by none.” See Tovnbee, 1968. 39. In chapter 3, tractatus 15, the anonymous author o f the Summa philosophiae treats o f the
181, for references. In Chapters S and 9, we saw the kinds o f things that were conceived empvrean sphere (see Grosseteste, Summa philosophiae, 1912, 545-548). The Latin texts
to exist, or possibly exist, beyond the world or its last convex surface. o f the two translations just cited are respectively: "Caelumque empvreum totius quietis
34. On Aristotle’s discussion o f the place o f the last sphere, see Chapter n. Section III. Duhem rerum naturalium originate esse principium” (ibid., 546) and “ Quietem caeli empyrei
considers the empyrean heaven within a general treatment o f the medieval doctrine or magis esse causam universaliter omnis transmutationis generabilium et corruptibilium.
place Lc Systeme, 1913-59. 197-202. quam primum mobile ceteraeque sphaerae inferiores, stcut causa prim a magis est causa
35. For example, Thomas White, who rejected it, and Nicolaus Caussin, who questioned its quam causae secundariae" (ibid.. 547). For a French translation o f tf second passage
existence. Donahue, 1972, 253, 251. (and considerably more), see Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913-1959, 7:199—2.0.
380 THE CELESTIAL REGION THE IM M O BILE ORB! THE EM P Y R E A N 381
few were prepared to go so far as to make it “ the universal cause o f every movable sphere, the empyrean sphere is also the indirect cause o f the gen­
transmutation.” In the question, “ Whether the empyrean heaven influences eration and corruption caused by all the celestial spheres below the first
inferior things” (Utrum caelum empyreum influat in haec inferiora), Saint movable sphere.
Bonaventure presents five arguments in favor o f influence and five against.40 Like Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, most theologians expressed
He concludes that “ any o f these opinions is sufficiently probable. But which opinions on the empyrean heaven. Without providing much detail, Richard
is more true is not clearly apparent.” 41 Neither reason nor authority can o f Middleton ([Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 2, art. 3, qu. 3], 1591, 2:44-4$), who
make obvious w hy the empyrean heaven has to exercise any influence on unhesitatingly accepted the influence o f the empyrean on inferior things,
sublunar things, “ since the influence o f the other inferior [celestial] bodies suggests that the immobile empyrean sphere moderates the influences ex­
seems to suffice.” Nevertheless, Bonaventure inclined toward acceptance erted by the mobile celestial spheres. The empyrean sphere was ordained
o f an empyrean influence on inferior things, justifying his decision by ob­ for the use o f man both in the future life, when it would presumably serve
serving that among all bodies, the empyrean heaven was the first created as the abode o f the elect, and in the present life, when it influences inferior
and has the greatest size (moles) and power (uirtus). Its size enables it to things by its power. Also convinced o f an empyrean influence on inferior
locate all bodies by surrounding and containing them; its power, or influ­ things, Thomas o f Strasbourg sought to convince his readers o f its necessity,
ence, enables it to animate and conserve things, although it may achieve although he fails to describe the form o f that influence.45 Recognizing that
this through the other celestial spheres.4' the chief obstacle to the concept o f influence stemming from an immobile
Despite a similar initial ambivalence, Thomas Aquinas eventually arrived empyrean heaven was the widely accepted idea that only a body in motion
at the same conclusion. Because he accepted Aristotle’s principle that only can influence another body,46 Thomas counters by invoking the Joshua
bodies in motion could affect other bodies, Thomas at first (in his com­ miracle, which, as we shall see, was frequently cited as evidence that even
mentary on the Sentences) denies that an immobile body like the empyrean when at rest the celestial region could influence inferior things. Although
sphere could influence other bodies.43 But later, in his Quodlibetal Questions, the Sun had been commanded to halt for a day, celestial influences continued
he concedes that, upon further reflection, the empyrean heaven does indeed to affect the earth, “ for otherwise, those living here below would have been
influence interior bodies.44 The world order demands that corporeal things dead.” 47 Similarly, a magnet at rest attracts iron.48 Thus a body at rest is
be governed by spiritual things and inferior bodies be ruled by superior capable o f exerting influence on distant things. Thomas o f Strasbourg there­
bodies. It would be absurd if the empyrean heaven did not influence inferior fore insists that not only can the immobile empyrean heaven influence
bodies, for then it would form no part o f the universe. inferior things but that it can do so directly, without the mediation o f
T o explain how the empyrean sphere influences inferior bodies, Thomas celestial motions. That this does not actually happen is a consequence o f
employs a hierarchy o f descending perfections based on rest as most perfect, the nature o f inferior things, which can only receive empyrean influences
followed by uniform motion, and finally difformity — that is, nonuniformity indirectly through the mediation o f the celestial motions.
- o f motion. B y its rest, the empyrean heaven causes the first movable D ’A illy ’s third argument, alluded to earlier, seemed to offer empirical
sphere to move with a uniform motion and thus produce the daily motion evidence in favor o f an immobile heaven. In its various versions, it was
as it moves from east to west; the first movable sphere, in turn, causes all frequently repeated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Citing dif­
the spheres below it to move with motions that vary with the distances o f ferences in fruits and customs and in many other things that one finds on
their planets from the earth. As the planets vary their distances, they cause parts o f the earth that lie on the same latitude, or, as d’Aillv expressed it,
generation and corruption in sublunar bodies. Thus the empyrean sphere
is the direct cause o f uniform motion and therefore the direct cause ot 45. Thomas ot Strasbourg, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1: “ Whether the heavens are the
permanence in the universe, and through the uniform motion o f the first cause ot'inferior things” (“ An caelum est causa horum inferiorunt” ), 1564, 156V, col. 2-
158V, col. 2; for the discussion o f the empyrean heaven, see I58r, col. 2 -1 58V, col. 2.
40. Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 2, art. 1, qu. 2, Opera, 1885, 2:73-75. 46. As Thomas o f Strasbourg explains (ibid., I58r, col. 2): “ quidam venerabilis doctor in
41. “ Quaelibet haruin opinionum satis probabilis est; quae autem sit magis vera, non plane suo scripto dist. 2 secundi libri Sententiarum quia eo ipso quod celum empyreum non
apparet.” Ibid., 74, col. 2. movetur non potest sibi competere aliqua realis influentia in cetera corpora quia corpus
42. Ibid., 74, col. 2-75, col. 1. non agit nisi per motum.”
43. “ Respondeo dicendum quod caelum empyreum nullam habet influentiam super alia cor­ 47. “ Ad primum dicendum quod nec ilia consequentia valet nec eius probacio quia tempore
pora. quae rationabiliter poni possit.” Thomas Aquinas. Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 2, qu. 2, Iosue sol non movebatur per spacium unius diei et tamen habuit realem influentiam in
art. 3, 1929-1947, 2:76. ista inferiora alias ista viventia hie inferius fuissent mortua.” Ibid., 158V. col. 1. Among
44. Quodlibetum 6, qu. 11, art. 19: “ Whether the empyrean heaven exercises influence over those who cited the Joshua miracle as evidence that the immobile heavens could influence
other bodies.” See Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones quodlibetales, 1949, 130; also Litt, 1963- inferior things were Hervaeus Natalis in the thirteenth century, Nicole Oresme in the
260-261. Thomas wrote his Sentences during 1252-1256 and his sixth quodlibetal question fourteenth, and the Coimbra Jesuits in the sixteenth.
in 1272 (see Weisheipl, 1974, 358-359, 367). 48. “ Magnes non motus trahit ferrum." Ibid.
3-S'2 THE CE LEST IA L REGION THE IM MOBILE ORB: THE E M P Y R E A N 3^3

that lie “ between east and west [equidistant from the poles,” d’A illy insists thoughts in mind that Otto von Guericke cited Jacques du Bois, an eccle­
that these differences cannot be explained by the circular motions o f mobile siastic o f Leyden, as insisting that anyone “ who denies that there is an
spheres, because, as the same configurations o f celestial bodies swept over empyrean [heaven] above the visible heavens does not believe the sacred
the same latitude, all the inhabitants and all the fruits and vegetation along words nor does he believe the foundations o f Christianity” (Experimenta
that latitude would be exposed to the same celestial influences. Under these nova, 1672, 49). '4
circumstances, samenesses rather than differences ought to be found among The empyrean was also a perennial problem for Aristotelians because it
members of a given species on the same latitude. But an immobile sphere confronted them with the problem o f whether motion or rest was nobler.
like the empyrean could produce the differences we see. It could act dif­ Was an immobile celestial body, even one that surrounded all o f the moving
ferentially on various parts o f the earth and, by virtue o f its immobility, spheres, more noble than the moving spheres it contained? The kind ot
do so constantly and permanently.v> As evidence o f such differential power, argument that Buridan formulated found its counterparts in early modern
d’Ailly repeats a common belief that all stars have greater power in the east scholasticism. Amicus ([De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 6, dubit. 5], 1626, 194, col.
than m any other part o f the heaven. '0 1), for example, mentions an objection to the existence o f the empyrean
heaven, namely that mobile bodies are nobler than immobile bodies, as is
obvious from the earth, which is immobile and deemed the most ignoble
o f all bodies. If the empyrean heaven is said to be the noblest o f all spheres,
IV . C oncepts o f the em p yrean o rb in the late sixteen th and it cannot, therefore, be immobile. Amicus resolves the dilemma (ibid., 197,
the seven teenth cen tu ry col. 2) by emphasizing the virtue o f immutability. The empyrean heaven
The range of ideas about the empyrean heaven that were predominant in is not immobile because it lacks the capacity for motion but is immobile
the late Middle Ages remained prevalent in the late sixteenth and the sev­ bv divine decision, since it does not require motion to realize its own ends.
enteenth century, although some new interpretations and attributes were Amicus further denies that an immobile body in its proper place is more
added. Because it tailed to manifest its existence in any o f the usual ways, ignoble than a mobile body in its proper place. Indeed, immobility is a
there was a continuing sense that the existence o f the empyrean heaven was perfection, as is obvious from the fact that God is immutable and therefore
incapable of rational p ro o f.'1 Although a rigorous demonstration was un­ immobile. But motion is an imperfect thing, because it is a path to perfection
attainable, certain kinds of evidence served in its stead. In one o f the most and not the perfection itself. The peculiar demands o f the empyrean heaven
thorough and detailed treatments o f the empyrean heaven, Bartholomew fostered an ambivalent attitude toward the contraries rest and motion.
Amicus presents the kinds o f reasons that were deemed persuasive. Bv the Whereas Buridan exalted motion over rest, which he compared to the ig­
seventeenth century. Amicus could appeal for acceptance o f the empyrean noble earth, Amicus linked rest with divine immutability and exalted im­
heaven to the authority of the Church Fathers, the traditional acceptance mobility over motion."'
of the scholastics, and the common acceptance o f the Church. '2 With such The invisibility o f the empyrean heaven was also puzzling. If it really
weighty credentials, few if any scholastic authors were inclined to deny the existed, w hy was it not visible, since it is said to be the moat lucid body?
existence of this immobile orb. Indeed. Amicus also assumed, along with Most responses emphasized the great distance o f the empyrean heaven and
many others, that when Genesis declares that God created heaven and earth, the thickness o f the inferior heavens that were interposed between it and
this signified either the empyrean heaven only or the latter along with all us. For such reasons, the brilliant splendor o f the empyrean was impercep­
the other heavens. Moreover a number o f biblical passages speak o f this tible to human observers. Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza appealed to the
heaven as the domicile o f God and the blessed, and the “ heaven" in question divine when he suggested that God had made a certain opaque curtain to
was usually assumed to be the em pyrean." It was probably with such conceal the empvrean heaven from unworthy eyes in a manner similar to
the silken cover used to conceal the Holy ot H olies.'
49. We saw. in Section II. 1 ot this chapter, that Buridan rejected this argument.
50. Mastrius and Bellutus [De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 7, art. 1 1, 1727, 3:310, col. 2, par. 1X9-311. 54. Also in the seventeenth century. George de Rhodes insisted that the empyrean heavci
col. 1. par. 190. repeat this in the seventeenth centurv. must not be denied bv any Catholic. De Rhodes. De coelo, bk. 2. disp. 2. qu. i, sec. 2,
51. See Donahue's translation o f a relevant passage (1972. 233) from p. >07 o f the De coeio pt. 3, 1671. 2X1, col. 1.
section of Roderigo de Arriaga's Cursns philosophicns. 33. Nicole Oresme also considered rest nobler than motion (see Oresme [De spero, qu. S|.
>2. “ Prima conch: Certum dari coeium empvreum. Pnmo patet ex auctoritate Patrum et 1960a. lOi). Scholastic authors sometimes assigned greater nobility to rest or motion
Scholasticorum et commum assensu Ecclesiae.” Amicus [De eoelo. tract. 4. qu. 6, dubit. solelv on the basis o f the argument they sought to demonstrate.
3, art. 2), 1626. 194, col. 1. This is the first o f six conclusions that represent Amicus's 50. See Amicus. De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 6, dubit. 3, art. 4, 1620, 19". col. 2.
own opinions and extend over pages 193, col. 2—197, col. 2. 57. Hurtado de Mendoza f De coelo, disp. 2. sec. sj. 1013, 375, col. 1. par. 63. In his discussion
33. Amicus cites Psalms 67. 102. 113. and Deuteronomy 10. o f the empyrean heaven, von Guericke, Lxperimento novo. 11172. 49, cols. 1—2. repeats
3«4 THE CELESTIA L REGIO N THE I M M O B I L E ORB! THE EM P Y R E A N 385
The central issue about the empyrean heaven was not, however, its ex­ late sixteenth and the seventeenth century the response was divided: some
istence, which almost all scholastics assumed, but rather its alleged effects denied causal efficacy to the empyrean, while others upheld it. Let us ex­
on inferior parts o f the universe, ranging from the orb immediately below amine the latter position first.
it all the way to the earth itself. Late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
scholastics adoped a variety o f opinions, ranging from a denial o f causal
efficacy - Raphael Aversa, Mastrius and Bellutus, and Illuminatus Oddus a. The affirmative arguments
- to the acceptance o f direct influence on terrestrial events - Christopher For those who believed in the causal efficacy o f the empyrean heaven, the
Clavius, the Coimbra Jesuits, and Bartholomew Amicus. O n balance, how­ problem was to identify the direct effects that it caused. Because its sublunar
ever, there was a shift o f opinion toward a denial o f terrestrial influence to effects were hidden, the Conimbricenses, for example, professed ignorance
the immobile empyrean heaven.
as to the manner in which the empyrean heaven acted on inferior things.'10
Others, however, were more forthcoming. In support o f an active empyrean
i. Does the empyrean heaven cause terrestrial effects? heaven that helped govern the sublunar region, some, like Bartholomew
Amicus, invoked proof “ by natural reasons” (rationihus naturalibus), a kind
In a manner similar to Thomas Aquinas, the Coim bra Jesuits, for example, o f proof that had by then become rather common and supplemented tra­
argued that if the empyrean heaven were to be considered part o f the uni­ ditional appeals to theology and Scripture. Such “ proofs” involved the
verse, as they believecf, influences o f some kind had to flow from it, for identification o f discernible terrestrial, or sublunar, effects that were attrib­
otherwise it would not be part o f the world, and, according to Mastrius utable to the empyrean sphere and could thus reinforce belief in its real
and Bellutus and others, its existence would be in vain. Believers in an existence. The most dramatic evidence lay in the diversity o f effects observed
active empyrean heaven also argued, as Raphael Aversa informs us ([De in different parts o f the earth and even on the same parallel o f latitude. For
caelo, qu. 35, sec. 5], 1627, 180, col. 1), that because the substance o f the instance, men o f a given region have the same inclinations, whereas those
empyrean heaven is nobler than that o f all other orbs below it, it must o f another have different inclinations; and the trees o f one region are alike,
surely influence terrestrial change and events just as they do. Otherwise it whereas those o f another are different. In common examples, it was claimed
would be more ignoble, rather than more noble and efficacious, than the that although the fastest horses are bred in Hungary, on the forty-seventh
orbs below it. T o counter this argument and deny causal efficacy to the parallel, elsewhere on the same parallel they are not produced at all; apes
empyrean heaven, Mastrius and Bellutus argue that the empyrean sphere’s (.simiae) are generated in Mauretania but not elsewhere on the same parallel.
perfect substance does not imply a more perfect operation,sX since a perfect Such diversity along the same parallels ought to be ascribed to the heavens,
substance need not exercise influence on anything below it. Despite a lack since it appears unlikely that they arose because o f differences in the earth
o f causal efficacy on inferior things, the empyrean sphere would not have itself. But are the heavens that can explain these diversities mobile or im­
been created in vain, because it serves as the abode o f the blessed and mobile? M obility cannot explain them, because mobile heavens sweeping
produces a light appropriate to that region.59 uniformly and regularly over the same parallel would produce uniform,
But what kind o f influences, if any, could the empyrean heaven exert on rather than diverse, terrestrial effects in every part o f the earth under that
the regions below, especially the earth? We saw earlier how Pierre d’Ailly parallel. The cause o f these differences ought therefore to be attributed to
responded to this fundamental problem, and w e shall now see that in the the empyrean sphere, which, because o f its immobility, could focus rays
from every one o f its parts to the corresponding region o f earth beneath. "
this opinion when he declares: “ Some state that the farthest part o f the empyrean is solid T o produce diverse effects, however, different powers had to be assumed
and is darkened from [or bv?[ the inferior [or nearest] part as if by a certain curtain of
to radiate from different parts o f the empyrean heaven. But if, as most
thick and opaque matter, lest that light and [that) heaven be perceived [or seen) by
unworthy mortals here in the world; just as once among the Jews, the Holy o f Holies
was concealed with a certain cover." 60. See Conimbricenses [De caelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 2, art. 2], 1598. 196.
58. Mastrius and Bellutus. Decode, disp. 2, qu. 7, art. 1, 1727, 3:510, col. 2, par. 189-511, 61. The substance o f this argument with a variety o f examples appears in Amicus, De caelo,
col. 1, par. 190. tract. 4, qu. 6, dubit. 5, art. 2, 1626, 195, cols. 1-2 and tract. 6, qu. 3, 353, cols. 1-2;
59. Illuminatus Oddus [Dc coelo, disp. 1, dub. 24], 1672, 74, col. 1, accepts the same argument Clavius [Sphere, ch. 1], Opera, 1611, 3:24; Aversa. De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 5, 1627, 180,
- indeed he even mentions Mastrius and Bellutus (71, col. 2) - when he declares that col. 2, who mentions Clavius as his source for the argument; and Mastrius and Bellutus,
“ perfection in a substance does not always imply a more perfect operation. And this is De caelo, disp. 2, qu. 7, art. 1, 1727, 3:510. col. 2, par. 189. Clavius, Mastrius and Bellutus,
obvious in angels, who, although they are most perfect, can elicit no substantial action. and Illuminatus Oddus, De coelo, disp. 1. dub. 24, 1672. 73, col. 2, mention the examples
Thus it suffices that it [the empyrean heaven] should serve as a dwelling place for the o f Hungary and Mauretania. Although the same examples are sometimes described dif­
blessed so that it cannot be said to be in vain." Aversa says much the same thing (De ferently. their object is to show that only the immobile empyrean heaven could be the
caelo, qu. 35, sec. 5, 1627, 180, cols. 1-2). cause o f such diversity.
3 S6 THE CELESTIAL REGION THE IM M OBILE ORB: THE EM PYREA N 387

believed, the empyrean heaven is homogeneous, its impact should be the The argument that dramatically characterized the empyrean heaven as
same all over. How, then, could such a homogeneous body radiate different heterogeneous so that its influences could explain the diverse customs,
influences from its different parts? Recognizing a potentially troublesome plants, and animals that lay along a given parallel o f latitude also came under
problem, Amicus, who defended the causal efficacy o f the empyrean heaven, attack. The idea o f describing the empyrean heaven as heterogeneous must
denied true homogeneity to it, arguing that “just as diversity in inferior have struck Raphael Aversa as contrary to one’s expectations about the most
things belongs to the perfection and pleasure o f sight, so in the empyrean perfect ot all celestial spheres, which he regarded as the same in all its parts."16
heaven,” that is, just as the perfection o f sight is partially constituted from Rather than ascribe heterogeneity to the empyrean heaven, Aversa assigned
the diversity o f things seen, so also is the perfection ot the empyrean sphere the cause o f terrestrial diversity along a given parallel o f latitude to the earth
partially constituted from the diversity o f inferior things that it helps pro­ itself, which possessed varied dispositions, different seeds o f things, and a
duce by its unhomogeneous nature. Amicus was not alone in attributing multiplicity o f mixtures o f water and air within the bowels o f the earth.
heterogeneity to the empyrean heaven/1' These various dispositions influence events on the earth’s surface and can
cause diversity/1' Indeed, even celestial bodies moving uniformly over the
b. The negative arguments earth’s surface might cause ditterential effects. Oddus emphasizes the dis­
parate relationships that distinct parts o f the earth may have with celestial
The sense that the empyrean heaven was not created for the purpose o f bodies. Conjunctions from the celestial region may affect different terrestrial
influencing sublunar things remained strong. Those who adopted this at­ areas differentially. “ Ifefficient and material causes vary,” Oddus concludes,
titude had to reply to the argument that if the empyrean heaven exercised “ it is little wonder that some effects are generated in one area and not in
no influence on the physical things it contained, then the most perfect another. ” 6X
substance God had created - and it was routinely so described — was created Some assumed that if the empyrean heaven affects the sublunar region,
in vain. This charge was easily countered by insisting that G od’s primary it does so by somehow transmitting effects to the other celestial spheres
purpose in the creation ot the empyrean heaven was to provide a domicile below. But Aversa wonders what it is that the empyrean transmits to those
for the bodies and spirits o f the blessed. Its function was supernatural, rather inferior celestial orbs. After all, the latter possess their own proper qualities,
than natural/1’ And o f course it was always thought to function as the attributes, and causal powers and are not in need o f anvthing from a su­
container o f the world/’4 But even as the most perfect o f things, it was not perior, immobile sphere. In sum, the empyrean has nothing to confer on
essential that it engage in more perfect operations, such as influencing ter­ the mobile spheres below.
restrial things more pertectly than did the mobile celestial bodies it con­ If the transmission o f physical influences by the empyrean heaven was
tained. To illustrate the point, Illuminatus Oddus noted that although angels highly controversial, the transmission ot light was more readily conceded,
are the most perfect o f things, they do not cause substantial actions.'”1 because o f the alleged brilliance and splendor o f the empyrean heaven. But
62. Thomas Compton-Carleton \De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 4], 1649, 404, col. 2, denied homo­
this particular influence is discussed later, in the chapters on celestial light
geneity to the empyrean sphere when he declared: "it seems to me that a variety o f effects (Ch. 16) and the nature o f celestial ettects on the terrestrial region (Ch. 19),
that are perceived in different parts o f the earth are poured forth from the diverse, where light is distinguished as one ot three basic modes o f influence.
heterogeneous parts o f the empyrean heaven.” Melchior Cornaeus [ D p coelo, tract. 4,
disp. 2, qu. 1. dub. 5], 1657, 491, also seems to have considered the empyrean heaven
heterogeneous (quasi heteroqeneas) when he divided it into three parts, the lowest o f which
is solid and serves as a foundation for blessed bodies: the middle is fluid and respirable, 2. The status o f the empyrean heaven
like air; the highest part is also solid and encloses the respirable, airlike substance and
serves as the roof o f the celestial structure. As the source o f this threefold division o f the From the thirteenth to the seventeenth century, few scholastic theologians
empyrean sphere, Cornaeus cites Lessius’s De sinmno lunio, ch. 8. denied the existence o f the empyrean heaven, and several, as we saw, even
63. Aversa, De carlo, qu. 35, sec. s. 1627, 180, col. i, declares that "iam probatur non esse
de facto ullam operationem tribuendam celo empireo in haec inferiora corpora quia caelum
empireum per se et proprie conditum et ordinatum fuit ut esset domicilium Beatorum.” 66. “ Nam sine dubio hoc caelum [i.e., the empvrean] est totum homogeneum et eiusdem
64. Oddus, De coelo. disp. I, dub. 24, 1672, 73, cols. 1-2, explains that although the empyrean rationis in omnibus suis partibus.” Aversa, De caelo. qu. 35, sec. 5, 1627, 1S1, col. 1.
heaven lacks the capacity for action, it serves to contain the bodies ot the blessed and the This argument and the others in this and the next paragraph are drawn from the sixth
blessed spirits and is the boundary for the physical universe (“ Empireum quanavis omnis o f seven arguments Aversa musters to deny claims for an active empyrean heaven. For
actio ab eo removeatur, sed satis est deservire ad continendum intra se corpora beatorum all seven arguments, see ibid., 179, col. 1-1S1, col. 1; the sixth appears on 180. col. 2—
et domicilium esse beatorum spirituum, et machinam hanc umversi terminare” ). 181, col. 1.
65. "Nam ut saepe dictum est, perfectio in substantia non semper arguit perfectiorcm op­ 67. Oddus, De coelo, disp. 1, dub. 24, i 6~2. 73, col. 2. says much the same thing. The earth's
erationem. Et patet in Angeiis, qui licet perfectissimi sint, nullam tamen possunt actionem powers and dispositions vary trom region to region and thus may plausibly explain
substantialem eiicere. Unde sutficit ut beatis ad inhabitandum inserviat, ne otiosum di- different effects in different regions.
catur." Ibid., 74, col. 1. 68. Ibid.
3*8 T H E C E L E S T IA L R E G IO N THE IM M O B ILE ORB! THE E M P Y R E A N 389

went so far as to insist that rejection o f the empyrean heaven was tantamount o f the Copernican revolution. Absent are the names o f Copernicus, Tycho,
to a rejection o f Christianity. All accepted its theological function as the Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and all the others. Although his body was present
abode o f the blessed, but disagreement arose when it came to assigning a in the eighteenth century, H idalgo’s mind, filled with the thoughts o f Ae­
cosmological role to the empyrean sphere. It was one thing to concede its gidius, lived only in the thirteenth century. Perhaps there were a few more
existence, and quite another to believe that it influenced the physical world. like Hidalgo in the eighteenth century, who defended the empyrean heaven
The absence o f discernible effects, its acknowledged invisibility, and its as an active influence in the physical world. Already in the seventeenth
patently theological nature made arguments about the cosmological role o f century, however, most o f their scholastic predecessors had eliminated it
the empyrean heaven inconclusive. Whereas thirteenth-century theologians from their cosmology.
and natural philosophers were prepared to attribute some influence on the
physical world to the empyrean heaven, many denied it that capability by
the seventeenth century. In the numerous commentaries or questiones on De
caelo written by scholastic theologians in the seventeenth century, either as
independent treatises or as part o f a larger cursus philosophieus, many - like
Sigismundus Serbellonus, Francisco de O viedo, and Johannes Poncius -
omitted serious consideration o f the empyrean heaven/*9 For them it may
no longer have seemed appropriate to include such a blatantly theological
heaven in a cosmological treatise.
As we saw, however, serious discussions continued. A m ong those who
still thought it worthy o f discussion in a cosmological treatise, as many
seemed to reject its influence as proclaimed it. When account is taken o f
those who ignored the subject and those who opposed any empyrean in­
fluences, we may conclude that the number o f scholastic theologians who
believed that the empyrean heaven influenced celestial and/or terrestrial
physical operations was relatively small by the middle o f the seventeenth
century. Copernican cosmology may have played a significant role in pro­
ducing this result. But not even Copernican cosm ology and the Newtonian
Scientific Revolution could completely cause the disappearance o f defenders
o f an empyrean influence. Well into the eighteenth century, Juan Hidalgo,
a Spanish Augustinian Hermit, who wrote a cursus philosophicus “ according
to the thought o f Blessed Aegidius Rom anus,” vigorously repeated his
master’s thirteenth-century defense o f empyrean physical influence (1737,
2:73, col. 2-76, col. 1). There are no surprises in H idalgo’s discussion, much
o f which is directed specifically against Aversa. As the most noble o f all
bodies, the empyrean heaven should influence inferior things, not by contact
but by its operation. Although the empyrean heaven is immobile, its influ­
ence is disseminated by the motions o f the inferior celestial spheres. As a
part - indeed, the noblest part — o f the universe, the empyrean heaven must
exercise an influence on other parts. The philosophers have mistakenly
accounted for the behavior o f inferior things by assigning all the causes to
the mobile heavens. But they should attribute some influences and causal
changes to the empyrean sphere, which was discovered by revelation and
ought to be properly fitted into the cosmic picture. H idalgo’s readers would
find no mention o f the great figures who were responsible for the triumph

6y. Others, like Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza, treated it only briefly.


C E L E S T IA L L IG H T 391
1 6 body; whether light as the quality o f a body is a substantial or accidental
form; whether the light that emanates trom a body is itself a body; and
whether the light that emanates from a body is a substantial or accidental

Celestial light form .' Bonaventure’s responses reveal no particular concern for the rela­
tionship o f light to celestial bodies.2 Thomas Aquinas and others posed
similar questions in their commentaries.3 Although the responses to these
questions occasionally contained material relevant for cosm ology,4 most
were concerned with the nature ot pure light, with little regard for the role
o f celestial bodies.
As a theme and metaphor, light has been perhaps the most pervasive and Comm ents on the fourth day ot creation produced similar results. Here
ubiquitous topic in Western science, philosophy, theology, literature, po­ the questions are about the “ luminaries,” or visible heavenly bodies created
etry, and art. Its chiet significance for cosm ology, however, lies in its on the fourth day. The comments are usually about their planetary natures,
relationship to celestial bodies. their motions, and how they compare to terrestrial bodies, but rarely about
their relationship to light.3 Certain questions about the empyrean heaven
concerned light. One that was usually posed, in commenting on the second
distinction o f the second book o f the Sentences, asked “ Whether the em­
I. T h e sources
pyrean heaven is lum inous.” Although there was general agreement that
Light as it was treated in the tradition o f geometric optics and in visual the immobile, invisible, empyrean heaven was the location o f purest light,
theory, especially in that o f the medieval perspectivists, plays little role in this light was often assumed to be superior to the light that was diffused
what follows. Although the connections between light and theology are throughout the physical cosmos/’ Indeed, the empyrean was deemed to be
more fruitful, they are not our major source o f information for the relations invisible to us because o f opacity on its concave side, as if it were covered
between light and celestial bodies and hence are mentioned only briefly here by a curtain (cortina).~
at the beginning. The most fundamental cosmological link between light Theological works - hexaemeral treatises, commentaries on the Sentences,
and theology derives from the first chapter o f Genesis, which declares that
1. Bonaventure {Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13], Opera, 1885, 2:311-329.
God created light on the first day and that he created the celestial luminaries
2. Thomas ot'Strasbourg reacted similarly. In his single but lengthy question on light, titled
to light heaven and earth on the fourth day. We would, therefore, expect “ Whether light is a real form” (An lumen sit torma realis), Thomas considers four sub­
to find discussions o f light in commentaries on the creation account o f themes, o f which only the first - whether celestial light is the same as terrestrial light - is
relevant, and this is treated briefly in less than half a column. The rest o f the question is
Genesis. During the Middle Ages, commentaries on the six days o f creation
given over to whether light is a real or intentional form; whether it is produced from the
were rarely made in special hexaemeral treatises, but they were usually potency o f a medium; and whether two intentional forms can be simultaneously in the
made in commentaries on the Sentences (Sentetitiae) o f Peter Lombard, same part o f a medium. See Thomas o f Strasbourg [SeHfei/a’s, bk. 2, dist. 13, qu. r], 1564,
15 Sr, col. 2-i_s6v, col. 1.
which, written around 1150, was the most famous theological textbook o f
3. See Thomas Aquinas [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13], 1929—1947, 2:328-340. The same applies
the Middle Ages and a required text tor comment by all theological students. to Aquinas's Sumina theologiae, which contains a series ot questions on the six days ot
There, in book 2, distinction 13, Peter discussed the first o f the six days of creation (pt. 1, qu. 67. arts. 1—4, 1967, 10:52-91).
4. As when Richard o f Middleton, in his commentary on the Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, art.
creation and asked whether light was corporeal or spiritual; w hy God found
1, qu. 4, 1591.2:1 59, col. 1, considered whether all light is o f the same species and concluded
it necessary to create the Sun if he had already created light on the first day; that celestial light differs from terrestrial light, since the latter “ is like a certain participation
and the meaning o f day and the distinction between day and night (Peter in celestial light, or an imitation o f it. ” Thus light trom terrestrial tires differs from the
light we receive from the celestial region.
Lombard, Sentences. bk. 2. dist. 13, ch. 2, 1971, 389-391). In book 2, 5. See Bonaventure, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, pts. 1—2, Opera, 1885, 2:335-365. The same
distinction 14, Peter briefly mentions the creation o f Sun, Moon, and stars may be said for Thomas Aquinas (see Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, 1929—1947, 2:346-360 and
on the fourth day and asks about their utility (ibid., chs. 9-10, 398—399). Sumtna theologiae. pt. 1, qu. 70, arts. 1-3. 1967, 10:106-125).
6. Thomas Compton-Carleton [De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 3], 1649, 403, col. 2, made this dis­
For nearly hve centuries, scholastic commentators on the Sentetices rou­ tinction. He regarded empyrean light as “ a higher light than the light o f the other heavens
tinely included questions on the nature o f light. Most o f the questions, and o f the sublunar [region].”
however, discussed aspects oi light that were only tangentially, if at all, 7. Mastnus and Bellutus [De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 5], 1727, 3:506, col. 1, par. 157. Hurtado de
Mendoza [De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 5], 1615, 375, col. 1, par. 63, says the same thing. Arriaga
relevant to light as it affected celestial bodies. Saint Bonaventure, for ex­
[De caelo, disp. 1, sec. 6], 1632, 507, col. 2, says that although the empyrean heaven is
ample, inquired whether the light ot the first day was corporeal or spiritual; most lucid, it is commonly thought that it has an opaque cover on our side o f it. Although,
how light made dav and night; whether light is a body or the form ot a he adds, this iaim cannot be demonstrated, neither can it be rejected.

390
392 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 393

and summas o f theology - are therefore not the best source o f information from which lumen arises” (Grant [Eastwood], 1974, 383). Although me­
about scholastic conceptions o f light in relationship to celestial bodies, al­ dieval authors may have “ ignored the distinction or employed it haphaz­
though one can learn about important aspects o f light itself: for example, ardly” (Bacon [Lindberg], 1983, 365, n. 10), it was repeated many times
that it was not a body but was either a substantial form o f a luminous body well into the seventeenth century.
- that is, the form that makes the Sun a luminous body" - or the accidental Another way to characterize the problem o f light sources is to view it as
quality o f a luminous body, so that light could be a quality derived from one in which natural philosophers sought to determine whether this or that
the substantial form o f the Sun,' or indeed both.10 One can also learn that celestial body, or group o f celestial bodies, was made visible to us by lux
opinion was divided about the transmission o f light, some assuming an or lumen.13
instantaneous transmission" while others argued that it was disseminated
successively, in very short but still temporal intervals.12 The most helpful
source o f discussion on celestial light is questions on De caelo. But even
here, the physical aspects o f celestial light were accorded only modest at­ III. A re the stars and planets self-lu m in o u s, or do th ey
tention (see the “ Catalog o f Q uestions,” Appendix I, qus. 226-234). The rece iv e their lig h t fro m the Sun?
most widely discussed question (qu. 231), and easily the most important, The role o f the Sun lay at the heart o f the problem. Was it the ultimate,
however, was whether all stars and planets receive their light from the Sun unique source o f celestial light for all planets and stars? If so, it might follow
or are self-luminous? Along with a few other aspects o f celestial light, the that all visible celestial bodies lacked light, or lux, o f their own and derived
source o f light for celestial bodies is the focus o f our attention here. their illumination from the lumen o f the Sun. According to Albert o f Saxony,
and many other scholastic authors, authorities were divided on this issue.
Aristotle and Averroes, who both assumed the Sun as the sole source o f
II. L u x and lu m en ligh t,14 were opposed to Macrobius and Avicenna, who “ concede that the
M oon has light from the Sun” but assume “ that all the other planets [and
In connection with light sources, scholastics followed Avicenna and distin­ stars] [astra] are self-luminous.” IS Lunar eclipses and the waxing and waning
guished two aspects o f light, to which they applied different terms. The
term lux was associated with light as the luminous quality o f a self-luminous 13. Mastnus and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. $, 1727, 3:50$, col. 1, par. 151, who give
body, such as, for example, the body o f the Sun. The light from a luminous much the same definitions, pose their question in the form: “ What are lux and lumen,
body that emanated into a surrounding medium, such as the Sun’s rays, and how do they occur in the heavens?” (Quid sint lux et lumen et quibus conveniant
in celis?). On p. 506, cols. 1-2, pars. 157-162, they discuss the theme we shall pursue in
was characterized by the term lumen (see Bacon [Lindberg], 1983, 365, n. the next paragraph.
10). The latter was thus capable o f lighting bodies that were not self- The term splendor was also used. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas used it
luminous. As Bartholomew the Englishman expressed it: “ Lumen is a certain (along with lux, lumen, and radius) to indicate reflected rays that reach a smooth and
polished surface, such as water and silver, and are then projected again (see Sentences, bk.
emission, or irradiation, by the substance o f lux. Lux is the original substance 2, dist. 13, qu. 1, art. 3, 1929-1947, 2:332). An anonymous fourteenth-century author
also employed splendor and defined the three terms as follows: lux is found in a lucid
8. Bonaventure has been cited as upholding this position (see Steneck, 1976. 47 and Wallace body, such as the Sun; lumen occurs in a transparent medium, such as air; and splendor
in Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 1967, 10:61, n. e). As we shall see, however, occurs in a body that has light by reflection. “ Thus indeed we say that lux is in the Sun.
Bonaventure seems to uphold both positions (see n. 10 o f this chapter). splendor in the other planets, and lumen is in the air.” (Dicimus quod lux est in sole,
9. This was the most popular view and was held, for example, by Thomas Aquinas (see splendor in aliis planetis et lumen in aere.) See “ Compendium o f Six Books," Bibliotheque
Summa theologiae, pt. i, qu. 67, art. 3, 1967, 10:61); Richard o f Middleton (Sentences, bk. Nationale, fonds Latin, MS. 6752. 214V. Although the term splendor was used to char­
2, dist. 13, art. 1, qu. 3), 1591. 158; and Henry o f Hesse (Steneck, 1976, 47). acterize light in the empyrean region, it was rarely used to describe the light ot planets.
10. Bonaventure held that both opinions were founded on some truth. It is a substantial form For further discussion o f these terms, see Conimbricenses [De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 7, qu. 9,
because insotar as other bodies participate more or less in lux, so do they have greater art. 2], 1598, 300-301.
or lesser being; but insofar as light is perceptible and is capable o f augmentation and 14. Plato, Timaeus, 39B, 1957, 115, also appears to have assumed that the Sun was the sole
diminution it is an accidental property. See Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, Opera, 1885, 2:321, source o f light for all planets and stars.
col. 1. 15. “ In hoc enim Aristoteles cum Averroi contrariantur Avicenne Macrobio and pluribus
11. This was the opinion o f Aristotle (De anima 2.7.418b.21-26), who was followed by aliis. Aristoteles enim in libro De proprietatibus elementorum vult dicere quod omnes stelle
Richard o f Middleton, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, art. 2, qu. 2, 1591, 2:162, col. 1. Among habent lumen a sole, sicut luna et quod non sunt de se lucide quia apparet sibi quod
those who adopted this opinion in nontheological works were Robert Grosseteste (see consimili modo debeat esse de luna et aliis astns. Sed Avicenna, cum suis sociis. licet
Lindberg, 1976, 97) and Witelo (Lindberg’s translation in Grant, 1974, 395). concedat lunam habere lumen a sole, ponit tamen istam conclusionem: quod omnia alia
12. This opinion was incorporated into a theological work by Henry o f Hesse (see Steneck, astra habent lumen a se.” Albert o f Saxony [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 20], 1518. iif r , col. 2.
1976, 49). O f those who adopted this opinion, Alhazen was the chief authority and Roger See also Oresme [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 11], 1965, 640, who adds to Macrobius and Avicenna
Bacon one o f his leading followers (see Grant [Lindberg], 1974, 396-397, where Bacon the names o f Heraclitus and Tulius (Cicero).
also describes Alhazen’s opinion). Macrobius, in his Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, bk. 1, ch. 20 (1952, 168) adopts
THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 395
394

o f the Moon every month were sufficient to convince all that the Moon 1. The Sun as sole source o f celestial light
had its light from the Sun. During the Middle Ages most natural philos­
ophers seem to have sided with Aristotle and Averroes and argued for the In his discussion o f the Moon, Averroes provided one rather popular model
Sun as the sole source o f light for the stars and planets. But the answer was o f the Sun’s mode o f activity. The M oon derives its light from the Sun and
by no means obvious. Nicole Oresme and Albert o f Saxony insisted that is therefore not self-luminous. But “ it has been demonstrated,” Averroes
neither side o f the argument was d e m o n stra b le,alth o u g h both, for dif­ explains, “ that if the moon acquires the power ot lighting up from the sun,
ferent reasons, thought one side more acceptable than the other. Because it is not from reflection. That has been proven by Avenatha [that is, by
o f his “ love o f Aristotle, the Prince o f Philosophers,” Albert rejects six Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra] in an interesting treatise.” 20 “ If it illuminates,”
arguments attributed to Avicenna and defends Aristotle’s opinion that all he continues, “ it is by becoming a luminous body itself. The sun renders
planets and fixed stars receive their light from the Su n.'7 B y contrast, O r­ it luminescent first, then the light emanates from it in the same way that
esme declares (near the end ot the question) that the self-luminosity option it emanates from the other stars; that is, an infinite multitude o f rays is
was more probable. '* Each side had a sweeping analogical argument based issued from each point o f the m oon.” 2' Duhem likened this process to
on two assumed truths: that the Sun shines by itself and that the Moon florescence and explained how Averroes used it to account for the dark
receives its light from the Sun. Those who thought the planets and stars spots on the Moon ([Ariew], 1985, 482): “ When the light ot the sun pre­
were self-luminous pointed to the self-luminosity o f the Sun. If the latter disposes and excites them, the various parts o f the moon become lumines­
was self-luminous, then, on the assumption that all celestial bodies are in cent; but they do not all become luminescent in the same w a y .” The parts
the same species, all other celestial bodies should be self-lum inous.19 B y the that become least luminescent show up as dark spots.
same token, those who viewed the Sun as sole source o f celestial light Albertus Magnus played a significant role in developing arguments in
reasoned that if the Moon received all its light from the Sun, then so also defense o f the Sun as the unique source ot celestial light. N ot only did his
should all other celestial bodies receive their light from the Sun. As we shall arguments exert an influence in the Middle Ages - Albert o f Saxony seems
now see, many representative arguments for these tw o opposing positions to have adopted his key ideas - but they continued to do so into the sev­
were ot this nature or were based on hierarchical or metaphysical consid­ enteenth century. Albertus’s treatment ot the subject thus provides a con­
erations. venient point o f departure for our discussion ot the Sun as the sole source
o f celestial light.22
That the Sun was the unique source o f celestial light was evident to
this interpretation from Cicero, who, according to Macrobius. allowed that the planets
receive light trom the Sun, but insisted that they “ also have their own light - that is, Albertus by a metaphysical argument that was frequently repeated well into
with the exception of the Moon, which, as we have repeatedly noted, is devoid o f light.” the seventeenth century. Something that exists in many things at once must
Macrobius was associated with this position well into the late sixteenth and the seventeenth exist primarily and fundamentally in one ot them, which tunctions as the
century, when he (and Avicenna) w-ere mentioned by the Conimbncenses, De coelo, bk.
2. ch. 7, qu. 4, 1598, 303, and by Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars prior, bk. 6, ch. 2, cause o f all the rest. If light is an example o f this principle, as Albertus
1651, 393, col. i. who gives the reterences as book 1, chapter iy, but quotes the correct believed, then one thing must be the source and cause o f light in everything
passage. else. The Sun was the obvious candidate.23
16. Oresme, ibid, and Albert ot Saxony, ibid. Albert likens each o f these arguments to a
prohlema neutrum, that is. an argument in which two alternatives are either equally probable
or equally incapable ot demonstration (“ Breviter ista dubitatio utrum omnia astra prefer 20. Oresme, who accepted this argument (Le Livre Jit del, bk. 2. ch. 16, 1968, 457). explains
iunam et solem habeant lumen suum a sole est quasi unum probleuma neutrum, sic quod that reflection is not the mode o f diffusion ot the Moon's light. For if the Moon produced
rationes que hunt pro una parte possunt solui faciliter sicut rationes adducte pro alia” ); reflection like a mirror, “ the sun would appear in only a small portion of that part ot the
on probiemata neutra see Maier, 1949, 199. moon which seems lighted to us, and at times it would appear in no part at all. . . . It
17. “ Et ideo ob amorem Anstotelis. principis philosophorum. solvam rationes sex iam factas would be exactly as though we were looking at the sun in a mirror or in the water; we
pro opimone Avicenne contra Aristotelem tenendo cum Anstotele quod onines stelle do not see it from every position from which we can see the mirror, nor from every
preter lunam et solem, sive sint planete sive stelle fixe, habent lumina sua a sole." Albert angle, but only from a certain position and at a certain distance, and trom another distance
ot Saxony De celo. bk. 2. qu. 20, [$18, 115r. col. 2. Some ot these rejected opinions are we see it in another place.” All o f this follows, says Oresme, from the law o f reflection.
described below :n Section III.3b ot this chapter; see also Section 111.3a, for Albert’s 21. The translation is from Duhem [Ariew], 1985, 481. For the Latin text, see Averroes [De
important qualification at the end ot the question, where he allows that planets may have idelo. bk. 2. comment. 49], 1362-1574, 5: r3 1r. col. 2-131V, col. 1.
a weak light o f their own. 22. Albertus Magnus [De coelo. bk. 2, tract. 3. ch. 6 ;“ A digression explaining how all the
18. Oresme, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 11. 1965. 652. stars are illuminated by the Sun” )|, Opera. 19-1. 5. pt. 1:153, col. 1—155. col. 1. See also
19. Ibid., 644 (seventh argument). We saw earlier that most scholastics denied that all celestial pages 29 and 107, where Albertus discusses the dissemination o f celestial light.
bodies belonged to the same ultimate species. Those who used this argument would have 23. “ Omne quod est in muitis secundum un;im rationem. primo est in uno aliquo quod est
to adopt the single-species argument and then explain how all the diverse celestial bodies causa omnium illorum. sicut omnium caiidorum causa est ignis. Lumen ergo, quod est
could belong to a single species. multiplicatum in caelo et muitis modis est in lumimbus caeli, oportet, quod primo sit in
396 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 397

Those who assumed this principle had to explain how the planets could The solar light that penetrates the planets is not reflected to us but is
appear visibly different and yet receive their light only from a single source, rather embodied or incorporated into them (incorporation est lumen stellis).
the Sun. Albertus coped with this problem by assuming that planets differ The light w e see in a planet is “ embodied light,” which lights up the planet
in their ability to receive the Sun’s light and that these differences were from its center to its circumference. Without sunlight, however, embodied
based upon a principle o f nobility: the greater the nobility o f a planet, the light cannot be retained continuously. It is not like the light ot a candle,
greater its capacity to receive solar light.24 In each o f the noblest and purest which burns continuously as long as it has matter to kindle it. When the
celestial bodies, light enters the surface on the side facing the Sun and moves matter is used up, the candle is corrupted and extinguished. If the planets
immediately to the opposite surface, thus filling the entire body with light, depended on some analogous matter to maintain their light, they would be
just like the light that burns in a candle.25 corrupted upon the exhaustion o f that matter. But planets and stars are
But the planets affect the light they receive in different ways. Thus Ju­ incorruptible and in this aspect are not analogous to candles. Rather, they
piter’s light has never diminished in purity from its first reception. By are like spherical vessels, which light up whenever a ray o f light touches
contrast, Mars, as a less noble body, alters the incoming light to a reddish them.
color, as does the star Aldebaran, whereas Venus converts its light to a pale The M oon is a partial exception. Albert o f Saxony, whose opinions on
hue and Saturn tends to obscure its light.26 Although these planets affect this are strikingly similar to those o f Albertus Magnus, who may have been
the light they receive in different ways, the Sun’s light penetrates them all his source, held that, like the other planets, the Moon not only received
and fills their interiors. O nly the M oon is an exception. Because it is o f a light directly from the Sun but embodied or incorporated that light into its
terrestrial nature, as Aristotle declared,27 the light received by the Moon transparent body. Indeed, Albert believed that the Moon was transparent
does not fill its entire interior but only penetrates partway. For this reason, at the surface and perhaps throughout its magnitude, although not as clear
the Moon, the least noble o f the planets, appears only partially illuminated as Venus and Mercury. Because o f its large size, however, sunlight was
and exhibits phases.28 unable to penetrate and fill the whole o f it. Consequently the side o f the
M oon turned away from the Sun is illuminated, albeit not as intensely as
uno, quod esc causa multitudinis hums. Ab illo autem quod est causa luminis, in omnibus
causatur lumen. Ergo oportet esse unum, a quo recipiatur lumen in omnibus quae lucent. the side turned toward the Sun.21' When we gaze upon the Moon, however,
Hoc autem nihil ita convementer ponitur sicut sol. Ergo a sole lumen est in omnibus the light “ we see is not only the light o f the Sun reflected on the body o f
stellis. Ibid., 153, col. 2, lines 83—93. In the fifteenth century, Johannes Versor and the M oon but [is also] the light o f the Sun embodied and incorporated
Thomas Bncot repeat and accept essentially the same argument (see Versor [De celo, bk.
2, qu. 11], 1493, 23V, col. 2, and Bncot [De celo, bk. 2], i486, 22r, col. 1 [“ Dubitatur [imbibitum et incorporation] into the M oon.” And like Albertus Magnus,
quinto utrum astrum aliud a sole lumen suum recipit a sole” ])- as did Johannes Velcurio Albert o f Saxony explains the variation o f certain properties and powers in
in the sixteenth century (Velcurio, [Physics], 1554, 76, col. 2). In the seventeenth century,
Aversa ([De caelo. qu. 35, sec. 3), 1627, 171, col. 2) and Amicus ([De caelo, tract. 6, qu. pt. 1:107, cols- I-2) thickness o f celestial bodies as the major criterion tor the reception
5, dubit. 1, art. 3], 1626, 359, col. 2) explicitly reject the argument. Because something o f light. There he declared that “ the cause o f light in stars is their thickness, and in some
is first in a genus does not signify, Amicus insists, that it is the cause o f the other, lesser the light [lumen] is received in their depths, and in others the light is diffused on the
things in that same genus. As the noblest member o f the genus, it only sets a standard surface. And those in which the light is received in the depths are made luminaries, like
for nobility, just as with colors, white is noblest but is not the effective cause o f other stars that light like candles; and those in which the light is diffused on the surface are
colors. made bright like milk, which is called the Milky Way . . . because there the orb is thicker.
24. For the same assumptions, see Versor, ibid., 23V, col. 1, and Bricot, ibid. And so it is necessary that the heaven be thicker and less thick so that its instrument,
25. “ Sed tamen in omnibus his tanta est pervietas, quod Stella recipiens lumen ex parte, qua which is light, can be diversified and move in different ways to different forms ot generated
vertitur ad solem, statim impletur ipso secundum totam superficiem et per omnia ir.ceriora and corrupted things.” In the later discussion that I described, Albertus ignores “ thickness"
eius, sicut si sit lumen accensum in candela."’ Albertus Magnus, De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 3, and stresses degree o f transparency, which seems associated with a body's nobility. Indeed,
ch. 6, 5 pt. 1:154. cols. 1—2, lines 43—47. Without mention ot a candle, Versor adopts the he even regards as false the claim that “ in order to [produce] light a pure transparent
same position (ibid.). thing requires only thickness” (Et quod dicitur, quod diaphanum purum ad hoc, ut luceat,
26. Albertus Magnus, ibid., 154, col. 1. It is obvious that Albertus has assigned a lesser non indiget, nisi quod sit spissum, falsum est). Ibid., bk. 2, tract. 3, ch. 6, 154, col. 2.
nobility to Saturn than to Jupiter, and thus implies, perhaps unwittingly, a rejection o f Noteworthy is Albertus’s apparent location o f the Milky Way in the celestial region
the concept that nobility was a direct function o f distance from the earth. among the stars, rather than in the upper reaches o f the sublunar region, as Aristotle had
27. In De caelo, bk. 2, comment. 42, 1562-1574, 5:i27r, col. 1, Averroes mentions that in insisted. Oresme seems to have adopted the same interpretation (see note 44 in this
his Liber de ammalibus Aristotle declares that “ the nature o f the Moon is similar to that chapter).
o f the nature o f the earth because o f the obscurity [or darkness] which is in it [that is. in 29. “ Unde dico quod lumen solis incorporatur in luna ita quod luna est corpus perspicuum
the Moon)."’ For a similar statement by Averroes, see his De caelo, comment. 49, 13 iv, et transparens, saltern circa superficiem eius et forte per totum, licet propter magnitudinem
col. 1. See Chapter 17, Section IV.3.a for further discussion. corporis lunaris lumen solis non possit totum corpus lunare penetrare sic quod eque intense
28. If the Moon were completely penetrated, as are the stars and other planets, it would appareat lumen in parte lune versa a sole sicut in parte lune versa ad solem." Albert ot
always appear fully illuminated as long as it received some sunlight, however little. Earlier Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 20, 1518, 1 i sr, col. 1. Thus “ thickness" - in the guise o f size
in his commentary, Albertus emphasized (De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 1, ch. 2, Opera, 1971, 5, or magnitude, rather than density - seems to have played a role for Albert o f Saxony.
THE CELEST IAL REGION C E L E S T IA L L IG H T 399
39«

different planets and stars by reason “ o f the different natures o f those stars that the M oon is not equally dense. Indeed, some parts o f it are so rare that
in which light is incorporated and embodied [incorporatur et imbibitur].',}° they cannot retain any light and are therefore observed as dark spots.33 But
The conception o f the planets as transparent bodies able to retain the light even in allowing rarity, which was usually associated with transparency,
o f the Sun - the sole source o f light in the celestial region - and to disseminate our author assumes that such rarity cannot hold light. Despite his assump­
it in proportion to their transparency may have become the most widely tion o f differing densities within the Moon, he insists that the Moon cannot
adopted explanation o f celestial light during the Middle Ages. 3 01 It continued hold sunlight but can only reflect it from its surface. Presumably this was
to have its supporters well into the seventeenth century.32 Because o f the also true o f all other planets. If so, the anonymous author had departed
medieval emphasis on nobility and hierarchy, it seemed natural to inquire drastically from the more widely accepted interpretations o f Albertus M ag­
w hy the Sun, as the source o f celestial light, was not placed above all the nus and Albert o f Saxony.30
planets and stars, so that its light could descend and illuminate all celestial In a surprising penultimate sentence to his question on solar light and its
bodies. Why did it occupy the middle, or fourth, position among the planets reception by the planets, Albert o f Saxony declares that the Moon and every
and light up both superior and interior planets, in violation o f the principle other star or planet have a weak self-luminous light that does not originate
that inferior bodies cannot influence or affect superior bodies? “ Wise nature” in the Sun. He infers this striking conclusion from observation o f a quarter
(.sapiens or sagax natura), responded Albertus Magnus, decreed that the planet M oon in clear air. Instead o f seeing only the quarter Moon, we see the
providing life-giving light and heat should be in the middle, so that it would entire face o f the Moon, although the part turned toward the Sun is more
be neither too far away, and thus leave bodies too cold, nor too close and lucid than that which is turned away from the Sun. If there were no light
cause bodies to become too hot.33 within the M oon itself, we ought to see only the quarter o f the Moon,
One problem, however, seems to have escaped explicit discussion. Why, because there are no solar rays hitting the part that is turned away from the
during a solar eclipse, should the side o f the Moon turned toward us be Sun.37 In his explanation o f this phenomenon, Albert concedes that “ the
completely darkened if the Moon is a transparent body? Would it not be M oon and every other planet have a weak and remiss light within them­
plausible to assume that sunlight striking the far side o f the M oon would selves. But that light which is noteworthy and which illuminates us per­
produce illumination sufficiently strong to be noticeable on the earth side ceptibly is from the Sun.” 3* In this way, Albert o f Saxony conceded some
o f the Moon? Perhaps it was with this in mind that an anonymous author element o f truth to the Avicennan position even as he supported the more
o f a fourteenth-century compendium o f natural philosophy adopted a rad­ traditional opinion o f the Sun as sole source o f light in the celestial region. 39
ically different position, arguing that all planets are opaque and dense bodies. Long before Albert o f Saxony’s acknowledgment o f a second source o f
As a dense and opaque body, the Moon can cause an eclipse o f the Sun planetary light, Richard o f Middleton had distinguished two kinds o f ce­
when interposed between us and the Sun.34*O n the very next page, however, lestial light in all the planets except the Sun. One kind is natural to the
in seeking to explain the spots on the Moon, he declares, inconsistently, planet itself but is weak and tenuous. Here we recognize the natural planetary
light which Albert o f Saxony also identified. The second light is not at all
30. The Latin text of the first o f these two passages is: “ Sic ergo lumen Iune quod videmus natural to the planets, because it is received from the Sun.40 From the
non est solum lumen solis reflexum super corpus lune sed lumen solis lune imbibitum et
incorporatum.” Albert o f Saxony, ibid. The second reads: “ Lumen unius asm causal
calorem et lumen alterius frigiditatem in istis mferioribus. Hoc est propter diversas naturas 35. "Compendium o fS ix Books,” MS. BN 6752, 22717 For the Latin text, see this volume.
ipsorum astrorum quibus illud lumen incorporatur et imbibitur.” Ibid., 115V, col. ;. Chapter 17. note 140.
31. For Oresme's description and acceptance o f this interpretation, see Le Livre du end. bk. t6. In his discussion o f lunar spots, he mentions Albertus Magnus and was probably familiar
2, ch. 16, 1968. 437-459, and Chapter 17, Section IV.3a.1i, o f this volume. In his de­ with his De cae'to.
scription o f this opinion. Duhem [Anew], 1985, 482, says that “ the property they at­ 37. At the outset o f the question, Albert says the following: “ Probatur primo de luna quod
tributed to the moon is not unlike what we call fluorescence.’’ habeat lumen ex se. Nam aere existente sereno et luna existente.in prima quadra videtur
32. For example, see George de Rhodes [De coelo. bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 3], 1671. 284, totale corpus lune, licet ilia pars que est versa ad solem videatur lucidior quam alia pars
col. 2 (“ Dico secundo astra omnia, turn fixa, turn errantia, nullam videntur habere lucem versa a sole.” De caelo. bk. 2, qu. 20, 1518, 114V, col. 1.
propriam, sed ea omnia lluminuri a luce solis” ). 38. “ Ad primum bene conceditur quod luna et quodlibet aliud astrum habet lumen debile et
33. Albertus Magnus, De caclo. bk. 2. tract. 3, ch. 6, Opera. 1971, 5, pt. 1:154, col. 2. For remissum ex se. Sed quod habet lumen notabile, quod nos notabiliter llluminat. hoc est
the probable source o f Albertus’s opinion and for others who held it, see Chapter 11, a sole.” Ibid., u s v , col. i.
Section I.4 and note 35. For more on the central role o f the Sun, see Chapter 11, Section 39. In contrast to Albert, Thomas Bricot, De celo. bk. 2, i486, 22r, col. 1, rejects the idea
I.3 and especially note 28. that all planets except the Moon need not receive their light from the Sun.
34. “ Compendium o f Six Books,” Bibliotheque Nationale, fonds latin, MS. 6752, 226v. 40. “ Dicendum quod in luna et in qualibet alia Stella a sole, duplex est lux: una sibi naturalis.
Because the Sun is greater than the earth, our author observes that the Moon cannot quae debiiis est et tenuis; alia non sibi naturalis quam a sole recipit. Prima non est eiusdem
totally eclipse the Sun. For a discussion o f MS. BN 6752 and a description o f its contents, speciei cum luce solis; secunda tamen est eandem speciem reducitur cum luce solis.”
see Thorndike. 1923—1958, 3:568—584. For the Latin text, see Chapter 17, note 140. Richard o f Middleton, Sentences, bk. 2, disc. 13, art. 1, qu. 4, 1591, 2:159, col. 2.
400 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 401

thirteenth century, at least two kinds o f planetary light were distinguished. “ so much more [should] the stars o f the heaven, which are more noble and
Although little was said about the light o f the fixed stars, it eventually ought to shine by themselves perpetually.” 4'’
emerged as a third distinct, though by no means weak, source o f light. Another argument trades on the nature o f sunlight, which was assumed
to produce heat and dryness. N ow , if the Sun’s light is the sole source o f
2. That the celestial bodies have some or all o f their light planetary light, reflected light from the planets should also produce heat
from themselves and dryness. But astronomers and experience reveal that “ some light from
the stars produces cold, and the light from the moon produces cold and
To arrive at a representative selection o f arguments that the planets and moisture.” 47 The inference is obvious: the planets and stars can produce
stars, with the exception o f the M oon, are partly or w holly self-luminous, such effects only by their own light, the effects o f which differ from sunlight.
we can do no better than draw upon Nicole Oresme and Albert o f Saxony, N ot to be ignored is the fundamental medieval argument that if the Sun
two o f the leading scholastic authors o f the fourteenth century.4' Both were shines by itself, the other planets ought to do likewise, because all are
convinced, as we saw earlier, that except with reference to the M oon, no members o f the same species.4S
demonstration could determine whether the Sun was the sole source o f light An argument by Oresme about the Moon resembles the one cited earlier
among the planets and stars.44 M ost noteworthy, perhaps, is the emphasis from Albert o f Saxony, except that where Albert speaks o f a phase o f the
(especially by Oresme) on arguments that appeal to the strong medieval M oon, Oresme appeals to a lunar eclipse, which, despite the exclusion o f
sense o f cosmic hierarchy and assume that things farther away from the solar light, manifests colors that are really lights, lights that could only
earth are “ better” and “ nobler” than those nearer to it. come from the M oon itself.49
The fixed stars ought to be self-illuminating because they are part o f the Supporters o f the Avicennan and Macrobian position argued that if all
primum mobile, or eighth sphere, which, according to Aristotle, is the most the planets had their light from the Sun and possessed none o f their own,
noble heaven.43 Since light is the most noble quality and the fixed stars the planets ought to exhibit variations in light - that is, they ought to undergo
most noble bodies in the most noble heaven, the fixed stars ought to shine phases - just as the M oon does, and some o f them ought to cause eclipses
by themselves.44 o f the Sun (Mercury and Venus) or be eclipsed by the earth (Mars, Jupiter,
Turning to the planets, Oresme explains that Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars and Saturn) when it is interposed between them and the Sun. But no such
ought to be self-luminous because they are superior to, or higher than, the phenomena are observed.50
Sun. This argument trades on an oft-repeated concept o f cosmic hierarchy
that superiors act on inferiors and not the contrary. Thus the Sun cannot
46. Oresme, ibid. Indeed, Oresme pushes this point even Farther in the next argument, when
act on the three superior planets and therefore furnishes no light to them.45 he explains that in the sublunar world things like fire and the scales ot certain fish are
Comets, Oresme observes, are self-luminous, shining by themselves at self-luminous; therefore, so much more ought the perfection o f self-luminosity to exist
night “ in the shadow o f the earth” in the elemental region o f the world in the far more excellent celestial bodies.
47. Ibid., 644. The “ experience” (or “ experiences” ) that would reveal information o f this
just below the Moon. Since comets can shine independently in this manner, sort is unmentioned. Albert o f Saxony presents a briefer version in De celo, bk. 2, qu.
20, 1518, 1 isr, col. 1.
41. In the thirteenth century, Bartholomew the Englishman. De proprietatilms rerum, bk. 8, 48. This argument would have had little force, because few believed that all the planets
ch. 30, 1601, 414, declared that the Moon “ has a substantial darkness, since it does not belonged to the same species.
have light from itself, as do the other planets” (Habet emm substantialem obscuritatem, 49. Oresme, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 11. 1963, 644.
cum non habeat sicut alii planetae lumen a seipsa). 50. Albert o f Saxony’s fourth argument (De celo, bk. 2, qu. 20, 1518, ii .sr, col. 2). Oresme
42. Although Albert believed that either side o f the issue was demonstrable, he sided with offers a similar argument in ibid., 640. but confines himself to Mercury and Venus. In
Aristotle and adopted much that Albertus Magnus espoused. the repudiation o f this argument, it was noted that no eclipses o f Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn
43. The primum mobile means the first movable sphere and was always the outermost moving could occur when the earth is interposed between them and the Sun, because the earth’s
sphere in the cosmos. Thus it could be any sphere from the eighth to the tenth. Since shadow does not extend to the planets above the Sun. As his authority for this, Albert
Aristotle identified the eighth sphere, or sphere o f fixed stars, with the primum mobile, invokes the Theorica planetarum o f Campanus o f Novara, who is alleged to have said that
Oresme merely repeats the identification. the earth’s shadow does not extend beyond Mercury (Albert, ibid., 115V, col. 1). But
44. Oresme, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 11, 1965, 640-642. In the third argument, Oresme identifies even if it did. Mercury remains so close to the Sun that it the earth’s shadow did reach
the nature o f the Milky Way with that o f the eighth sphere and argues that the Milky it, the earth's diameter would not fit between Mercury and the Sun and therefore could
Way must also shine by itself. Oresme seems to have located the Milky Way in the not cause an eclipse.
celestial region, as did Albertus Magnus (see this chapter, note 28), which marks a sharp Actually, the data Campanus provides indicate that the earth's shadow would extend
departure from Aristotle (see Chapter 14, Section VIII. 1. b.i and Chapter 19, Section III.2 beyond Mercury and reach as far as the sphere o f Venus. Thus the apex ot the earth's
and note 26, for Aristotle’s 'dews). shadow extends 866.536 4/11 miles from the earth’s surface to the apex ot its cone
45. Oresme, ibid., 642. Albert o f Saxony's second argument in defense o f the Avicennan (Campanus, Theorica planetarum, 1971. 149). In summary tables for Mercury and Venus,
position is basically the same (see his De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 20. 1518, 1 x5r, col. 2). For the concave surface o f the sphere o f Mercury is 209,198 miles and its convex surface
Roger Bacon as a possible exception, see Chapter 19, note 5. 579,320 miles (ibid., 358). Obviously, the earth’s shadow will extend beyond this and
402 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 403

Finally, the lights o f the planets differ from one another: Mars is like the As we saw, however, Albert o f Saxony had already conceded that solar
light ot tire, and Saturn is like that o f white lead. But if they all have their light was not the only source o f planetary and stellar illumination: to a very
light from the Sun, they ought to be o f similar appearance.51 small extent, the Moon, and by inference the rest o f the planets, seem to
be weakly self-luminous. Unwittingly, Albert adumbrated an interpretation
that would become popular in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The
j. Seventeenth-century scholastic interpretations and the Coim bra Jesuits bore witness to this when, at the end o f the sixteenth
new discoveries century, they declared: “ the more common assertion o f the astronomers is
that both the fixed stars and the planets receive their light from the Sun but
We must emphasize that the seemingly most popular explanation o f pla­
nevertheless possess some light by themselves.” 53 Am ong scholastic sup­
netary light - the one adopted by Albertus Magnus and Albert o f Saxony
porters o f this interpretation in the seventeenth century were Bartholomew
- did not explain the visible light o f the planets in terms o f the direct
Amicus, Thomas Compton-Carleton, and Melchior Cornaeus.54 All would
reflection o f solar light from their allegedly opaque bodies. Rather, it as­
have agreed, however, that the Sun provides the greater part o f planetary
sumed planets and stars that were transparent and could therefore receive
and stellar light. 55 Their interpretation assumed that most o f the light for
solar light throughout the extent o f their bodies. They were visible to us
celestial bodies came from the Sun but that all o f these bodies also had some
because they were completely filled with the Sun’s light. During the Middle
additional source o f light from within themselves.
Ages, this interpretation was opposed by one attributed to Avicenna, which,
Another rather widely held opinion was opposed to the one described
as we saw, assumed self-luminosity for every planet and star except the
by the Coim bra Jesuits. The rival interpretation either explicitly or by
Moon. Both o f these rival opinions were encapsulated by Nicholas C op­
implication denied any degree o f self-luminosity to the planets, including
ernicus, who speaks o f those who “ do not admit that these heavenly bodies
the Moon. All planetary light derived directly from the Sun and was sub­
have any opacity like the m oon’s. On the contrary, these shine either with
sequently disseminated by reflection. Within this group, the planets could
their own light or with the sunlight absorbed throughout their bodies.” 52
be viewed as entirely opaque bodies or as materially different bodies that
were unequally lucid and possessed different degrees o f purity. Johannes
into the orb ot Venus, the concave surface ot which is 579.320 miles and its convex
surface 3,892.866 mile' ibid., 359). Velcurio was in the latter group,5'’ while Raphael A versa and George de
In the seventeenth century, Melchior Cornaeus (De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 4, dub. Rhodes are identified with the former.'
9, 1657, 512) explained that the fixed stars, which receive their light from the Sun, were Let us now consider seventeenth-century opinions on the Moon, the other
not eclipsed by the earth s shadow' because the latter culminated in the apex of a cone
and never reached the firmament. Thomas Compton-Carleton, De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 3, planets, and the fixed stars, in that order.
1649, 403, col. 1, says much the same thing as Albert ot Saxonv, denying that Mercury
and Venus could eclipse the Sun and that the earth can eclipse the superior planets. He 53. “ Statuenda camen est hec assertio quam communior astrologorum consensus approbat:
explains that Venus is only a hundredth part of'the Sun (in volume?) and Mercury is even tam stcllae fixae quam planetae lumen a sole mutuantur, ita tamen ut aliquid ex se lucis
smaller; and since the Sun is 166 times greater than the earth (presumably in volume), possideant.” Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 7, qu. 4, art. 1, 1598, 303.
the earth’s shadow cannot reach the superior planets. Drawing upon “ Albatemus, Thebit, 54. In the first o f five conclusions about the source o f stellar and planetary light. Amicus
and other astronomers,” Galileo ([De caeio, qu. 2 (H)J, 1977, 79), explains that “ the visual declares (De coelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 1. art. 3. 1626, 358, col. 1) that “ the stars [and
diameter ot the sun has a tenfold ratio to the visual diameter o f Venus,” so that geo­ planets] have some light from themselves.” Compton-Carleton (De coelo. disp. 2. sec. 3.
metrically “ the visual diameter ot the sun . . . has a hundredfold ratio to the visual circle 1649, 403. col. 1) assumes that “ Neither the Moon, nor the other planets, nor even the
ot Venus.” Van Helden, 198s, 71. savs this relationship is found in Ptolemv's Pluretory fixed stars, receive all their light from the Sun” (Nec luna aut alij planetae. nec stellae
Hypotheses etiam fixae omnem iucem suam accipiunt a sole). In his reply to the question “ Whether
51. Albert ot Saxony's sixth argument (De celo, bk. 2. qu. 20. 1518, 11 sr. col. 2). Earlier in stars receive light from the Sun" (An stellae accipiant lumen a sole), Cornaeus, De coelo.
this section, we saw that Albertus Magnus replied to this argument by insisting that the tract. 4, disp. 2. qu. 4, dub. 9, 1657, 512, responds: “ Yes, but nevertheless they also have
planets had different capabilities for receiving the Sun's light and that these differences some from themselves” (Ita, sed tamen aliquod etiam ex sese habent).
produced different colors and appearances. 55. Compton-Carleton, ibid., declares that “ the stars [and planets] receive the greatest part
52. Copernicus, Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 10 [Rosen], 1978, 19. Copernicus adds (ibid.) that o f their light from the Sun. This is manifestly proved from eclipses o f the Moon and also
these planets “ do not eclipse the sun, because it rarelv happens that thev interfere with from the fact that planets nearer to the Sun are illuminated more and more intensely, as
our view o f the sun, since they generally deviate in latitude. Besides, they are tiny bodies if they were ablaze, as is obvious in Mars and Venus."
in comparison with the sun. Venus, although bigger than Mercury, can occult barely a 56. Velcurio declares (Physics, 1554, 76, col. 2-77, col. i): “ Ergo omne lumen svderum refertur
hundredth of the sun. So says Al-Battani o f Raqqa, who thinks that he sun's diameter ad solena. . . . Ergo sol est causa efficiens luminis in omnibus stellis. Et per consequens
is ten times larger [than Venus s], and therefore so minute a speck is not easilv descried omnes stellae recipiunt lumen suum a sole." He goes on to explain: "Q uod autem non
in the most brilliant light.” In this passage, Copernicus epitomizes widely held medieval omnia astra sunt aeque lucida, neque eiusdem vel paris luminositatis, nihil impedit haec
views, especiaiiv that Venus “ can occult barely a hundredth o f the sun." Copernicus nam culpa non soils est. sed materia in Stella quarum quo quaeque est punor et nobilior.
immediately rejects this interpretation. That Venus could only occult a hundredth o f the . . . Quo autem quaeque spissior est. . . . Et quo iusto rarior est.”
Sun was repeated by Compton-Carleton, De coelo, disp. 2. sec. 3, 1649, 403, col. 1. 57. Despite divergence on important points. Aversa and de Rhodes were influenced by Galileo.
404 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 405

a. The Moon M oon is perfectly opaque and in no way transparent. Solar rays are incapable
o f penetrating below the lunar surface.62 B y contrast, Aversa’s contem­
The problem o f the M oon’s source o f light continued to loom large in the porary, Bartholomew Amicus, accepted the opinions o f Albertus Magnus
seventeenth century. The problem was essentially the same as it was for and Albert o f Saxony — citing both in the course o f his rather lengthy
Albert o f Saxony: how to explain light or colors in areas o f the M oon in discussion - and assumed that the Moon (as well as all the other planets)
which solar rays were absent and which should have been totally dark and had light o f its own which it receives from the Sun and “ incorporates”
invisible. Raphael Aversa enunciated the problem succinctly: H ow can we (incorporatio) into itself, in the manner described b.y his medieval predeces­
explain a certain whiteness in that part o f the Moon when there is no Sun sors.6' The illumination o f the Moon could not be explained solely in terms
shining on it, and how, during the course o f an eclipse, do we account for o f reflection, since only a small part o f the Moon would be seen as illu­
a certain ruddy color?5* Although Albert o f Saxony and others in the Middle minated, namely that observed part where the angle o f incidence equals the
Ages had discerned lights in the darkened areas o f the Moon, Aversa was angle o f reflection, as is obvious with mirrors. If the Moon diffused light
more than likely summarizing Galileo’s distinction in the Sidereus nuncius solely by means o f reflection, only a small part o f the earth would be
between tw o different kinds o f lunar light — one in the normal course o f illuminated. Amicus concludes that the Moon receives solar light into its
the changing dark and light areas o f the lunar surface and the other detected very depths, or, as he put it earlier, “ incorporates” the light o f the Sun into
during lunar eclipses.559 Aversa explains that “ there is doubt from whence
8 itself and then diffuses it to the earth.64
and how the Moon«has this light, whether from itself or from the same If Aversa found that the Moon was not diaphanous and did not receive
Sun; and if from the Sun, whether it is directly from the Sun or from solar light within itself, he was equally convinced that it lacked an innate
another body illuminated by the Sun.” 60 light o f its own. Such a light should be visible throughout the M oon’s
Am ong responses to such questions was the Albertus M agnus-Albert o f circuit around the earth, which is manifestly not so.65 Nor does it receive
Saxony medieval explanation in which the Moon is conceived as somewhat additional weak light from Venus, as some, including Tycho Brahe, be­
transparent rather than absolutely opaque. The M oon is thus assumed per­ lieved/16
vious to solar rays and capable o f receiving a weak light that penetrates
lumen a sole. Ita opinati sunt illi. qui supenon quaest.. sect. 2. dicebant lunam non esse
beneath its surface.6' Aversa rejects this interpretation, insisting that the perfecte opacam, sed esse aliquantum diaphanam et ita perviam radijs eiusdem solis.”
Aversa, De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 2, 1627, 168, col. 2. This light, which is ultimately from
58. Amicus describes a similar phenomenon when he proposes the Moon as evidence that the Sun, should be distinguished from the weak, self-luminous lunar light that Albert o f
the planets had some light o f their own. Although the Moon seems to receive all its light Saxony mentions.
trom the Sun, it nevertheless seems to have some light o f its own, because it becomes 62. “ Verum satis ibi ostensum est lunam esse potius ita perfecte opacam ut transitum non
reddish during an eclipse, which could only occur if it had some light within itself (Primo praebeat in sua profunditate radijs solis.” Ibid.
patet ex luna quae videtur totum a sole lumen recipere et tamen habet aliquid luminis ex 63. As he so frequently does, Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 1, art. 3, 1626, 360,
se, ut patet in ipsius eclypsi, cum tunc rubeat, qui rubor non posset esse nisi aliquid col. 1, first poses a question in the name o f an imaginary opponent or critic: “ You ask
luminis in se construaret. Ergo idem dicendum de alijs astris). Amicus, De caelo, tract. [literally “ sav” ] how does the Moon receive light from the Sun” ? (Dices quomodo luna
6, qu. 5, dubit. 1, art. 3, 1626, 358, col. 1. Thomas Compton-Carleton repeats the same recipiat lumen a sole?) “ I reply,” says Amicus (literally “ Let it be replied” ) that “ it receives
argument (De coelo, disp. 2. sec. 3, 1649, 403, col. 1). Amicus’s opinion is similar to Albert it by incorporation to the extent o f a one-third part o f itself” (Respondetur recipere illud
ot Saxony’s in behalf ot a small amount o f weak light in the Moon itself. Indeed, Amicus per incorporationem. usque ad tertiam eius partem).
draws on a number ot arguments which Albert o f Saxony presented in defense o f the 64. "Quia si non per incorporationem esset per reflexionem. Unde quando luna esset ad latus
self-luminous nature o f celestial bodies. nostn aspectus, non appararet illuminata nisi parva pars lunae, scilicet pars a qua angulus
59. Gaiilec, Starry Messenger (Sidereus nuncius) in Drake. 1957, 42-43 and Galileo, Sidereus incidentiae et angulus reflexionis ad nostrum aspectum essent aequales. Turn quia si esset
nuncius [Van Helden), 1989, 54-55. solum corpus reflectens non posset illuminare nisi tantam partem terrae quanta est in se,
60. The full text follows: “ At vero quia visu ipso cernimus partem quoque lunae avertam a ut patet ex reflexione speculorum. Et tamen apparet totam terram illuminari que est maior
sole quando luna non est plena et videmus illam albicantem; imo et in eclipsi conspicimus quam luna est. Ergo dicendum est recipi in profunditate et inde diffundi lumen.” Ibid.,
adhuc lunam tusco quodam Iumine rubescentem. Dubium est unde et quomodo luna hoc 360, cols. 1-2.
lumen habeat: an a se vel ab eodem sole; et si a sole, an ab illo immediate vel ab alio 65. Aversa, De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 2, 1627, 169, col. 1.
corpore illuminato a sole.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 2, 1627, 168, col. 2. Mastrius 66. These opinions were all briefly mentioned by Galileo in the Sidereus nuncius. In four or
and Bellutus asked similar questions (De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 5, 1727, 3:506, col. 1, par. five lines Galileo describes them all (Galileo, Sidereus nuncius [Van Helden], 1989, 54).
157) about all the celestial bodies, including the Moon: “ In another part o f what is sought, Thus in speaking o f the white light that shines even in the darkened parts o f the Moon,
we ask in what celestial bodies does light [/m.y ] occur: whether all the heavens and celestial Galileo comments: “ Some have said that it is the intrinsic and natural brightness o f the
bodies [astra] have light, or only the celestial bodies. And o f these [i.e., the celestial bodies] Moon herself; others that it is imparted to it by Venus, or by all the stars; and yet others
whether all, or only some have light” (In altera parte quaesiti quaeritur quibus corporibus have said that it is imparted by the Sun who penetrates the Moon’s vast mass with his
coelestibus conveniat lux: an scilicet omnes coeli et astra habeant lucem an solum astra; rays. But such inventions are refuted with little difficulty and demonstrated to be false.”
et istorum an omnia, an vero quaedam tantum). Galileo rejected the Venus explanation as “ childish,” saying “ For who is so ignorant as
61. “ Primus dicendi modus est lunam non esse penitus opacam et imperviam lumini, sed not to know that near conjunction and within the sextile aspect it is entirely impossible
esse aliquantum diaphanam et ita etiam in profunditate recipere immediate debile saltern for the part o f the Moon turned away from the Sun to be seen from Venus?” See also
406 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 407

As a scholastic aware o f current opinion, A versa also considers what he the earth would not reach the Moon because they are too weak to reach
calls Galileo’s “ very new mode o f explanation’’ (valde novus dicendi modus beyond the second region o f the air.'0
est Galilaei). Although the Moon receives almost all o f its light from the
Sun, Galileo argued, in the Sidercus nuticius, that reflections o f sunlight from
the earth to the Moon augmented the M oon’s light and affected otherwise b. The other planets
darkened areas o f the lunar surface, a phenomenon Galileo called “ secondary Due in large measure to Galileo’s observations with the telescope, the range
light.” Galileo’s reasoning, Aversa explains, is simply that if the smaller o f explanations about the source o f celestial light was considerably expanded
Moon can illuminate the much bigger earth, it follows that the earth, which in the seventeenth century. B y his discovery o f the phases o f Venus in
receives more solar light than the M oon, should reflect some o f it to the 1610,71 Galileo had shown that another planet besides the M oon revealed a
lunar surface. Aversa finds the consequences o f this belief unacceptable, continual variation in the amounts o f lightness and darkness on its surface
since it inverts the order o f the universe/’7 that is, instead o f the heavens and did so as a consequence o f its position in relationship to the Sun. It
sending down light and other influences to affect the terrestrial region, as was not only convincing evidence that Venus revolved around the Sun
everybody believed, Galileo's explanation reverses the process and has the rather than the earth but that the brightness o f Venus was produced by the
earth, and therefore the terrestrial region, affecting and influencing the no­ Sun’s light. Since Galileo had shown that darkness lay over that part o f the
bler celestial region. Aversa expressed further displeasure at Galileo’s in­ Venusian surface where the Sun failed to shine, it was implausible to suppose
clusion o f the earth among the planets, a move that implied that the planets that Venus had its own independent source o f light. Without solar light, it
are like our earth, an association that was repugnant to defenders o f tra­ would lie immersed in darkness. On this approach, the planets were best
ditional cosmology. “ The earth,” Aversa insists, “ is an unpolished, uneven, interpreted as opaque rather than transparent bodies. Moreover, it Venus’s
and rough body, [whereas] the Moon is just like every other planet: it is brightness was derived from solar light, it seemed a further reasonable
very pure and very polished, more like out metals and gem s.” OH inference that solar light was also the cause o f the varying degrees o f color
From whence, then, does the M oon’s secondary light derive? It comes and brightness in the other planets. A powerful reinforcement to the phases
from the surrounding parts o f the heavens, seemingly from sunlight re­ o f Venus was Galileo's slightly earlier observation and description o f the
flected to the Moon from other celestial bodies. Obviously this excludes Moons, or satellites, o f Jupiter." With these powerful claims, scholastic
the earth, which for Aversa is not a planet. In a curious sense, Aversa natural philosophers in the seventeenth century faced a significant challenge
accepted an argument resembling Galileo's, but instead o f the earth as the to traditional interpretations about the planetary sources ot light.
M oon’s source o f reflected sunlight, he vaguely invoked other neighboring O f the serious opinions offered as explanations for the source or sources
celestial bodies. Mastrius and Bellutus adopted the same explanation and o f planetary light, none denied the role o f the Sun. In general, three opinions
even mentioned Aversa and three other seventeenth-century scholastic au­
thors (Licetus, Scheiner, and Tanner) w ho also accepted it. Speaking ex­ quern afferunt Aversa, quaest. 35, sect. 2: Licetus lib. de Lap. Bon., cap. 50; Scheiner disp.
plicitly o f “ secondary light” (lumen secundarium), they trace its source to 37; Tannerus I disp. 6, quaest. 7 et alii, lumen illud esse quoddam lumen secundarium
“ the nearer parts o f the heaven illuminated by the Sun.” To counter Galileo, proveniens a partibus celi propinquionbus a sole illuminatis. . . . Turn quia radii solares
per reflexionetn a terra non transcendunt secundam aeris regionem, aliter haec esset
they argued that if solar light were reflected from the earth and reached the calida. ” The second, or middle, region of air is the location o f clouds and is always cold
second region o f the air on its way toward the Moon, it would heat the (see Ch. 20 [immediately preceding Sec. I] for d’A illvs description o f the sublunar region!.
intervening air.6" This does not occur. Moreover, solar rays reflected from 70. “ Videmus enim reflexionem radiorum soils a terra non pertingere secundam aeris regi­
onem, nam reflexio non diffunditur ad quameunque distantiam propter imbecilhtatem
specierum.” Mastrius and Bellutus, ibid.. 507, col. 1. par. 162. In the preceding sentence
the translation in Galileo. Starry Messenger [Drake], 1957, 42-43. For references to Tycho, (also see note 69), Mastrius and Bellutus say that if sunlight reflected from the earth were
see Galileo, Sidereus mmcius [Van Helden], 1989, 54, n. 52. As we shall see, Aversa seems sent toward the Moon it would heat the air o f the "second region.” They also say that
to have adopted as his explanation a version o f the interpretation that attributed the cause the reflected ravs are too weak to reach the Moon. Would those rays also be too weak
o f the Moon’s extra light to “ all the stars.’’ to heat the air?
67. “ Verum de se satis incredibile apparet immitti et diffundi lumen a terra ad caelum, ad 71. In his First Letter on Sunspots to Mark Welser, dated May 4, 1612, Galileo expresses
caelestia corpora, quod plane est invertere ordinem umversi.” Aversa, De caelo. qu. 35, astonishment that his opponent Apelles (Christopher Scheiner) had not yet heard o f his
sec. 2, 1627, 170. col. 1. method for determining whether “ Venus and Mercury revolve about the sun or between
68. “ Nec unquam obtinebit Galilaeus, ut terra credatur unum ex astris et ullum astrum the earth and the sun.” Galileo explains that this method was "discovered by me about
credatur ut terra. Terra est corpus rude, asperum, et ruidum [in place o f ruuidum]; luna, two vears ago and communicated to so many people that by now it has become notorious.
sicut et omne aliud astrum, est corpus summe tersum et perpolitum plusquam apud nos This is the fact that Venus changes shape precisely as does the moon.” Galileo, Letters on
metalla et gemmae.” Ibid. Sunspots (1613) in Drake, 1957, 93. The discovery was made in 1610 but after publication
69. After citing Galileo’s explanation o f secondary light, Mastrius and Bellutus declare {De o f The Starry Messenger in March o f that year.
coelo, disp. 2, qu. s, 1727, 3:506, c°l- 2> par. 159): “ Sed probabilior dicendi modus est 72. In his Sidereus nuticius ot March 1610.
408 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 409

emerged. The first assumed that the Sun is the sole source o f planetary extent self-luminous.76 Upon inspection o f the arguments, which are oc­
light; this opinion has three subdivisions. In one, the planets are assumed casionally ambiguous, the light peculiar to a planet is either solar light that
opaque and their light is but a reflection o f solar light. In another, the planets is received within a diaphanous planet or a kind o f light that is left uniden­
are assumed partly or wholly transparent and, instead o f reflecting solar tified. In those instances where the light o f the planet is transformed solar
light, the latter penetrates the diaphanous planetary matter and fills it with light, Albertus Magnus and/or Albert o f Saxony is probably the ultimate
light, thus rendering the planet visible because it is always filled with light. source. For example, Johannes Poncius, the seventeenth-century Scotistic
In the third opinion, for which Campanus o f Novara apparently qualifies, commentator, declares that “ planets receive their light principally from the
the Sun is assumed the source o f planetary light, but no judgm ent is made Sun,” 77 offering as reasons the varying brightness o f planets in proportion
about the opacity or transparency o f the planets.73 to their distance from the Sun and the middle position o f the Sun with
The second opinion attributes the primary source o f planetary light (lu­ respect to the other planets, which made it easier to communicate light to
men) to the Sun but also assumes that each planet has within itself a source them. Indeed, if the M oon is self-luminous, it ought to appear lucid during
o f light (lux). The third opinion is the now familiar one, derived from a lunar eclipse.
Macrobius and Avicenna, that only the M oon receives light from the Sun Poncius then qualifies his statement that the planets receive their light
but all other planets are self-luminous. Although this opinion was frequently “ principally” (principaliter) from the Sun, “ because it is not improbable that
repeated in the Middle Ages, few, if any, accepted it. In the seventeenth they have some light from themselves.” As evidence o f this, he mentions
century, Aversa indudes it in his discussion, even mentioning Macrobius only the M oon and gives a common instance: the Moon reveals some light
and Avicenna by name, and cites a few o f its alleged supporters (Molina, during its eclipse. B y the time Poncius wrote, the lunar light seen during
Lucillus Philalthaeus, and Scaliger). an eclipse and even light seen in the darkened portions o f the lunar surface
Those who assumed that the Sun was the sole source o f planetary light during its normal phases were usually explained as the result o f solar light
and that it shone on opaque planets could appeal for support to Galileo’s reflected to the M oon from one or more other celestial bodies, and even
telescopic observations, as did Raphael Aversa. Citing Galileo’s Letter on the earth (as Galileo argued). That was as far as Poncius would go with
Sunspots, Aversa invokes Galileo’s telescopic observations o f the phases o f claims for self-luminosity. Indeed, he rejected a general claim for it. He did
Venus and concludes that “ according to this observation it is clearly dem­ this by posing a comm on objection against his position that the Sun is the
onstrated that Venus does not have native light but is illuminated by solar principal source o f planetary light: what o f the frequently mentioned ar­
light.” 74 A paragraph later, Aversa introduces the satellites, or Moons, o f gument that even when the earth is interposed between the Sun and other
Jupiter and mentions that one or another o f them is always eclipsed by the planets, the latter are not eclipsed but continue to shine brightly? Is this not
shadow o f Jupiter when the latter is interposed between its satellite and the evidence o f self-luminosity? O n this piece o f evidence, Poncius gives the
Sun. Aversa agrees that Jupiter and its satellites receive their light from the usual negative response: the earth's shadow reaches only to Venus and
Sun. Indeed, he suggests that this may also explain the behavior o f the two therefore cannot cause an eclipse o f Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars, which con­
“ satellites” allegedly observed around Saturn.75 O n the basis o f such pow ­ tinue to shine from the reception o f solar light. And although the earth’s
erful evidence, Aversa seems to have accepted the idea that all the planets shadow can reach Venus and Mercury, those two planets do not recede
receive their light from the Sun and have none o f their own. sufficiently from the Sun to enable the earth to be interposed between
In this Aversa may have been unusual. Alm ost all other seventeenth- them.7*
century scholastic natural philosophers accepted the Sun as the primary Mastrius and Bellutus also argued for some sense o f self-luminosity,
source o f light for the planets but also assumed that the latter were to some commencing their discussion with an assertion that the other planets (astra)
are probably “ illuminated not only by the Sun but also have a proper greater
73. I interpret Campanus, Theorica planetarum, 1971, 148, lines 79-88 (translation on p. 149)
light, [just] as [does] the whiteness o f the M oon.” 79 Like most scholastics,
in this manner.
74. After citing “ Galilaeus in Epist. 3, de Macuiis Solis,” Aversa (De caelo. qu. 35, sec. 3, 76. We saw earlier that Amicus, Compton-Carleton, and Cornaeus held such an opinion.
1627, 172, col. 2) goes on to describe the opinion o f Galileo and likeminded supporters: To them we may add Poncius and also Mastrius and Bellutus.
“ Docent planetas illummari a sole quia iam per telescopium certis observationibus de- 77. “ Planetae suam lucem principaliter a sole participant.” Poncius [De coelo, disp. 22, qu.
prehensum est Venerem mutari ac variari ad instar lunae et non in suo orbe plenam sed 8], 1672, 62s, col. 1.
vere comiculatam apparere ita ut qua parte versa est ad solem notabili lumine fulgeat et 78. Ibid. The same opinion was held in the Middle Ages (Campanus o f Novara, Albert o f
in oppositum cornua vertat. Iuxta hanc ergo obervationem perspicue demonstrator Ve­ Saxony) and by others in the seventeenth century (Cornaeus and Compton-Carleton).
nerem non suo nativo lumine, sed solari illustratione lucere. ” See note 30. this chapter.
75. The rings o f Saturn were initially interpreted as satellites. 79. “ Tandem de aliis astris dicendum probabiliter videtur, non solum a sole illuminari, sed
4i o THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 41 I
they insisted that the Sun was the primary source o f planetary light, ap­ In the course o f six arguments intended to illustrate that planets (astra)
pealing, as did A versa, to the phases o f Venus, Mercury, and even Mars have their own light, Amicus provides no real clue as to the nature o f that
to buttress their claim.80 But what about self-luminosity? They give two light, although it is clear that he regarded the Sun as the primary source o f
reasons for accepting it. First, the planets (astra) must be diaphanous, for planetary light.H3 The kinds o f arguments he presents are unhelpful in de­
otherwise they would not even be seen. For their second reason they men­ termining the nature o f the proper light allegedly possessed by a planet.
tion the ditferent colors o f the planets, a phenomenon that indicates “ a Thus in his fifth argument. Amicus uses an analogy with the Sun. Since
difference o f light, and yet if they were illuminated by the Sun, the light the Sun is lucid, the other planets should also be lucid, because they are o f
in all o f them ought to be o f the same kind.” 8' Taken together, these tw o the same generic, though not specific, nature. By their single generic nature
reasons strongly suggest that Mastnus and Bellutus had in mind two man­ they should all have light o f their own, but by their different specific natures
ifestations o f light: sunlight and another kind o f light that is peculiar to each the degree and intensity o f light varies in each.84 Amicus does not say
planet. Both are explicable in terms o f the medieval interpretations asso­ whether this generic light, which is specifically adapted to each planet, is
ciated with Albertus Magnus and Albert o f Saxony. The diaphanous nature the Sun’s light. That planetary light differs from sunlight is conveyed by
ot each planet enables it to receive the Sun’s light throughout its body. Amicus in his third argument. Because planets (astra) exercise different
Indeed, sunlight fills it. It is able to shine because it then diffuses its sunlight. effects on inferior, sublunar things, they cannot act only by means o f sun­
Each planet absorbs light in its own way and thus alters it. These alterations light. For if the planets received only sunlight, it would be identical in each
ot the light are manifested by the different colors o f the planets. o f them, and they would all produce the same effects.Xs However, since the
On this interpretation, the “ proper light” o f each planet is really solar effects differ, so must the powers o f the planets. Therefore each planet must
light received in the interior o f each planet and altered by it. In the final have its own proper light.
analysis, there is only one kind o f light, and it manifests itself in different But then, as if to nullify this argument, Amicus poses a difficulty: different
and unequal w ays.82 This interpretation gains further credibility in the fol­ sublunar effects may occur not only because o f light but also from other
lowing paean to the Sun offered by Mastrius and Bellutus (De coelo, disp. powers o f the planets. Consequently, one cannot be certain that light does
2, qu. 5, 1727, 3:506, col. 2, par. 160): differ in each planet, because the different effects may be caused by other
planetary powers. But if no other power operates except light, then Amicus
From these things it is obvious h o w the Sun is the first measure in the genus o f concedes that the light must be received in a different way in different
lights and the measure o f others and the source o f light. For it exceeds the others planets.86 Here Amicus seems to acknowledge that the “ proper light” o f
and com m unicates light to all. It can be spoken o f as i f it were the o n ly light because each planet is simply sunlight differently adapted by the specific natures o f
by com parison to it the other [lights] can be thought o f as shadow s. each planet. He does not seem to conceive o f a “ different” kind o f light in
each planet. There can be no doubt, however, that Amicus conceived o f
Although Mastrius and Bellutus believed that solar light was the only kind
the Moon as a partially transparent planet capable o f receiving and retaining
ot light, it could take two forms. In effect, they postulated tw o kinds o f solar light in the transparent part and that he considered the remaining
light, pure sunlight and sunlight that is altered within the planet itself. Earlier
planets as totally transparent and capable o f receiving solar light throughout
on, Bartholomew Amicus held a similar opinion, believing that planets had
their bodies.87
some light o f their own in addition to solar light. But Amicus was even
vaguer than Mastnus and Bellutus.
83. In a fourth conclusion. Amicus says that “ Besides a proper light, all planets receive light
etiam propriam luccm habere majorem quam sit albicatio ilia lunae.” Mastnus and Bel­ from the Sun” (Quarta conclusio: omnia astra praeter lumen proprium recipiunt lumen
lutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 5, 1727, 3:506, col. 2, par. 160. a sole). Amicus, De coelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 1, art. 3, 1626, 360, col. 2.
50. Ibid. According to Mastrius and Bellutus, someone named Fontana claimed to have 84. Ibid., 359, cols. 1-2.
observed horns o f light on Mars, which resembled those on the Moon. 85. This argument seems to conflict with the fifth argument just described. In that argument,
51. The text for the first reason is: “ Secunda pars quod etiam sint astra ex se ipsis lucida all planets should be lucid in the same way as the Sun, because they are all generically
potest suaden. . . ex hoc: quod omnia alia astra sunt diaphana. ut dicemus. ergo si lucida the same. Nevertheless, the light will vary from planet to planet because the planets differ
non essent, non viderentur, vel saltern non tarn lucida conspicerentur. sicut nec coeli specifically and each will alter the generic light in its own unique way. In the third
cernuntur propter diaphaneitatem;” and the text for the second reason: “ Quia planetae argument, however, Amicus says that if the planets receive only sunlight, they would
. . . apparent diversum coloris quod indicat in luce differre et tamen si a sole tantum all exercise the same effects. But why should this happen? Would their specific differences
illuminarentur deberet lumen in omnibus esse eiusdem rationis." Ibid. not cause each planet to adapt the light to its own specific nature, so that each planet will
52. Mastrius and Bellutus. ibid., insist that the light in each planet is not equally intense. cause different effects?
Since the planets are in different species, equal intensities are not essential (An vero haec 86. Amicus, De coelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 1. art. 3. 1626, 358, col. 2.
lux sit aeque in omnibus astris intensa, negative respondendum quia nulla apparet ne- 87. After describing the earth as the most opaque of all bodies. Amicus declares (ibid., art.
cessitas hujus aequalitatis, maxime quia sunt specie distincta). 4, 362, col. 1): “ Ita luna est minus diaphana quam alii planetae. Unde habet in se tarn
412 THE CEL EST IA L REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 413
N ot all who believed that sunlight was both the ultimate source o f pla­ the former was transformed into the latter. The puzzle might have been
netary self-luminosity and also the source o f ordinary planetary light con­ resolved if Serbellonus had explained how the Sun, as an opaque bodv,
ceived o f planets as wholly or partly transparent. An exception was radiates light to the other planets and fixed stars and how its light is dis­
Sigismundus Serbellonus, who argued that planets and stars possess a source tributed. Does the light o f the Sun lie only or. its surface or deep within?
o f light within themselves that is independent o f the SunHKand also insisted O n the basis of Serbellonus’s discussion, we may assume that whatever
that they are illuminated by the Sun.*9 Arguing from a comm on type o f solution he proposed for the Sun would apply to every other celestial bodv,
analogy favorable to his position, Serbellonus concluded that all stars and each o f which is essentially the same as the Sun.
planets are self-luminous, because they are solid, opaque, and composed o f Few, if any, scholastics took seriously the medieval Avicennan-Macrobian
the same substance. Since they are all alike in these and other vital properties, theory o f self-luminosity, which held that only the Moon received light
he assumes that they belong to the same species. From this, it seemed a from the Sun but that all other planets were self-luminous. The best that
reasonable inference that if the Sun had the property o f light (lux), so also could be said for this theory in the Middle Ages is that Nicole Oresme and
should the planets and stars.90 Since they shared essential properties, we Albert of Saxony thought neither it nor its rival (that all planets receive
may plausibly infer that Serbellonus, who is silent on this, assumed that their light from the Sun) was demonstrable. Although Oresme thought the
the light possessed by each planet and star was identical in its properties to self-luminosity theory more probable, it found little support and only oc­
the light o f the Sun. casional mention.92
Despite the mysterious and often obscure manner in which the “ proper
light” o f the planets is described and defended, it seems likely that the c. The fix e d stars
proper light o f a planet was usually thought o f as sunlight that the planet
had somehow transformed below its surface. M ost o f these scholastics With regard to the planets, most scholastics assumed that solar light was
would also have conceived o f the planets as partly or w holly transparent the single source o f planetary illumination but was manifested in different
bodies capable o f absorbing, retaining, and diffusing sunlight, in a manner ways because o f the diverse natures o f the planets themselves. But what
similar to that described by Albertus Magnus and Albert o f Saxony. about the fixed stars? Did the Sun also illuminate them, or did they produce
Serbellonus was a notable exception, because he assumed solid, opaque their ow n light independently o f the Sun?
planets and stars. He insisted that the light o f the Sun reaches all the planets In turning to this topic we must, at the outset, address a problem o f
and even the fixed stars. Because planets, including the Sun and stars, are terminology. The term planeta (plural: planetae) was always used to signify
opaque and solid bodies, they reflect the Sun’s light and are illuminated. a planet, never a fixed star, whereas the expression Stella f x a (plural: stellae
As opaque bodies, the planets and the fixed stars do not receive solar light fixa e) was the most common expression for a fixed star.9* But three terms
into their depths but only at the surface, where it is reflected. Thus Ser­ caused considerable confusion, namely aster (plural: astra); sidus (plural: sidera
bellonus rejected the idea o f transparent planets that could receive solar light or sydera)-, and Stella (plural: stellae). At some point in the historical evolution
into their interiors.91 The planets were bright because o f reflected light and o f these terms, they seem to have had more or less specific meanings.
also, presumably, because o f their ow n proper light, which, as w e saw, is According to Macrobius (Commentary on the Dream o f Scipio, bk. 1, ch. 14,
probably identical with sunlight. But how could planets produce their own 1952, 147), the term Stella was used for the five planets as well as for those
proper light if the Sun’s light did not penetrate below their opaque surfaces? fixed stars that Ptolemy had not included in his forty-eight constellations.
If Serbellonus retained the two kinds o f light, namely direct sunlight and Thus Stella could be used for five o f the planets (presumably not for the
sunlight transformed into a planet’s proper light, he did not explain how Sun and Moon, however) and for all fixed stars not in a constellation
recognized by Ptolemy. But the terms aster and sidera (sidus, but Macrobius
varias partes, ut macula appareat et lumen non recipiat secundum totam protunditatem
sicut recipiunt alii planetae.” 92. In the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, Bricot. De celo, bk. 2, i486, 22r, col. 1,
88. “ Stellae et planetae omnes habent lumen ex se.” Serbellonus \De caelo, disp. i, qu. 5, art. who seems to have assumed that the Sun was the source o f light for the planets, also
i], 1663, 2:46, col. 1, par. 3. mentions a challenge to the latter interpretation when he reports the opinion o f those
89. “ Omnia sydera illuminari etiam a sole.” Ibid., col. 2, par. 7. I have interpreted the term who argue that only the Moon receives light from the Sun, whereas the other planets
sydera to be equivalent to stellae et planetae, in note 88. have their own proper light independently o f the Sun. He does not mention Avicenna
90. After declaring that “ Stellae et planetae omnes habent lumen ex se” (see n. 88), Serbellonus or Macrobius. In the seventeenth century, Arriaga thought that it was doubtful that
justifies his assertion: “ quia sunt eiusdem substantiae, soliditatis et opacitatis; magis enim planets (planetae) derived their light from themselves (An planetae habeant a se aliquam
et minus non variant speciem. Ergo non est maior ratio cur lux sit proprietas solis et non lucem plane dubium). Arriaga, De caelo, disp. 1, sec. 6, 1632, 507, col. 2.
aliorum syderum.” Serbellonus, ibid., 2:46, col. 1, par. 3. 93. Occasionally we see an expression such as astra fixa, which appears in Mastrius and
91. “ Dico igitur lumen solis recipi in sola superficie, sive planetarum, sive stellarum fixarum.” Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 3, 1727, 3:495, col. 2, par. 78. Some version o f the
Ibid., 2:47, col. 1, par. 10. adjective fixus, fixa. Jixum almost invariably signified a fixed star.
414 THE CELESTIA L REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 415
actually uses the plural form) were to be applied only to the fixed stars, the sense o f “ fixed stars,” but only o f planets.97 Indeed, the term planeta
with aster indicating a single star and sidera a constellation o f them, such as occurs only once in the question, in the expression “ stelle sive planete que
Aries or Taurus. Although M acrobius’s distinctions were repeated, albeit sunt sub sole scilicet Venus et M ercurius,” which the translator correctly
with some occasional changes and distortions,94 they gradually dissolved, renders as “ the stars or planets which are under the sun, such as Venus or
and the three terms came to be used indifferently for planets and fixed stars. M ercury.” 98 The term Stella is thus a synonym for planeta and turns up in
The term planeta was frequently replaced by one o f our three terms, es­ such expressions as Stella Saturni (the star, or planet, o f Saturn).99 Oresme's
pecially Stella. For example, when Melchior Cornaeus (De coelo, tract. 4, question, which at first glance seems directly pertinent to our present con­
disp. 2, qu. 4, dub. 9, 1657, 512) discussed “ An stellae accipiant lumen a cern about the source o f the light o f the fixed stars, is in fact irrelevant.100
sole,” he was actually asking “ Whether the planets receive light from the This difficulty was already inherent in thirteenth-century discussions about
Sun” and was in no manner concerned with the fixed stars. Here, as in the luminosity o f celestial bodies. Thus Bartholomew the Englishman held
most instances, Stella signifies planet rather than star. Amicus, who usually that the stellae are essentially self-luminous but required supplemental light
used the term Stella for planet, introduces at one point the term sydera and from the Sun. However, in declaring that all stellae except the Moon have
consciously uses it to represent both planets and fixed stars.95 In the course their own proper light, Bartholomew means to include only the planets
o f two successive sentences, Johannes Velcurio describes Jupiter and Mars, under the term stellae.10' For the most part, then, Stella means planet rather
respectively, as sydus Iovis and Stella Martis. And within a few lines, he again than fixed star, usage which continues into the seventeenth century.
speaks ot the lumen syderum as derived from the Sun and also proclaims that Inspection o f medieval discussions about the light sources ot celestial
all the astra are equally lucid. Velcurio used these three terms indifferently bodies reveals that a considerable number o f scholastics discussed the light
for the planets and the term stellae Jixae for the fixed stars.9'1 Although the source o f the planets but that few included the fixed stars. Interest in the
context often determines the meaning o f these terms, occasions arise where light source or sources o f the fixed stars becomes manifest in the late
an author may say something about stellae and leave it to the reader to sixteenth century, when the Coim bra Jesuits declare that the more com­
determine whether he is referring to planets or fixed stars alone, or both. mon opinion o f astronomers was that both the fixed stars and the planets
With this in mind, it appears that few in the Middle Ages inquired about receive their light from the Sun,102 an opinion that was echoed some
the source o f light for the fixed stars, although it may appear they do, seventy years later by George de Rhodes, who declared that “ all the stars,
because o f these terminological problems just described. Thus when Oresme both fixed and errant, seem to have no proper light but are all illuminated
discusses at some length the question “ Consequenter queritur utrum omnes by the light [lux] o f the Sun.” '°- De Rhodes insisted that the fixed stars
stelle habeant lumen a sole vel alique ex se,” which the translator renders were not so far away that the Sun's light could not reach them, as some
as “ Consequently, it is sought whether all the stars receive their light from argued. In a slight modification o f that opinion, Pedro Hurtado de Men­
the Sun [or whether] some stars [produce light] in themselves,” inspection doza also assumed that the sidereal heaven had its light from the Sun but
ot the whole question reveals that Oresme is not speaking o f “ stars,” in allowed that each star might have a very small amount within i t s e l f 04

94. According to Stahl (Macrobius. Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, 1952, 147, n. 41), 97. Oresme, De celo, bk. 2. qu. 11, 1965, 637 (Latin), 638 (English).
Isidore o f Seville and Honorius o f Autun were influenced by Macrobius’s distinctions. 98. Ibid., 64s (Latin). 646 (English).
In an interesting passage, Vincent o f Beauvais. Speculum naturale. bk. is, ch. 16. 1024, 99. Oresme also uses the term astra. as in the expression "Septimo sol lucet ex se, ergo et
col. 1102, claiming to draw upon Isidore o f Seville, says that a Stella is anv single star; alia astra." But astra is simply a synonym for Stella, and both mean planet. Kren translates
sydera are many stars, such as the Pleiades; and astra are great stars, such as Onon and both stelle and aster as “ star” or “ stars." undoubtedly because they both subsume the
Luciter. He goes on to say that “ authors confuse these names and use astra for stellae and term "planet." But in the context o f Oresme’s discussion, they can only mean planet.
stellae for sydera.” Vincent seems to identify all three terms with the fixed stars. Imme­ 100. Indeed, we have already considered Oresme’s important question with respect to the
diately after, however, he declares that “ Stars [stellae] do not have proper light but are Moon and the planets.
said to be illuminated by the Sun, just like the M oon." Here stellae seems to signify the 101. “ Unde omnes stellae habent lumen proprium praeter lunam. Et quamvis stellae ex se
planets. sint luminosae, ad consummationem tamen suae luminositatis recipiunt complementum
95. Because o f its obvious relevance to our discussion. I translate the passage: “ O f stars ab ipso Sole.” Bartholomew the Englishman. De rerum propnetatibus, bk. 8, ch. 33, 1601.
[syderum], some always preserve the same distance between them, as do the 'stars o f the 420.
firmament’ [sydera firmamenti]. Some [however] do not preserve the same distance, as [for 102. For the passage, see note 53 ot this chapter.
example] the planets [planetae]. The stars [sydera] o f the first kind are moved in the same 103. “ Astra omnia, turn fixa. turn errantia, nullam videntur habere lucem propriam, sed ea
way, because if [they were moved] in a different way, they would not preserve the same omnia llluminan a luce solis.” De Rhodes. De coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. r. sec. 3, 1671,
distance. But it is not so with the other [stars, or sydera, namely the planets] because they 284, col. 2.
must necessarily be moved with different motions, because otherwise the difference of 104. “ Coelum svdereum nullam aut exiguam habere nativam lucem.” And some lines below,
distance and nearness could not be caused." Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 7, dubit. 2, he declares; “ Non propterea nego aliquid nativae lucis sydenbus, sed lllud dico esse
art. 1, 1626, 338, col. r. perexiguum coilatum cum lumine quod a sole mutuantur. ” Hurtado de Mendoza. De
96. See Velcurio, Physics, 1.SS4, 7b. col. 2 and 77, col. 1. coelo, disp. 2, sec. 5, 1615, 375, col. 1, par. 64.
416 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL LIGHT 417
He based his argument on Genesis 1 .14-15, where, after God had already body, the Sun, Aversa assumes that every fixed star is transparent and
created the firmament, he is said to have created the luminaries in the possesses its own source o f light.
firmament to provide light for it. Thus the firmament is seen only by Giovanni Baptista Riccioli considered the opinions o f Galileo, Kepler,
virtue o f the luminaries, or the Sun and Moon. If it had its ow n native and Descartes, all o f whom assumed that the fixed stars possessed their own
light, it would have been seen before the creation o f the luminaries. light and received none from the Sun, as far more probable than any other
Nevertheless, the stars may have a very small amount o f light, which is, interpretation. In addition to his acceptance o f their reasons, Riccioli thought
however, insufficient to make them visible to us without the Sun. Thomas it was more appropriate “ to the majesty o f the Divine Creator that there
Com pton-Carleton was less tentative in his attribution o f some light to not be a single light for the stars but that a multitude should light in the
the fixed stars when he said that “ neither the Moon, nor the other planets, manner o f the Sun. N or do they [the fixed stars] require another source o f
nor even the fixed stars receive all their light from the Sun,” 10510 6 thus light other than God, the Father o f all lights.” T o strengthen his argument,
implying that the fixed stars receive part o f their light from some other Riccioli quotes from Baruch 3.34-35, where it is said that “ The stars shone
source or from themselves. ,°'> at their appointed stations and rejoiced; he [God] called them and they
But scholastic authors were hardly ot one mind, and some were con­ answered, ‘We are here!’ Joyfully they shone for their M aker.” ,ov The stars
vinced that the fixed stars were self-luminous. In 1627, a few years before were thus capable o f shining with their own light and had no need o f the
Galileo likened tne fixed stars to “ so many Suns” (Dialogue, Third Day Sun.
[Drake], 1962, 327), thus implying their self-luminosity, Aversa left no Johannes Poncius, and perhaps Roderigo de Arriaga, also joined the ranks
doubt as to his interpretation: the fixed stars probably are not illuminated o f those scholastics who regarded the fixed stars as essentially self-luminous
by the Sun but are selt-luminous.10710 8The planets are related to the Sun, bodies. Poncius couched his statement in a manner analogous to the way
which lies in their midst and with respect to which they move. Therefore in which he identified the source o f planetary light. Just as the Sun is
it is proper that they should receive their light from the Sun. But the principally (principaliter) the source o f planetary light, so also do “ the fixed
fixed stars have no such relationship to the Sun and derive no light from stars have their light principally from themselves.” '" Poncius describes this
it; rather they have their own proper light. Moreover, by contrast to the opinion as “ more com m on.” " 2 He could find no experience that would
opaque bodies o f the planets, which receive light only on their surfaces, lead us to believe that the fixed stars receive their light from the Sun. But
the fixed stars are transparent bodies that are suffused with light through­ he invokes one experience that indicates that the fixed stars are self-
out their depth. '0* Thus the transparency that Albertus Magnus, Albert luminous, namely the fact that they are visible at noon from the deepest
o f Saxony, and a number o f early modern scholastics attributed to the w e lls ."3
planets, Aversa assigns only to the fixed stars. And whereas Albertus and
Albert filled the transparent planetary bodies with light from another
109. New English Bible, 1976, p. 179 (of the Apocrypha).
n o. Indeed, Riccioli (Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 6, ch. 2, 1651, 395, col. 2) thought
105. “ Nec luna, aut alij planetae, nec stellae etiam fixae omnem lucem suam accipiunt a sole.” it natural to ask which o f these two lights was stronger, that o f the Sun or that o f
Compton-Carleton, De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 3, 1649, 403, col. 1. the fixed stars. He concluded that they might have light o f equal strength (ibid., 396,
106. Compton-Carleton offers no further elaboration. col. 1).
107. In the late sixteenth century, Giordano Bruno (1548-1600), and perhaps even Nicholas i n . “ Stellae fixae habent lucem suam principaliter a seipsis.” Poncius, De coelo, disp. 22,
o f Cusa (1401-1464) in the fifteenth century, had assumed that all stars were Suns. See qu. 8, 1672, 625, col. 1, par. 74.
Dick, 1982. 108 for Bruno, and ibid., 40, tor Cusa, who assumed that all celestial bodies 112. “ Haec est communior.” Ibid.
were like the earth, which he characterized as a star that was self-luminous. By impli­ 113. “ Et non constat ulla experientia quod stellae illae mutuent a sole suam lucem; imo potius
cation, then, all stars should be self-luminous. suffragatur experientia opposito, nam in ipso meridie ex altissimis puteis stellae fixae
108. “ Deinde haec omnia nullatenus procedunt de stellis fixis atque adeo nullum prorsus videri possunt." Ibid. It is on the basis o f this same argument that Arriaga may be
indicium suppetit ut lumen suum dicantur a sole recipere. Et quidem verisimile videri classified among those who believed that the fixed stars are self-luminous. He thought
poterit bene quidem planetas, non autem Stellas fixas illuminari a sole quia planetae it probable that “ the light o f these stars [stellae] is independent o f the Sun.” Although
agnoscunt pro suo principe solem et in medio ilium continent et in suo motu habent the passage, which follows, may also be interpreted to apply to the superior planets
respectum ad solem bene ergo putari debent ab illo et per ilium lucere. At stellae fixae instead o f the fixed stars - the term stellae is equally applicable to both - the fixed stars
per se propriam agunt aciem et non habent huiusmodi respectum ad solem. Censeri seems more appropriate in light o f Arriaga’s example, which is the same as that o f
ergo potius debent non illius beneficio sed propria virtute lucere. Et iuxta hoc planetae Poncius. Here is the relevant passage; “ An planetae habeant a se aiiquam lucem plane
quidem did debebunt corpora opaca atque in solo externo ambitu lumine illinita. Stellae dubium. Probabile est habere quia si vera est sententia docens etiam in meridie videri
autem fixae esse corpora perspicua et in tota sua mole ac profunditate eodem suo lumine ex profundis puteis Stellas, cum ipsae sint supra solem et tunc a sole non respiciantur ne
perfusa. Iuxta id quod dicebamus quaestione superiori sect. 2. Et hoc etiam iuuare potest illuminentur (suppono enim solem esse opacum a tergo, ut possit ad nos melius lucem
ad rationem reddcndam cur maxime stellae fixae scintillent et sol non solum scintillare mittere), necessarium est ut ilia lux stellarum sit independens a sole.” Arriaga, De caelo,
sed et veluti ebullire cernatur.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 3, 1627, 173, col. 2-174, disp. 1, sec. 6, 1632, 507, col. 2. For Compton-Carleton’s use o f the well argument,
col. 1. see note 124.
418 THE C EL EST IA L REGION CELEST IAL LIGHT 419
By the time Poncius published his relevant work, in 1642 and 1643,1,4 it observations associated primarily with the names o f Copernicus, Brahe,
is likely that the assumption o f the fixed stars as self-luminous rather than and Galileo.
illuminated by the Sun was indeed “ more com m on.” If it was not more
common among scholastic authors, it was nevertheless widely accepted.
H ow was it that the Sun, which had previously been thought to be the IV . Is the lig h t o f the stars and planets
primary light o f the world on which other bodies depended for their illu­ o f the sam e species?
mination, came to be perceived as no more light-giving than a fixed star
and perhaps even less so? From the time o f Richard o f Middleton in the thirteenth century, those
The explanation may he in the newly developed ideas about a vastly who attributed a certain degree o f weak self-luminosity to the planets and
expanded universe that had its roots in the Copernican theory. Because who also assumed the Sun as the primary source o f planetary light had
no stellar parallax could be detected from the earth's orbital motion, an seemingly recognized at least two different species o f light in the heavens.12,0
enormous spatial gap had to be assumed between Saturn and the fixed Although this might have seemed a logical consequence based on the dis­
s t a r s . I n the Copernican scheme, the universe was of enormous size, tinction o f two different lights, it was probably a minority opinion.
perhaps even unmeasurable, and the fixed stars were a vast distance from As with almost all scholastic issues, arguments for another interpretation
the Sun. But it was not merely a matter o f distance. Tycho Brahe, an could usually be formulated with some plausibility within the Aristotelian
opponent o f the Copernican system, showed that if the Copernican scheme system. In this case, however, it was probably a strong desire to treat nature
were true, a third-magnitude star would have a diameter 200 times greater in the simplest terms and therefore to subsume all light under a single
than that o f the Sun, which he thought absurd."" It would seem an odd species. Thomas Compton-Carleton, for example, insisted that, with the
universe in which a relatively small Sun could illuminate huge stars so exception o f the light in the empyrean heaven, which differs from the light
very tar a w a y ."’ o f the physical world, there is only one species o f light, not only in the
But scholastics were not Copermcans. and those who followed Tycho heavens but also in the sublunar w orld .1' 1 The light for all these bodies is
may have known that he had not only assumed a smaller distance o f the derived ultimately from the Sun. But what o f the claim that the planets
fixed stars than was traditional but also reduced their size ."' What reason have their own light, independently o f the Sun? Does this not make it differ
would scholastic natural philosophers have had to assume that the fixed in species from the light o f the Sun? In a strange reply, Compton-Carleton
stars were self-luminous and independent o f the Sun? Perhaps Galileo’s explains that the natural light o f the planet is intensified and supplemented
analysis of his telescopic observations impressed them. After all, Galileo, by solar light, which could not occur if they were really distinct in species, 122
and later Kepler, had declared that the stars were themselves Su n s."<; As a point that Amicus, who also argued that celestial light does not differ
Suns, the fixed stars would provide their own light. specifically, elaborated some years before when he remarked that an internal
No compelling argument or overwhelm ing piece o f evidence promoted light could be intensified by an external light only if they were o f the same
and encouraged the partial scholastic acceptance o f self-luminous fixed stars. species. T o be intensified to a more intense degree implies that the thing
Indeed, during the Middle Ages the question about the light source o f the intensified and the thing intensifying are the same kind o f thing - that is,
fixed stars was rarely, if ever, raised. Those to whom the question did occur in the same species.1-’
probably assumed that the Sun was the source o f all stellar light. N ot until 120. For example. Richard o f Middleton emphatically distinguished two species ot light. See
the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century did the issue acquire a measure note 40. this chapter.
121. The Coimbra Jesuits (De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 7. qu. 9, art. 2, 1598, 301) adopted a similar
of prominence, and this solely because of revolutionarv new concepts and
attitude, holding that all light produced by the forces o f nature belonged to the same
species. After expressing some doubts, they even included the lights associated with
“ the glorious bodies. ” whose light was said to be as lucid as that o f the Sun and therefore
1 14. Although I have used the 1072 edition, the first edition of 1 volumes appeared in 1042- in the same species.
1643 (see Lohr. 19NX, 302). 122. “ Quoad lucent autem aliorum coelorum probatur earn specie non distingui. Recipiunt
1 is. See Van Helden, 19X3, 40-48. quippe a sole lucem. sicut aer et res omnes sublunares. Ergo non est cur lux ilia sit
110. Ibid., 51-32. diversae ratioms .1 luce solis. Dices primo secundum nos singuli caeli et astra habent
1 1?• Otto von Guericke emphasized the enormous distance between the Sun and the nearest aliquid lucis ex se. ergo 1II.1 saltern erit diversae speciei secundum diversitatem substantiae
fixed star as a major factor in denying that sunlight could light the stars, even though a qua oritur. Negatur tamen consequentia ilia enim lux intenditur a luce solis quod tamen
it lit the planets. Guericke, 1072, 229, col. 1. fieri non posset si esset specie adaequate distincta.” Compton-Carleton, De coelo, disp.
118. Van Helden, 1985, 51. 2, sec. 3, 1649. 4^3. col. 2.
119. Guericke (1672, 230, col. 1) cites both Galileo and Kepler as among those who identified 123. “ Secundo quia lumen intrinsecum intenditur ab extnnseco, ergo sunt eiusdem speciei.
the stars as Suns. For the former he cites the Sitiercus mitiaus G010), for the latter, nam intensio non tit nisi per gradus qualitans unius speciei.” Amicus, De coelo, tract. f>,
Disscrtatio cum Xuncio sidereo ( i O i o ). qu. 5, dubit. 2. 1020. 305, col. 1.
420 THE CELESTIA L REGIO N CELESTIAL LIGHT 421

But what about the seeming variety o f lights in the heavens, namely the claims made in the Copernican and Tychonic systems and knew about
light o f the Sun, the planets, and the fixed stars: Are they not different? In Galileo’s telescopic discoveries. Despite their commitment to Aristotelian
denying any differences, Com pton-Carleton points to the rainbow, which, cosm ology on traditional and religious grounds, scholastics sometimes
although it contains different colors, is produced by one kind o f light. adopted ideas from the new science and incorporated them into their own
Differences in light are only apparent and arise from differences in the cosmic scheme without great difficulty. As a consequence, scholastic cos­
properties o f bodies, especially density and transparency. M oreover, the m ology encompassed both traditional and new elements, even though the
light o f the Sun does not destroy the light o f the planets and fixed stars, latter were rather poorly integrated into the Aristotelian system. It is difficult
although it may seem to do so, because their light is not seen during the to imagine how a hierarchically based Aristotelian cosm ology could easily
day. But if you descend into a deep well, where the Sun’s light cannot reconcile a planetary system which had the Sun, the fourth planet from the
reach, you will perceive the stars clearly, as at night. What makes the stars earth, as the primary source o f all planetary light and could also assume
and planets invisible during the day is the principle that if a sensible thing, self-luminosity for the fixed stars. The relationship between the fixed stars
say the Sun’s light, exceeds by a great amount a lesser sensible thing, say and the Sun was thus complex. T o add to the difficulties, Galileo had called
the light o f individual planets and fixed stars, the greater will drastically the fixed stars Suns. Did this imply that the Sun was therefore a fixed star?
interfere with the smaller.124 For Copernicans, who assumed an immobile Sun, the Sun could indeed be
conceived as a fixed star, but not for Aristotelians, who assumed a Sun that
moved around a stationary earth. For the most part, scholastics who thought
the fixed stars self-luminous avoided such questions and their implications.
V . C elestial lig h t as a m ix o f o ld and n ew They coped with questions about light in the usual ad hoc manner. Although
Despite their contributions, however, most scholastic arguments about the light was perhaps the most important and spectacular attribute o f the heav­
sources o f light were, as we have seen, not technical but general, analogical, ens,125 there were other properties and powers that marked out the heavens
and scriptural. Raphael Aversa, for example, did not argue that the fixed as special. It is now time to describe them.
stars were Suns. Indeed, he assumed they were totally different: whereas 125. Among the visible qualities, Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 3, 1627, 133, col. 2, called it
the Sun was an opaque body, the fixed stars were transparent and self- “ the most noted.”
luminous. For thinkers who followed a centuries-long tradition about the
hierarchy o f the heavens, it may well have seemed perfectly plausible for
the higher, and therefore nobler, fixed stars to have their own light rather
than be dependent on light from a planet so much closer to the earth and
therefore presumably less perfect. But Aversa joined Galileo in the belief
that the fixed stars were self-luminous and not lighted by the Sun. In this
decision, he was probably influenced by the controversies and debates con­
cerning the new concepts and observations that had emerged since the end
o f the sixteenth century.
What applies to the fixed stars is equally applicable to the entire range o f
problems about celestial light and its manifestation in all celestial bodies.
Many, though by no means all, scholastic natural philosophers in the sev­
enteenth century mention the names o f Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, and
Kepler. Directly or indirectly, they were aware o f the new and dramatic

124. “ Dices secundo apparet alterius quasi rationis lux in stellis ac veluti fulva. Contra etiam
in iride apparet lux diverse rationis et tamen non est, sed prorsus eiusdem. Hoc ergo
solum provenit ex diversa dispositione corporis in quo recipitur secundum diversam
temperiem, densitatis. diaphaneitatis, etc. Nec lux solis destruit lucem planetarum aut
stellarum firmamenti quod interdiu non appareant, sed hoc ex eo provenit: quod maius
sensibile, praesertim si vaide magnus sit excessus, impediat minus. Unde si quis medio
die descenderet in protiindum puteum quo lux solis non pertingeret aeque clare. ut aiunt,
perciperet Stellas, ac nocte. ” Compton-Carleton, De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 3, 1649, 403,
col. 2-404, col. 1.
PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 423
1 7
origin or composition were drawn from the elements.” 4 A t approximately
the same time, John o f Sacrobosco declared in his famous Sphere that
“ Around the elementary region revolves with continuous circular motion
The properties and qualities the ethereal, which is lucid and immune from all variation in its immutable
essence. And it is called ‘Fifth Essence’ by the philosophers.” 5 Elaborating
on these few sentences, Christopher Clavius reveals that the ether was
o f celestial bodies, and the understood in much the same w ay nearly four centuries later.6 He distin­
guished five major properties, the first o f which is that the ethereal region
dimensions o f the world encloses the elementary region as its container and is therefore its place. As
the place o f the elementary region, philosophers consider the ethereal zone
more excellent, because it is removed from the incessantly changing region
o f the elements and also because it exists among the divine movers o f the
orbs that enjoy the best life. The second o f its properties is light, which is
“ One may find it surprising,” wrote Friedrich Solmsen in his informative much nobler than that o f the elements. As the third property o f the celestial
study o f Aristotle’s physical system o f the world, “ that Aristotle does not ether, Clavius mentions its capacity for avoiding change: it cannot be altered,
say more about the nature o f the heavenly bodies.” ' O n this subject, A r­ or diminished, or increased, or generated or corrupted, all o f which attri­
istotle’s commentators had no choice but to find their ow n way. butes are the opposite o f those in the four elements. Its fourth property is
its continuous circular motion, which is the cause o f continuous generation
and corruption and stands in contrast to the natural rectilinear motion o f
the inferior, terrestrial region, which is not perpetual but always comes to
an end. As its fifth and final property, Clavius observes that philosophers
I. The celestial ether
call the ethereal region a fifth essence. For centuries, scholastics had thought
Because planets, stars, and orbs were assumed to be constituted o f a special o f the celestial ether in virtually the same terms.
celestial ether, I have had occasion to mention it at different points in this U p to this point, we have had occasion to consider the celestial ether in
study. It is now time for a more systematic examination o f this extraordinary a number o f different contexts. In Chapter 10, w e examined its incorruptible
substance.12 nature, and in Chapter 12 considered whether or not it was perceived as
With the notable exception o f Robert Grosseteste, and perhaps a few matter (for the most part, it was) and whether that incorruptible celestial
others during the Middle Ages, the celestial region was assumed to be substance was a composite o f matter and form, and whether celestial matter
composed o f ether, rather than o f fire or some combination o f the four was different from or identical to corruptible terrestrial matter. And in
elements.3 In his popular encyclopedia, Bartholom ew the Englishman de­ Chapter 14, we pondered the fundamental question as to the hardness or
scribed Aristotle’s ether as “ something beyond the lunar globe that is o f a fluidity o f the ethereal orbs. In these primarily metaphysical discussions,
separate nature from the nature o f the inferior elements. Thus the ether is the level o f discourse was mostly abstract and general. We must now ap­
neither heavy nor light, neither rare nor dense, nor is it divisible by the proach the ether as a substance comprised o f a large number o f seemingly
penetration o f another body. N o corruption or alteration, universally or different bodies: planets, stars, and orbs. Indeed, one may even ask whether
particularly, affects the ethereal nature, which would happen to it if its the waters above the firmament, which form the crystalline or ninth orb,
could be formed o f the same matter as the firmament, which separates the
waters forming the crystalline orb from the waters below .7 If the ether is
1. Solmsen, i960, 316, n. 50.
2. For Solmsen’s description o f Aristotle’s conception o f the ether, or “ first body,” as the
latter called it, and the role it played in his system, see ibid., 287—309. 4. “ Quicquid enim supra lunarem globum est. naturae est separatae a natura inferiorum
3. Grosseteste, Degeneratione stellarum, 1912, 33, says that “ a star does not possess the nature elementorum. Unde aether neque est grave neque est leve; neque rarum, neque densum;
o f a fifth essence” (Stella autem non est de natura quintae essentiae). Indeed he also argues neque per alterius corporis penetrationem divisible. Naturam enim aetheream nulla in-
(ibid.) that stars are not only composites o f matter and form but also composed o f elements, greditur corruptio vel alterado universaliter vel particulariter, quod ei accideret si ex de­
by which he clearly means elements that do not differ from our terrestrial elements. mentis compositionem aut originem contraxisset. ” Bartholomew the Englishman, De rerum
Grosseteste was but following the earlier Platonic tradition characteristic o f the early Middle proprietatibus, bk. 8, ch. 5 (“ De aethere” ), 1601, 381.
Ages, which became popular again in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when the $. Sacrobosco [Sphere, ch. 1], 1949, 119.
observation o f seemingly real changes in the sky undermined the notion o f celestial in­ 6. What Follows appears in Clavius [Sphere, ch. 1], Opera, 1611, 3:20.
corruptibility and consequently also o f the ether that was allegedly incorruptible. 7. At first glance, this question seems to cry out For a response, but to my knowledge it was

422
424 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BO DIES 425

a single substance, w hy do many o f the celestial bodies appear to differ to identify it as a problem and offered little help in its resolution. Scholastic
from one another? natural philosophers devoted no questions to it. And yet the problem was
If the medieval followers o f Aristotle had taken his statements about the implicitly acknowledged, because it was discussed in an indirect manner.
ether in De caelo literally, or as Bartholom ew the Englishman and Clavius Celestial properties have tw o distinct aspects, visible and invisible. The first
understood them, they would have been compelled to conclude that all o f these concerns such visually detectable variations as brightness and color
celestial bodies and the ether as a w hole possessed the same properties. For, among stars and planets or the radical differences between the Sun and the
on the assumption o f ethereal homogeneity, it follows that the ether and Moon; the second applies to latent and invisible properties and powers that
all the celestial bodies within it are identical in appearance and power and were assumed to inhere in some sense in each celestial body and which were
in all distinguishable qualities. And yet Aristotle him self cast doubt upon thought to produce changes in the terrestrial region. Although visible and
this interpretation when, in his Meteorologica (i-3.340b.6-10), he indicated invisible celestial properties were rarely, if at all, distinguished, I shall devote
that the ether was not uniform in quality, especially in those parts bordering a separate chapter (Ch. 19) to the influence o f the celestial region on the
on the terrestrial region. Gross observation, moreover, made it apparent terrestrial, which is largely concerned with latent properties and influences.
that the celestial bodies did indeed differ: the Sun from the M oon, and the In the broadest sense, any scholastic natural philosopher who gazed sky­
tw o latter bodies from the other five planets, which, in turn, seemed to ward on any clear evening could see a panorama o f wandering planets and
vary from each other. For a very long time, astrologers had forecast their fixed stars, between which there were vast tracts o f darkness. As we have
predictions and assessments on the basis o f assumed differences in the pow ­ already seen, Aristotle had assumed that this entire celestial region is filled
ers and appearances o f the planets and stars. Aristotle him self recognized w ith a fifth element, or incorruptible, pure, transparent ether. The ether
such differences. The author o f the De proprietatibus elementorum, falsely exists in the form o f gigantic but invisible spheres, within which are embed­
attributed to Aristotle during the M iddle Ages, insisted that the M oon and ded the visible stars and planets. As the spheres turn with circular motion,
other planets diverged from the Sun and that the planetary orbs differed they carry around all the visible celestial bodies. But the concept o f a pure,
from the planets they carried, because the former, although they receive homogeneous, transparent ether posed a monumentally difficult problem,
light, are not illuminated as are the planets, an indication that their substances one that Aristotle ignored but Alexander o f Aphrodisias did not, as we
varied. Indeed, the anonymous author was prepared to distinguish three learn from Simplicius, who reports that Alexander asked how celestial dif­
distinct celestial substances.8 H ow, then, was this apparent conflict between ferences could occur in the simple celestial ether. If celestial bodies differed
Aristotle’s theory o f a uniform, homogeneous, and incorruptible ether rec­ in density or rarity or with respect to color and other properties, how could
onciled with observed differences among the planets, stars, and even the such differences occur in an element in which no changes were thought
orbs themselves? possible because no contrary properties could exist therein?9
We must first recognize that what I have characterized as an “ apparent Alexander’s response, with which Simplicius concurred, was destined to
conflict” was rarely made explicit during the Middle Ages. Aristotle failed have some influence on medieval natural philosophers. They were agreed
that contraries, such as white and black or hotness and coldness, could
ignored. It seems implausible to suppose that the waters above the firmament could be
made o f the same substance as the firmament itself, that is, that both could be composed coexist if they were not in the same subject, that is, not in the same body.
o f an identical celestial ether. The firmament, after all, was created to form a barrier between The same principle applies to the celestial region. For example, the Sun
the waters above and below. Thus no single celestial ether could have formed both the might possess hotness, but never coldness, and, simultaneously, Saturn
crystalline sphere and the firmament, whether the latter was interpreted as the eighth sphere
o f the fixed stats only or as comprised o f the fixed stars and planets. might possess coldness but never hotness. Under these circumstances, hot­
8. Here is the complete text o f this unusual passage: "lam ergo apparet et est manifestum ness and coldness are present in the heavens simultaneously, but because
quod substantia corporis stellarum et lunae est alia a substantia corporis Solis, sicut candela each member o f the pair is in a different body, they cannot cause generation
quando opponitur ei speculum. Illuminatur enim speculum a substantia candelae et est alia
a substantia speculi. Iam ergo apparet nunc quod illud quod diximus et quod ostensum or corruption. Similarly, if density exists in one part o f the heavens, or in
est quod substantia corporis stellarum et lunae est alia a substantia corporis Solis. Et similiter
est substantia corporis orbis absque substantia corporis stellarum et lunae, quod est quia 9. See Simplicius [De celo, bk. 2, comment. 28], 1540, 69V, col. 2-701-, col. 2, especially 70r,
substantia corporis orbis ex substantia corporis stellarum et lune recipit lumen et non col. 1, where Simplicius says: “ Dubitat bene Alexander quomodo simplici existente quinta
lllustratur splendore sicut illustratur corpora stellarum et similiter oportet quod substantia dicta substantia circulariter mobilis corporis tanta apparet differentia corporis astrorum ad
sit corporis orbis alia a substantia corporis Solis, lam ergo apparet per ista accidentia et celeste. Si autem differunt totaliter spissitudinibus aut raritatibus aut secundum colores aut
has inquisitiones quod corpora eorum sunt diversarum substantiarum et quod orbis cum secundum quasdam alias tales species, quomodo simplicia dicuntur aut quodmodo im-
eis quae sunt in eo sunt tria elementa, scilicet tres substantie.” Averroes, Opera, 1562- passibilia siquidem passiones secundum has hunt differentias et sunt ditferentie passionum. ”
• 574. 7'-08r, col. 2-208V, col. 1, where the treatise is titled De causis libellus proprietatum Simplicius’s work was translated into Latin by William o f Moerbeke in 1271. Also see
elementorum Aristoteli ascriptus, although it was usually cited as De proprietatibus elementorum. Guthrie's summary o f the main points in Aristotle, De caelo [Guthrie], i960, 176-177.
426 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 427

one celestial body, and rarity exists simultaneously in another, they do not commonly said that the stars are denser parts o f the heaven, [with] the
oppose each other, nor is one transmuted into the other.10 Thus rarity and remaining parts rarer.” 14
density, and hotness and coldness, and other pairs ot contraries, could A denser part o f the ether was probably thought sufficiently dense to
seemingly exist in the heavens as long as no pair was embodied in the same reflect light and thereby make the planet or star visible to us, an idea that
celestial subject. As we saw earlier, numerous scholastic natural philosophers appears in the thirteenth century when Robertus Anglicus explained that
accepted some version ot this interpretation, frequently accepting it for “ a star which is in an orb does not differ from the orb except in greater
rarity and density but seldom it at all tor such opposites as hotness and and less aggregation o f light, and in greater and less density, wherefore a
coldness or wetness and dryness." But they were overwhelm ingly agreed star is an aggregation o f light in an orb with a greater density than the
that pairs o f contrary qualities could not be involved in the same subject, orb .” ' 3
for then change would indeed have to occur. With the idea tairlv well Despite the alleged common acceptance o f the opinion that a star is a
accepted that differences o f rarity and density could exist in the celestial denser aggregation o f ether, Mastrius and Bellutus, like Raphael Aversa
ether (though not in one and the same specific body), many in the Middle before them, rejected this interpretation. Aversa, as we saw (Ch. 10, Sec.
Ages and Renaissance went a step farther and assumed that the regions o f III. 3.b) denied the existence o f the quantitative opposites rarity and density
high ethereal density were celestial bodies. This was not an idea that drew in the heavens and replaced them with the qualitative opposites opacity
inspiration from Aristotle, who was content merely to assume that each (opacitas) and diaphaneity (diaphaneitas), or transparency, which he used to
star was composed o f the same substance as the orb that carried it.12 In the demonstrate the solidity o f the celestial spheres. Mastrius and Bellutus
later interpretations, a celestial body was thus a relatively small region o f adopted Aversa’s arguments and declared that “ all the stars [or planets] are
highly concentrated ether. Albert o f Saxony made this plain when he de­ not necessarily constituted from denser matter than are the heavens. Indeed,
clared that “ stars [or planets: astra] are denser parts o f their orbs,” and others [they are] o f the same density but differ with respect to opacity and dia­
agreed.13 B y the seventeenth century, Mastrius and Bellutus report: “ It is phaneity, so that the stars [or planets] are parts o f the opaque heaven, while
the orbs are absolutely diaphanous.” 16 The shift to opacity and diaphaneity
IO. “ Que autem in scientia contrariorum rationes albi ec nign, calidi et frigidi, velud distantes
in indistanti existentes possunt coexistere invicem, linmo et subsistunt. Sed neque in
instead o f density and rarity reflects the idea that what is transparent (for
scientia album ad id quod in materia est nigrum oppugnat, neque corrumpunt se invicem, example, crystal) may be denser than what is opaque (tor example, wood).
neque generantur ex invicem quia non sunt nata in eodem hen subiecto. Sic igitur etiam One could thus defend the solidity and hardness o f the celestial orbs by
in celo spissum, si forte et hie rarum sit neque oppugnant adinvicem neque transmutantur
in invicem quia non sunt nata fieri in eodem subiecto cum sint alterius nature existentia.
describing them as transparent, while the planets and stars could be described
Sed neque in celo spissum ad id quod ibi rarum oppugnat, neque statio ad motum quia as opaque and visible because they reflect light. O n this approach, a star or
et subiecta differentia secundum naturam sunt. Verbi gratia, poli et equinoctialis circulus.
Hi quidem ad stationem apti nad sunt, hie autem ad motum. Et sol, si forte, et astra,
que videntur spissa.” Simplicius, ibid., 7or, col. 2. ermost orb lie all the planetary orbs. Mars, for example (Albert provides no examples),
i r. For details and illustrations, see above, Chapter io, Section II.i.c. is merely a hole in the orb o f Mars through which we see the light o f the outermost orb.
12. See De caelo, 2.7.2893.12—14 [Guthrie], i960, where Aristotle concludes that “ The most Thus Mars is not truly a celestial body but is simply a hole or opening in a celestial orb
logical and consistent hypothesis is to make each star consist o f the body in which it through which the brilliant light o f the outermost sphere perpetually shines. Albert rejects
moves, since we have maintained that there is a body whose nature it is to move in a this theorv because it cannot account for the variations in lunar light or the differences
circle.” And yet we must observe that Jean Buridan ([De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 9], 1942. 41) in the colors o f the planets.
attributed to Aristotle the opinion that “ a star [or planet] is the denser part o f its orb” 14. “ Communiter dicitur Stellas esse partes coeli densiores, reliquas vero partes esse rariores.”
(unde Aristoteles ponit quod Stella est densior pars sui orbis) as did John Major when he Mastrius and Bellutus [De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 3], i 7 - 7 > 3 :495 < col. 1, par. 74. In
declared that “ according to him [Aristotle] a star is the denser part o f its orb” (Major agreement were the Conimbricenses [De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 7, qu. 1, art. 1], 1598, 194;
[De celo. bk. 2, qu. 6], 1526, sig. iiii verso, col. 1). As his source. Major cites the pseudo- IHuminatus Oddus [De coelo, disp. 1. dub. 10], 1672. 29, col. 1; and Bartholomew Amicus
Aristotelian De proprietatibus elementorum, which, in the version used here (see n. 8), lacks [De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 7, dubit. 3, art. 2], 1626, 208, col. 1. Riccioli, Almagestum novum,
such a statement. pars prior, bk. 6, ch. 2, 1651, 397, col. 2, attributes this opinion to Galileo, to Francisco
13. Ymaginandum est ergo quod astra sunt densiores partes suorum orbium.” Albert o f Suarez and to “ many others.” Galileo, however, does not seem to adopt this position
Saxony [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 20], 1518, 1 14V, col. 2. In the thirteenth century, Roger Bacon himself but has Sagredo attribute it to Simplicio (see Galileo Dialogue, First Day [Drake],
and Albertus Magnus described the star as the denser part o f its orb. For Bacon, see 1962, 43).
Section II and note 32, this chapter; for Albertus Magnus see his De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 15. See Robertus’s commentary on the Sphere ot Sacrobosco in Robertus Anglicus [Sphere.
3, ch. 4, 1971, 149, col. 2, where he argues that “ a star [or planet] is like the worthier lec. 2], 1949, 206; Latin (151). Bartholomew the Englishman, De rerum proprietatibus, bk.
part o f the o rb . . . and that the greater density is in the star itself’ (Et ideo dicenduni 8, ch. 33, 1601, 417, quoting someone he calls "Alphra” (for Alfraganus?) defines a star
videtur, quod Stella est quasi dignior pars orbis. . . . Et quod densitas maior est in ipsa as “ the light aggregated in its orb” (Secundum Alphra, Stella est lux aggregata in suo
Stella). orbe). As it stands, this statement indicates that the star is a concentration o f light and
Albert o f Saxony reports a second opinion (ibid.), in which the planets and stars are says nothing about density, as did Robertus Anglicus. Perhaps density is understood or
conceived as holes in their respective heavens or orbs. In this interpretation, the outermost implied.
sphere o f the world is assumed completely filled with light. Below this light-filled out- 16. Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 3, I 7 27 , 3:495 . col. 1, par. 76.
4 28 THE CELESTIAL R EG IO N PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BO D IES 429

planet may be no denser than the rest o f the orb, since density is not Although there were defenders o f the view that all celestial bodies belong
necessarily directly proportional to opacity. to the same species, and a few were convinced that neither opinion was
Thus from Aristotle’s theoretically assumed uniform, unchanging density demonstrable,17 19 most scholastic natural philosophers opted for diversity and
18
o f the heavens, scholastics came to assume both rarity and density in the differences o f species (for the arguments, see Ch. n , Sec. I.i). The denial
heavens, assigning rarity to the entire orb, except for the planet or star that that all celestial bodies belong to the same species was often based on obvious
it carried, which they assumed to be the densest part o f the orb. Because visual differences between planets and on the differences between their
o f anomalies in the relationship between transparency and density, where effects, especially the Sun and M oon. Thus Albert o f Saxony appeals to the
a denser object could be more transparent than a less dense object, some different properties and natural powers that planets and fixed stars possess.
scholastics, in the seventeenth century, w ould abandon the opposites density This is apparent by contrasting the Sun with the other planets. Whereas the
and rarity in favor o f opacity and diaphaneity (i.e., transparency). Sun provides its own light, the planets and M oon get their light from the
Sun. O bviously the Sun possesses radically different properties from the
other planets. But an ultimate, irreducible species ought to have similar
properties and accidents.20 As additional evidence, Albert points to the
II. Whether all celestial orbs and bodies belong diverse manner in which planets and stars influence contrary things and
to the same species species in the sublunar world. Indeed, the astrologers proceed on this as­
Whether the celestial ether was to be assumed homogeneous and o f the sumption. N o single ultimate species could embrace such diversity.
same nature throughout its vast extent seems at first glance a troubling Centuries later, George de Rhodes declared (De coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu.
problem in Aristotelian cosmology. The extent to which this was a problem 1, sec. 3, 1671, 284, col. 1) that the planets (astra), and presumably the fixed
is manifested by the frequency with which scholastics considered some form stars, differ in species from the invisible heavens in which they are embed­
o f the question “ D o planets, stars, and orbs belong to the same ultimate ded, and further observed that they differ from each other. These differences
species?” '7 If the ether was absolutely uniform and homogeneous, one were explained by the diversity o f properties which reside in the planets
would expect that all celestial bodies and orbs w ould be assumed in some and not in the surrounding heavens. For example, density and opacity are
fundamental sense identical and therefore members o f the same irreducible properties o f the planets but not o f the surrounding heavens, as are also
species. And yet, as w e saw in our earlier examination o f this theme (Ch. many occult properties. Thus certain planets have occult properties that can
n , Sec. 1.1, “ Are all celestial bodies in the same irreducible species?” ), most arouse storms and hail; the Sun and M oon, in different aspects, cause a
natural philosophers opposed the opinion o f Averroes and decided that one marvelous diversity in things; the polestar governs the needle that is attracted
species could not account for the great diversity o f bodies, orbs, and motions is the more traditional question as to whether the stars and planets differ from each other
in the heavens. Albeit in that earlier discussion major emphasis was on the in species.
sameness o f or differences among the visible celestial bodies themselves, 19. For Buridan and Oresme, see Chapter 11, Section I.i. In his discussion o f whether the
whole or partial orbs o f one planetary sphere differ from another in species. Amicus,
namely stars and planets, natural philosophers also made other comparisons.
ibid., dubit. 1, art. 2, 205, col. 1, cites as a third opinion the view that neither o f the first
Did the planetary orbs differ from one another? D id stars and planets differ two interpretations is demonstrable and that each is probable.
from the orbs that carried them? Indeed, natural philosophers even asked 20. “ Quantum ad tertium sit prima conclusio: sol est alterius speciei a luna et aliis steilis.
Istam conclusionem ponit et probat Aristoteles in libro De proprietatibus elementorum et
whether the three or more partial orbs o f a single planetary orb differed - dicit sic: dico autem quod substantia corporis Solaris est alia a substantia corporum stel-
that is, whether the two or more eccentric orbs and the single concentric larum et lune quod est quia sol de se habet lumen et lucem. Lumen autem lune et stellarum
orb o f a total planetary orb were sufficiently distinct to be assigned to est acquisitum a sole, ita quod Aristoteles fundat se super hoc quod substantie eiusdem
speciei specialissime debent habere accidentia propria et naturalia consimilia. Et si habeant
separate species.,s
dissimilia hoc est propter extranea agentia et concurrentia ad corruptionem vel propter
diversas dispositions sue materie aut suorum agentium talia autem non habet locum in
17. See “ Catalog ot'Questions,” qus. 91, 92, 94, 95, Appendix I. celo.” Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 19, 1518, H4r, cols. 1-2. In the printed
18. Amicus discussed all o f these questions in four dubitationes in De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 7, edition o f the De proprietatibus elementorum that appears in Averroes, Opera, 1562—1574,
1626, in the following order: (1) “ An coeli totales inter se specie distinguantur” (dubit. vol. 7, I found no such statement. In the next paragraph, Albert again (ibid., Ii4r, col.
1: 202, col. 1—205, col. 2), that is, whether the total heavens differ in species from each 2) appeals to its authority when he quotes the following line from it: “ and similarly, the
other; for example, does the total planetary orb o f Mars differ from the total planetary substance o f the body o f an orb is other than the substance ot the body ot the stars. ” For
orb of Jupiter; (2) “ De distinctione partium unius orbis qua totum coelum circumdant” the Latin text and the context o f this line, see note 34 in this chapter. Amicus, De caelo,
(dubit. 2: 205, col. 2—206, col. 1), which concerns the eccentric and concentric parts o f tract. 4, qu. 7, dubit. 3, 1626, 207, col. 1, quoted essentially the same line (“ quod substantia
the whole sphere; (3) “ An astra differunt specie a suis orbibus” (dubit. 3: 206, col. 2- corporis orbis est alia a substantia corporis stellarum” ). But Amicus may have derived it
208, col. 2), namely whether the stars or planets differ in species from their orbs; and (4) directly from Albert o f Saxony, whom he cites frequently, rather than trom the other
“ An omnia astra inter se specie distinguantur” (dubit. 4: 208, col. 2-210, col. 2), which text.
430 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 431
by a magnet. They also say that Saturn is hot lead; that Jupiter is clear and Thus not only did celestial bodies differ, but so also did one celestial orb
liquidy; that Mars is bloody; M ercury vigorous, and so on. differ from another. But what about the one orb with a multiplicity o f stars:
But there was also debate on purely theoretical grounds concerning the orb o f the fixed stars? Do the many fixed stars - according to Ptolemy,
whether the orbs that made up one planetary sphere, or “ total o rb ,” be­ there were 1,022 o f them - in that single orb differ in species? Albertus
longed to the same species as the orbs that made up every other “ total orb” Magnus argued that “ stars [or planets] that are in different orbs differ in
or planetary sphere.212 In the thirteenth century Michael Scot and Roger species, but those that are in one orb have no such difference.” 26 Thus all
Bacon denied this and argued for separate species. Michael insisted that just the fixed stars are in the same species but a different species from each of
as the four terrestrial elements are in the same genus but differ with respect the planets. H ow would Albertus have reacted to the almost universal
to species, since earth differs from water and water from air, and so on, so assumption that the fixed stars differed in power27 and might therefore be
also the aggregate o f celestial bodies, both orbs and planets, belongs to the specifically distinct from each other? Under these circumstances, each star
same genus, but each body is in a ditlerent species in accordance with its was perhaps a member o f a unique species. Albert o f Saxony seems to have
distinct nature." Roger Bacon argued that to have a multitude o f individuals adopted this opinion. In any event, he denied that the stars o f the eighth
in a species was a sign o f imperfection and seems to imply that this is sphere could be in the same ultimate species (species specialissime).28
characteristic o f the terrestrial realm. But in the perfect celestial region it is But what o f the relations between an orb and the star or planet that it
necessary that only one individual be in a species.23 Uniqueness is thus a carried: Were the orb and the planet o f the same species? Aristotle, as we
greater perfection than multiplicity. M oreover, as Thomas Aquinas ob­ saw earlier, identified the planet and its orb as being essentially the same
served, since each individual in the celestial region is incorruptible, a mul­ body (see note 12, this chapter). Nevertheless, as with the relations between
tiplicity o f individuals in a species is not essential tor the preservation o f a planet and stars alone, three possible answers won support: yes, no, and an
celestial species, as it is for the corruptible members o f a terrestrial species.24 opinion that neither the affirmative nor negative thesis could be demon­
A further comparison between celestial and terrestrial species concerned strated.29
the place o f the members o f a species. According to Bacon, things that Despite the various subdivisions o f the question, most scholastics tound
belong to the same species seek the same natural place. Thus all parts o f it untenable to assume that celestial bodies and the orbs that carried them
the earth descend toward the center ot the world. When anv stone or piece around could both be subsumed under a single species. They were more
ot earth is removed from below another piece o f earth, the latter descends likely to agree with Johannes de Magistris that “ all orbs and all stars [and
naturally. The same may be said for quantities o f water. The reverse occurs planets] differ mutually with respect to an ultimate [not further reducible]
with elemental fire: if a fiery body that lies above other fire is removed, species. ” For Magistris and many o f his colleagues, the tact that orbs and
the unremoved fire rises naturally to replace the fire that has been removed. stars have different properties and that celestial bodies differ from one an­
Because they are all members o f the species fire, all bits o f fire behave other - after all, one planet (the Sun) is self-luminous, and the others are
similarly. not; some produce heat, others cold - as do the celestial orbs themselves,
Bacon then applies the same reasoning to the celestial orbs. He implicitly was sufficient basis for assigning each planet, star, and orb to a ditferent
assumes that the celestial orbs are neither light nor heavy but can act as if species.30 An even better basis for assigning them all to different species
they are either one or the other, depending on circumstances. If all orbs
present the full text: “ Item ea que sunt ejusdem speciei appetunt, eundem locum specie,
belong to the same species and are nested one within another, the removal ut partes terre omnes descendunt ad centrum, et remoto interiori superius naturaliter
ot a sphere nearer to the earth, say the fourth orb, would result in the descendit. et sic de aqua in spera sua, quia graves sunt in speris suis, ignis vero quia solum
immediate descent o f the next-superior orb, say the fifth, to replace it. Or, levis est in spera sua, ideo parte superiori remota pars inferior ascendit. Cum ergo sic est
propter idemptitatem speciei, tunc si orbes essent ejusdem speciei, remoto interiori su­
conversely, the removal o f the fourth orb might cause the third orb to rise perior descenderet, vel amoto superiore inferior natus eset ascendere. Ergo nati erunt
naturally to fill the vacated space. But if celestial orbs could naturally rise movere motu recto: quod est inpossibile.” Bacon, De celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 4, Opera, fasc.
and descend in this manner because they all belonged to the same species, 4, 1913. 393-394- Bacon compared other aspects o f the four elements to the alleged
behavior o f the ethereal orbs in order to determine whether they belong to the same
they would be capable o f natural rectilinear motion, which is impossible species, which he denied.
according to Aristotelian physics. It follows that the celestial orbs do not 26. “ Et quod quaeritur de differentia stellarum inter se, dicendum videtur, quod stellae, quae
belong to the same species.25 sunt in diversis orbibus, differunt specie, sed quae sunt in orbe uno, non tantam habent
differentiam.” Albertus Magnus, De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 3, ch. 4, 1971, 150, col. 1.
27. Thomas Aquinas assumed this (see Litt, 1963, 98 and n. 4).
21. On “ total” and “ partial” orbs, see Chapter 13, Section II.4. 28. For the passage and reference, see below note 34, this chapter.
22. Michael Scot [Sphere, lec. 4], 1949, 284. 29. Amicus discusses the three opinions in De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 7, dubit. 3, 1626, 206, col.
23. Bacon, De celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 4, Opera, fasc. 4, 1913, 393. 2-208, col. 2.
24. See Litt, 1963, 96. 30. “ Omnes orbes et omnia astra a se invicem differunt specie specialissima. Patet quia habent
25. Because I have interpreted Bacon freely and expansively and even added examples, I proprietates specie differentes. Ideo differunt specie. Antecedens patet quia aliquod astrum
432 THE CELESTIAL R EG IO N PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BO D IES 433
was, as John Major would have it, the fact that each planet, and therefore a planet and its orb or heaven, he insisted that they differ in other ways,
its orbs, had different m otions.31 Indeed, Roger Bacon used the assumption for otherwise, it would follow that because a planet is luminous and opaque,
that the ether o f a planet is denser than the ether o f the rest o f the orb to so also would the whole heaven be luminous and opaqu , which is false.36
show that star and orb were not o f the same species. A star or planet is a The most basic argument in favor o f including an orb and its planet in
locus o f action and requires a high concentration o f the celestial ether. It is the same species was that a simple, inanimate body such as an ethereal orb
precisely the high concentration o f celestial substance that makes a star a is homogeneous with respect to all its parts. Since stars and planets are
star; and it is the dispersion, or rarity, o f the same substance that makes up denser parts o f their respective orbs in the same manner as knots in a table,
the rest o f the orb.32 Bacon argued in a similar manner in the immediately it follows that orb and planet are in the same species. Although he considered
preceding paragraph with respect to the generative power associated with it a difficult question, Albertus Magnus upheld this opinion when he insisted
the celestial region. The orb and its star should not be said to possess that “ no part differs in species from its w hole.” For Albertus, the star or
generative powers differing only in degree so that they may be included in planet is the worthier part o f its orb, but both are in the same species.37
the same species. The star or planet is but a small body by comparison to In view o f the properties which Aristotle attributed to the celestial sub­
the half o f the sphere that accompanies the star over a particular region or stance, especially incorruptibility and homogeneity, it would have seemed
dwelling. O n this basis, the entire half o f the sphere that lies over a particular prima facie that the prevalent view from the thirteenth to the seventeenth
region should possess far more power to influence that region than the small century would have placed all celestial bodies and orbs in the same ultimate
star or planet. And yet the other half, from which the star or planet is species. But w e have seen that it was quite otherwise. Scholastics emphasized
absent, also passes over that same region. But, Bacon implies, the half diversity and found no plausible way to include them within a single species.
without the star or planet does not affect the region without the presence Diversity, rather than homogeneity, was the major mode o f celestial
o f the star, from which Bacon concludes that the star and the orb are not existence. Celestial variety was apparent by an array o f visible and invisible
o f the same species.33 qualities. The former were assumed to exist in celestial bodies only virtually
As evidence that the substances o f planets and stars belong to different rather than actually.38 But both visible and invisible qualities were an in­
ultimate species than do the substances o f the orbs that carry them, Albert herent part o f the heaven and affected its behavior and powers. Am ong the
o f Saxony pointed to the fact that the Sun illuminated stars and planets but qualities that pertained to the celestial region, w e shall consider first the
not their orbs. Indeed, Albert reinforced his position by observing that if distances and dimensions o f its major celestial parts, the planets and orbs.
the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars were o f the same irreducible species as
the many stars it carried, all o f those stars would have to be members o f
the same species. But they cannot belong to the same species, because, as
III. The dimensions o f the world and its celestial bodies
we saw earlier, they have different natural powers and exercise effects on
different things in the sublunar w orld.34 In m y examination o f the continuity or contiguity o f the celestial orbs (Ch.
From the thirteenth and into the seventeenth century, this was probably 13, Sec. III.2), I depicted the concept o f nested spheres, which was so
the more popular opinion. In the seventeenth century, Amicus thought it characteristic o f medieval cosmology. Nothing has yet been said, however,
more probable that the stars or planets (astra) differ in specific nature from about the dimensions o f those spheres or the magnitudes o f the planets and
their orbs.35 And although Riccioli conceded the identity o f the matter o f
in support o f different natures, Amicus cites (ibid., 207, col. 1) the De proprietatibus
est per se luminosum, sicut sol; alia autem non. Etiam quoddam est calefactivum, aliud elemetttorum.
est trigefactivum, etc.” Johannes de Magistris fDe celo, bk. 2, qu. 4], 1490, sig. k7r. 36. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars prior, bk. 4, ch. 19, 1651, 241, col. 1.
31. Alter announcing that any heavens, or total planetary orbs, are in different species, as are 37. “ Sed difficilius est, quod quaeritur, utrum Stella ab aliis partibus orbis differat specie, quia
any two planets. Major, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1526, sig. iiii recto and verso, says: "Probatur nos videmus, quod nulla pars specie differt a suo toto; inferius autem probabitur, quod
habent alios et alios motus. Ergo habent formas specie differentes.” Stella est pars orbis, in quo est. Et ideo dicendum videtur, quod Stella est quasi dignior
32. Bacon, De celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 7, Opera, fasc. 4, 1913, 402. pars orbis.” Albertus Magnus, De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 3, ch. 4, 1971. 149, col. 2. Amicus
33 - Ibid. (De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 7, dubit. 3, 1626, 206, col. 2), who seems to oppose this opinion,
34. Albert considers the issue in his De celo, bk. 2, qu. 19, 1518, nqr, col. 2, where he says, cites a number o f its supporters, including John Major, John o f Jandun, and Albertus
in a tourth conclusion: “ Quantum ad quartum sit ista conclusio: quod orbes sunt alterius Magnus.
speciei ab astris que sunt in eis. Istam conclusionem ponit et probat Aristoteles in libro 38. That is, the celestial body could cause effects associated with a certain property without
De proprietatibus elemetttorum dicens et similiter substantia corporis orbis est alia substantia actually possessing that property. See Chapter 10, Section II. 1. a, where Buridan is the
corporis stellarum. Quod patet quia stelle illustrantur a sole et non orbes. Et confirmatur focus. Albert o f Saxony expresses the same opinion in De celo, bk. 1, qu. 2, 1518, 87V,
hoc: si orbis octavus esset eiusdem speciei specialissime cum stellis suis, tunc omnes ille col. 1, when he says that “ some parts o f the heavens are hot or cold virtually [virtualiter]
stelle essent eiusdem speciei cuius oppositum dixit conclusio immediate precedens.” but not formally [formaliter].” For the same sentiment by Themon Judaeus, see his iVfe-
35. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 7, dubit. 3, 1626, 207, cols. 1—2. As an authoritative opinion teorology, bk. 1, qu. 3, 1518, 157V, col. 2-i58r, col. 1.
434 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 435

fixed stars. In the domain o f cosmic dimensions, Aristotle provided little measurement o f 1 degree north or south along a meridian o f the earth’s
guidance. He neglected to discuss the size o f the world or the distances o f surface, Campanus gives 20,400 miles as the earth’s circumference.44 Cam ­
planets and stars, or even the relative sizes o f these bodies. Perhaps this panus accepted al-Farghani’s value for a mile as equal to 4,000 cubits, but
explains the virtual absence o f such discussions in the questiones and com­ not only is the cubit undefined, but 4,000 cubits does not correspond “ to
mentaries on Aristotle’s De caelo. Even Roger Bacon, who is one o f the any ‘mile’ actually in use in western Europe during any period.” 4' Nor are
few scholastics to treat cosmic dimensions, did so not in his questions on we helped much by knowing that “ the Arabic ‘mile’ (‘mil’) employed by
De caelo39 but in his famous Opus majus. Despite the absence o f dimensions al-Ma’mun’s measuring teams was considerably longer than the ‘mile’ (‘ mil-
in scholastic natural philosophy, I shall briefly summarize the primary di­ iare’) o f the West in Campanus’s tim e.” 46 Despite the fact that Campanus
mensions as these were generally understood in the Middle Ages. and others based their measurements on the mile, we are ignorant o f its
The ultimate source o f cosmic dimensions and the concept o f nested real length. It follows, however, that a terrestrial circumference o f 20,400
spheres was Ptolem y’s Planetary Hypotheses,4° which was unavailable in miles in the West represented a smaller earth than did its Arabic counterpart
medieval Europe. The essential measurements and the overall scheme en­ and that all subsequent measurements based on that value would yield a
tered western Europe embedded in al-Farghani’s Differenti'e scientie astrorum, smaller cosmos than that measured by the longer mile ot the Arabs.
or, as it was known in Gerard o f Crem ona’s translation o f 1175, Liber de T o arrive at a value for the earth’s radius, Campanus first derived its
dggwgationibus scientie stellarum,4‘ and in tw o brief treatises by Thabit ibn- diameter, namely 6,490 10/11 miles (i.e., 20,400 X 7/22), and then its radius,
Q urra.4" Al-Farghani’s cosmic dimensions proved the most popular and 3,245 5/11 miles. With a value for the earth’s radius, all the measurements
became the standard version in the Latin West (Van Helden, 1985, 34). could be calculated. In giving their distance measurements, Campanus and
Despite the use o f somewhat varied values, most estimates were suffi­ all medieval astronomers and natural philosophers assumed that the celestial
ciently close so that we may ignore the differences. Thus Bacon, in his Opus orbs were nested one within another and in direct contact (see Ch. 13, Sec.
majus (1928, 1:248—259), drew his values directly from al-Farghani, while III.2), so that the convex surface o f the Moon was assumed identical with
Campanus o f Novara arrived at somewhat different results because he used the concave surface o f the sphere o f Mercury; the convex surface o f Mercury
a more precise value for the earth’s radius (3,245 5/11 miles instead o f the was identical with, or exactly the same distance from the earth as, the
al~Farghani-Bacon value ot 3,250 miles) and added the planetary diameters concave surface o f the sphere o f Venus; and generally, the convex surface
to the thicknesses ot the spheres. Because ot the large number o f manuscript o f a sphere was assumed to be exactly the same distance from the earth as
copies ot both Campanus s Theorica planetarum and Robertus Anglicus’s the concave surface o f the very next planetary sphere.
1271 commentary on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco, which included Campanus’s Following the conclusion ot his Theory of the Planets, Campanus ot
values without acknowledgment, I shall cite Campanus’s values as properly Novara gathers into tabular form valuable data on each planet trom the
representative ot medieval notions o f the dimensions and distances o f ce­ treatise itself. All the data for a given planet are assembled together, and
lestial bodies.3
123
0
4
9 the order o f presentation begins with the M oon and moves upward to
Although the earth was not considered a planet until Copernicus made Saturn. Although in Table 1 I also follow the planetary order from Moon
it so in his heliocentric system o f 1543, the earth was the essential standard to Saturn - thus omitting the sphere o f the fixed stars and the invisible,
ot measure for cosmic dimensions. Using a value o f 56 2/3 miles for the planetless and starless ninth and tenth spheres4, - instead ot listing all the
data for each planet independently o f the others, I have consolidated the
39. I have equated Bacon s De celestihus, which iorms part ot his Communia naturalium, with
a typical questions on De caelo. See Bacon’s Opera, tasc. 4, 1913. 44. Both values are from al-Farghani. See Altraganus [Carmodv], 1943 . 13 —I 41 Altraganus
40. Van Helden, 1985, 26—27, declares that "The Ptolemaic System ot cosmic dimensions [Campani], 1910, 89; and Campanus of Novara, Theorica planetarum, 1971, 146 (Latin),
was an ingenious melange ot philosophical tenets, geometric demonstrations with spu­ 147 (English).
riously accurate parameters, planetary theories, and naked-eye estimates. It was a spec­ 45. See the note by Benjamin and Toomer in Campanus ot Novara, Theorica planetarum,
ulative by-product ot the hirst complete system ot mathematical astronomy. . . . The 1971, 25, n. 2. For the appearance o f this value in Campanus’s text, see 146, line 53. Al-
resulting schemes ot sizes and distances was, therefore, as plausible as it was ingenious, Farghani assumed “ ‘black cubits’ o f 24 tingerbreadths each” (Van Helden, 1985, 30-3 1).
and it came to occupy an important place in cosmological thought among Moslem as­ Unfortunately, Campanus says nothing comparable.
tronomers and then the Christian schoolmen.” 46. Benjamin and Toomer in Campanus o f Novara, ibid., 381, n. 17. Al-M a’mun was caliph
41. Van Helden, 1985, 33. John o f Seville translated the Differentie in 1137. Van Helden (ibid., during the period 813 to 833, when the measurements were made.
29) explains that al-Farghani did not know the Planetary Hypotheses but came up with 47. "Concerning the ninth and tenth heaven,” Bacon declared (Opus majus, pt. 4 [“ Mathe­
very similar values from Ptolemy’s Almagest. matics” ), 1928, 251) that "nothing can be known by means ot instruments belonging to
42. Van Helden, 35. 1 he tull titles are De hiis que indigent expositione antcquam legatur Almaqesti the senses in the matter o f their altitude, thickness, and size; also concerning the thickness
and De quantitatibus stellarum et planetarum et proportio terre. The texts appear in Thabit ibn o f the eighth heaven, as we are able to do in regard to the other heavens, since all these
Qurra, i960. matters are hidden from our sense, and therefore in regard to them certification ot their
43. For all this, see Van Helden, ibid., 34. magnitudes, altitudes, and thicknesses is lacking.”
436 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 437

Table i. Campanus of Novara’s data on planets and spheres Table 1 (cont.)

Distances of concave and convex planetary surfaces from center of earth (miles) Distances of concave and convex planetary surfaces from center of earth (miles)

Concave surface Concave surface Convex surface


Convex surface
Planet of sphere Planet of sphere of sphere
of sphere

Moon 107,936 20/33 209,198 13/33 Circumferences of planets (miles)


Mercury 209,198 13/33 5 7 9 ,3 2 0 28/33 Moon 5,961 11/33'
Venus 579,320 560/660' 3,892,866 550/660 Mercury 7 2 5 II /33
Sun 3,892,866 550/660 4,268,629 110/660 Venus 9,095 63/660
Mars 4,268,629 110/660 Sun 112,200
35,352,075 420/660
Jupiter 32,352,075 420/660 52,544,702 280/660 Mars 23,800
Saturn 52,544,702 280/660 Jupiter 93,160
73,387,747 100/660
Saturn 91,800
Thicknesses of planetary spheres (miles)
Moon 101,261 26/33 "Although the distance of the convex surface of Mercury is listed as 579,320 28/33
Mercury 370,122 5/11 and that of the concave surface of Venus as 579,320 560/660, the distances are equal,
Venus 3,313,545 650/660 since 28/33 = 560/660. Why different fractions were used is a puzzle.
Sun 375,762 220/660 ‘Drawing on al-Farghani, Bacon (Opus majus, pt. 4 [“ Mathematics”], 250-251) gives
Mars 28,083,446 310/660 the following values (in miles) for the thicknesses of the spheres; Moon, 99,504;
Jupiter 20,192,626 520/660 Mercury, 334,209; Venus, 3,097,250; Sun, 325,000; Mars, 24,882,000; Jupiter,
Saturn 20,843,044 480/660* 17,969,250; Saturn, 18,541,250. These values are reasonably close to those given by
Campanus.
Diameters ofplanets (miles) This value is a correction, by Benjamin and Toomer, for 5,958 32/33 as given by
Moon 1,896 26/33 Campanus (Campanus of Novara, Theorica planetarum, 1971, 399, n. 67).
Mercury 230 26/33
Venus 2,884 560/660
Sun 3 5 ,7 0 0 something o f the relationships among the planets with respect to their
Mars 7,572 480/660
distance, size, magnitude, and the thickness o f their spheres. B y setting
Jupiter 29,641 540/660
the concave surface o f a planetary sphere, say Jupiter’s, exactly equal to
Saturn 29,209 60/660
the convex surface o f the planet that it immediately encloses and touches,
namely Mars, Campanus and all astronomers and cosmologists made
certain that there were no void spaces or extraneous matter between any
data for all the planets under the following headings: the distances o f the
celestial orbs.50 These widely accepted dimensions and distances bear little
concave and convex surfaces o f the planetary spheres;*48 the thickness o f
relationship to modern values. O f the planets, the most distorted figures
each total planetary sphere; the diameters o f the planets; and finally their
are associated with the Sun. The distance measurements varied from an
circumferences.
apogee o f approximately 3,900,000 to 4,200,000 miles, in contrast to the
Although Campanus includes data on other aspects o f planetary di­
modem value o f approximately 93,000,000 miles. The medieval value o f
mensions,49 the information presented in Table i is sufficient to convey
35,000 miles for the diameter o f the Sun must be contrasted with the
modern value o f 864,000 miles. A glance at the table reveals anomalous
48. The distance for the concave surface o f each planetary sphere represents the near edge o f
that planet at its least distance from the center o f the earth; the distance for the convex measurements that seem to make the cosmos an entity o f idiosyncratic
surface o f that same sphere represents the far edge o f the planet at its greatest distance elements rather than a beautifully crafted, harmonious world o f an infinite
from the center o f the earth.
creator. N o patterns seem to emerge. The thicknesses o f the planetary
49. He provides mile measurements for the circumferences o f the convex surfaces o f the
spheres and for the deferents and epicycles o f the planets. Although these may be spurious
interpolations, the tables also include data for the mean daily motion o f a planet (in miles) 50. Earlier, we saw that Albertus Magnus assumed the existence o f corruptible matter between
on its epicycle or eccentric, known as the dieta o f a planet. On their spuriousness, see the surfaces o f orbs. Although interesting, and perhaps reflective o f an earlier Arab opin­
Benjamin and Toomer in Campanus o f Novara, Theorica planetarum, 1971, 28-29. ion, few adopted it.
43« THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 439

spheres seem to defy understanding. Venus, for example, is approximately 45 stars o f the second magnitude, each o f which is 90 times the size o f the
nine times thicker than the planets immediately above and below it (the earth; 208 stars o f the third magnitude, each o f which is 72 times the size
Sun and the Moon). With the superior planets, we observe an enormous o f the earth; 474 stars o f the fourth magnitude, each o f which is 54 times
increase in thickness over the Sun and inferior planets. For what reason the size o f the earth; 217 stars o f the fifth magnitude, each o f which is 36
is the planetary sphere o f Mars thicker than those o f Jupiter and Saturn times the size o f the earth; and 62 stars o f the sixth magnitude, each o f
above? The diameters, and therefore the sizes, o f the planets also seem which is 18 times the size o f the earth.55 Although Bacon’s total count
to vary in strange ways. Since there is an absence o f discussion o f these mistakenly falls one shy o f 1,022 - Ptolemy included 63 stars in the sixth
seeming anomalies, we have no way o f determining whether scholastic magnitude, rather than 62 - he sought to follow the Ptolemaic tradition as
authors were concerned about them. he had received it from Ptolemy and Arabic astronomers, especially Alfra-
From the center o f the earth to the convex surface o f Saturn, an approx­ ganus and Thabit ibn Q urra.56 Nearly four hundred years later, Mastrius
imate distance o f 73,000,000 miles was assumed.5' The last visible com ­ and Bellutus repeated the same magnitudes, the same number o f stars in
ponent o f the universe was the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars. Following each magnitude, and the same comparisons o f the stars in each magnitude
the pattern previously described, the concave surface o f the sphere o f the with the size o f the earth.57
fixed stars was assumed continuous with the convex surface o f the sphere Even if Mastrius and Bellutus and most o f their scholastic colleagues in
o f Saturn, from which we may infer that Campanus o f Novara and almost the seventeenth century repeated the old values, the Copernican system had
everyone else would have assumed that the fixed stars were at least stirred up controversies about the sizes o f the planets and fixed stars. N ew
73,000,000 miles from the center o f the earth. But were they all scattered values for the diameters o f fixed stars were derived or assumed, and new
over the concave surface o f the eighth sphere at the same distance from the values for their comparative sizes were computed. Tycho Brahe, Galileo,
earth’s center, or were they distributed at different distances within an eighth and Kepler all entered into this new field. In arguing against the Copernican
sphere, or firmament, that had some degree o f thickness in the manner o f system, Tycho showed that in the latter, a fixed star o f the third magnitude
the planetary spheres? O r perhaps, as Moses Maimonides suggested, each would have a diameter approximately the size o f the earth’s orbit around
o f the many fixed stars has its ow n sphere with the same poles, so that each the Sun (Van Helden, 1985, 51). Galileo rejected T ych o ’s claims and argued
star undergoes the same m otion,5 152*an opinion that could be interpreted to that the Sun would be smaller than any visible fixed star (ibid., 74), while
mean that the stars are at different distances.55 To better appreciate the Kepler argued that the fixed stars are many times smaller than the Sun
problem, we shall first consider one important aspect o f the fixed stars that (ibid., 89). For the most part, scholastic natural philosophers did not enter
was universally accepted in the Middle Ages. these controversies, which were focused on the Copernican system. They
From Ptolem y’s Almagest, medieval natural philosophers accepted the
division o f the fixed stars into six different magnitudes, or orders, o f bright­ $5. In his comparison o f the size o f the earth with those o f the fixed stars, it is unclear w'hat
dimension Bacon is measuring. In his Opus majus, pt. 4 (“ Mathematics” ], 1928, 254-257,
ness. Before the introduction o f photometric methods in 1903, the classi­ Bacon compares the diameters o f planets; by multiplying each diameter by 3 1/7, the
fication into magnitudes was rather arbitrary.54 On the apparent assumption Archimedian value for pi, he also compares the circumferences ot planets; and by mul­
that all the stars were on the same surface and therefore equidistant from tiplying the diameter and circumference of each planet, compares their respective surface
areas; and by cubing diameters, he compares the volumes o f the planets. Peter o f Abano.
the center o f the earth, some Arab astronomers associated greater size with Lucidator, differ. 1, 1988, 149, lines 26-31. through 150, line 2, accepts 1,022 fixed stars
greater brightness. First-magnitude stars were therefore assumed physically divided into six magnitudes but presents a strange and radically different set of dimensions
larger than second-magnitude stars, and so on. According to Roger Bacon, for the six magnitudes. First-magnitude stars are 6 times the quantity ot sixth-magnitude
stars; 5 times the quantity o f fifth-magnitude stars; 4 times the quantity ot fourth-
who cites as his authorities Ptolemy and Thabit ibn Qurra, there are 15 magnitude stars; and so on.
stars o f the first magnitude, each o f which is 107 times the size o f the earth; 56. Perhaps because his treatise was titled Theorica planetarum, Campanus had little to say
about the fixed stars (see also Benjamin and Toomer’s comment, Campanus o f Novara,
51- Following al-Farghani, Bacon estimated the distance of the sphere of the fixed stars as Theorica planetarum, 1971, 435, n. 72).
65.357.500 miles. Bacon, Opus majus, pt. 4 (“ Mathematics” ], 1928, 249. 57. Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 3, 1727, 3 ^495 . col. 2, par. 78. In the
52. See Maimonides, Guide, pt. 2, ch. u , 1963, 2:274. manner o f Bacon, Mastrius and Bellutus err in the number o f stars they include in the
$3. Peter o f Abano, Lucidator, differ. 3, 1988. 215, so interpreted Maimonides’ statement sixth magnitude, giving 73 instead o f 63. George de Rhodes also repeats the number ot
when he declared: “ Quidam vero, ut Raby Moyses, tot asserit fore speras quot etiam stars in each o f the six magnitudes, but his numbers are even less accurate (see De coelo,
stelle, ut unaqueque suo tantum contineatur celo, quod movebatur, quoniam stellarum bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 4, 1671, 286, col. 2). Christopher Clavius and Raphael Aversa
quedam videntur maiores tamquam minus distantes, alie vero minores ceu remotiores, correctly give the number o f stars in each o f the six magnitudes (Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1,
nonnulle autem medie tamquam mediocriter elongate.” The medieval Latin title o f Mai­ Opera, 1611, 3:73; Aversa [De caelo, qu. 32, sec. 2], 1627, 2:43, col. 2). In his famous
monides’ Guide of the Perplexed is Dux seu Director dubitantium aut perplexorum in tres libros early sixteenth-century encyclopedia Margarita philosophica, bk. 7, ch. 20, 1517, 255,
divisus. Gregor Reisch repeated the number o f fixed stars in each ot the six magnitudes and their
54- See Pedersen, 1974, 259. comparison to the size o f the earth.
440 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 441
tended rather to repeat the old values based on the traditional geocentric center o f their own so that each o f them will be the same distance from
system they inherited from the Middle Ages. that center?” 58
In that system, even stars o f the sixth magnitude, the smallest visible T o this Simplicio is made to reply: “ I had rather take a middle course,
stars in the heavens, were assumed larger than the largest planet, the Sun. and assign to them an orb described around a definite center and included
With their acceptance o f the division o f the fixed stars into six magnitudes between tw o spherical surfaces - a very distant concave one, and another
graded according to size, from the largest in the first magnitude to the closer and convex, between which are placed at various altitudes the in­
smallest in the sixth, medieval astronomers and natural philosophers seem numerable host o f stars. This might be called the universal sphere, con­
to have accepted the idea that all stars o f whatever magnitude were fixed taining within it the spheres o f the planets which we have already
in their sphere at an equal distance from the earth, for only on this as­ designated.” 59
sumption is the division into six magnitudes plausible. A first-magnitude That Galileo found Simplicio’s suggestion acceptable seems evident'when
star can be assumed 107 times greater than the earth, and a second-magnitude Galileo has Salviati then say: “ Well, Simplicio, what we have been doing
star 90 times greater only if it is assumed that they are the same distance all this while is arranging the world bodies according to the Copemican
from the center o f the earth. If not, and without additional information, distribution, and this has now been done by your own hand.” Despite his
comparisons to the earth’s size would have been meaningless. rejection o f the hard orbs o f Ptolemaic astronomy, Galileo appears to have
Albertus Magnus posed the question directly ([De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 3, accepted the existence o f at least one sphere whose two circular bounding
ch. 11 ], 1971, 167, cols. 1-2): Are differences in magnitude the result o f surfaces enclose the entire celestial region and therefore all celestial bodies,
fixed stars that are o f the same size but located at different distances from including planets and fixed stars, the latter, like the planets, located at
the earth? O r are the stars really o f different sizes but located on the same different distances from Sun or earth. The heaven is thus a single, gigantic,
celestial surface, equidistant from the earth’s center? Albertus was one o f fluid sphere, apparently bounded by hard convex and concave surfaces.
the few who raised this question, and his response may be representative Galileo’s idea that the fixed stars are distributed at varying distances from
o f those who did. any previously determined point o f reference, whether earth or Sun, was
Against the first alternative, Albertus observes that if the six magnitudes approved by many, including O tto von Guericke.60 Some scholastics were
o f stars were all o f the same size but at different distances, six heavens or also receptive, such as, for example, Athanasius Kircher,61 while others, for
orbs would have to be assumed, one orb for each magnitude o f stars. But example, Mastrius and Bellutus, were prepared to take a neutral stance and
this is absurd, because if six such orbs existed w e would expect them to thereby cast a degree o f doubt on the traditional interpretation o f the stars’
turn with different speeds, just as the planetary spheres do in the daily equidistance from the earth.62
motion. That is, the latter are all carried around together in the course o f
a day, but the spheres themselves are moved with different velocities. But 58. Galileo, Dialogue, Third Day [Drake], 1962, 325-326.
59. Ibid., 326. At first glance, it seems that Galileo should have described the distant surface
observation o f all the fixed stars, both the greater and the smaller, shows as convex (rather than concave) and the nearer surface as concave (rather than convex).
that they are moved with a single velocity. And this must occur solely That is, the most distant enclosing surface o f the world would be convex, and the nearest
because they are on the surface o f one sphere. Because the fixed stars seemed surface (for an Aristotelian like Simplicio) would be the concave surface o f the lunar orb.
On this approach, we are obviously including the thicknesses o f the farthest and nearest
to move with the same velocity, Albertus, and undoubtedly most others orbs and distributing the planets and stars between the extreme surfaces o f those orbs.
who considered the problem, located them on a single spherical surface Galileo, however, wishes to exclude the thicknesses o f the two most extreme orbs, namely
equidistant from the earth. O n this basis, they were distinguishable into at the nearest (that o f the Moon) and the farthest, and to distribute the planets and stars
between the concave surface o f the outermost sphere and the convex surface o f the nearest
least six different sizes, or magnitudes. sphere. Drake has faithfully and correctly translated Galileo’s Italian text, which reads:
What Albertus Magnus did not consider, however, was the possibility “ cioe una altissima concava e i’altra inferiore e convessa.” Galileo [Favaro], Opere, 1891-
that the fixed stars were distributed at different distances from the earth 1909, 7:353-
60. Curiously, von Guericke mistakenly attributes to Galileo the view that the fixed stars are
within the same single sphere, rather than spread over six spheres in order scattered on a spherical surface that is equidistant from a center. Von Guericke leaves no
o f magnitude. Galileo himself, if not others before him, suggested this doubt that he believes the fixed stars are at varying distances: “ Etenim non credo (cum
interpretation. Galileo, however, includes the planets along with the fixed Galilaeo in Dialogo 3. Systematis Cosmici) Stellas esse sparsas in sphaerica superficie distante
aequaliter a centro, sed existimo distantias earum adeo varias esse, ut aliae aliis, bis, ter,
stars in this unique sphere. We learn his views from the Dialogue Concerning quater, etc., a nobis remotiores sint.” Guericke, Experimenta nova, 1672, 224, col. 1.
the Two Chief World Systems, where he has Salviati ask: “ N o w what shall Guericke offers a number o f proofs (224-225).
we do, Simplicio, with the fixed stars? D o we want to sprinkle them through 61. According to the quotations cited by Guericke, ibid., 224, cols. 1-2.
62. “ Whether indeed all the fixed [stars] are o f equal distance from the earth - whether one
the immense abyss o f the universe, at various distances from any prede­ is above, another below in the depth of the heaven - nothing certain can be stated” (An
termined point, or place them on a spherical surface extending around a vero omnia fixa sint equalis distantiae a terra, an vero unum superius, alterum interius
PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 443
442 THE CELESTIAL REGION

The idea o f a diversity o f distances among the fixed stars cast doubt on Guericke, Riccioli attributed values for the distance o f the fixed stars to
the widely accepted medieval value o f 73 million miles as the distance for Copernicus and a number o f Copernicans. In earth radii, Copernicus as­
all the fixed stars and therefore the distance o f the outer limit o f the physical sumed 47,439,800; Galileo 49,832,416; Bulliaidus 60,227,920; and Kepler
and visible w orld.63 During the Middle Ages Campanus’s dimensions, or 142,746,428.66 Even the smallest o f these numbers, assigned to Copernicus
those presented by al-Farghani, which were quite similar, were widely himself, would, if the earth radii were multiplied by 3,245 5/11, the medieval
accepted. Indeed, in the last, posthumously published edition o f his com­ value in miles for the radius o f the earth, yield a figure o f 153,963,688,669
mentary on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco in 1611, Christopher Clavius published miles. We would thus have a heliocentric univefse o f nearly 154 billion
a table o f dimensions the values o f which were largely the same as those miles as compared to the medieval geocentric world o f 73 million miles.
ot al-Farghani.64 The advent o f Tycho Brahe’s system, moreover, did not Although 73 million miles was a widely accepted approximation for the
produce significant dimensional changes and caused little anxiety to tradi­ distance o f the fixed stars, one anomalous medieval estimation was truly
tional scholastics.65 The Copernican system was quite another matter. astonishing. Levi ben Gerson (1288—1344) calculated the fixed stars at a
Although Copernicus did not compute absolute distances o f the planets, distance o f 159,651,513,380,944 earth radii, which, when multiplied by
the value in medieval miles for Saturn in the Copernican system is ap­ 3,245 5/11, the miles in an earth radius, yields a number that dwarfs those
proximately 39 million, an astonishingly small value.66 Thus the distance provided by Riccioli.70
from the Sun to Saturn in the Copernican cosmos was only a little more O nly telescopic observations would produce reliable values tor the dis­
than half the distance from the earth to the convex orb o f Saturn in the tance o f the planets and fixed stars and for the diameters o f the planets. But
medieval cosmos. In sharp contrast with Campanus and the medieval tra­ that story has been brilliantly told elsewhere.71 Let us now briefly consider
dition, Copernicus also allowed gaps “ between the greatest heliocentric the remaining properties and qualities o f the celestial bodies, taking in order
distance ot one planet and the least distance o f the next one. This meant the fixed stars, the Sun, the Moon, and the remaining planets.
that the nesting spheres procedure, with the Moon as the starting point,
was no longer possible.” 67 The medieval tradition o f nested spheres was
thus necessarily abandoned by Copernicus and his followers. IV . T h e properties and qualities o f the stars and planets
But if Copernicans reduced the size o f the medieval Ptolemaic planetary
cosmos by nearly half, they made the distance to the fixed stars immensely 1. The fixed stars
greater than in the medieval system. Because they could detect no stellar
parallax as the earth moved in its vast orbit around the Sun, Copernicans a. On the number of stars
were compelled to assume that the fixed stars were a vast distance away
trom the earth. Copernicus, who did not calculate the distance o f the fixed Because the empyrean heaven and its alleged terrestrial influences have been
stars, assumed that the universe was immense and even like an infinite discussed in Chapter 15, we shall commence our examination o f celestial
magnitude, although, as Kovre reminds us, it was finite because the sphere properties with the sphere o f the fixed stars, or the eighth sphere, as it was
o f the fixed stars served to contain and limit it.68 According to O tto von generally known. On the authority o f the Almagest (bks. 7 and 8), where

although the earth revolves around the Sun, we fail to detect any "backward and forward
in profunditate celi sint collocata, nihil certum statui potest). Mastrius and Bellutus, De
coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2. art. 3, 1727, 3:4.9s, col. 2, par. 77. arcs” o f the fixed stars because o f the “ immense height” of those stars, “ which makes
even the sphere o f the annual motion, or its reflection, vanish from before our eyes."
63. The invisible and bodiless heavens beyond the eighth sphere o f the fixed stars do not
Earlier, in bk. 1, ch. 6, Copernicus declares (13) that “ the heavens are immense by
count in arriving at the size o f the world.
comparison with the earth and present the aspect o f an infinite magnitude.” See also
64. Clavius, Sphere, ch. i, Opera, 1611, 3:100-102, and Van Helden, 1985, 53.
65. Van Helden, 1985, 53. Koyre, 1973. 65.
69. Guericke, Experiment nova, 1672, 224. Copernicus did not calculate the distance ot the
66. Ibid., 47 (also see the table o f distances for the Copernican system on 46), reckons Saturn’s
greatest distance from the earth to be 12,252 e.r. (earth radii), a figure which assumes stars.
70. Van Helden, 1985, 40, cited from Bernard Goldstein, The Astronomical Tables of Levi ben
that both Saturn and the earth are at aphelion and that Saturn is in conjunction. The
Gerson (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1974), 28-29.
12,152 e.r. is composed o f 11,073 e.r. for Saturn’s distance from the Sun at aphelion and
71. See Van Helden, 1985. On 160, Van Helden explains that “ The Ptolemaic cosmic di­
1,179 e.r. tor the earth’s distance from the true Sun at aphelion. By multiplying 12,252
mensions were not challenged until the sixteenth century, when the Copernican and
by 3,245.5, the earth's radius according to Campanus o f Novara (actually 3,245 5/11),
Tychomc schemes o f the cosmos dictated a new set of relative distances. Copernicus and
we obtain 39,763,866 miles for Saturn’s distance from the earth.
67. Van Helden, ibid., 44. Tvcho did not, however, make significant changes in the solar distance, so the absolute
distances in their systems were o f the same order o f magnitude as the Ptolemaic distances.
68. In Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 10 [Rosen], 1978, 20, Copernicus declares that “ the size o f the
While Copernicus had to make the sphere o f the fixed stars very large indeed, the sphere
universe is so great that the distance earth—Sun is imperceptible in relation to the sphere
o f Saturn and everything in it actually shrunk. Only the telescope could change this.”
ot the fixed stars.’’ Indeed in the same chapter (ibid., 21), Copernicus explains that
444 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 445
Ptolemy provided longitudes, latitudes, and magnitudes for 1,022 fixed 15.5.76 Nevertheless, ancient wise men proved the existence o f 1,022 stars.
stars, it was commonly assumed that the totality o f visible stars was 1,022, Thus it was that the 1,022 fixed stars came to be viewed not as the total
all embedded in the eighth sphere.72 Many, -if not most, Christians were number o f stars in existence but only the number visible to us.77*Johannes
convinced that quite a tew more stars existed than were numbered by Velcurio adopted much the same approach in the sixteenth century when
Ptolemy. Already in late antiquity, Saint Augustine emphasized the enorm­ he declared that the fixed stars are innumerable but that astronomers had
ity o f the number in the course o f a discussion about the Lord’s promise observed 1,022 stars in the firmament.73
to Abraham that his descendants w ould be increased like the countless Augustine’s prescient intuition that there are many more stars than meet
multitude o f stars (Gen. 15.5).73 Inspection o f the visible sky, however, the eye would become reality in the seventeenth century when Galileo
hardly revealed a countless multitude o f stars. T o render the Lord’s promise turned his telescope to the heavens and published his discoveries in the
to Abraham plausible, Augustine insists that “ it is not to be believed that Starry Messenger (Sidereus nuncius). The scholastic reaction to the discovery
all ot them can be seen. For the more keenly one observes them, the more o f numerous previously hidden stars is well illustrated by Mastrius and
does he see. So that it is to be supposed some remain concealed from the Bellutus, who declared that
keenest observers.” For Augustine, the authority o f the book o f Genesis
“ condemns those like Aratus and Eudoxus, or any others who boast that the fixed stars commonly are innumerable and judged almost infinite, as Aristotle
they have tound out and written dow n the complete number o f the stars.” says in M e t e o r o l o g y , bk. 1, ch. 8, and as is had from Sacred Scripture, Genesis 15,
Even Aristotle seemed to buttress this opinion in De mundo, a w ork falsely where God says to Abraham, “ Look up into the sky and count the stars if you can” ;
ascribed to him but in which one could read that “ the multitude o f fixed [and in] Jeremiah 33, “Just as the stars ot the heaven and the sands ot the sea cannot
stars is innumerable to m en.” 747 5
Augustine’s attitude was adopted by at least two authors in the thirteenth 76. Pseudo-Grosseteste. Summa philosophiae, tract, is, ch. 6, 1912, 551. Inch. 7, 554, Pseudo-
Grosseteste declares that the stars in the heavens are innumerable and that many are hidden
century. Robert Grosseteste asked whether there might exist planets and from us, although some occasionally appear.
fixed stars that are invisible to us. Although such knowledge could only be 77. Bacon, De celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 5, Opera, tasc. 4, 1913, 395. specifies 1.022 fixed stars
known by divine revelation, Grosseteste insists that if invisible celestial whose magnitudes can be measured by instruments and says o f all other stars that "there
is no number possible bv human consideration in this life” (Manitestum est autem per
bodies existed, they would also affect generation and, presumably, corrup­ Aristotelem in libro Secretorum et per Ptholomeum in octavo Almagesti, et per Alfraganum
tion in the inferior, terrestrial world. ~s In his Summa philosophiae, Pseudo- in libro suo de Motibus Celorum quod stelle fixe, quarum quantitas potest comprehendi
Grosseteste mentions that the divine w ord bears witness that it is impossible per instrumenta in locis note habitacionis, sunt 1022. De aliis vero non est numerus
possibilis in hac vita per consideracionem humanum). Centuries later, in a quite different
to specify a number tor the fixed stars and promptly quotes from Genesis context, de Rhodes, De coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1. sec. 4, 1671. 28ft. col. 1, remarks that
although the stars are innumerable, "those which can be distinctly known and designated
without [use ot] a telescope [f»/'i>j are 1.022. divided into 48 constellations by astronomers,
72. For a discussion ot Ptolemy's methodology in constructing the tables, see Pedersen, 1974, and into many more by modern astronomers" (Dico pruno, tametsi stellae. . . esse vi-
249-260. deantur innumerabiles, tamen illae quae notari et designari distincte sine tubo possunt.
73 - Augustine, City of God, bk. 16, ch. 23, 1948. 2:13 5. non sunt nisi mille viginti duae divisae ab Astrononus in constellationcs quadraginta octo
74. “ Multitudo quidem igitur tixarum innumerabilis est hominibus” is the text in an anon­ et a recentioribus vero astronomis notatae sunt multo plures).
ymous Latin translation edited by W. L. Lorimer (see Aristotle, 1951, 25, lines 21-22). Long before de Rhodes. Clavius had cautioned that the words about Abraham in
In another translation by Nicholas o f Sicily, we find (ibid., 55. lines 17-18): “ Igitur non Scripture should not be interpreted as indicating an infinite number o f stars (Non sunt
errantium multitudo inscrutabilis hominibus est.” In the Oxford translation bv E. S. ergo accipienda verba ilia Scripturae in hoc sensu, ut dicamus lnfimtas Stellas esse). Clavius.
Forster, see 3923.16—17 in Aristotle [Barnes], 1984. The De mundo was written In Greek Sphere, ch. 1, Opera. 1611. 3:74. Clavius believed that no more than 1,022 stars existed
sometime between 50 b . c . and a . d . 140. A versa. De caclo. qu. 32, sec. 2, 1627, 43, col. in the six magnitudes distributed among the 48 traditional constellations, but he conceded
1, not only cites this line from the De mundo (he writes: “ Atque Aristoteles, libro de Mundo (ibid.) that “ Scripture speaks o f all the stars that are in the heavens, even those that are
ad Alexandretn, cap.2 ait numerum svderum inerrantium liuri non posse” ) but also says smaller than those which are contained in the six dittercnces [i.e., in the six different
that the same sentiment is implied in Aristotle, De caelo, bk. 2, text 61, and in Meteorology, magnitudes], which are perhaps innumerable" (Scripturam loqui de omnibus stellis, quae
bk. 1, ch. 8. In the De caelo passage (2.12.2923.10-14), Aristotle asks: “ what can be the in coelo sunt, etiam de illis, quae minores sunt, quam quae in sex differentijs continentur,
reason why the primary motion should include such a multitude o f stars that their w'hole quae fortasse innumerabiles sunt). Ibid. Thus Clavius allowed that if the smallest stars
array seems to be beyond counting?” (Aristotle [Guthricj, i960). I have found no relevant are considered, which are smaller than sixth-magnitude stars, then perhaps the stars are
passage in the Meteorology, although it is also mentioned in the passage quoted from innumerable. But he declared himself persuaded that no more than 1.022 stars existed in
Mastrius and Bellutus, toward the end o f this section (IV. 1.a). the first six magnitudes o f fixed stars (Mihi certe facile persuadeo non esse plures in sex
75. “ Dicunt enim philosophi galaxiam esse ex stellis mmutis fixis nobis invisibilibus. Unde dictis differentijs contentas quam 1022). Ibid.
igitur scin posset, nisi a divina revelacione. an non sint plurime huiusmodi stelle invisibiles 78. “ Stellae fixae nunierari possunt, cum sint innumerabiles. Tamen Mathernaticorum ob-
nobis, quarum quelibet suinn habeat celum tnovens ipsam ad profectum generacionis in servarunt praecipue mille et vigintiduas Stellas in tirmamento. ut in circulo Zodiaco et in
mundo interiori? Stelle enim que galaxiam constituunt, licet indistinguibiles sint secundum alijs septentrionalibus ineridionalibusque svderibus.” Velcurio [P/iysfo], 1554, 7?r. Reisch.
visum, non carent ettectu generacionis et profectus in mundo interiori. ” Grosseteste, Margarita philosopluca, bk. 7, ch. 20, 1517, 254, also adopted Augustine’s interpretation
Hexaemeron, part. 3, ch. 8, 3, 1982, 108. and even cites City of God, book 16.
446 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 447

be numbered, so will the seed o f David be multiplied.” This ought not to be ether. But how were these concentrations o f ether shaped? Most discussions
understood about the stars that are visible, for these are numbered by astronomers, about the shape o f stellae, or “ stars,” were really about the planets rather
as we said, but [it should be understood] about all things [or celestial bodies] that than the fixed stars, since, as we saw, the term Stella, without fix a , usually
exist in the heavens, for very many are not seen by us, which is because modern signified planet rather than fixed star.83 But the term stellae could also signify
astronomers, using bigger and better instruments, have discovered new stars that both planets and fixed stars. Albert o f Saxony applied the term to both
were unknown to the ancients. For Tycho Brahe, in bk. 1 o f his Progymtiasmata, entities in explaining the first o f three ways by which he thought a sphere
chs. 2 and 3, found thirteen stars in the constellation o f Cassiopeia, [and] Galileo, or orb could be defined. A sphere could be an unseparated part o f a celestial
in his Sidereus nuncius . . . notes 80 stars in the belt o f Orion [that were not known orb, such as, for example, a star (Stella). Since many fixed stars exist, then,
before]; indeed, he found 500 stars in different places, and the nebulous stars, such if each fixed star is a sphere, it follows that very many celestial spheres
as the Milky Way, are nothing other than an aggregation o f minute stars. Therefore would exist.84* Unfortunately, few scholastics expressed opinions on this
in speaking o f fixed stars, those which are more visible and notable o f appearance, subject, although it is probable that, like the planets, the fixed stars were
especially in the wintertime, when more o f them appear because o f the purity o f perceived as spherical in shape. As substances composed o f the celestial
air from exhalations and the greater depression o f the Sun below the horizon, have ether, which naturally assumed a spherical shape, Aristotle had assumed
been numbered by astronomers as no more than 1,022 distributed in six classes o f (De caelo 2.8.2903.7-10) that the fixed stars were also spherical.
magnitudes.’9 But there were other reasons for assuming spherical stars. As we have
seen, the observed sphericity o f the Moon and Sun was extended to all
Brahe’s naked-eye observations and Galileo’s telescopic discoveries o f celestial bodies, including the fixed stars. B y analogical reasoning with the
previously invisible stars did not fall on a totally unprepared scholarly com­ Sun and Moon and by strong traditional prejudices in favor o f sphericity
munity.7 80 Biblical pronouncements that in G od’s universe the fixed stars
9 as the most desirable o f all shapes and the most suited for the incorruptible
were beyond count - indeed, Roger Bacon would not hesitate to use the celestial ether, it was regularly assumed that each fixed star was spherical.8"
term “ infinite” (stellae aliae infinitae)81 - were interpreted to mean that a Telescopic observations eventually forced a different interpretation. With
very large number o f stars must lie hidden from our sight. This was A u­ his telescope, Galileo found that “ the fixed stars are not seen bounded by
gustine’s understanding o f Genesis 15.5, and it was probably his enormous circular outlines but rather as pulsating all around with certain bright ravs.” 8ft
prestige that impelled medieval and early modern scholastic authors to make Thus “ the rays and fringes surrounding their images hid any sharp outline,”
the same assumption.8' until eventually most astronomers concluded “ that, seen trom the Earth,

83. Although the five authors cited in question 127 (“ Whether the planets [asfra] are spherical
b. The shape of the fixed stars in shape” ) o f the “ Catalog o f Questions” (Appendix I), use the terms astra and Stella,
their concern is with the shape o f the planets, not o f the fixed stars. Thus Melchior
B y contrast with the rare and completely transparent orb that carried it, Cornaeus. De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 1, qu. 4, dub. 9, 1657, 512, considers whether stellae
each fixed star was assumed to represent a dense accumulation o f celestial receive their light from the Sun (“ An stellae accipiant lumen a Sole” ) but speaks only ot
the Moon, Mercury, and Venus.
79. Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 3, 1727, 3:495, col. 2, par. 78. The 84. “ Est una distinctio et sit ista quod sphera vel orbis dicitur unus tripliciter: uno modo quia
Pyrogymnasmata is T ycho’s Astronomiae instauratae progymtiasmata (Prague, 1602; Frankfurt, est quedam pars celi spherica non separata a toto nec suppositaliter existens. Illo modo
1610). Aversa had earlier adopted a similar position in an even fuller account (De caclo, Stella bene dicitur una sphera et sic secundum talem intellectum loquendo valde multe
qu. 52, sec. 2. 1627, 43, col. 2-44, col. 2), which probably influenced Mastrius and sunt sphere celestes.” Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6, 1518, 105V, col. 2. The
Bellutus, who frequently cite Aversa. second and third ways concern orbs that are eccentric or concentric with respect to the
80. For Galileo’s description o f his discoveries o f previously unseen stars, see Galileo, Sidereus center o f the world.
nuncius [Van Helden], 1989, 59-63 and Galileo, Starry Messenger [Drake], 1957, 47-50. 85. For the special attitude toward the sphere, see Chapter 6, Section II. In a section “ On
81. In his Opus majus, pt. 4 [“ Mathematics” ], 1928, 258, Bacon declares that in addition to the Fixed Stars” (“ De stellis fixis” ), Bartholomew the Englishman (De rerumproprietatibus,
the stars that belong to the six different magnitudes, there are “ other stars in infinite bk. 8, ch. 33, 1601, 418) appears to assume the sphericity o f the fixed stars, although
number, the size o f which cannot be ascertained by instruments, and yet they are known there is some ambiguity that suggests he may be speaking about the planets.
by sight, and therefore have sensible size with respect to the heavens, like the part with 86. The Sidereal or Starry Messenger in Galileo, Sidereus nuncius [Van Helden], 1989, 58; see
respect to the whole” (Deinde sunt stellae aliae infinitae, quarum quantitas non potest also Galileo, Starry Messenger [Drake], 1957, 47. In his Letters on Sunspots, published in
sciri per instrumenta, et tamen sunt visu notabiles, et ideo habent quantitatem sensibilem 1613 but actually written in 1612 (see Sec. IV.2.a o f this chapter), after the Starry Messenger,
respectu coeli, sicut pars respectu totius). For the Latin text, see Bacon, Opus majus Galileo twice argued that the fixed stars are round. In the first letter, he declares that
[Bridges], 1900, 1:236. “ stars, whether fixed or wandering, are seen always to keep the same shape, which is
82. In using such terms as “ beyond count” or “ infinite,” it is unlikelv that scholastics meant spherical” (Drake, 1957, 100) and in his third letter, he remarks that “ the telescope shows
an “ actual infinite,” although they probably intended a “ potential infinite" in the Aris­ us the shapes o f all the stars, fixed as well as planets to be quite round” (ibid., 137). I
totelian sense - that is, however many stars might be counted, there were alw'ays more have no idea why Galileo altered his opinion and whether it was his final judgment.
to count. Neither Van Helden nor Drake mentions the discrepancy.
44 $ THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 449

the fixed stars appear as dimensionless points.” 87 In this way, did stars “ lose” not thought to be composed o f stars but was rather described as having
their round shapes. been formed by the motions o f stars and planets that caused alterations in
the upper airy and fiery regions.
l. On the “fixity ” o f the fixed stars
Throughout the Middle Ages and into the seventeenth century, the fixed d. The fixed stars as Suns
stars, as their name so aptly implies, were always assumed to be embedded Although few considered the problem, prior to the late sixteenth century
in the eighth sphere. And like the planets, they were thought incapable o f stars were usually assumed to receive their light from the Sun. Giordano
selt-motion and were therefore assumed to be carried around by the eighth Bruno broke with this tradition by interpreting the stars as Suns, and there­
sphere itself. Indeed, since the fixed stars moved with at least two, and fore self-luminous bodies (Dick, 1982, 108), an idea that became popular
perhaps even three distinct motions, tw o additional spheres, the ninth and in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and numbered among its sup­
tenth, which carried no planets or stars, were added. In this way, one stellar porters Galileo and Descartes, as well as Henry More, Christiaan Huygens,
motion was assigned to each o f the eighth, ninth, and tenth spheres. When Richard Bentley, William Derham, Immanuel Kant, and, among scholas­
hard planetary orbs were gradually replaced in the seventeenth century by tics, Athanasius Kircher.90 But here again, few scholastics discussed the
a fluid heaven and the planets were perceived to be orbless bodies that were issue o f the fixed stars as Suns. As Aristotelians and Catholics opposed to
either self-moved or moved by some external force or intelligence, the fixed the Copernican system, scholastics were unlikely to identify fixed stars as
stars continued to be perceived as bodies incapable o f self-motion, embedded Suns that were the centers o f Copernican-type solar systems.
in an orb o f some thickness that carried them around. The disposition ot
the fixed stars thus varied little from what it was during the M iddle Ages.
The issue that came to a focus in the seventeenth century, however, was e. The twinkling of stars
whether all o f the fixed stars were located on the same surface, at the same Tw inkling might have seemed an inherent property o f fixed stars as con­
distance from the earth, and therefore in a hard orb no thicker than the trasted with the planets, but Aristotle had denied the objective reality o f
thickest star, or whether they were dispersed at various distances trom the the phenomenon itself. In De caelo (2.8.2903.7-24 [Guthrie], i960), he de­
earth and thus encased in an orb ot enormous thickness. In Section III ot clares that “ our sight, when used at long range, becomes weak and un­
this chapter, we saw that the latter alternative gained support, although its steady” and goes on to explain that
status in the scholastic community is uncertain because relatively tew dis­
cussed it. this is possibly the reason also w hy the fixed stars appear to twinkle but the planets
Also from our discussion in Section III, we learned that visible, fixed do not. The planets are near, so that our vision reaches them with its powers
stars were traditionally assumed larger than the planets and earth and that unimpaired; but in reaching to the fixed stars it is extended too far, and the distance
ever since the days o f Ptolemy the stars had been divided into six magni­ causes it to waver. Thus its trembling makes it seem as if the motion were the stars’
tudes, ranging from the largest to the smallest. Smaller, invisible stars, - the effect is the same whether it is our sight or its object that moves.
however, were also assumed to exist. Indeed, as a consequence ot Galileo’s
telescopic observations, the whitish, cloudlike M ilky Way was seen to be
Although Aristotle’s explanation was challenged, his denial o f the objective
composed o f clusters o f small stars that were individually indiscernible to
reality o f the phenomenon in the stars was accepted. Thus Albertus Magnus
the naked eye.8889That they were perceived as stars in the celestial region
([De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 3, ch. 8], 1971, 159, col. 2) attributed the twinkling
marked a radical departure from the medieval Aristotelian tradition, which
or shaking motion to the great distance ot the stars and to the small angle
denied the M ilky Way celestial status and located it in the upper reaches ot
under which we see each fixed star. The shaking motion occurs in our eves,
the sublunar region.81' During the Middle Ages, then, the M ilky Way was
where the apex o f the visual pyramid terminates. This apex is made to
87. Van Helden, 1085. 89. Galileo may have started the trend away from the attribution ot tremble or shake by a visual spirit that is activated by objects that are very
sphericity to each fixed star, but whether he retained that opinion is unclear (see this
chapter, note 86). locating the Milky Way in the sublunar region (see Ch. 16, n. 28, for Albertus: Ch. 16,
88. See Galileo, Sidereus nuncius [Van Helden], 1989, 62, and Galileo, Starry Messenger [Drake], n. 44, for Oresme: and Steneck, 1976, 86, for Henry o f Langenstein and Albertus Magnus).
19S7, 49; also Mastrius and Bellutus, De coeto, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 3, 1727, 3:496. col. 2. 90. See Dick, 1982, 52, 108, 116, 129, 133, 148, 152, and 168. In the seventeenth and eighteenth
par. 87. centuries, most nonscholastics considered the fixed stars to be Suns. Except for Kircher.
89. For Aristotle’s account, see Meteorologica, bk. 1, ch. 8. Albertus Magnus. Nicole Oresme. all were Copermcans. But even Kircher assumed that planets encircled the starry Suns
and Henry o f Langenstein appear to represent exceptions to the medieval tradition ot (Dick, 116).
450 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 451

far away. Thomas Aquinas offered a similar explanation. The motion, or m ove through the same fluid medium, do not also twinkle. Indeed, Aversa
shaking, actually occurs in our eyes, but it seems as if the fixed stars are reports yet another hypothesis (ibid., 134, col. 1-135, col. 1) in which it is
vibrating, just as those who sail near the shore think that they are at rest assumed that each fixed star rotates around its own center and gives the
and the mountains and the earth are moved.''" appearance o f twinkling. B y contrast, the planets do not rotate around a
In the seventeenth century, scholastics not only attacked Aristotle’s ex­ center, as is evident from the Moon, which always reveals the same face.
planation, but some also attributed scintillation, or twinkling, to the planets Aversa rebuts this claim by invoking the planets, some o f which are seen
as well as the fixed stars. Thus George de Rhodes (De coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, to twinkle by the naked eye (Mercury, for example) and others recently
qu. 1, sec. 3, 1671, 285, col. 1) rejected Aristotle’s distance argument when viewed through a telescope (tubo optico). Since some planets twinkle and
he observed that Mercury, though much nearer than Saturn, twinkled more yet do not rotate around their own centers, stellar rotation cannot explain
than the latter.9
192 Others found that stars equidistant from the earth twinkle the same phenomenon in the fixed stars.
in different ways and concluded that the interior o f the eye could not cause Aversa offers his own opinion in which he seeks to explain the twinkling
such differences.93 phenomenon in both the planets and the fixed stars. Most planets and all
For these reasons, some sought the cause not in the wavering motion in the fixed stars are partly opaque and also have light diffused through their
the eye but in the external medium. According to de Rhodes, Christopher bodies. As the heavens turn, this combination, or admixture, o f opacity
Scheiner explained the phenomenon as arising from continuously agitated and lucidity produces a twinkling, or tremulous, effect. Because the Moon
air between us and the stars, just as if there were smoke between our eye is a completely opaque celestial body, it fails to twinkle, as do many, if not
and an object.94 According to Serbellonus ([De caelo], disp. 1, qu. 5, art. 1, all, o f the others.97
1662, 2:47, col. 2), the interposed vapors cause various refractions, which Because no crucial evidence — not even from the telescope — was forth­
then produce the vibrations and twinkling. Since vapors congregate more coming to determine the cause o f twinkling or vibrating stars, theories and
fully nearer the horizon than toward the vertex, the stars near the horizon opinions multiplied. Indeed, de Rhodes ([De coelo], bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1,
twinkle more than those near the vertex.9' As the cause o f twinkling, the sec. 3, 1671, 285, col. 2) even reports that Galileo and others attributed
external medium had serious drawbacks: if intervening vapors are the cause twinkling to the angular shape o f the fixed stars.
o f twinkling, then “ the planets ought to sparkle in the same way as the
fixed stars” and “ the stars ought not to twinkle in a clear [or fair] sk y .” 96
2. The Sun
Raphael Aversa reports ([De caelo], qu. 34, sec. 3, 1627, 134, col. 1) that
Tycho Brahe assigned the cause o f stellar twinkling to the fluid medium With the exception o f an occasional encyclopedia article or hexaemeral
through which he assumed all the stars moved like birds through air or fish treatise, no questio was devoted to the Sun, which was rarely singled out
in water. As they moved through their fluid medium, the stars themselves for separate, descriptive treatment.98 With the advent o f the Copemican
seemed to vibrate or twinkle. Aversa inquires (ibid.) w hy the planets, which system in the sixteenth century and the discovery o f sunspots in the second
decade o f the seventeenth century, the Sun became a focus o f attention, as
91. Thomas Aquinas [De caelo, bk. 2. lec. 12], 1952, 202, par. 405. The Coimbra Jesuits
we see in works by Riccioli and Otto von Guericke and, o f course, in
repeated Thomas’s analogy (Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2. ch. 8, qu. 1, art. 1], 1598,
326). Galileo’s Letters on Sunspots. Medieval natural philosophers did, however,
92. Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 5, 1727, 3:507, col. 1, par. 165, repeat the comment here and there on the role and position o f the Sun, and from such
same argument against Aristotle’s position, as does Aversa, De caelo, qu. 31, sec. 9, 1627,
34, col. 1. Serbellonus [De caelo, disp. 1, qu. 5, art. 1J, 1663, 2:47, col. 2, says that he
himself observed Mars twinkle, or vibrate, more than once and that Simplicius observed 97. Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 3, 1627, 135, col. 1. De Rhodes (ibid., 285, cols. 1-2) cites
that Mercury twinkled (Scintillant aliquando etiam planetae et de Mercurio notavit etiam what may be the same explanation and attributes it to Aquilomus, book 5, proposition
Simplicius; de Marte non semel egomet observavi). 81. Mastrius and Bellutus (De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 5, 1727, 3:507, col. 1, par. 166) also cite
93. “ Quia stellae aeque distantes diversimode scintillant.” Mastrius and Bellutus, ibid. “ Aquilonius, bk. 5, proposition 81,” but the view they attribute to him is quite different.
94. De Rhodes (De coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 3, 1671, 285, col. 1) cites Scheiner’s In In their version, which they consider probable, each star twinkles because it also turns
Disquisitionibus mathematicis. around a proper center. Since these rotatory speeds differ, one star twinkles more or less
95. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 7, dubit. 3, art. 2, 1626, 344, col. 2, attributes the twinkling than another. In this version, the stars not only move with the sphere in which they are
partly to the intervening vapors and partly to the species o f the object that are received all embedded, but each star also rotates around its own center. Immediately after this
in the sensorium and activate the mobile spirits, which then make the object appear to description, Mastrius and Bellutus describe Aversa’s opinion, mentioning him by name
move. and declaring his interpretation no less probable than their own.
96. “ Sed neque videtur ratio ilia satisfacere quia deberent eodem modo micare planete ut 98. For encyclopedia articles, see Bartholomew the Englishman, De rerum proprietatibtis, bk.
stellae fixae si vapores interiecti causae essent scintillationis. Sed neque scintillare deber­ 8, ch. 29, 1601, 405-400, and Vincent o f Beauvais, Speculum naturale, bk. 15, chs. 2-6,
ent stellae sereno coelo.” De Rhodes, De coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 1, sec. 3, 1671, 285, 1624, i:cols. 1094-1097. For a hexaemeral treatise, see Grosseteste, Hexdemeron, part. 5,
col. 1. ch. 20, i-ch. 21, 3, 1982. 179-181.
452 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 4S3

isolated remarks some sense ot their ideas about that great luminary can be elements, for which reason philosophers call the Moon “ queen o f the heav­
determined. ens’’ (regina caeli).
In the event that the Sun’s role in maintaining and preserving life may
have escaped anyone, Aristotle proclaimed its momentous power by ob­
a. The position of the Sun serving that generation (“ com ing-to-be” ) and corruption (“ passing away” )
O f the seven planets, the Sun was judged the largest and occupied the fourth o f all sublunar things were totally dependent on the Sun.102 B y comparison,
position, counting upward from the M oon or downward from Saturn. It the status o f the other planets was modest, if not insignificant. It was in
was thus in the middle position among the planets. Because it was recog­ the approaches to, and the withdrawals from, the earth that the Sun caused
nized as the primary light source ot the cosmos, the Sun was usually viewed generation and corruption. On its approach, it caused the waters surround­
as the most important o f the planets, even though it failed to meet the ing the earth to evaporate, but when it receded from the earth those waters
primary Aristotelian criterion for the most perfect planet: it was not the condensed and fell.103
farthest planet from the earth, a fact that also vitiated the otherwise desirable As anyone could observe, the Sun not only provided light to sustain life,
feature o f possessing the fewest motions o f all the planets. But, as we saw but also heat. Aristotle briefly explained how the Sun performed this vital
in Chapter n , Section 1. 3, a combination o f features made it easy to treat function. Surprisingly, it was not because the Sun was a hot body, for, as
the Sun as the most fundamental and vital o f all planets: it was the fourth we saw earlier, neither the Sun nor any other planetary body was deemed
and middle o f the seven planets, and it radiated its light in all directions, naturally h ot.104 The Sun provided heat to the world because o f its motion.
which made the middle position seem natural and appropriate for it. M e­ For, as Aristotle explained (Meteorology 1.3.3413.19—24), “ motion is able to
dieval natural philosophers exalted the Sun’s middle position by tw o fun­ dissolve and inflame the air; indeed moving bodies are actually found to
damental metaphors: the Sun was like a “ wise king in the middle o f his melt. N o w the Sun’s motion alone is sufficient to account for the origin o f
kingdom ,’’ or “ like the heart in the middle o f the b od y.’’99 As Macrobius warmth and heat. For a motion that is to have this effect must be rapid and
observed, however, the Sun was in the middle by number only and not bv near, and that o f the stars is rapid but distant, while that o f the moon is
space. For it is closer to the Moon, the lowest planet, than to Saturn, the near but slow, whereas the sun’s motion combines both conditions in a
highest.100 The middle position o f the Sun was essential for the preservation sufficient degree.” Because it is not inherently hot, the Sun is also not a
o f the universe. Robert Grosseteste expressed a common opinion when he fiery body. Its color is given as white or yello w .10'
declared that if the Sun were elevated to the region o f the fixed stars, the Scholastics found no reason to challenge Aristotle’s description o f the
elements and compounds around the earth would be destroyed, presumably Sun’s power and properties, although they did occasionally supplement his
because the earth’s heat would be greatly reduced. Similarly, if the Sun ideas. Macrobius, whose Commentary on the Dream of Scipio was widely
descended to the region o f the Moon, its proxim ity to the elements would known during the Middle Ages, called the Sun the “ regulator” o f the other
also destroy them .'01 Albertus Magnus saw further significance in the Sun’s planets, “ because it controls the departing and returning o f each planet
central location ([De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 3, ch. 15], 1971, 178, col. 1). Nature through a fixed allotment o f space.” That is, the Sun determines the direct
ordained this arrangement so that the Sun could first receive the powers o f and retrograde motions o f the planets and the transitional stationary points
other planets above and below it and subsequently transmit them to the between these directional changes. “ In this w a y ,” says Macrobius, “ the
Moon by means o f its light. Because o f its motion and nearness to the sun’s power and influence direct the movements o f the other planets over
elements directly below, the Moon, in turn, transmits these powers to those their appointed paths.” 100 In an obvious elaboration on the same theme.
Bartholomew the Englishman says that o f the planets, only the Sun and
99. These are the words o f Themon Judaeus. For the names o f others who used one or both M oon lack retrogradation, although each is moved on an epicycle. Fie goes
of these metaphors, see Chapter 11, note 28.
100. “ The region o f the sun is not found to be in the middle since it is farther removed from
the top than the bottom is from it. . . . Saturn, the highest planet, passes through the 102. On Generation and Corruption, 2.10.336b. 16—24. In Physics 2.2.194b. 13-14 [Flardie and
whole zodiac in thirty years, the sun, the middle one, m a year, and the moon, the Gave], 1984, Aristotle again emphasized the Sun’s role when he declared that "man is
lowest, in less than a month. The difference between the sun’s orbit and Saturn's is as begotten by man and by the sun as w ell.”
the difference between thirty and one, but the difference between the moon’s orbit and 103. Aristotle, Meteorology, bk. 1, ch. 9.
the sun’s is as the ditference between twelve and one.” Macrobius, Commentary on Dream 104. In Meteorology, 1.3.341a. 15-16, Aristotle says that “ we may now explain how it [i.e.,
of Scipio, 1952, 166. heat] can be produced by the heavenly bodies which are not themselves naturally hot. ”
101. “ Si autem sol ascenderet ad circulum stellarum fixarum, destruerentur elementa et ele- Aristotle [Webster], 1984.
mentata; et rursum si descenderet ad circulum lune, destruerentur eciam." Grosseteste. 105. See Meteorology 1.3.341a.37, and On Colours 1.7912.3 and 3.7933.14.
Hexaemeron, part. 5, ch. 21, 2, 1982, 180, lines 20—22. Clavius provided similar reasons 106. Macrobius, Commentary on Dream of Scipio, 1952, 169. Somewhat earlier, Pliny.
to justify the Sun’s middle position (Sphere, ch. 1, Opera, 1611, 3:45). Cleomeaes, and Theon ot Smyrna had similar ideas (ibid., n. 4).
THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 455
454

on to explain that some think that the reason why the Sun lacks retrogra- Scheiner’s letters on sunspots incited Galileo’s first two letters on sunspots,
dation is “ because solar rays are the cause o f this retrogradation. For the which were also sent to Mark Welser. In response to Galileo's criticism,
power o f the solar rays sometimes repels them [i.e., the planets] and makes Scheiner published an expanded version o f his letters during the summer
them retrograde, and sometimes attracts them; and thus forces them to o f 16 12 ,"' which Galileo answered with a third letter to Welser in 1612. It
remain as if [they are] im m ovable.” 10710
8With the ability to cause all planetary was these three letters, published by Prince Federico Cesi in Rome in 1613,
motion, the Sun’s powers were substantially augmented. The advent o f the that constituted Galileo’s famous Letters on Sunspots."* The newly discov­
Copernican system only enhanced the Sun’s unique role. N o longer was it ered phenomenon o f sunspots became yet another battleground in the on­
merely the middle planet, but it now lay at the very center o f the cosmos. going struggle between traditional Aristotelian cosm ology and the new
Galileo viewed the Sun as the heart o f the planerary system and assigned science. Scheiner sought to defend the incorruptibility o f the heavens and
to it a rotatory motion, which, in turn, caused all the planets to move shaped his interpretation toward that end.114 Thus he denied that the spots
around. “ And just as if the motion o f the heart should cease in an animal, were on the Sun and assumed instead that each spot was a star circling
all other motions o f its members would also cease, so if the rotation o f the around the Sun and near it. T o buttress his case, he even argued that these
Sun were to stop, the rotations o f all the planets would stop too.” IoX spots, or stars, had phases. In this way, Scheiner could claim that the stars,
or spots, had always been there and had not come into being. Celestial
incorruptibility was thus preserved.
b. Sunspots Some years later, Mastrius and Bellutus adopted essentially the same
interpretation. After rejecting the explanation proposed by Aversa (to be
Until their discovery by telescopic observation in the seventeenth century,
described shortly), they identify the spots as small stars, followers and
there is no literature on sunspots, although reports o f them were recorded
attendants o f the “ Prince o f Planets.” Despite the seeming obscurity and
long before.109 In 1611, as many as five separate observers - Scheiner,
darkness o f these spots, they are not devoid o f light but simply receive less
Galileo, Fabricius, Fiariot, and Passignani110 - discovered them and set the
light from the Sun. They appear dark because “ when a smaller luminous
stage for a significant controversy about their true nature. In this instance,
object is conjoined with a luminous object, it is seen not as luminous, but
a scholastic natural philosopher, Christopher Scheiner (1573-1650), was
as something dark.” " 5
himself a codiscoverer o f sunspots. More than that, it was Scheiner’s version
B y contrast, Galileo “ affirmed that the spots were contiguous to the
that was printed first, in 1612, albeit under the pseudonym “ Apelles.” 111*
surface o f the sun, that their properties were analogous to those o f clouds,
and that they were carried around by the rotation o f the solar b od y.” 1"’ As
107. “ Non enim sol neque luna retrogradiuntur, quamvis in epicvclo moveantur. Et hoc ideo
ut dicunt aliqui quia radii solares sunt causa istius retrogradationis. Nam virtus radiorum something analogous to clouds, the sunspots seemed to Galileo to be change­
solarium aliquando illos repellit et facit retrogrados, quandoque eos attrahit. Et sic eos able entities.117 Since he rejected the incorruptibility o f the heavens, such
quasi stare cogit, ut dicit Alphra.” Bartholomew the Englishman, De rerum proprietatibus, changes posed no problems for Galileo. Indeed, in his final letter on sun­
bk. 8, ch. 22, 1601, 399. “ Alphra” may be Alfraganus. See Alfraganus [Campani], 1910,
ch. 24, 154, and [Carmody], 1943, ch. 24, 41. Alfraganus talks about the rising and spots, Galileo mentions that “ there are not a few Peripatetics on this side
setting o f the planets with respect to the Sun and retrogradation. But he says nothing
about the Sun's rays attracting and repelling the planets and thereby causing retrogra- Tres epistolae de Maculis Solarihus scriptae ad Marcum Velserium (Augsburg, 1612). It has
dations, stations, and direct motions. been reprinted in the Ediziotie nazionale ot Galileo’s collected works.
108. Galileo, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, in Galileo [Drake], 1957, 213. For Galileo’s 112. It bore the title De maculis solarihus et stellis circa Jouem errantibus accuratior disejuisitio
judgment o f the Sun in his scholastic, or pre-Copernican, days, see Chapter i 1, note (Augsburg, 1612).
28. 113. Partly translated by Stillman Drake with the title Flistory and Demonstrations Concerning
109. In his Letters on Sunspots (1613), Galileo ([Drake], 1957, 117) cites “ the Annals of French Sunspots and their Phenomena and printed in Drake, 1957, 87-144.
Flistory by Pithoeus, printed at Paris in 1588, on page 62, where (in the Life of Charlemagne) 114. See Shea, 1970, 500. 502. For these highlights o f the debate, I rely on Shea.
one reads that for eight days together the people o f France saw a black spot in the solar 115. “ Diximus has maculas esse stellulas quasdam veluti Solis asseclas perpetuo planetarum
disk. . . . This was believed to be Mercury, then in conjunction with the sun, but this is principein comitantes . . . nam quamvis subobscurae videantur non est lllis lumen aliquod
too gross an error. . . . Therefore this phenomenon was definitely one o f those very large denegandum. Quando enim minus luminosum cum majon luminoso conjungitur, non
and very dark spots, o f which another may be encountered in the future.” Sufficiently ut luminosum sed ut aliquod obscuram conspicitur.” Mastrius and Bellutus, De caelo,
large sunspots are indeed visible to the naked eye. Aversa (De caelo. qu. 34, sec. 9, 1627, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 3, 1727, 3:497, col. 2, par. 92. Oddus says that he follows Mastrius
155, col. 1) reports substantially the same account and adds an even earlier one in the and Bellutus, and indeed he does so, almost verbatim (see Oddus, De coelo, disp. 1,
time o f Cleomedes, when nebulous sunspots are reported in what Aversa calls “ bk. 2 dub. 15, 1972, 45, col. 1).
o f De mundo, not far from the beginning.” I have found no such reference if, by De 116. Shea, 1970, 501. Galileo used a combination o f mathematics and observation in his
mundo, Aversa means the work o f that name falsely attributed to Aristotle. letters. For the details, see Shea. 1970, 498—519.
110. See William R. Shea's article “ Scheiner, Christoph,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 117. “ It should be mentioned,” Galileo declares in his Second Letter on Sunspots, “ that the
1970-1980, 12:151, and also Shea, 1970, 501, n. 21. spots are not completely fixed and motionless on the face o f the sun, but continually
h i . The book was published by Scheiner’s friend, Mark Welser o f Augsburg, under the title change in shape, collect together, and disperse” (Galileo [Drake], 1957, 109).
456 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 457

o f the Alps who go about philosophizing without any desire to learn the stability and incorruptibility o f the heavens, since they seem everywhere to
truth about the causes o f things, for they deny these new discoveries or jest be generated anew and to be destroyed in a brief tim e.” " 9 A number o f
about them, saying that they are illusions.” They defend celestial incor­ moves were made to interpret the spots without abandoning celestial in­
ruptibility, “ which perhaps Aristotle him self would abandon in our age.” corruptibility. Some o f these had already been mentioned and rejected by
And they do so in the manner o f Apelles, “ save that where he puts a single Scheiner, namely that sunspots were an illusion o f the eyes (they had been
star for each spot, these fellows make the spots a congeries o f many minute observed by several distinct individuals), that defective telescopic lenses had
stars which gather together in greater or smaller numbers to form spots o f somehow produced them (but eight telescopes had produced the same re­
irregular and varying shapes” (Galileo, Letters on Sunspots [1613], Third sults), and that the spots were disturbances in the terrestrial atmosphere
Letter, in Drake, 1957, 140-141). (among a number o f reasons, Scheiner argued that no cloud or vapor could
But for those Peripatetics who identified sunspots as stars, Galileo saw follow the Sun’s small diameter during daylight hours).120 Aversa repeated
that another essential feature o f Peripatetic philosophy would crumble (ibid., some o f these arguments but rejected them. He also repudiated interpre­
141-142). They could not be fixed stars, since they continually changed tations that assumed that the spots are elemental vapors that rise up from
position with respect to each other. “ Hence anyone w ho wished to maintain below, partly attracted by the Sun itself. These vapors remain in the upper
that the spots were a congeries o f minute stars would have to introduce atmosphere below the heavens, but directly beneath the Sun. On this inter­
into the sky innumerable movements, tumultuous, uneven, and without pretation, the spots are clouds o f vapors in the upper terrestrial region. In
any regularity. But this does not harmonize with any plausible philosophy. another interpretation, the lack o f any sensible parallax between the Sun
And to what purpose would it be done? T o keep the heavens free from and the spots suggested that the vapors rise into the heavens themselves,
even the tiniest alteration o f material.” In order to defend celestial incor­ ascending quite near to the Sun. But Aversa counters that although terrestrial
ruptibility, some Peripatetics were thus prepared to accept a lesser disaster vapors may rise to the highest point o f the terrestrial region, they cannot
and permit certain celestial bodies, the sunspot-stars, to move in the most break into the heavens.121 Aversa next turns to Galileo’s view that the spots
random and unpredictable manner, thus abandoning a cherished and tra­ are really vapors, but celestial rather than terrestrial. Indeed, Galileo assumes
ditional notion that the celestial region is a place o f predictable, if not that sunspots are formed from vapors given o ff by the Sun itself (Aversa
sublime, regularity. [De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 9], 1627, 157, col. 2), an interpretation Aversa rejects
As was so often the case, scholastic natural philosophers were themselves because if the vapors or exhalations came from the Sun, they should be as
not ot the same mind. They were not all committed to sunspots as stars. lucid as the Sun itself and therefore unable to obscure it. Moreover, to
Raphael Aversa, who accepted some, though by no means all, o f Galileo’s assume such solar vapors or fumes implies heavens and celestial bodies that
ideas on sunspots, is a significant exception. O n the basic phenomena, most are fluid and therefore changeable, a consequence that Aversa considers
scholastics, including Aversa, were probably in agreement. 1 bus, near the unthinkable. Once again the assumption o f celestial incorruptibility serves
beginning o f his discussion o f solar spots, Aversa declares that to decide an argument.
After rejecting a few more opinions,'22 Aversa presents his own inter­
These spots o f the Sun are not like the spots on the Moon but very dissimilar. They pretation,123 declaring that the spots are “ truly and really” (vere et realitcr)
appear as certain clouds; they are very small in comparison to the Sun; they are not in the Sun itself. Because the same spots do not return and they are always
tixed and stable; they are not always the same; they do not last long. Some depart, varied and different, Aversa concludes (ibid., 160, col. 1) that “ the spots
others arrive. N o w there are more, now fewer, now a single one, now none. They
r 19. “ Sed adhuc res tota satis obscura et perplexa remanet. Et praecipue ditficultatem affert:
hav e various and irregular shapes; some are round, others verge toward the vertical. quia si hae maculae sint in sole sive in caelo prout apparent, magnum praeiudicium
They do not always retain the same shape with which they begin. They change atTerre videntur stabilitati et incorruptibilitati caelorum, cum passim de novo gigni et
magnitude and state; they increase or decrease. Sometimes they seem to be con­ brevi spatio deleri videantur.” Ibid., 156, col. 1.
120. Shea, 1970, 499.
gregated and thickened, sometimes they seem to be separated and dispersed. Some­ 121. “ Et magis adhuc errant elevando terrestres vapores intra regionem caelestem. Hi enim
times many are conjoined into one, sometimes one is dissolved into m a n v ." s esto ad summum ascendere possint in supremam elementaris mundi regionem. prorsus
non poterunt irrumpere confinia caeli.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 9, 1627, 137.
col. 2.
Aversa admitted that the subject o f sunspots was obscure and perplexing, 122. Ibid., 158—159. One opinion considered the spots as hard planets that are always in the
posing a special difficulty, “ because if these spots were in the Sun or in the heavens and another conceived them as “ certain denser and opaque parts o f the heavens
heavens, as they appear [to be], they seem to cause great damage to the1 which are revolved around the Sun itself by a certain epicycle, just as . . . Mercury and
Venus are revolved around the Sun” (ibid., 159, col. 1).
123. Schemer quoted the whole o f Aversa’s opinion verbatim in his Rosa Ursina, 1630, 744.
1 iS. Aversa. De caelo. qu. 34, sec. y, 1627, 15s, col. 1. There is more, which 1 omit. cols, t—2.
45« THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 459

cannot be constituted in the Sun as its firm and perpetual properties.” The region on the terrestrial. (These are described in Chapter 19.) N ow , how ­
spots “ are formed anew in the Sun and last a short time and then disappear, ever, we must turn our attention to the Moon.
and others again succeed them .”
But how can this happen? Aversa suggests two ways. The first assumes
3. The Moon
that the Sun is a fluid, rather than solid, body, which is held together as if
it were contained in a vessel. Aversa imagines the fluid to be like molten The M oon was perhaps the most interesting o f all celestial bodies. Unlike
metal which contains within itself certain opaque and dark parts, which the other planets, its proximity to earth made some o f its surface details
from time to time rise to the external face and are subsequently reduced in visible to the naked eye. Those details suggested properties that seemed to
size as they change their shapes. All this is compatible with the Sun’s rotation conflict with Aristotelian generalizations about the celestial region as a
in its own proper place. As his second mode, Aversa assumes that celestial whole. In our earlier examination o f the Moon, in Chapter 16, where we
causes can produce in the Sun a certain opacity that impedes light and which considered only the lunar reception o f solar light and whether the Moon
is capable o f enduring for a certain time, after which it is destroyed, a possessed its own proper light, no such conflicts arose. N ow , however, we
process that continues perpetually. must investigate medieval and early modern interpretations o f the M oon’s
Do these changes o f the opaque parts o f the Sun signify that mutations most striking visible feature: its spots (singular: macula-, plural: maculae),
occur in the heaveps? Aversa denies this by invoking a fairly standard which were sometimes called “ the man in the M oon” or the “ face” in the
response: the changes in opacity just described are only accidental, not Moon. 1-4
substantial. Despite the obvious acceptance o f changes within the Sun,
Aversa, like many other scholastic natural philosophers, sought to avoid
abandoning the principle o f incorruptible heavens. T o do this, he simply a. The lunar spots
treated the changes as if they were accidental, and therefore o f no conse­ In his splendid summary o f medieval opinions about the lunar spots, Pierre
quence. Duhem remarks that even before Galileo revealed the Sun’s spots, Aristotle’s
As already mentioned, Mastrius and Bellutus criticized Aversa’s expla­ physics “ was already confronted by a perpetual contradiction with the spot
nation. They could not reasonably account for his assumption that some on the Moon. It was impossible to observe the spot on the Moon without
parts o f the Sun itself were rendered more opaque than other parts and that thinking that it denotes a certain heterogeneity in the structure o f the Moon,
the transformation into opaque parts is to be characterized as merely an a certain irregularity incompatible with the geometric purity o f celestial
accidental mutation. Moreover, w hy should these spots move parallel to essence as defined by Peripatetic philosophy; it requires that one consider
the Sun’s diameter from the eastern part o f the Sun to the western part, the moon as a body comparable to our earth.” 1-''
rather than the converse? And why, at some time, do these spots not exist In his Generation of Animals, Aristotle associated the M oon with elemental
simultaneously at the extreme, upper surface o f the Sun? That is, w hy are fire. It was Averroes, however, who linked the Moon with the earth and
they not found over the whole surface o f the Sun, rather than only around attributed this linkage to Aristotle, allegedly in the latter’s Liber de animalibus
the Sun’s equatorial diameter? And w hy does this accidental mutation not (Book on Animals).1' 6 Prior to the thirteenth century and under Platonic
occur everywhere on the Sun, instead o f only around the diameter? influence, the Moon was indeed conceived as formed from sublunar ele­
Because the nature o f sunspots was simply unknown, all explanations ments (Duhem [Ariew], 1985, 482). In a w ork falsely ascribed to Venerable
were subject to easy challenge. For Aristotelians, however, committed to
celestial incorruptibility, the discovery o f sunspots posed serious difficulties 124. Buridan ([Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 10], 151S, 7_U, col. 2) referred to it as the figure of
and seemed to signify another blow against the traditional cosmos. To a man (imago hotnitiis) and Plutarch as a human face, as is evident by the very title o f his
preserve incorruptibility, they were compelled to resort to explanations that famous treatise “ Concerning the Face Which Appears in the Orb o f the Moon” (see
Plutarch, Moralia, 920, 1957, 37)
denied change altogether or that allowed tor distinctions between substantial 125. Duhem [Anew], 1985, 479. Duhem has a separate section devoted to lunar spots (see
and accidental changes. In the latter event, scholastic authors could come Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913-1959, 9:409-430. and the translation by Anew, 479-497).
fairly close to acceptance o f Galileo's views on sunspots. But whereas Galileo 126. Averroes [De each, bk. 2, comment. 42), 1562-1574, 5:i27r. col. 1, says that “ Aristotle,
in his book On Animals, says that the nature o f the Moon is similar to the nature o f the
saw the spots as clear evidence o f change and mutability, scholastics devised earth because o f the darkness which is in it. Therefore the luminous part o f orbs is
explanations that retained as strong a sense o f incorruptibility as was feasible, similar to the nature o f tire.” Presumably Aristotle is referring here to the dark spots
even where they assumed a fluid Sun. on the Moon. Averroes repeats the same sentiment in ibid., comment. 49, 13 iv, col.
1. Duhem says ([Ariew], 1985, 480) that he could find no such reference in Aristotle's
The Sun also had other properties, mostly o f an astrological kind, which History of Animals. Because Averroes said it was so, however, this passage became
played a significant role in medieval ideas about the influence o f the celestial influential.
4<5o THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 461

Bede, the lunar spot was explained as a consequence o f an inadequate m ix­ itself.128* As his fifth interpretation, he reports the opinion o f those who
ture o f the earth with the other three elements. Thus the improperly mixed viewed the lunar spots as “ a certain mixture o f fire and air,” in which “ the
earth prevents the transmission o f light and causes the spot (ibid., 482-483). fire is the more lucid [component] and the air the more obscure [and dark
B y the latter part o f the thirteenth century, there was a strong tradition component].” 12v The airy parts comprise the lunar spots. Aversa found this
for linking the M oon with the terrestrial region. But as Aristotelian natural w holly unsatisfactory. In this interpretation, celestial bodies are constituted
philosophy became entrenched in the university curriculum and won uni­ o f terrestrial elements. Thus if the M oon were partly made o f fire, the latter
versal support, the M oon was conceived as constituted o f the same incor­ should always be seen independently o f the Sun. O r if the fire is illuminated
ruptible ether, or fifth element, as all other celestial bodies. Within this bv the Sun, so also should the air be, in which event the spots would
framework, what was the lunar spot, and how could it be fitted into an disappear.
Aristotelian context? As Duhem put it (ibid., 483): “ The Aristotelian doc­ As his sixth opinion, Aversa presents an interpretation based on a Py­
trine about celestial essence did not seem reconcilable with the existence o f thagorean idea that the M oon is like another earth. Thus it has unequal
the spot,” nor with the M oon as an earthy, elemental body. parts, including high mountains, valleys, waters and seas. And “ by means
o f such inequalities o f its parts, it makes various shadows on itself, just as
on our earth shadows are made alongside mountains and valleys. These
i. Aversa's summary account: nine interpretations. B y the time Raphael Aversa shadows are the spots on the M oon.” Aversa observes that, in his Sidereus
published his account o f the lunar spots in 1627, he was able to present nine nuncius, Galileo also assumed that the M oon was like our earth and suggested
interpretations, including his own, that had been proposed over the centuries that the dark spots on the M oon are seas and the lighter parts are land
([De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 8], 1627, 151, col. 2-154, col. 2). There are those areas.130 The suggestion that there could be land areas, seas, and air on a
who follow Plutarch and deny that spots are really on the M oon, suggesting celestial body like the Moon as on our earth Aversa regarded as utterly
instead that they are either an illusion or the result o f vapors interposed absurd.’31 Such talk might be tolerated in poets, but was simply unworthy
between our eyes and the Moon. But Aversa observes that “ the constant in philosophers.132
and perpetual appearance o f the spot to all men in every place and tune Ironically, the seventh interpretation is ascribed to a poet: D ante.,JJ In
shows that it is truly in the M oon itself.” In chapter 9 o f the second book Paradiso, Canto 2, Dante suggests that the lunar spots are caused by differ­
ot his Natural History, Pliny offers a variation on this theme by attributing ences o f density in the M oon, but Beatrice suggests instead that they are
the spot to terrestrial vapors rising up to the M oon and adhering to its produced by differences in the intelligences that move the heavens, as well
surtace. Aversa rejects this suggestion because he deems it impossible that as by differences in the celestial bodies themselves. As the lowest sphere,
terrestrial vapors can penetrate into the celestial region. Aversa also rejects farthest removed from the empyrean heaven, the M oon’s intelligence and
as untenable the suggestion that the spot is really a reflection o f our earth its bodily quality are the most inferior o f all celestial bodies. Hence it receives
and seas from the mirrorlike surface o f the M o o n .127 At full M oon, the half the Sun’s light unevenly and thus reveals spots.” 4
ot the earth that faces the full M oon is dark and therefore could not be
reflected. 128. “ Statuendum ergo est vere maculas esse in ipsa luna." Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34. sec. 8,
1627, 152, col. 2.
Almost inevitably, one response invoked bodies lying between the M oon 129. “ Quinto. Aliqui apud eundem Plutarchum dixerunt lunam in se esse quandam ignis
and Sun, bodies that allegedly cast shadows on the lunar surface and thus aerisque mixturam et ignem quidem esse lucidiorem, aerem vero subobscurum.’’ Ibid.
130. See Galileo, Sidereus nuncius [Van Helden], 1989, 43 and Galileo, Starry Messenger [Drake],
formed the spot. The lunar spot is, however, constant and always appears
1957, 34. In 1610, in his Conversation until Galileo's Sidereal Messenger, Kepler adopted
the same. Intervening bodies would therefore have to maintain the same Galileo's interpretation ot' the lunar spots when he conceded to Galileo: ‘‘ You have
positions with respect to the Sun and the Moon, an unlikely possibility. proved vour point completely. I admit that the spots are seas. I admit that the bright
All o f the explanations thus far appealed to phenomena external to the areas are land” (see Kepler [Rosen], 1967, 109, n. 276).
13 1. Within a few lines o f the conclusion o f his Sidereal Messenger. Galileo declares that “ not
Moon. Aversa insists, however, that the spots are in, or on, the M oon only the Earth but also the Moon has its surrounding vaporous orb. And we can
accordingly make the same judgment about the remaining planets.” Galileo, Sidereus
nuncius [Van Helden], 1989, 86; see also Galileo, Starry Messenger [Drake], 1057. $8.
127. In this connection, Aversa mentions (De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 8. 1627, 152, col. 1) Plutarch 132. “ Nil absurdius de caelestibus corporibus dici potest quam fingere ibi terras et maria et
as one who repeats this idea. Plutarch (Moralia, 920-921, 1957, 41) does indeed repeat aerem. Fuissent haec quidem in poeds toleranda, sed philosophis prorsus indigna.”
an opinion he ascribes to Clearchus, declaring: “ The man. you see. asserts that what is Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34. sec. 8, 1627, 153, col. 1.
called the face consists of mirrored likenesses, that is images o f the great ocean reflected 133. Aversa remarks (ibid., cols. 1-2) that it is no more discordant to admit poets into the
in the moon.” Plutarch speaks only o f oceans, not land. The interpretation was also chorus o f philosophers than it is to have philosophers enter into the realm o f poets.
repeated by the Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 7, qu. 4. art. 3 (mistakenly given 134. Aversa does not express it quite this wav but simply reports that the intelligences affecting
as 2), 1598, 306. the heavens act upon its various parts 111 different ways. My interpretation is drawn
462 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 4<>3

ii. Averroes’ explanation the most popular in Middle Ages. As an eighth inter­ N ot everyone thought o f the M oon as a mix o f density and rarity or o f
pretation, Aversa summarizes the opinion o f Averroes.135 In Chapter 16, opacity and diaphaneity. Some, perhaps only a few, thought o f it as com­
Section III. 1, we noted Averroes’ explanation ot the lunar spot as a function pletely opaque and dense, as an anonymous tourteenth-ccntury author seems
o f the uneven luminescence the Moon receives from the Sun. The lunar to have characterized the M oon and other planets.'40 Although Copernicus
spots appear where the luminescence is weakest. To account for this, A v ­ reports tw o opposing interpretations about the planets, namely (1) that they
erroes and other Peripatetic commentators conceived o f the Moon as com­ are all opaque and (2) that whether opaque or translucent, they “ shine either
posed ot rare and dense parts. There was, however, disagreement as to with their own light or with the sunlight absorbed throughout their bodies”
whether the lucid parts were dense or rare. In his summary account o f the (Copernicus, Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 10 [Rosen], 1978, 18-19), he exempts
various interpretations o f lunar spots, Aversa says that Averroes and A l- the M oon, which was also considered opaque in the second interpretation.
bertus Magnus associated greater density with the darker areas and greater This may even represent his own opinion. But it was probably a minority
rarity with the most lucid parts.136 But others - Aversa mentions Richard view among scholastics, because, as Nicole Oresme explains (Le Livre du
o f Middleton, Aegidius Romanus, the Coimbra Jesuits, and Caesar Cre- del, bk. 2, ch. 16, 1968, 459), if the Moon “ were a non-transparent and
moninus (ca. 1550-1631) - argued that the dark spots are rarer and, by dark body like iron or steel, it would reflect the sun’s light like a mirror,
implication, that the lucid parts are denser.137 Although many scholastics which fact we have already shown to be not true” (see Ch. 16, n. 20). The
denied that contrary, qualities such as rarity and density could exist in the M oon is, rather, “ a transparent and clear body such as crystal or glass, at
heavens as they do in the terrestrial region, they allowed that the Moon least in those parts near its surface.” Such crystals are dark, but if they are
must in some sense vary in density to produce lunar spots. Aversa, however, thin enough the Sun’s light will pass through. Because ot the M oon’s great
found this unsatisfactory. Since “ lunar spots are nothing other than less size, however, the Sun’s rays cannot pass all the way through. Only if the
lucid parts,” Aversa suggests that the terms “ denser” (densior) and “ rarer” M oon were homogeneously transparent in the parts where the Sun’s rays
(rarior) be replaced by “ opacity” (opacitas) and “ transparency” (diaphaneitas) hit would it be uniformly illuminated. The occurrence o f lunar spots, how­
— that is, by the concept ot a greater or lesser aptitude for receiving and ever, is sufficient indication, argues Oresme, that the Moon is not uniformly
diffusing light. The dark lunar spots are either more diaphanous parts o f illuminated.
the Moon, and thus less suitable for reflecting light, or they are the more
opaque parts, less suitable for receiving light. 13'x Thus the M oon ought not Hi. Does the moon have a proper motion? The man in the moon and the lunar
to be conceived as dense and rare but rather as composed o f a variety o f epicycle. Observation o f the lunar spots, or “ the man in the M oon,” had
qualitative parts that are more or less capable o f receiving light and which long ago revealed that the Moon always displays the same face to us, with
we might better designate as opaque or diaphanous, depending on whether the clear implication that the M oon lacks a proper rotatory m otion.141 But
we associate the dark spots with opacity or diaphaneity.139 how can the M oon always exhibit the same face to us if it is carried around
by an epicycle, as is assumed in astronomy? For when the M oon is in the
from The Comedy oj Dante Alighieri the Florentine: Cantica III, II Paradise, tr. Dorothy
L. Sayers and Barbara Reynolds (Baltimore: Penguin, 1962), 63, 72. aux, or apogee, o f the epicycle, it would present a different image than
13 5. In Le Systetne du monde, Duhem’s account ot the lunar spots is confined almost exclusively when it is in the opposite o f the aux, or perigee. As Buridan explained: “ It
to Averroes’ opinion and those who adopted it. would follow that in that spot [macula] o f the Moon which appears as if it
136. “ Octavo: lam Averroes 2. Caeli, Com. 49, et alij Peripatetici communiter maculas lunae
referunt ad diversitatem accidentalem partium eius penes rantatem et densitatem, quod were an image o f a man whose feet always appear to be below [or toward
scilicet aliae partes lunae sint rariores, aliae densiores. Et sic aliae magis aliae minus the bottom], the feet would sometimes appear above [in the upper part ot
lucidae. Averroes signiftcat et Albertus in lib. de Quatuor Coevis, q. 4, art. 2, afhrmat the M oon],” which is contrary to experience.144 The feet always remain at
partes maculosas seu minus lucidas esse partes densiores et ideo minus aptas ut perfun-
dantur lumine.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34. sec. 8, 1627, 133, col. 2. the bottom o f the lunar disk.
137. For the Coimbra Jesuits, see Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 7, qu. 4, art. 3 Am ong those who assumed a transparent, rather than opaque, Moon,
[mistakenly given as art. 2], 1598, 306. In support ot this opinion, Duhem cites Aegidius
Romanus and also John ofjandun (Duhem [Anew], 1985, 487-488). We may add the
anonymous fourteenth-century author who, as we saw (Ch. 16. Sec. III. 1), associated 140. “ Unde quia luna est corpus opacum et densum sicuc quilibet planeta.” "Compendium
the rarity o f the Moon with its dark spots; also Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6. qu. 5, dubit. o f Six Books," Bibliotheque Nationale, bonds latin, MS. 6732, 226V. On the very next
3, art. 3, 1626, 367, col. i (“ Quinta conclusio: partes luminosae lunares sunt ex densitate; page, however, our anonvmous author seems to retract this assessment when he says
obscuriores vero ex raritate” ). that the Moon is not equally dense: “ Ad hoc dicendum quod luna non est equaliter
138. “ Itaque partes maculosae in luna vel sunt partes magis diaphanae et ita minus aptae ad densa. Unde alique partes eius sunt ita rare quod non retinent lumen.” Ibid., upr. For
reflcctendum lumen; vel magis opacae ea opacitate quae reddit corpus minus aptum ad a more detailed discussion, see Chapter 16, Section III. 1.
recipiendum in ipsa prima superficie lumen.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 8, 1627, 141. For the basic structure o f this section, I draw on Grant, 1989, 241-242, and repeat
154, col. 1. something o f what was said in Chapter 13, Section III. 7 (“ The Problem with Epicycles” ).
139. On Aversa’s discussion o f “ opacity” (opacitas) and “ transparency” (diaphaneitas), see 142. Translated in Grant, 1974, 523, col. 2, from Bundan’s Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 10. 1318.
Chapter 10, Section III. 3. b. 73r, col. 2. For the error in Buridan’s reasoning, see Chapter i j , note 95.
464 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 465
one o f the most unusual explanations was provided by Bernard o f Verdun Buridan thus assumed with Aristotle that all planets possess the same
in the late thirteenth century. Bernard conceded that if the M oon were basic properties, so that what applies to the Moon must also apply to the
carried by an epicycle, the same part o f the Moon would not always face other planets.'45 Like Aristotle, however, he was also convinced that no
the earth. H ow, then, does it happen that the M oon does indeed show us planet could rotate around its own center. Planets not only change position,
the same face? This might occur because the combination o f orbs that moves but they also cause transmutations in sublunar bodies. Consequently, if
the Moon may be such as to keep the same face toward us. But perhaps planets rotated around their own centers, the rotations ought to affect the
the same part o f the Moon does not always face the earth and yet appears w ay in which they cause sublunar effects. Unless the rotatory motion o f
to do so. Here Bernard assumes (Grant, 1974, 524, col. 1) that the M oon each planet contributed something to its total effect on sublunar things,
is “ a solid spherical body ot great transparency which extends to every part rotatory motion would be superfluous. Taking the Sun as exemplar, Bur­
o f its depth and in the interior o f it there is a spot o f spherical shape.” idan insists that because it is a homogeneous body, its proper rotation would
However the Moon may revolve in its orbit and whatever lunar surface cause no effects on the terrestrial region. All the faces that the Sun might
confronts us, the spot will always appear to us with the same spherical show to the sublunar world would be identical, and therefore no changes
shape. Thus did Bernard conjure up a fully transparent M oon with a dark, would emerge from its rotation. “ But if the Sun does not have such a
spherical spot that bore little resemblance to the unspherical lunar spots that motion, it does not seem reasonable that the Moon should have it, since
observers actually saw. the Sun is much nobler than the M oon.” '46 But Buridan conveniently ig­
To retain the epicycle and also remain faithful to observation - that is, nores the fact that, by virtue o f its dark spots, the M oon’s surface is not
to account for the perpetual appearance o f the same lunar face — most homogeneous and therefore might well produce a differential sublunar effect
scholastic natural philosophers assumed that the M oon moved with a ro­ if it had a proper motion.
tatory motion contrary to that o f its epicycle and with an equal speed. Thus As we saw earlier, Buridan boldly took the next step and denied an
would the M oon always display the same face. Here was a significant epicycle to the M oon .'47 Thus whereas Albert o f Saxony assigned to the
departure from Aristotle (De caelo 2.8.2903.25—27), w ho had assumed that M oon both an epicycle and a proper rotatory motion, Buridan denied both.
the Moon lacked any rotatory motion because it always revealed the same These opinions and options remained fundamental well into the seventeenth
face. At least one planet was not a merely passive body carried around by century. But it was Albert o f Saxony’s interpretation that was adopted by
its epicycle but had a proper motion o f its own. By analogy with the Moon, most scholastics, even into the seventeenth century.'48 Aversa offered two
some scholastics - for example, Paul o f Venice - inferred that the remaining solutions. One is virtually the same as that proposed by Albert o f Saxony,
planets also had rotatory m otions.'41 Albert o f Saxony, however, resisted namely that the Moon turns on its epicycle and simultaneously and in the
this temptation and insisted that, o f all the planets, only the M oon rotated, same period undergoes a proper rotatory motion in the opposite direction.149
because it differed from the other planets. In A lbert’s approach, planets It was apparently the one Aversa preferred.
were divisible into those that had a capacity for self-rotation and those that B v the seventeenth century, however, new suggestions were proposed.
did not. Moroever, Albert thought of the Moon as composed ot nonhoni- Aversa reports that those who abandoned epicycles and orbs and assumed
ogeneous parts that were capable o f affecting the sublunar world in different the heavens were fluid no longer had to w orry about the lunar epicycle.
ways. With fluid heavens, the Moon, like all the other planets, was assumed to
Such a radical distinction between planets was no part o f Aristotelian be self-moved around the earth in its monthly period and required no
cosmology. In defense o f that cosmology, Jean Bundan took a stand op­ rotatory m otion.lso Otto von Guericke, who abandoned epicycles and orbs,
posite to Albert’s and denied to the M oon both a proper motion and an
epicycle. Buridan recognized that if the Moon were carried around by an 145. Here I draw on Grant, 1987b, 203-204.
epicycle, it also had to have a proper rotatory motion “ contrary to that o f 146. "Et si sol non habeat talent motum. nec videtur rationabile quod luna habeat, cum sol
the epicycle and with an equal speed.” 14 144 However, “ by a paritv o f rea­
3 sit multo nobilior quam luna.” Bundan, Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 10, r51S, 73V, eol. 1.
147. See Chapter 13, Section III.7.
soning,” it the Moon had a special rotatory motion, “ the same would seem 148. The Coimbra Jesuits adopted it. See Conimbricenses, De caelo, bk. 2, ch. 7, qu. 4, art.
to apply to the other planets and stars, since every planet [stclla] is a spherical 3 (mistakenly given as 2), 1598, 307.
body like the Moon. N o reason can be offered for the M oon’s motion 149. "Melius Peripatetici ac etiam astronomi respondent ex hac unitormi apparentia lunae
colligi lunam ipsam per sc in proprio centro revolvi velut in oppositum ac volvitur suus
which ought not co apply to any other planet [stella].” epiciclus et eodem tempore cum illo perticere suam revolutionem, ut ita semper ad nos
conversant gerat eandem suam faciem non obstante motu epicicli.” Aversa, De caelo,
143. Paul ot Venice, Liber celi, 1476, 31, col. 2, explains that "there seems no reason why qu. 34, sec. 8. 1627, 154, col. 2.
the Moon ought to have a proper motion more than the other planets" (Deinde non [50. "Hanc dhTicultatem statint superant illi qui ablata omni distinctione epiciclorum et
videtur ratio quare luna plus debeat habere motum proprium quam alii pianete). orbium faciunt caelum fluidum et dicunt omne astrum per se solutum m overi." Ibid.,
144. Buridan, Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 10, as translated in Grant, 1974, 526, col. 1. col. 1.
466 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 467

explained the phenomenon by an attractive force emanating from the earth from the same distance that we see the m oon,” which is obvious ‘‘because
which holds the Moon in its orbit so that we always see the same face.151 o f the earth’s shadow in a lunar eclipse.” He regarded claims ‘ ‘that there
are mountains and valleys on the m oon’s surface which we cannot see
because o f its great distance from us” as ‘‘pure guesswork.” Despite an
b. Other lunar properties
absence o f ‘‘perfect sphericity,” Oresme thought it reasonable to believe
Despite Galileo’s interpretation o f the M oon as earthlike and composed o f that ‘‘the luminous bodies in the heavens are ot noble and perfect figure
valleys and mountains and an envelope of surrounding airy vapors, scho­ and that such a figure is a sphere” (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 20, 1968,
lastics avoided an interpretation o f the M oon that would make o f it some 497 )-
mixture o f the four elements. Giovanni Baptista Riccioli thought it probable Usually the planets were assumed to be transparent rather than opaque
that the Moon had a celestial form rather than a torm that was a mixture and consequently capable o f receiving light from the Sun into the depths
o f our terrestrial elements.15' M oreover, scholastics (for example. Amicus) o f their volumes from whence it was diffused to terrestrial observers. A
insisted that the lunar surface is smooth, without elevations and depressions few thought the planets were capable o f self-illumination with or without
as on earth.1'’5 For if there were mountains, there would either be a vacuum the supplemental light o f the Sun. Although many disagreed with Aristotle
between the prominences, which is impossible in Aristotelian physics, or and assumed that the M oon had a proper rotatory motion, they were re­
a body would fill the%intervening space. If a body should fill the intervening luctant to extend this property to all the planets and generally assumed that
space, it would have to do so perfectly, in order to produce a perfectly planets lacked rotatory motions. Apart from the obvious fact that the Sun
spherical surface. Otherwise a vacuum would occur, which is impossible. and M oon were readily observable and some ot their effects directly per­
Amicus concludes that the lunar surface is perfectly spherical, a conclusion ceptible, one other major difference distinguished the two great luminaries
with which Nicole Oresme would probably have agreed when he called from the other five planets: the Sun and Moon lacked retrograde motions
the Moon “ a perfectly polished spherical body” (Le Livre du del. bk. 2, ch. and stations, which were common to the other five.
16, 1968, 459). Such qualities were rarely discussed in one place under a rubric men­
O f all the properties or attributes assigned to the Moon during the Middle tioning the planets. In questiones and commentaries on Aristotle’s De caelo,
Ages, wetness was perhaps most intimately associated with it. As Pierre one or more o f these attributes might be mentioned in relation to some
d’Ailly put it: “ The Moon is cold and wet and the mother o f waters.” 1'4 other issue or problem or only incidentally. The anonymous author o f the
The M oon’s association with humidity and similar attributes was relevant ‘‘Compendium o f Six B ooks,” whom I have cited in a number o f contexts,
to its capacity for producing effects on earth (see Ch. 19). devotes the sixth and final part o f his treatise to the celestial region but
apparently did not think it sufficiently important to include a separate section
on the planets and their properties.
4. The other planets
There are, however, treatises, in which planetary properties are described.
In the course o f our study o f the fixed stars, the Sun, and the Moon, we Thus, in the thirteenth century, Bartholomew the Englishman and Vincent
have had occasion to notice some o f the essential properties o f the remaining o f Beauvais devoted separate sections to the planets in their respective en­
planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Most assumed that the cyclopedias, as did Pierre d ’A illy in his famous Ymago mundi, which served
fixed stars and all o f the planets, including Sun and Moon, were spherical. Christopher Columbus as a primary source o f knowledge about the cosmos
Occasionally a modest qualification was made. Nicole Oresme, for example, and the earth. This information was about the visible and invisible properties
insisted that neither the Moon nor any planet was perfectly spherical, "be­ o f the planets and derived largely from Ptolem y’s astrological treatise the
cause the earth is not spherical but would appear so to anyone seeing it Tetrabiblos, or Quadripartitum, as it was known in its medieval Latin trans­
lation. The astrological tradition reached late medieval Europe directly from
151. Guericke, Experimenta nova, 1672, 14.9, col. 1 and 17,S, col. 1-179, col. 1.
1 >2. “ Ego vero probabilius censeo Innarn non habere torrnam mixtam ex elementis nostns the works o f Latin encyclopedists such as Macrobius, Martianus Capella,
actu aut virtute constantern; neque ex ipsis genitam aut in ea resolubiiem, sed habere and Isidore o f Seville and from Arabic astronomical and astrological
tormam coelestem ec omnino diversam a tormis eiementorum nostrativum et mistor- sources.155 In these treatises the planets were regularly assigned properties
um ex his gemtorum.” Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars prior, bk. 4, ch. 2, 1651, 187,
col. 1. that were supposed to characterize the nature o f their terrestrial influences.
153. "Prinia conclusio: lunae corpus esc secundum superficiem aequalis et laevis sine partibus A typical list appears in d’A illy ’s Ymago mundi, where he declares (Grant,
prominentibus et depress^ qualcs sunt partes terrae moncanae et imae. Nam inter lllas 1974, 632, col. 2) that
partes spatium contentum vel esset vacuum, et repugnat naturae, vel plenum corpore."
Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6. qu. 5. dubit. 3. art. 3, 1626, 365, col. 1.
154. From d’A illv’s Ymago Mimdi as translated in Grant, 1974, 632, n. 5. 135. For these sources, see R. Lemay, 1962.
468 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 469

Saturn is naturally cold and dry in its effect [on other things]; it is pale and o f an standard application o f the four Aristotelian primary qualities - hotness,
evil disposition. Jupiter is hot and wet, clear and pure, thus tempering the mali­ coldness, dryness, and wetness. Although Saturn is said to be “ naturally
ciousness of Saturn. Mars is hot and dry, fiery and radiant, thereby harmful and cold and d ry,” we recall from earlier discussions that the planet Saturn itself
provoking to war. . . . Venus is hot and wet, most splendid amongst the stars, and would not have been thought cold and dry. Indeed, the attributes assigned
always companion to the Sun, called Lucifer when it precedes the Sun [as morning to the planets and heavens from terrestrial elements, compounds, and qual­
star] and Vesper when it follows the Sun [as an evening star]. Mercury is radiant ities were assumed not to inhere in the celestial bodies, but the latter were
and keeps pace with the Sun, being never more distant than 24 degrees. Thus it is deemed capable o f producing such attributes in the sublunar region. Once
rarely perceptible. again, in the Ytnago mundi, d’Ailly furnishes a concise and illuminating
passage on this important theme:
Drawing primarily upon Ptolemy (probably indirectly), Macrobius, Mar-
tianus Capella, Isidore of Seville, the Venerable Bede, and Mesahalla (Mis- The heaven [or sky] is not o f the nature o f the tour elements, nor does it have any
ael, as it appears m the text), Bartholom ew the Englishman elaborates on o f their qualities, since it is not generablc or corruptible; nor is it called hot except
a similar, and often identical, set o f properties, taking up each planet sep­ virtually [v ir tu a li t er ], since by its power [ ui rt ut e ], it makes [things] hot. Nor is it
arately in five successive chapters. "6 Bartholom ew ’s account is little more properly colored, for it is clear [and lucid]; nor is it properly light or heavy; soft or
than an embellishment o f what we have already read in d’A illy ’s later ac­ hard; rare or dense. Only improperly is it called hard because it is unbreakable and
count. Jupiter, for example, is “ benevolent, hot and wet, diurnal and mas­ impenetrable; and only improperly is it called dense or thick because a star is said
culine, and temperate in its qualities. In color, it is silvery, bright, clear, to be the densest part o f its sphere. (Grant, 1974, 632, n. $, col. 2.)
and smooth. 57 When joined to the good planets, it “ causes good and
useful effects’’ (bonas et utiles facit impressiones) on the elements below. Despite the attempt o f d’Ailly, and most other scholastics, to preserve this
Am ong these are certain positive effects in the human body, where Jupiter Aristotelian distinction between real and virtual qualities, the former rele­
helps bring about beauty, specifically beautiful coloring, eyes, teeth, and vant only to the terrestrial region, the latter to the celestial, most found
hair. Indeed, Jupiter also produces a round beard, which Bartholomew must themselves speaking o f these attributes - especially density and rarity - as
have thought beautiful, or at least Ptolemy did, since Bartholom ew cites if they were real.1'8
Ptolemy as his source. One attribute, however, life itself, was not distinguished into real and
Because it was astrologically important, Bartholom ew also saw fit to m- virtual. If life was somehow a property ot the celestial ether and its celestial
cludejupiter s relations to the signs of the zodiac. Sagittarius and Pisces are its bodies, it had to be real. But could the celestial region be somehow alive?
houses, but it rules in Cancer and ends its rule in Capricorn. Astrologer’s And if so, in what sense?
have the highest opinion ofjupiter, whose influences are all positive. Accord­
ing to them, “ it signifies wisdom and reason and is truthfulness. Hence when
it appears in the ascendant, it signifies . . . reverence, honesty, faith, and dis­
V . A re the heavens alive?
cipline.’’ Moreover, Jupiter strengthens the goodness o f all the signs when
it is in them, except the twelfth, “ where they [the astrologers] say that Between the thirteenth and the seventeenth century, one ot the most popular
Jupiter signifies servitude, poverty, and sadness for quadrupeds and sorrow tw o or three questions in scholastic questiones on Aristotle’s De carlo was
for tne family and slaves (Bartholomew the Englishman, De rerum pro- whether the heavens are alive (see “ Catalog o f Questions,’’Appendix I, qu.
prietatibus, bk. 8, ch. 24, 1601, 402). 128). Interest in the animation o f the heavens was no doubt promoted by
Bartholomew's other planetary descriptions are in the same vein and need the fact that, in the De carlo itself, Aristotle had unequivocally assumed that
not be described further. Almost all astrologically motivated descriptions the heavens were alive.159 Plato’s similar belief added further substance to
were similar. Within this congeries o f astrological properties, we see the15 6 this idea,160 which had widespread support among the pagan Greeks.

156. Bk. 8, chs. 23 (Saturn), 24 (Jupiter), 25 (Mars), 26 (Venus), and 27 (Mercury), in 1 $8. Indeed, in his Louvain Lectures, presented between October 1570 and Easter 1572, the
Bartholomew the Englishman. De rerum propriehiiibus, 1601, 400—40s. future Cardinal Bellarmine characterized as ridiculous the notion that the Sun is warm
1>7 - lupiter. . . planeta est benevolus, calidus et humidus, diurnus et masculinus; in suis “ virtually." See Lerner, 1989, 267. 1 am grateful to W. G. L. Randles tor calling my
qualitatibus temperatus; in colore est argenteus, candidus, clarus, et blandus." Ibid., bk. attention to Lerner's important article.
8, ch. 24, 401. These properties, as well as those for the other planets, derive ultimately 159. In De fcielo 2.12.2923.19-22, Aristotle asserts (JGuthrie], 207, i960): “ The tact is that we
trom Ptolemy s 7 etrabiblos. This will be evident by examining the list ot subentries under are inclined to think o f the stars as mere bodies or units, occurring in a certain order
the name ot each planet m the index to Ptolemy s Tetrabiblos in Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos but completely lifeless; whereas we ought to thmk ot them as partaking ot life and
[Robbins], 1948. initiative." He also proclaims their animation in ibid., 2.2.2853.29-30, when he says
470 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 471
Christians, however, viewed the problem quite differently. During the Christian scholastics to assume the existence o f living orbs and planets.166
early centuries ot Christianity, eminent churchmen such as Saints Basil, And yet, judging by the frequency with which it was discussed, the issue
John Damascene, and Jerome, as well as the Christian convert and Aris­ did not fade away during the five centuries covered by this study; indeed,
totelian commentator John Philoponus, denied life o f any kind to the heav­ it was one o f the most widely discussed questions. The reason for this may
ens. ' 1 Indeed, we are told that O rigen’s assumption o f living celestial bodies lie with the motion o f the celestial bodies. What could cause these gigantic
was condemned at the fifth synod o f the Church in Constantinople in 553. l6‘ orbs to rotate and carry the planets around? Since humans and animals are
Saint Augustine, however, accepted an animated heavens in his De immor- living things and capable o f self-motion, it seemed natural to inquire
talitate animae, only to waver in later life, confessing in the Retractiones: “ I whether the heavens themselves might not be selt-moving entities, and
do not affirm that it is false that the world is animate, but I do not understand therefore in some sense alive.
it to be true.” '6’ Because Augustine tound no solution to this vexing prob­
lem in either reason or Scripture, his enormous prestige could not readily
be invoked to decide the issue. Christian opposition to animated heavens 1. T wo senses o f life
was probably based on the fear that “ it the heavens were admitted to be In what sense might planets be alive? During the Middle Ages, the attri­
alive or in any sense divine, they would be the objects o f idolatrous w or­ bution o f life to celestial bodies could be taken as analogous to human lite
ship. ” ,,>4 Althougn a few Christians like Origen and Tatian assigned life to as a whole or only to its highest level, intelligence. The most common
celestial bodies, most in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages whose interpretations o f life associated it with soul, as described in Aristotle’s De
writings were influential in the later Middle Ages adopted one o f three anima (bk. 2, chs. 1-4). Although the soul was conceived as a single entity
positions: they denied lite to the heavens and celestial bodies, wrere ambi­ and was often identified with the form o f a body, Aristotle distinguished
valent about it, or ignored the problem altogether.1"5 three possible levels within it. The lowest is the nutritive, or vegetable,
Beginning with the second half o f the twelfth century, the works o f soul, which controls growth and decay in all plants and animals but is the
Aristotle and his Arabian and Jewish commentators began to enter Europe. only level attained by plants. The second level, the sensitive, or animal,
By the second quarter o f the thirteenth century, the relevant works o f three soul, exists in all animals and is responsible for perception and certain
ot the most notable commentators - Avicenna, Averroes, and Moses Mai- offshoots o f the latter, namely imagination and memory, as well as the
momdes - were known to Christian scholastics in Latin translation. All appetitive faculty, which prompts motion. Finally, the third level concerns
three o f these influential authorities upheld Aristotle’s opinion about ani­ reason, which is peculiar to m an.167 In these three levels, the higher always
mated heavens. Depite the weight ot their opinions, they persuaded few encompasses the lower. Thus to possess a rational soul implies possession
o f the tw o lower levels, sensitive and nutritive.
that “ the heaven is alive and contains a principle o f motion.’’ Although Aristotle was Life could also be associated with an intellective soul alone, either as
generally thought to have assumed that the orbs and planets were alive, there are other integrated with each celestial body or as a separate substance that might
passages in De caelo where Aristotle has been interpreted as denying life to the celestial exist independently o f celestial bodies but associated with them. In his
bodies. On this point, see Wolfson, 1973, 23.
160. See Plato, Titnaeus 32C—33B, where Plato explains why. although the world is alive, it Metaphysics (bk. 12, ch. 8), Aristotle himself had appeared to assign one
does not need eyes or ears, air to breathe, or hands or feet. Indeed, the world is not intelligence, or “ unmoved m over,” to each celestial orb, assuming either
merely alive but “ a blessed God” (34B). See Plato [Cornford], 1957, 54-55, 58. 49 or 55 orbs. During the Middle Ages, these Aristotelian intelligences were
161. For references, see Dales, 1980, 533. Dominicus de Flandria placed Saint Jerome with
Origen as one who attributed life to the celestial bodies (see this chapter, n. 195). Indeed, usually conceived as the causes o f celestial motion and sometimes, if not
so did Galileo ([De caelo, qu. 6 (L)], 1977, 150). often, identified with angels.16* Although there were those who denied the
162. Oviedo [De caelo, contro. 1, punc. 1], 1640, 460. col. 2, and Aversa. De caelo, qu. 33, identification between intelligences and angels,169 both were thought to
sec. 7, 1627, i n . col. 2, cite this condemnation, both attributing it to a passage in
Nicephorus s Historiae Ecclestasticae, bk. 17, ch. 28, which they quote as follows: "Si
quis dicit caelum et solem et lunam et Stellas et aquas quae supra caelos sunt, animantes 166. Adelard o f Bath, in the mid-twelfth century, believed that the celestial bodies are alive
[Oviedo has animales] quasdam esse et materiales virtutes anathema sit. ” In addition to (ibid., 536). Although he may have been influenced by Aristotle, and perhaps Avicenna,
Origen, Dales, 1980, 532, n. 9, also mentions Tatian as a Christian who assumed animate both Averroes and Maimotiides wrote their relevant works approximately twenty-five
heavens. to fifty years after the death o f Adelard.
163. Cited trom Dales, ibid. 167. For a brief, summary account, see Ross, 1949, 129-13 1.
164. Dales, ibid., 534. 168. Oviedo, De caelo, contro. 1, punc. 1, 1640, 461, col. 1, considers intelligences and angels
165. I arrive at this conclusion from the evidence presented by Dales, 1980, who, however, identical when, after mentioning intelligences, he says: “ which we now call angels" (seu
declares: “ the assumption that the heavenly bodies were either alive and intelligent, or intelligentias. quas nos modo angelos vocamus).
moved by beings who were, was by far the most widely held view ” (535), a situation 169. For example, Albertus Magnus and his student. Theodoric ot Freiberg. See Weisheipl.
that began to change only in the mid-eleventh century. 19A1, 307.
472 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 473
possess only the highest level o f soul, namely the intellectual property o f lacked the vegetative aspect o f plants, the sensitive soul o f animals, and the
reason. Avicenna distinguished between souls and separated substances, intellective soul o f man. This quite limited attribution o f life to celestial
more particularly intelligences, which he thought o f as angels (Wolfson, bodies would have its followers up into the seventeenth century.
1973 , 5°): the former (soul) was “ the perfection and form ” o f a celestial O nly occasionally did any scholastic author, such as, for example, Peter
body, while the latter (separated substance or intelligence) was w holly dis­ Aureoli, attribute a degree o f life to celestial bodies that exceeded what was
tinct from the body whose intelligence it w as.'70 Both o f these interpreta­ assigned to them by Siger o f Brabant and Boethius ot Dacia. However,
tions are subsumed in Grosseteste's complaint that philosophers “ write since both Siger and Boethius were popular teachers, they probably exer­
contrary things about these matters. . . . [They] tried to prove that the heav­ cised an influence on other arts masters. Worried about the consequences
ens were animated, and some o f them thought all the heavens were animated o f such a belief for Christian doctrine, some conservative theologians in
by one soul, others that each was animated by its own. Some thought the Paris during the decade o f the 1270s came to view acceptance o f animated
heavens were moved by a soul which was not united to them in an individual celestial bodies as potentially dangerous. In his Errors of the Philosophers
unity, but by an intelligence or intelligences not umble to the body in a (Errores philosophorum), Aegidius Romanus (1944, 31) listed among Avicen­
personal union.” 17
171 The relevant question for us, however, is whether pos­
0 na’s errors “ The subject o f the animation ot the heavens.” 175* The bishop
session oi an intellective soul was thought to confer life upon a celestial o f Paris, Etienne (or Stephen) Tempier, and the theologians who compiled
body. the list o f 219 errors at Paris in 1277 must have considered the animation
o f the heavens a dangerous idea, because they condemned it in at least five
different articles: for example, in article 92 (“ That celestial bodies are moved
2. The theological reaction to the idea o f living celestial bodies: the
by an internal principle, which is soul; and that they are moved by a soul
Condemnation o f I2JJ
and by an appetitive power [that is, by force o f desire] just as an animal;
Although Saint Augustine was ambivalent about the animation o f celestial for just as an animal is moved by desire, so also is the sky” ), and article 94
bodies, he allowed for its possibility. Indeed, he did not consider it a vital (“ That there are tw o eternal principles, namely the body o f the sky and its
problem, because there was nothing in Scripture that denied or condemned soul” ) .170 Because there are at least five condemned articles concerning
the idea that celestial bodies might be alive. Thomas Aquinas adopted the animated celestial bodies, we have no way o f knowing which one Richard
same attitude (Litt, 1963, 108-109; Dales, 1980, 543-544), as did Robert o f Middleton had in mind when he declared that “ to assume that celestial
Grosseteste in his Hexaemeron.'72 Despite the seeming neutrality o f Scripture bodies are animated is an article condemned by Stephen, a certain bishop
on this issue, as attested by such eminent figures as Augustine, Thomas o f Paris and doctor o f theology.” 177
Aquinas, and Grosseteste, theological fears were apparently aroused when Richard himself opposed the idea on grounds that would be commonly
two o f the greatest arts masters o f the thirteenth century, Siger o f Brabant cited. Celestial bodies could not be considered alive because they lacked'
and Boethius ot Dacia, appear to have accepted Aristotle’s judgm ent that vegetative, sensitive, and rational levels o f soul. Thus they required no
the heavens are alive.173 For Siger, every celestial body possessed an intel­ nourishment, were not increased in size, and did not generate bodies similar
lective soul which was united to it - indeed, it was the cause o f its motion to themselves. Therefore they could have no vegetative, or nutrient, soul.1 s
- but was yet ontologically distinct.174 Siger, however, denied that the N or could they have a sensitive, or animal, soul, since they lack organs tor
intellective soul conferred on its celestial body the full life o f an inherent sensation. Indeed, their lack o f a vegetative soul implies a lack ot a higher-
soul that functioned as the substantial form o f a body. That is, it was not
173. In the preceding paragraph, we saw that Avicenna thought celestial bodies were alive
much like the threefold soul that Aristotle described in De anima, since it because each had a soul as its form (quod anima citiusque caeli est eius pertectio et eius
forma). Avicenna. De philosophia prima t Metaphysics), tract, y, ch. 4, 1308, iosr. col. 1.
170. Avicenna [De philosophic? prime1 (Metaphysics), tract, y, ch. 4], 1508, iosr, col. 1. The 176. Cited from Grant, 1974. 49. See also articles 93, 102, and 110. Dales, 1980, 34 >-S4 (‘)-
Latin text is also cited in Aegidius Romanus. Errores philosophortim, 1944, 31, n. 76. translates all but article 92. For further discussion ot these articles, see Flissette, 1977,
' 7 [- Translated by Dales, 1980, 540; tor Latin, see Grosseteste, Hexaemerou, part. 3, ch. 6. 130-133 (for art. 92); 69-70 (for art. 94); 67-69 (for art. 93); 136 (for art. 102); 194-193
1-ch. 7, 1, [982, 106-107. (for art. no), where the numbers o f the articles differ and are 73 (92), 32 (94), 31 (93),
172. For the translated passage, see Dales. 1980. 340—341. However, a tew chapters later 73 (102), 119 (no).
Grosseteste declares that "the heavenlv lights are onlv bodies and not living beings" 177. “ Item ponere corpora caelestia animata est articulus excommunicatus a domino Stephano
(54I-5T 9- quodam Parisensis episcopo et sacrae theologiae doctore." Richard ot Middleton [,Sc«-
173. On Siger, see Hissette, 1977, 131-132: for Boethius, see ibid., 69-70, where Hissette tettces, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 4]. 1391. 2:187, col. 1. John Major also refers to one
attributes the ninety-fourth article o f the Condemnation o f 1277 as perhaps deriving o f the same condemned Parisian articles (for the text, see Ch. 18, n. 197 ot this volume).
from Boethius o f Dacia. 178. “ Non habent enim animam vegetativam quia nec nutnuntur neque augentur nee sibi
174- For this reason, Siger did not consider the intellective soul as the substantial form o f the simile de se generant. Generativa autem nutritiva et augmentativa partes sunt potentiales
celestial body with which it was uniquely associated. animae vegetativae.” Richard, ibid., 2:187. col. 2.
474 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 475

order sensitive soul, because the latter presupposes the former. Finally, they namely that the intellective soul could not inform a celestial body in the
are also devoid o f an intellective, or rational, soul, because the latter can absence o f the vegetative and animal souls, a judgm ent in which Thomas
only affect a body by means o f nutritional and sensitive powers, which are Aquinas, Nicole Oresme, and Galileo concurred.
lacking in celestial bodies. It follows, Richard concludes, that “ celestial An exception was Peter Aureoli, who appears to have assumed living
bodies are absolutely inanimate.” 179 Thus did Richard and most scholastic celestial bodies. Aureoli argues that life can only be attributed to celestial
natural philosophers deny life to the celestial bodies in the Aristotelian sense bodies if we follow Aristotle and his Commentator, Averroes, and assume
ot an indissoluble, integrated union o f body and soul. N or did they see that an intelligence is united to its celestial body as a natural form, so that
analogues to the three levels o f soul Aristotle had distinguished. John o f the relationship o f the intelligence and the celestial body is like that o f the
Jandun, Nicole Oresme, Galileo, and Franciscus Bonae Spei, for example, oneness o f matter and form in the usual sense.'83 He explicitly denies that
agreed with Richard’s position.180182Thus Oresme (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. life can be associated with celestial bodies if intelligences are only associated
5, 1968, 315) attacks Averroes, who held that the intellective soul was with them as external movers. But even wh re celestial body and intelligence
entirely within the heavens itself. Oresm e asks “ how an intellective soul are united as matter and form, Aureoli was »nly prepared to call the heaven
could dwell in a living body without the sensitive soul also being present” ; an animal equivocally (quod aequivoce animal dici potest). Indeed, he spends
nor indeed could the sensitive soul exist naturally without the vegetative the rest o f the article presenting four propositions which focus largely on
soul. In his sixteenth-century questions on De caelo, Galileo similarly ([qu. the differences between real animals and the equivocal manner in which
6 (L)], 1977, 149-150) rejects the existence o f a vegetative and sensitive soul “ animal” is applied to the heavens'84 and concludes that “ celestial bodies
incorporated within celestial bodies.'8' Bonae Spei (De coelo, comment. 3, are animated, and are [therefore] animals, to some extent (indeed, one
disp. 3, dub. 5, 1652, 12, cols. 1—2) not only rejected the vegetative, sen­ animal), but equivocally with animals here [on earth].” '85
sitive, and rational souls but also describes a fourth kind o f soul, the lo­ But what o f the second alternative: that the intellective soul is an intel­
comotive, which was held to signify life on the assumption that celestial ligence capable o f separate existence from the celestial body with which it
bodies were self-moving entities (see next section). is associated? All who accepted this interpretation thought o f the intelli­
gence, or intellective soul, as the cause o f the celestial body’s motion. Indeed,
as a separate substance distinct from its celestial body, the intellective soul,
3. The intellective, or rational, soul or rational soul, or intelligence or angel as it was also called, was like an
It was the intellective, or rational, soul, however, that would pose the external mover in its relationship to the mobile or body it moved. Under
greatest difficulty. T w o major interpretations are distinguishable concerning these circumstances, did scholastic authors consider celestial bodies alive?
the intellective soul alone. Could an intellective soul, or an intelligence, be Peter Aureoli, as we just saw, denied life to a celestial body that was assumed
incorporated into, or fully “ inform ,” a celestial body without the presence to have only an external motive intelligence.
ot the vegetative and animal souls? That is, could a purely spiritual sub­ In his Sutnma theologiae, Thomas Aquinas adopts a different attitude in
stance, like an intelligence, be so intimately related to its celestial body that grappling with the question “ Are the luminous heavenly bodies living?” '86
it bears a relationship to it as form to matter? O r is the intelligence related Indeed he presents an excellent recapitulation o f what has been said earlier,
to its celestial body as an external mover to the body it moves. I8~ O n the in Section V.2 o f this chapter. He argues first (Sutnma theologiae, pt. 1, qu.
first alternative, the intimate, integrated relationship between spiritual in­ 70, art. 3, 1967, 10:121) that “ there is no possibility for the soul o fa heavenly
telligence and celestial body clearly implies that the celestial body is a living body to engage in the activities o f a nutritive soul - nourishment, growth,
thing in the sense o f a thinking being. Few scholastics adopted this inter­ generation - for these do not fit in with a body incorruptible by its nature.”
pretation, for much the same reason offered by Richard o f Middleton, N or are the operations o f a sentient, or sensitive, soul appropriate for it,
“ since all the senses are based on that o f touch, the scope o f which is
179. “ Nec habent animam intellectivam quia nullum corpus potest informan anima intellec- elemental qualities. Furthermore, all the organs ot the sensory powers must
tiva nisi habente vim delectandi, vegetandi, et sensilicandi, quia suas operationes mtel-
ligibiles per corpus non exercet nisi mediantibus aliquibus viribus sensitivis. Cum ergo, 183. Aureoli [Sentences, bk. 2, Hist. 14. qu. 3, art. 1], 1596-1605, 2:200, col. 1.
ut dicit Philosophus 2 De anima, non sit amnia praeter praedictas sequitur quod corpora 184. This extends over 200, col. 1-201, col. 2.
celestia simpliciter sunt inanimata.” Ibid. [85. "A d quaestionem dico quod concedi potest quod corpora celestia sint aliqualiter animata
180. Although Jandun rejected the attribution o f three levels o f soul to celestial bodies, he et animalia (imo unum animal), sed aequivoce cum animalibus quae sunt hie.” Ibid.,
did accept some level o f life for them (see this section [V.3] o f this chapter, and n. 191). 201, col. 2. Franciscus Bonae Spei [De coelo, comment. 3, disp. 3, dub. 5], 1652. 11,
181. For much the same response from John o f Jandun, see his De coelo, bk. 2, qu. 4, 1551, col. 2 cites Aureoli's belief that the heavens are animated.
2jr, col. 2. 186. “ Utrum luminaria caeli sint animata." Thomas Aquinas, Sutnma theologiae, pt. 1, qu.
182. Lift, 1963, 108, says that Thomas Aquinas confronted these two alternatives. 70, art. 3, 1967. 10:119.
PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES
476 THE CELESTIAL REGION 477

be composed o f elements mixed in proper proportion and such elements lationship between intellective soul and celestial body and was nonetheless
are by their natures foreign to the heavenly bodies” (ibid., 123). uncertain whether this conferred life on the latter, Johannes de Magistris
We are thus left with the intellective soul that is divorced from sensation was convinced that if the relationship between intellective soul and celestial
and imagination but which is concerned with understanding (intelligere) and body was as just described, then the celestial body would indeed be alive.
motion (movere). Understanding, or intellectual activity, requires no body Thus Thomas was convinced ot their relationship but uncertain about life,
for its activity, except where the latter provides images to it. But we already whereas Magistris was uncertain about the relationship but convinced that
saw that celestial bodies cannot engage in sentient activities. Hence “ intel­ if it did exist so did life in the celestial body.
lective activity would not be the point o f a soul being united to a heavenly Most scholastics, however, were more emphatic in their opinions, largely
body” (ibid.). This leaves only motion as the reason w hy an intellective deciding against the attribution o f life. Those who did assume animation
soul would be joined to a celestial body. But how is it joined to the body usually did so in special senses. For example, in the early fourteenth century
it moves? N ot as a form is joined to a body, but rather externally, as “ a John ofjandun rejected the attribution o f a three-level soul to celestial bodies
contact o f power” (per contactum virtutis), that is, “ the way in which a but seems to have followed Averroes and assumed that they were alive at
mover is conjoined to the object itself.” ”’7 Since the intellective soul is not some level because they were nobler than real living things.191
a body, it cannot be in contact with the object it moves; but the physical From the fourteenth century on, however, scholastics overwhelmingly
object that is moved can, in some sense, be in contact with its intellective opposed the attribution o f life to celestial bodies. In what was perhaps a
ISS disagreement with Thomas Aquinas, Nicole Oresme explains that “Just
mover.
Thomas assumes that “ if the celestial bodies are alive, they have an in­ because an angel moves a body, it is not necessary that it should give it life
tellect without the senses.” He concludes that “ the heavenly bodies are not nor that it be in the body by union and information or otherwise, save by
‘living’ in the way plants and animals are, but in an equivocal sense. Thus voluntary application or appropriation, as in the case o f a man m oving a
between those who hold that the heavenly bodies are alive and those who boat on which he stands” (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 5, 1968, 319). Thus
deny it, there is not real but merely verbal disagreement. ” IS9 For Aquinas, just as a man may row a boat and move it without being an intimate or
then, if a heaven or celestial body can be called alive in any sense, it would integral part o f the boat, so an intelligence or angel may cause the motion
be by virtue o f an intelligence associated with it as an external mover. The o f a celestial body but be no part o f the celestial body it moves. Therefore
intelligence was clearly conceived as alive. But was the celestial body alive? the latter need not be alive.192 Thus did Oresme conclude that he had shown
It is on this crucial point that Thomas is ambivalent. For despite his con­ “ by natural reason, contrary to Aristotle’s statements, that the heavens are
viction that an intellective soul moves each celestial body in the manner o f no: a living nor an animated b od y.” As further evidence that an intelligence
an external mover, he was uncertain as to whether such a relationship need not be integral to the celestial body it moves, Oresme declares that
conferred life upon the celestial body. “ if we assume the heavens to be moved by intelligences, it is unnecessary
Johannes de Magistris was tentative in a somewhat different manner. that each one should be everywhere within or in every part o f the particular
Alter making a number o f distinctions, Magistris concedes that the heavens heaven it m oves.” At creation, God may have placed special motive powers
could only be alive if they possessed souls, or intelligences, that at most and resistances into the celestial bodies in such a perfectly harmonious man­
assisted their motions but were not fully integrated with the celestial ner that the heavens move without violence and without the need lor anv
bodies.190 Whereas Thomas Aquinas assumed that this was indeed the re-
two distinctions made for the heavens and the souls, Magistris now declares that in the
187. Ibid., 123. first sense o f heavens, celestial bodies are not alive; indeed, they would be moved by
188. For a summary o f these arguments, see Wolfson, 1973, 47-51, especially 48. an external mover, in the first sense o f soul just described. The remainder o f the argument
189. The first citation is my translation o f “ Corpora igitur caelestia, si sunt animata, habent is unclear, but Magistris seems to allow the conditional animation o f the heavens, taken
intellectual sine sensu” in Thomas Aquinas, De caelo, bk. 2, lec. 13, 1952, 207, par. 418; in the second sense. For the argument, see Magistris, De celo, bk. 2, 1490. sig. k3 recto,
tor the second passage, see Thomas Aquinas, Summa thcologiae. pt. 1, qu. 70, art. 3, col. 2.
1967, 10:123-125. For an excellent summary o f Thomas’s opinion, see Wolfson, 1973, 191. John ofjandun. Decode, bk. 2, qu. 4, 1552, 2sr, col. 2-25V, col. 1. For more onjandun’s
47-51. Litt, 1963, 108-109, emphasizes the doubt which Thomas felt on this issue. attitude, see the latter part o f this section (V. 3) and note 221. For Averroes’ thoughts,
190. Magistris's arguments are not clear. But he first draws two distinctions about the heavens see Wolfson, 1973, 42-44. In support o f his contention that celestial bodies are animate,
and two about the meaning o f soul, or life. Thus one could conceive o f the heavens as Averroes cites an argument from Alexander o f Aphrodisias that “ it is impossible that
a circularly moved sphere separated from any moving intelligence or intelligences; or, the noblest o f animate beings should be inanimate’’ (Wolfson, ibid., 43).
one might think o f the heavens as a single integrated whole embracing both the spher­ 192. Amicus gives a similar example when he says that just as an orb might be called alive
ically moved celestial bodies and motive intelligences. Similarly, two interpretations o f because it is moved with the assistance o f something external, so also could a ship be
the soul are possible: one in which the soul does not form a unified whole with the body characterized as alive because it is moved with the assistance o f rowers (Dices secundo
whose soul it is but merely assists or aids that body externally: another which assumes si ex assistentia orbis dicitur animatum. eadem ratione dicetur navis ex assistentia re-
that the soul inheres in the body whose soul it is and forms a unity with it. With these migum). Amicus, De caelo. tract. 4, qu. 4, dubit. 2, art. 5, 1626. 171, col. 2.
478 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 479

further application o f power, either externally or internally. As Oresme The discussion o f one o f the “ scholastic doctors” and “ Peripatetics,”
expressed it in a famous metaphor, “ the situation is much like that o f a Raphael Avcrsa, was important and influential. Indeed, it is probably from
man making a clock and letting it run and continue its ow n motion by Aversa that Mastrius and Bellutus derived their statement about the wide­
itself. ” 1,j>3 Thus did God produce the regular motion o f the heavens without spread acceptance o f the lifelessness o f celestial bodies. For Aversa em­
having to incorporate intelligences, or angels, into the celestial bodies them­ phatically declared that “ the common opinion ot the theologians and
selves. What Oresme may have understood by celestial motive powers and philosophers” is that “ the form o f celestial bodies is absolutely not a soul
resistances is, however, a puzzle, since a few lines later he suggests that “ as and that celestial bodies are not animated or livin g.” 199 To support his claim,
soon as God had created the heavens, He ordained and deputed angels who Aversa explains w hy none o f the traditionally accepted three levels o f soul
should move the heavens and who will m ove them as long as it shall please - vegetative, sensitive [i.e., animal], and rational - is appropriate to the
H im .’’ 194 But if God placed motive powers within celestial bodies, w hy does heavens.197 The operations o f the vegetable, or nutritive, soul - namely
he also need angels as celestial movers, angels who, as we saw earlier, are generation, nutrition, and augmentation - simply do not appear in the
external to the celestial bodies they are alleged to move? Although an answer heavens. A heaven, or celestial body, does not generate another heaven
to this question may elude us, we may conclude that insofar as Oresme similar to it as a man generates a man and a plant a plant.19'' Generally, the
assumed angels as external celestial movers, he was following the tradition activities o f a vegetative soul can only occur where there is generation and
o f Thomas Aquinas; but whereas Thomas conceived the celestial bodies as corruption, activities that are lacking in the ungenerable and incorruptible
equivocally alive, Oresme flatly denies their animation. heavens. A sensitive soul is also lacking in the heavens because no external
The scholastic attitudes that have been described here were maintained or internal senses exist there. In order to have sensation, something must
in the seventeenth century. The tw o fundamental positions arrived at in the act on the senses. But such actions are alien to celestial bodies. Moreover,
Middle Ages were maintained: virtually all denied that the heavens were animals experiencing sensation are generable and corruptible, which activ­
informed by souls, and therefore really alive. Differences arose, however, ities require a vegetative soul that is lacking in celestial bodies.199
as to whether to concede some degree o f life, as Thomas Aquinas was What about the existence o f an intellective soul in the heavens? In his
thought to have done, solely because a living intelligence, or angel, was reply Aversa provides useful insights into the elusive distinctions that were
the external instrument that moved each orb in its circular path. In the made among angels, souls, and forms. He distinguishes three possibilities:
seventeenth century, Mastrius and Bellutus upheld the negative position, (1) the intellective soul is an intelligence which moves the heaven; (2) it is
while Bartholomew Amicus supported the affirmative. Both sides claimed a soul that belongs to the same species as our human soul; or (3) it is o f
that their interpretation was the most common. another species altogether.'00
Mastrius and Bellutus painted a picture o f nearly solid opposition to any
attribution o f life to celestial bodies when they declared that “ the form o f
that opinion, including the Coimbra Jesuits, Hurtado de Mendoza, Arriaga, and Oviedo.
the heavens does not belong to the genus o f living things but o f nonliving Despite the inclusion by Mastrius and Bellutus o f Aristotle among those who denied
things, both according to truth and according to Aristotle; and it is also life to the heavens, Aristotle was generally acknowledged to have assumed animated
derived from Scotus, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1. And it is common among both heavens.
196. “ Dicendum tamen omnino est formam corporum caelestium non esse animam, corpora
the Fathers and scholastic doctors and among Peripatetics, which would be caelestia non esse ammata, nec esse viventia. Haec est communis Theologorum et Phi-
too long [a list] to enumerate, but it can be seen in Amicus and A versa.” 1" losophorum sententia.” Aversa, De coelo, qu. 33. sec. 7, 1627, n o. col. 1.
197. A few scholastic authors, before and after Aversa, similarly sought to show why the
193. Oresme, Le Livre dti del, bk. 2, ch. 2, 1968, 289. On the basis o f this passage, Lynn three levels o f soul were absent from the heavens. For example, the Conimbricenses.
White, Jr. (1978, 239) considered Oresme “ the first to foreshadow the Deist concept o f De coelo, bk. 2, ch. t. qu. 1, art. 2, 1598, 167; Oviedo, De coelo, contro. t, punc. 1,
the clockmaker God. Earlier, Oresme cites a brief passage from Cicero's De luttura 1640, 460, col. 2-461, col. 1; and Bonae Spei, comment. 3, De coelo, disp. 3, dub. 5.
deorum, II. 38, where Cicero speaks about “ the absolutely regular movement o f a clock” 1652, 11, col. 2-12, col. 1. Some, like Galileo, De coelo, qu. 6 (L), 1977, 14S>—iso. only
(ibid., 283). Because his clock was mechanical and Cicero's was not, Oresme is the more covered the vegetative and sensitive souls.
plausible forerunner o f the Deist concept. 198. “ Tertio specialiter in caelo non esse animam vegetativam quia operationes propriae hums
194. Oresme, ibid., 289. See also Dales, 1980, 548, who cites part o f this paragraph. animae sunt vitalis generatio, nutritio, et augmentatio; sed in caelo nulla ex his opera-
195. De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 2, 1727, 3:493, col. 2, par. 62. According to Donnnicus de tionibus invenitur. Non utique unum corpus caeleste generat vitaliter aliud sibi simile
Flandria ([Metaphysics], 1323, sig. R5V, col. 1), Origen and Saint Jerome were said to eo pacto quo homo hominem et planta plantain.” Aversa, De coelo, qu. 33, sec. 7, 1627,
have assumed animated celestial bodies; Basil and John Damascene assumed they were 110, col. 2.
lifeless; while Saint Augustine remained undecided. On the basis o f what is reported in 199. I cite onlv the final part o f the argument: “ Turn demum, animalia omnia iuxta naturalem
the next paragraph, I conclude that Mastrius and Bellutus were wrong to include Amicus suam constitutionem debent esse generabilia et corruptibilia et indigent operatiombus
in this list. Thomas Compton-Carleton [De coelo, disp. 1, sec. 1], 1649, 397, cols. 1-2, vegetativis. Anima ergo sensitiva corporibus caelestibus omnino repugnat." Ibid., i n .
also proclaimed that a lifeless heavens was the common opinion among the Fathers of col. 1.
the Church and the theologians and went on to name recent theologians who shared 200. “ Quinto specialiter in caelo non esse animam intellectivam. Quia vel haec esset eadem
4 So THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 481

Avcrsa denies the first possibility by invoking angels, which he seems to Thus an intellective soul that lacked a sensitive aspect or level would not
conceive as synonymous with intelligences, as celestial movers. An angel even require a body for its operation. Without a body, its activity would
differs from a form and a soul. It is a total and complete substance, whereas be purely spiritual, confined to intellection, or understanding.205
without matter a form is incomplete. But if an angel is whole and complete, Despite the condemnation o f animated heavens in 1277, most scholastics
it is also external to the celestial body it moves and is therefore a motor ignored the religious implications o f the issue. Aversa was one o f the few
assistetis, moving its celestial body just as a sailor in a ship (minta in navi) is who did not, choosing rather to draw out some potential religious conse­
separate from the ship but nonetheless moves it - presumably, by steering quences for faith. Despite his awareness o f Duns Scotus’s assumption that
and guiding it.'” Thus an angel is not like a “ composing and informing reason could not demonstrate that the heavens were lifeless and Thomas
torm ’’ (forma componens et injormans), in the manner o f a soul in a body, but Aquinas’s argument that the issue o f celestial animation did not pertain to
an external entity that moves the body with which it is associated/02 faith,200 Aversa believed that the nonanimation o f the celestial bodies could
Can an intellective soul exist in the heavens that is o f the same species as be demonstrated by reason and was upheld by faith.207 As if to ridicule the
our human souls? Here Aversa invokes arguments that are by now familiar. idea o f living celestial bodies, Aversa infers theologically absurd conse­
Without simultaneously existing vegetative and sensitive souls, which occur quences from such an assumption. For example, if celestial bodies are living
in human souls but not in celestial orbs, an intellective soul that is like a things with intellective souls, they would possess free will and could thus
human soul could not exist in the heavens. For a humanlike soul to exist do either good or evil; they would therefore be candidates for merits and
in the heavens, the latter would require a variety o f parts and organs in the demerits, rewards and punishments, from which it followed that they could
manner o f a human body, a diversity that simply does not exist in the be blessed with the saints or damned with the impious. Celestial bodies
heavens.203 that sin would be sent to hell, just as were the wicked angels. B y contrast,
But could another kind o f soul exist in the heavens? For example, could celestial bodies that are meritorious should be adored, just as are the bodies
an intellective soul exist that lacks a sensitive soul? In replying to this third o f saints on earth.2oS
possibility, Aversa straightaway denies it. First, the soul is appropriately Although Franciscus de Oviedo was not mentioned by Mastrius and
and adequately divided into the three levels which Aristotle distinguished, Bellutus (the three published their relevant works in the same year, 1640),
namely vegetative, sensitive, and rational. A soul that lacks sentiency would he was also one o f those “ scholastic doctors” and “ Peripatetics” who denied
thus be anomalous. But perhaps more significantly, Aversa declares that a life to the heavens. O viedo mustered three philosophical arguments against
soul is united to a body not for the sake o f the body but for its own sake.204 the claim for celestial life (De caelo, contro. 1, punc. 1, 1640, 460, col. 2,
par. 5), the first two o f which differ from those advanced by Aversa. In
ipsa intelligentia quae caelum movet; vel esset quaedarn alia anima eiusdem speciei cum the first, he observes that the heavens are so vast in magnitude that they
amma nostra; vel cuiusdam altenus speciei." Ibid.
201. Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 2. 1727, 3:494, col. r, par. 67, also
could not consist o f living forms, because life requires the nearness ot its
used the sailor-ship analogy to express the relationship between an external mover and
the celestial body it moves, but they argued that there is a greater and more powerful 2CS- Although Aversa omits mention o f it. the same argument would apply to an intellective
union between an intelligence and the celestial body it moves than between a sailor and soul devoid o f a vegetative level.
the ship he moves. In their view, a ship is not said to be animated because o f the sailor's 20A. "Unde immerito Scotus in 2. d. 14, q. 1 in fine, dixit solum credi caelum esse inanimatum:
assistance as a mover, but a celestial body may be called animated by virtue o f the non vero ratione probari quia alioqui nulla apparet conditio 111 caelis repugnans ammae.
assistance it receives from its externally located intelligence. Mastrius and Bellutus em­ Ex adverso D. Thomas. 2 Contra Gentiles, cap. 70, indicavit non pertinere ad doctrinam
phasized that they did not speak ot true animation in the sense ot an "informing” soul fidei si caelum dicatur aniniatum amma intellectiva vel inanimatum." Aversa. De caelo,
but only ot ' animation by assistance ’ (Ad Aristotelem dicimus non loqui de vera ani- qu. 33, sec. 7, (027. 112, col. 1. Bonae Spei also cites Scotus and Thomas (comment.
matione, quae fit per substantialem intormationem, sed de ammatione per assistentiam, 3, De coelo, disp. 3, dub. 5, 1652, 11, cols. 1-2).
quatenus intelligentia perpetuo et necessano in ipsius sententia assistit celo llludque movet 207. “ Ex his patet hanc veritatem quod corpora caelestia non sint animata et ratione et hde
unde maior est unio intelligentiae cum celo quam nautae cum navi). probari." Aversa, ibid. In support of his own opinion that faith upholds an unanimated
202. “ Non primum quia substantia angelica est per se totalis atque completa; forma vero est lieavens. Aversa mentions Saint Bonaventure, Capreolus, Hervaeus Natalis, and the
quaedarn pars incompleta nec aliter fieri potest composition per se ununi ex materia et Coimbra Jesuits.
torma. Angelus ergo se habet ad caelum tanquam motor assistens, sicut nauta in navi, 20S. Aversa, ibid., 111, col. 2-112, col. 1. The Coimbra Jesuits had earlier presented similar
non tanquam torma componens et informans, sicut amnia in corpore.” Aversa, Dc caelo, arguments (De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 1. qu. 1, art. 2, 1 s9A, 167-168), as did Bonae Spei
qu. 33. sec. 7. 1627, i l l , col. 1. (comment. 3. De coelo, disp. 3, dub. 5, 1652, 12, col. 1) later in his attack against the
203. Neque amma caeli potest esse eiusdem speciei cum anima nostra. Turn quia haec simul existence o f a rational soul in the heavens. See also, Major, who, after explaining that
est sensitiva et vegetativa, quale non est caelum. Turn quia requirit tantam membrorum John Damascene held that the celestial bodies are inanimate and insensible, declares that
et organorum varietatem talemque corporis humani figuram, quae nullatenus est in “ If the heavens were animated, then similarly they could be just and blessed and con­
caelo.” Ibid. sequently to be adored [or worshiped], the opposite o f which is said in Scriptures
204. Here he cites Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiac, pt. 1, qu. 70. art. 3. ([Scmcna's, bk. 2. disc. 12], 1519b, 65V, col. 1).
4 X2 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 483

parts, so that parts separated by some distance can support and sustain each Indeed, O viedo argues that however important locomotion is, or any
other.'0"' As his second argument, O viedo contrasts the homogeneity and other power, philosophers have not considered motion as an intrinsic aspect
organization o f the parts ot the heavens with the lack o f organization and o f life but have always understood life to consist o f the vegetative soul,
homogeneity in living things, observing that a lack o f organization (deor- “ which does not differ formally from a principle o f increasing by ingesting
ganizatio) and homogeneity are essential for the proper functioning and something’’; the sensitive soul, “ which consists in the principle o f eliciting
operation o f living things.-10 In the third argument, Oviedo emphasizes sensations” ; and the rational soul, “ which is formally the principle o f un­
that celestial bodies lack the three basic levels o f life: the vegetative, sensitive, derstanding.” Whatever might be the importance o f locomotion, it does
and rational. But, as was not uncommon, Oviedo, following suggestions not rank with these three absolutely essential principles o f lite.214
made by Aristotle in De atiima (bk. 2, ch. 3 ),'“ also considered a fourth But these three levels are not observed in celestial bodies. The latter do
level o f soul, namely a level associated with a body’s m otion.212 Although not become lean from lack o f food or become fat from an excess o f it. A
motion is an aspect o f lite, and the celestial bodies do move, one cannot nutritive power would prove unbeneficial to the heavens, because it is only
infer from this alone that celestial bodies are alive. Indeed, O viedo insists appropriate to corruptible things. Nor is there any need for a sensitive
that “ even if they were self-moved, this would not confer life upon them, power, because the heavens do not exhibit grief or joy. And, finally, the
because the locomotive power is not vital, nor is progressive motion in heavens do not possess subtle reason by means o f which they could compose
living things formally a vital action per se.’’2IJ complex things or resolve a serious difficulty.215
If O viedo was prepared to reject the existence o f the three levels o f soul
209. Primam peto, ox ipsorum vastissima magnitudine, quae non recto componitur cum in the heavens and also to deny that locomotion o f celestial bodies was a
viventium formis quae partium approximationem exigunt, ut vicissim foveri possint et sign o f life, Franciscus Bonae Spei (De coelo, comment. 3, disp. 3, dub. 5,
haec in aliani influere.’ Oviedo, De caelo, contro. 1, punc. 1, 1640, 460, col. 2. 1652, 12, cols. 1—2) chose to believe that although the three traditional
210. Secundam depromo ex ipsorum partibus, quas homogeneas esse cernimus nulla deor-
ganizatione elaboratas. Deorgamzatio autem necessano est requisita in viventium tormis aspects o f soul were absent from the heavenly bodies, each o f the latter
ad suarum operationutn functiones.” Ibid. The Coimbra Jesuits had earlier used a similar possessed an internal “ locomotive soul” (anima locomotiva) which enabled
argument (Conimbriccnses. De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 1, qu. 1, art. 2, 159S, 167), as did it to be self-m oving.216 After all, Aristotle had argued that things that are
Compton-Carieton somewhat later (De coelo, disp. i, sec. i, 1649, 397, col. 2). Although
making the same point, Benedictus Hesse (Physics, bk. 8, qu. 17, 1984, 735) used contrary self-moving are alive. In a less than clear and cogent argument, Bonae Spei
language. For him “ every animated thing is organized; the heaven is not organized; insisted that “ things that could move themselves locally above and below
therefore it is not alive. Thus where Oviedo says animated things are “ deorganized” [that is, upward and downward] in their natural centers [or with respect to
(deorganizatio), Benedictus Hesse says they are “ organized” (or^anizatw). Mastrius and
Bellutus (De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 2, 1727, 3:495, col. 1, par. 73) adopted an approach their natural centers] are alive, or animated.” 217 Since the heavens are also
contrary to Oviedo s. They argued that the heavens consist of parts that are heteroge­ entities that are capable o f m oving themselves above and below and are
neous - not homogeneous - but that this provides no warrant to inter that the heavens therefore self-moving, they must possess a locomotive soul and also be
form an organic body. The heterogeneity of the heavens derives from the differences in
species among the various parts o f the heavens (ibid., art. 4, 498, col. 1-499, col. 1, alive.218
where Mastrius and Bellutus consider “ In what manner the celestial bodies differ among To reinforce his position, Bonae Spei likens the celestial bodies and their
themselves” [Quo pacto coelestia corpora inter se differans]).
211- In De atiima 2.3.4143.30-3 1, Aristotle enumerates the various psvchic powers that living 214. “ Neque Philosophi vitam aliquam cognoverunt praeter vegetativam, quae non dittert
things possess when he declares that “ those we have mentioned are the nutritive, the formaliter a principio se augendi per intus sumptionem; et sensitivam. quae in principio
appetitive, the sensory, the locomotive, and the power o f thinking” ([Smith], 1984). sensationes eliciendi consistit; et rationalem. quae dicit formaliter mtelligendi principium.
Thus was locomotion projected into medieval discussions about the possibilitv o f ani­ Ac proinde onme illud cui non convemt aliquod ex his tribus principiis omnino vitae
mated celestial bodies. omms expers est. quantumvis potentia locomotiva. aliave quacumque virtute polleat.”
212. John of Jandun, De coelo, bk. 2, qu. 4, 1552, 2$r, col. 2, distinguished the same four Ibid, 461, col. 1.
levels of soul when he declared that it a heaven is animated with an inhering soul, the 215. Ibid. Although the content o f the arguments was somewhat different, the Conimbn-
latter would be “ animated either with a sensitive soul, or a vegetative [soul], or an censes, De coelo. bk. 2. ch. 1, qu. 1. art. 2, 1598. 167, also showed that a soul could not
intellective [soul], or a motive soul, beyond which four subdivisions there are no further be joined to a material heaven with respect to its vegetative, sentient, and rational levels
souls” (Si celum esset ammatum primo modo [that is, as an inherent or informing soul], nor because of local motion.
vel esset ammatum anima sensitive, vel vegetativa, vel intellectiva, vel motiva, per 216. “ D ico. . . verisimilius est secundum philosophiam naturalem praecise coelos esse ani-
sutficientem divisionem quia non sunt plures animae, ut patet secundo De atiima). matos anima locomotiva disdneta a vegetativa, sensitiva, et rationali.” Bonae Spei,
213. “ Sit tertia ratio nullum repenri rationis vestigium suadens haec corpora vita aliqua comment. 3, De coelo. disp. 3, dub. 5, 1652, 12, col. 1.
vegetativa, sensitiva. aut rationali g3udere, quod sic probo. Si aliquod fundamentum 217. "Ilia quae in centro suo naturali movent se localiter supra et infra sunt viventia, sive
vitae in his corporibus posset repenri esset motus localis. . . . Non autem hatic inferre ammata; atqui coeli sunt tales, ergo, etc.” Ibid.
constabit ex infra dicendis ubi probabo caelos non moveri a se; deinde etiamsi a se 2 18. Bonae Spei does not explain the sense in which a celestial body moves “ above and
moverentur, non ex eo virtute vitali essent donandi quia virtus locomotiva vitalis non below” or upward and downward. Perhaps he was thinking o f the variation in distance
est, neque motus progressive adhuc in viventibus per se formaliter est actio vitalis.” o f the planets, which was sometimes depicted as resulting from an up and down motion
Oviedo, De caelo, contro. 1, punc. 1. 460, col. 2-461, col. 1. with respect to their centers.
4*4 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 485

motions to those ot a bird. Surely no one would deny life and soul to a It is not likely, however, that Amicus thought o f celestial bodies as fully
bird, which we judge to fly by itself because we cannot perceive an external alive. His ideas were probably more in keeping with those o f Dominicus
m over.2"’ Similarly, we cannot perceive external movers for the heavenly de Flandria, who, in the fifteenth century, adopted the thoughts and very
bodies and must assume they are self-moved. M oreover, one must either nearly the words o f Thomas Aquinas when de Flandria declared that “ ce­
concede that a progressive motion caused by an internal principle is not an lestial bodies are not animated as are plants and animals, but equivocally.
action stemming from a living thing or assert that it is. If it is not, then, a Thus among those who assume that they are animated and those who say
fortiori, the sensations and “ vegetations” (that is, growth and nourishment) they are not, little or no substantive difference is found, except in the
o f ordinary bodies do not indicate life in those bodies. But if one concedes w ords.” 224 That Amicus probably held similar thoughts is suggested by the
that the local motion o f the heavens arises from an internal principle, then fact that Dominicus assumed, as did Amicus, that “ the heavens are animated
it must follow that they are also alive and have a soul, a “ locom otive soul. ” 22° with an assisting soul and are not animated with an informing soul which
Although Bonae Spei’s surprising opinion found little support in scholastic would be an essential part o f the whole celestial b od y.” By “ assisting soul”
circles, it is noteworthy because it assigned a degree o f life to the celestial (anima assistente), or intelligence, Dominicus did not mean a soul distin­
bodies by virtue ot their motion, which was caused by an internal principle. guishable into vegetative, animal, and rational aspects, as Aristotle defined
The customary approach was to attribute some sense o f life to the celestial soul in the second book o f De anima, but only intended a spiritual substance
bodies through the action o f external movers, namely the intelligences that that was distinct from, and external to, the b ody.22'’ Indeed, Dominicus
were usually alleged to move them. Although Thomas Aquinas was am­ explains that “ the spiritual substance is united to the celestial body as a
bivalent, it was not unusual to assume that this was also his opinion. Indeed, mover to a m obile.” 226
it also seems to have been the opinion o f John ofjandun, w ho denied the From the thirteenth and into the seventeenth century, the question about
existence ot vegetative, sensitive, and intellective souls in the celestial bodies the animation o f the celestial bodies drew at least five distinguishable re­
but allowed that a celestial body could be alive by virtue o f an external sponses. One, enunciated by Peter Aureoli in the fourteenth century, ac­
m over.22' corded the highest level o f life to celestial bodies by viewing the relationship
A strong advocate o f the Thomistic view was Bartholom ew Amicus, between an intelligence and its celestial body as a unity and oneness in the
who informs us that many philosophers and moderns, especially Peripa­ manner o f matter and form in terrestrial bodies. A second opinion, held by
tetics, “ say that the heavens are animated, for although they deny that they both Benedictus Hesse and John Major, denied both an informed intellective
are animated by an informing soul, they do not absolutely deny that a thing soul and life to celestial bodies. 227 Neither, however, reveals wrhether he
could be called animated by means o f an assisting intelligence.” 2 022 Thus
19 thought an external intelligence was associated with each celestial body as
Amicus was prepared to argue that “ the aggregate o f an orb and an intel­ an “ assisting m over.”
ligence is, according to Aristotle and truth, an animated [or living] b o d y .” 223 For the most part, however, scholastics across the centuries opted for
one o f the three remaining interpretations, although some authors were
219. “ Nec certe ullus est qui aviculae vitam et animam negaret si in ipsa solum volatum sufficiently ambiguous as to defy easy classification. There were those who
aliunde certus quod ab extrinseco non moveretur deprehenderet.” Bonae Spei, comment. - and we may count this as a third opinion - denied a genuine informing
3, De coelo, disp. 3, dub. 5, 1652, 12, col. 1.
soul to the heavens and assumed instead an external assisting intelligence
220. “ Vel dicendum motuin progressivum ab incrinseco qua talem non esse actum vitalem,
quod dici non potest alioqui idem dici a fortiori deberet de sensationibus, vegetationibus. that caused the circular motion o f each celestial body. They were, however,
etc : vel dicendum coelorum motum localem ab intnnseco pariter esse actum vitalem,
ac per consequens animam in ipsis praesupponere.” Ibid., col. 2. 224. "Sic igitur patet quod corpora celestia non sunt aninuta sicut plante et aniinalia, sed
221. "Tertio dicendum quod coelum est animatum anima movente secundo modo animati equivoce. Unde inter ponentes ea esse annnata et ponentes esse non animata parva vel
si accipiatur cum motore.” John ofjandun, De coelo, bk. 2, qu. 4, 1552, 2sr, col. 2. nulla differentia reperitur in re, sed in voce tantuin." De Flandria, Metaphysics, bk. 12,
Jandun had defined the "second w ay” that a celestial body could be animated in terms qu. 7, 1523, sig. R.sv, col. 2.
o f an external mover (“ Alio modo animatum dicitur anima non inhaerente corpori nec 225. "Ex predictis ergo colligitur quod celum est animatum anima assistente et non est
constituta per subiectum. quae est pnncipium dans sibi esse, sed solum animatum anima animatum anima informante, que sit pars essentialis tonus corporis celestis. Et quando
non inhaerente corpori nec constituta per subjectum, quae est principium motus et dicitur quod corpus celeste est animatum amma assistente non accipitur lbi anima se­
coniungitur ei secundum motum quia est principium immediatum et dcterminatum cundum quod diffimtur a Philosopho in secundo De amma. Sed accipitur ibi anima pro
motus” ). Ibid. substantia spirituali.” Ibid.
222. “ Cominuniter tarn philosophi quam recentiores, praecipue Peripatetici, dicunt coelum 226. “ Et substantia spiritualis unitur corpori celesti tanquam motor mobili.” Ibid.
esse animatum. 11am quod negant esse animatum per animam informantem, non negant 227. See Benedictus Hesse, Physics, bk. 8, qu. 17, 1984, 735-737, and Major. Sentences, bk.
(altered from “ negat” ) simpliciter dici animatum per intelligentiam assistentem.” Ami­ 2. dist. 12, 1519b, 65V, col. 1. Major does not assign a separate question to the animation
cus, De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 4, dubit. 2, art. 3, 1626, 170, col. 1. o f the heavens but considers it as the titth conclusion in a discussion o f whether the
223. “ Prima conclusio: coelum ut dicit aggregatum ex orbe et intelligentia est secundum heavens consist o f matter and torm. There he declares that "the heavens do not have an
Aristotelem et ventatem corpus animatum ” Ibid. intelligence or intellectual nature as their torm."
486 THE CELESTIAL REGION PROPERTIES OF CELESTIAL BODIES 487

ambivalent about the attribution o f any level o f life to the heavenly bodies. Almost without exception, scholastic natural philosophers between the thir­
Sharing this opinion were, as we have seen, Thomas Aquinas and D om - teenth and the seventeenth century did not attribute life to celestial bodies
inicus de Flandria. Within a fourth category, we may include those who themselves, although they probably all assumed that the intelligences that
were more positive and, because o f the external intelligence associated with moved those bodies were alive. When natural philosophers asked whether
each celestial body as the cause o f its motion, allowed a certain level o f the heavens were alive, they were really inquiring whether an external,
animation to all heavenly bodies but did not consider them fully living spiritual intelligence or angel, which had neither vegetative, sentient, nor
things. Siger o f Brabant, Boethius o f Dacia, John o f Jandun, Johannes de rational levels o f activity but was itself alive in some sense, could somehow
Magistris, Bartholomew Amicus, and Mastrius and Bellutus seem to belong confer life upon the physical, celestial body that it' moved. A few thought
to this grou p .'28 As a fifth opinion, numerous authors, such as Michael it could, but most did not.
Scot, Richard o f Middleton, Nicole Oresme, Galileo, the Coim bra Jesuits, Our attention in the fifth section o f this chapter was focused on the ways
Raphael Aversa, Roderigo de Arriaga, Francisco de Oviedo, and Thomas in which life might have been attributed to the celestial orbs and intelligences
Compton-Carleton, assumed that each celestial body was m oved by an associated with them. Our concern was for life as an attribute or property
external assisting intelligence, or angel, but they saw no reason to attribute o f heavenly bodies and beings. In Section II o f Chapter 18, we shall be
any level o f life to the celestial body itself.22'' Indeed, Arriaga argued that concerned once more with orbs, intelligences, and angels. Although we
even it celestial orbs or bodies were moved intrinsically, this was insufficient shall again have occasion to deal briefly with the animation o f the heavens
to conter life upon them.2 930
8
2 in Chapter 18, Section II (especially in II.4 and II.5.a), the primary emphasis
there will be on intelligences and angels as possible motive powers o f the
orbs and planets.
4. Heavens not really animated

O n the basis o f all that has been said in this chapter, we may plausibly
conclude that the heavens were not gradually deanimated during the Middle
Ages, largely because they were never really animated in the first instance.231

228. Because ot Thomas's ambivalence, many placed him in this group, although others
assigned him to the following, or fifth, category.
229. For Richard ot Middleton. Oresme, and Oviedo, see the earlier part o f this section.
Although Michael Scot (Sphere, lec. 5, 1949, 289) does not mention intelligences or
angels, he holds that the mover o f a celestial body is external to the body and is the
entity that has a desire for motion. The celestial body itself is wholly inanimate. Galileo
asserts (De cuelo. qu. 6 [L], 197?- 154) that “ apart from intelligences no other souls are
constituent in the heavens" and that these intelligences are external “ assisting forms”
(155). In Galileo’s lengthy discussion o f the possible animation o f the heavens, there is
no indication that he assigned any level o f life to the heavens. Arriaga also assumed that
the heavens are moved by an assisting intelligence, or angel (“ Respondeo caelos non a
se sed ab extrinseco. ab intelligentia assistente, id est, ab angelo moveri"). Arriaga, disp.
1, sec. 2, 1632. 498, col. 2. That Oviedo, De caelo, contro. 1, punc. 1, 1640, 462. col.
1, considered angels as celestial movers is evident by his statement that “ De facto caelos
ab Angelis moveri mihi persuadet authontas Patrum et Scholasdcorum, qui caelestes
motus Angelis attribuunt.” Compton-Carleton, who believed that intelligences moved
the heavens (De coelo, disp. 4, sec. 3, 1649, 409, col. 2), denied any trace o f life to the
heavens (ibid., disp. 1, sec. 1, 397, col. 2): “ Nullum enim vitae vestigium in coelis
deprehendimus. Unde gratis et sine ullo fundamento vitam iis quis tribuent.”
230. "Non emm sufficit ad vitam virtus producendi aliquid ab intrinseco.” Arriaga, ibid.
231. Dales, 1980, leaves the impression that there was a gradual falling away from the con­
ception ot an animated heaven to one that is deanimated but that the process o f celestial
deamination was incomplete during the Middle Ages. Dales does not make the distinction
between tully living celestial bodies and the weak form o f life associated with an external
intelligence or angel that has been emphasized here. Only the latter played a significant
role in medieval deliberations. Moreover, the special level o f life associated with an
intelligence, which was not really comparable to life in bodies informed by a soul with
vegetative, sentient, and rational levels, was not usually transferred to the celestial body
that it moved.
C E L E S T IA L M O T I O N S A N D TH E IR C A U S E S 489
circular.3 He does not, however, extend the claim for uniformity to the
inferior planets, because the resultant motion o f each o f them derives from
a combination o f other motions. Thus Aristotle acknowledged the celestial
On celestial motions and appearances by recognizing that, as Averroes would put it many centuries
later, “ the orbs that are under it [that is, under the starry orb, or outermost

their causes heaven] are sometimes quicker and sometimes slower, . . . and their motions
appear diverse,” because “ there is not one motion but several, which are
united to move the planet.” 4 Medieval natural philosophers sought to dif­
ferentiate between the seemingly uniform and the seemingly irregular types
o f motion and in the process even distinguished between “ uniform” and
“ regular” motion. Much effort was expended on defining terms such as
In its various manifestations, celestial motion was the most frequently dis­ uniformitas and dijjonnitas; rcgularitas and irrepularitas; and simplex and cotn-
cussed theme in medieval cosmology. A glance at Section XIII in the “ Cat­ positus.
alog o f Questions” (Appendix I) reveals that at least 73 questions about the Although, up to this point, I may have used the terms “ uniform” and
heavens were devoted to the nature and causes o f the motions o f the orbs, “ regular” synonymously, some natural philosophers distinguished sharply
a number that far exceeds all other categories o f questions.1 The questions between them. 5 Albert o f Saxony insisted that it is not absurd that certain
ranged considerably, embracing the prime mover, /he naturalness o f circular motions could be uniform but not regular and that some might be regular
motion and its regularity and uniformity; whether distinct and separate but not uniform .6 Albert measured uniformity o f motion with respect to
intelligences or internal forms or natures move the planets; whether planets the parts o f a body and regularity o f motion with respect to tim e.7 Thus
are moved with contrary motions and whether the motions o f planets and “ a motion is said to be uniform by which one part o f some mobile moves
orbs weaken over time; and many others. As the “ Catalog” indicates, scho­ just as quickly as another part [of that same m obile].” For example, although
lastics emphasized certain topics over others, and it is on these that we shall a stone descends with an accelerated motion, every part o f that stone is
locus here. moving with the same speed at any particular point in its descent.'5 Opposed
The treatment of celestial motion may be conveniently divided into two to uniform motion is “ difform ” motion, where one part moves more
broad categories, the kinematics and dynamics o f motion. In the former,
motion is viewed as a phenomenon in space and time, without reference
3. in Michael Scot’s thirteenth-century translation, the uniform motion o f the first heaven is
to the forces or entities that may produce and sustain it. Bv contrast, the described as “ equalis sine diversitate.”
dynamics o f motion focuses on causes and therefore considers anything 4. “ Et quia in orbibus, qui sunt sub isto, aliquando est velocitas et aliquando tarditas . . .
relevant to the production and preservation o f a body's motion. Although quoniam . . .non est unus motus, sed plures qui congregantur ad movcndum stellam.”
Averroes [De caelo, bk. 2, comment. 35), 1562-1574, 5:118, col. 2.
kinematic and dynamic aspects o f motion are not mutually exclusive, we 5. Versor [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8], 1493, 22r, col. 1. explains that “ some assume a difference
shall adhere to this convenient division as much as is feasible.2 between a uniform motion and a regular motion,” thus implying that some did not make
this distinction. Pierre d’Aillv was one who did not, but, as we shall see, Buridan and
Albert o f Saxony did.
6. “ Ulterius sciendum est quod non est inconveniens aliquem motum esse uniformem et non
esse regularem. . . . Similiter non est inconvemens aliquem motum esse regularem et tamer,
I. T h e kin em atics o f celestial m o tio n non esse uniformem. ” Albert of Saxony [De celo. bk. 2, qu. 13], 1518, 1 lor, col. 2. Thomas
Bricot said the same thing ([De celo, bk. 2], i486, iSr, col. 1).
7. Nicole Oresme [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8], 1965, 580-584, assumed the same distinction. Bv
1. Uniformity and regularity contrast, Pierre d'Ailly, 14 Questions, qu. 3, 1531, 150V, ignored it or found it unacceptable.
He chose to take the terms “ regular” and “ uniform” as synonymous, as evidenced by such
expressions as “ uniform or regular” (unitormis quo ad tempus seu regularis) or “ regular
a. Definitions
or uniform” (regularis seu unitormis).
8. "Sciendum est quod differentia est inter motum regularem et uniformem. Nam uniformitas
In De carlo (bk. 2, ch. 6), Aristotle argues that the primary motion o f the
motus attenditur quantum ad partes mobilis. ita quod ille motus dicitur unitormis quo
first, or outermost, heaven — the medieval prinmin mobile — is uniform and movetur aliquod mobile cuius una pars movetur ita velociter sicut alia, sicut si lapis aliquis
descenderet non obstante quod ille motus in fine esset velocior quam in principle.” Albert
o f Saxony [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 13], 1518. nor, col. 1. Versor, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8. 1493,
1. Only the number ot questions about the sublunar region approximates it. 22r. col. 1, gives essentially the same definition. D ’Ailly, ibid., gives a similar definition,
a. The distinction between kinematic and dynamic motion was explicitlv made at .Merton but also adds a second definition o f uniform motion with respect to time, which is the
College. Oxford, in the fourteenth century (see Clagert, 1959. 205-209). counterpart o f the definition tor regularity just given.
490 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 491

quickly than another, as is the case with a revolving wheel. The parts nearer mobilis) and “ on the part o f space” (ex parte spatii), irregularities that Amicus
the axle are not moved as quickly as those nearer the circumference, although described as “ external.” A mobile is irregular when its shape is uneven or
they all complete their circulations in the same time.9 Thus a sphere - and irregular. But the heavens - indeed, each heaven or orb - is spherical and
therefore a celestial sphere — does not move with uniform motion. thus as regular as is possible.13 Albert o f Saxony observes further that the
Regularity o f motion, by contrast, is measured only with respect to time celestial mobiles - that is, the planets and orbs - are also immutable, and
(ex parte temporis). The body moves with the same speed in every part of therefore no irregularity can arise from them .14 Although the assumption
time. It follows that irregularity o f motion occurs when a body moves more o f eccentric orbs in the heavens seems to pose a problem, since they are
quickly at one time and more slow ly in another.10 In the seventeenth cen­ nonuniform with respect to the center o f the world, Buridan avoids this
tury, Bartholomew Amicus ([De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dub. 6, art. 1], 1626, potential dilemma by resorting to the concept o f a “ total orb” (totalis
314^ c°h 1) adopted not only Albert’s definitions o f uniform and regular tphaera). Eccentrics are contained within a total orb, whose outer and inner
motion but also his examples. surfaces are concentric. The total orb is thus regular, although it contains
From these definitions, Amicus concluded that “ uniformity can be found eccentric “ partial orbs” that are irregular with respect to the center o f the
without regularity, as was said about a falling stone; and regularity without w orld.I>
uniformity, as is obvious from the motion o f a w heel.’’ " As Albert of Irregularity with respect to space would occur if the body were moved
Saxony explained, at every point o f the descent o f an accelerated falling through a twisting or angular space. But this cannot apply to celestial
body, all parts o f %it are m oving with equal speed and are thus moving motion, because “ celestial bodies are not moved through any spaces distinct
uniformly. But they are not m oving regularly, because the velocity o f the from themselves.” 16 Here Buridan means that every celestial orb always
body alters by virtue o f its acceleration: it will be greater at the end o f its rotates in the same place and never moves through a space that lies outside
descent than at the beginning.12 itself. Hence there can be no irregularity with respect to celestial space,
Additional regularities and irregularities were also distinguished. Buridan, because no such space exists.
for example, described irregularities “ on the part o f the m obile” (ex parte Not all o f these definitions were employed, but two that have not yet
been mentioned played an important role: the definitions o f simple and
9. “ Motus autem dicitur difformis cuius una pars movetur velocius et alia tardius, sicut esset
motus rote, partes entm eius circa axem non movetur ita velociter sicut partes circa
compound motion. According to Buridan, a circular simple motion (motus
circumterentiam, licet bene die partes eque velociter circuant. Albert ot Saxony, ibid. circulars simplex) is that o f a single, continuous mobile or orb that is moved
Oresme, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8, 1965, 380, gives essentially the same definitions, as does by a single mover around one set o f poles, with motion around any other
Versor, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8, 1493, 22r, coi. 1.
10. Regularitas autem motus attenditur ex parte temporis ita quod motus ille dicitur regularis
poles excluded. A compound (composittim) motion applies to a single mobile
quando ipsum mobile movetur eque velociter in una parte temporis sicut in alia. Sed ille within which two or more simple motions are distinguishable. The motion
motus dicitur irregularis quo movetur ahquod mobile quod in una parte movetur velocius o f that single mobile is the resultant o f a plurality o f simple motions, each
et in alia tardius.” Albert o f Saxony, ibid., bk. 2, qu. 13, 1518, n o , col. 2. Buridan [De
caelo, bk. 2, qu. 11 ], 1942, 173, takes up this case as the third kind o f distinguishable
o f which moves around a different pole and has its own mover. In com­
irregular motion. It is irregularity “ from the standpoint o f velocity” (ex parte velocitatis); pound motion, then, we find a plurality o f simple motions, and therefore
tor Buridan s other two kinds ot irregularities (ex parte mobilis and ex parte spatii, see the a plurality o f orbs, poles, and m overs.17 The observable planetary motions
paragraph following the next one). In the fifteenth century, Bricot presented the same
three distinctions ot irregular motion (Bricot, De celo, bk. 2, 14S6, i8r, col. 1). Butidan
was probably his ultimate source. Oresme gives the same definition as Albert (Oresme, 13. Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 11, 1942. 173. Bricot repeats the same description (De celo,
De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8. 1965, 382). bk. 2, i486, i8r, col. 1), as does Amicus, De caelo, tract. 3, qu. 6, dubit. 6, art. 1, 1626.
11. “ Secundo notandum: uniformitatem repenn posse sine regularitate, ut dictum est de 3 14, col. 2.
lapidis descensu; et regularitatem sine uniformitate, ut patet motu rotae." Amicus [De 14. “ Irregularitas motus non potest venire nisi propter mutationem mobilis aut motoris.
caelo. tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 6, art. ij, 1626, 314, col. 1. Amicus also holds (ibid.) that Modo mobile puta celurn est inalterabile.” Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 13, 1318,
both uniformity and regularity can be found in the same bodv, as, for example, in a 1 iov, col. 1.
heavy body moving downward through a medium that resists it equally at every point 15. Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 11, 1942, 173. Buridan does not use the term “ orbis partialis”
from beginning to end. Under these circumstances, the body will traverse equal distances or an equivalent, but it is what he had in nnnd. For a discussion o f total and partial orbs,
in equal parts ot time ( Et denique posset utranque reperiri in aliquo motu, ut in gravi see Chapter 13, Section II.4 (on d Ailly).
descendente per medium a pnneipio ad fmem aequaliter resistens. Unde illud grave in 16. Buridan, ibid. Bricot gives the same definition (De celo, bk. 2, i486. i8r, col. 1). Amicus
aequalibus partibus temporis aequalia pertranseat spatia). mentions “ irregularity with respect to space" (per spatium irregulare), which is a space, or
12. Ulterius sciendum est quod non est inconvemcns aliquem tnotum esse unitormem et path, that is devious or twisting. But he dismisses such talk, because the heavens move
non esse regularem. Patet de motu gravis deorsum in medio umtormi quod movetur with circular motion (Amicus, De caelo, tract. 3, qu. 6, dubit. 6, art. 1, 1626, 314, col.
uniformiter quia una eius pars movetur ita velociter sicut alia et tamcn non movetur 2).
regulanter quia movetur in fine velocius quam in principio.” Albert o f Saxony. De celo, 17. “ Et tunc solet distingui quod in caelo motus localis potest did simplex vel compositus;
bk. 2, qu. 13, 1318, 1 tor, col. 2. Oresme. De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8, 196s, 382, gives the same et vocatur motus circularis simplex, quia est unius mobilis continui et super eosdem polos
example. et ab uno motore. circumscripto omni motu praterquam super illos polos. Sed motus
49- THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M OTIONS AND THEIR CAUSES 493

are the result o f compound motion, whereas simple motion is unobservable velocity.22 Moreover, if irregularity did occur in the primum mobile, it would
and is therefore arrived at bv reason.1* have to arise either from the body o f the primum mobile itself or from its
mover. Because it is simple, ungenerated (although created), and incorrup­
tible, the primum mobile cannot change and become irregular. It follows that
h. Application of definitions
since a mover is more noble and excellent than that which it moves, the
Conclusions about celestial uniformity and regularity were based on the mover o f the primum mobile, whatever it may be, must also be absolutely
application o f most ot these definitions to celestial motions. The daily mo­ immutable. Hence the primum mobile is not susceptible to irregular m otion.2’
tion o f the heavens taken as a whole is not uniform, because different parts The definition o f simple motion makes it obvious that no simple celestial
move with different speeds: the parts o f the heavens around the celestial motion is irregular; or, to put it positively, every simple motion is regular.
equator move more quickly than do the parts around the poles o f the world. Thus no part o f the heavens which moves with a simple motion - and this
This occurs because in equal times, the lineal distances traversed by parts encompasses all individual orbs - is moved taster at one time than at an­
near a larger circumference are much greater than the distances described other.24
by the parts near the poles or near a smaller circumference. Despite the The motion o f individual planets is irregular, because the position o f any­
lack of a uniform daily motion, Bartholomew Amicus emphasized that the one o f them at any time is the result o f two or more simple motions around
daily motion was regular (regularis), because all o f its parts described equal different poles, which produces a compound motion. As Oresme expressed
angles around the axis o f the w orld.20 it: “ A motion composed o f many motions can be irregular, as could be
The motion ot the primum mobile, or outermost movable sphere, some­ demonstrated geometrically, so that if something is moved in two motions
times identified with the sphere o f the fixed stars, was characterized as each o f which is regular, and these take place around diverse centers or on
regular because no change in velocity occurs.21 Every change in velocity, diverse poles, it is necessary that the [resultant motion] take place irregularly,
whether from an increase or decrease, that is, from intension or remission, as is clear in the theory o f the sun.',2s The planets move with more than
to use medieval parlance, must occur at the beginning o f a motion (as in two simple motions, and the resultant compound motion causes the planets
violent motion), at the end ot a motion (as in natural motion), or in the to move sometimes more quickly and sometimes more slowly. Indeed,
middle o f a motion (as in projectile motion or the motion o f animals, which unlike the Sun, the other planetary motions are sometimes retrograde,
often move laterally, as birds do). But in the circular motion o f the primum sometimes stationary, and sometimes direct.20
mobile, there is no beginning, middle, or end and therefore no change in
22. See Versor. De ceio. bk. 2, qu. 8, 1493, 22r, cols. 1-2, and Amicus. De caelo. tract. 5.
compositus dicitur congregatio in eodem mobili plurium talium motuum simplicium qu. 6, dubit. 6. art. 3, 1626, 315, col. 1. Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 11, 1942, 174,
super diversos polos a diversis motoribus." Buridan. ibid.. i~4. With a few minor var­ applies this reasoning to all o f the planets as well, not just the primum mobile; Albert of
iations, Albert ot Saxony otters a virtually verbatim version o f Buridan’s account (see Saxony, De ceio, bk. 2, qu. 13, 1518. 1 iov. col. 1, does the same.
Albert ot Saxony. De ceio. bk. a, qu. 13, 1518. t tor, col. 2). It is more likely that Buridan 23. In a second argument for the regularity of the first heaven, Versor (ibid., col. 2) declares:
was Albert’s source than vice versa. Bricot presents similar definitions iDe ceio, bk. 2, "Si in illo motu esset irregularitas vel ilia irregularitas proveniret ex parte mobilis vel
i486, i8r, col. 2). In the seventeenth century. Amicus adopted the same two definitions, motoris, vel utriusque. Non mobilis quia primum celum est simplex, ingenitum. incor-
probably deriving them from Albert ot Saxony's De ceio. which he cites and with which ruptibile et omnino intransmutabile et ergo semper est in eadem dispositione ad suscep-
he seems to have been tamihar. tionem motus et ad obediendum moton. Et cum motor sit prestantior mobili, sequitur
18. “ Et lilt’ motus compositus in ipsis planetis est ille qui nobis apparet; simplices autem non quod motor primi mobilis, scilicet celi. est simplex et omnino intransnnitabilis. Ergo
apparent nobis distincte ad invicem nisi per ratiocinationem.” Buridan. ibid. Albert of semper est in eadem dispositione et virtute ad movendum. Ergo ex parte sui non est
Saxony, ibid., has the same passage almost verbatim. irregularitas in motu celi.” Versor offers four arguments in tavor o f the regularity o f the
19. “ Sit prima conclusio: ista motus ipsius celi non est uniformis probatur ex eo quod non primum mobile.
omnes partes celi moventur eque velociter. Partes emm cell circa equinoctialem moventur 24. As Buridan expressed it, “ Dicendum est quod nullus motus simplex in caelo est isto
velocius quam partes cell circa polos ex eo: quod in equahbus partibus tempons maius modo irregularis, ita quod nec caelum nec aliquod astrum nec aliqua pars caeli movetur
spatium lineaie describunt, puta rnaiorem circumferentiam circa axem mundi.” Albert o f velocius uno tempore quam alio motu aliquo simplici. scilicet circumscriptis aliis moti-
Saxony, ibid., i i o v , col. t. bus.” Buridan, De caelo. bk. 2, qu. 11. 1942. 174. See also Amicus, De caelo. tract, s,
20. “ Etiam si motus caeli non sit umtormis, adhuc tamen est reguiaris, nam partes illius motus qu. 6, dubit. 6. art. 3, 1626, 316, col. 1.
semper in aequalibus temporibus describunt aequales anguios circa axem mundi." Amicus, 25. Oresme. De ceio, bk. 2. qu. 8, 1965. 5S4 (English!. 583 (Lann'i. In his later French
De caelo. tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 6, art. 3, 1626. 316. cols. 1-2. commentary, Le Livre Ju del. bk. 2, ch. 13, 1908. 4.13. Oresme gives a detailed example
21. Oresine declares (Le Livrc Ju del. bk. 2, ch. 13, 1968, 413) that “ the highest heaven has o f the Sun’s proper and daily motions. Earlier Buridan, ibid.. 175. had given the same
simple regular motion, but each heaven beneath this primary one moves with compound example.
motion, combining severed simple regular movements.” In modern physics and cos­ 26. See Albert o f Saxony, De ceio. bk. 2. qu. 13, i s i S. n ow col. 1 (conclus. 4). Buridan.
mology, a body moving with circular motion would be assumed to change its direction, ibid., says similar things, explaining that the Sun undergoes two simultaneous motions,
and therefore its velocity, at every instant. For scholastics, however, velocity in rectilinear a daily motion and an annual motion between the Tropics ot Cancer and Capricorn. Tne
or circular motion was straightforwardly equivalent to speed. other planets have even more motions and undergo even greater difformiues ot motion
CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AND THEIR CA U SES 495
494 THE CELESTIAL REGION
circles are equal, one planet or orb must move faster than the other (ibid.,
If medieval scholastic natural philosophers had confined themselves to
221). If the latter is the case, then two possible causes may produce differ­
the data o f astronomical observations, they would have had no reason to
ences in velocity: the power or force that moves one planet or orb is greater
assume regularity o f celestial motion. The observations would have driven
than that o f another; or, if the movers are equal in power, the resistance to
them to the conclusion that celestial motions are irregular. For Buridan and
them must vary to produce unequal speeds. As a faithful Aristotelian, Bur­
Albert o f Saxony, these apparent irregularities were the result o f compound
idan immediately rejects celestial resistances or impediments. “ I believe,”
motions. But appearances could hardly serve as conclusive grounds for
he concludes, “ that a greater velocity exists in the heavens because o f the
accepting a fundamentally irregular system o f planetary motion. Traditional
greater perfection o f a mover or from the smallness o f the mobile. ” Buridan
Aristotelian metaphysical principles concerning the world were based on
hastens to add that even in the absence o f celestial resistance, the movers
certain assumptions about underlying realities. The most fundamental o f
will not move any mobile, or planet, with an unlimited, or infinite, velocity.
these proclaimed the incorruptibility o f the celestial ether along with its
Despite the lack o f resistance, the movers cannot cause unlimited speeds,
future eternity. This assumption alone would have driven medieval cos-
because they are themselves only o f finite power.
mologists to belief in an underlying celestial regularity. An incorruptible
The ratio o f a motive power, or intelligence, to its mobile, or planet,
ethereal substance o f which the planets and the surrounding medium were
determines the speed o f that planet. For example, if “ we assume that mobile
composed, and which moved - by whatever means - with circular motion,
[or planet] A is 100 times greater than B and the tw o move with equal
could not alter its speed. To do so would have implied change, and therefore
speeds, then the power [or force] moving A would have to be 100 times
corruptibility. Hence the traversal o f equal distances in equal times had to
more powerful than the power that moves B ” (ibid., 222). But if A is
be assumed at a basic level. That level lay with the constituent orbs o f the
moved with twice the speed o f B, then the power that moves A must be
system, each o f which was assumed to move with a “ simple circular mo­
twice as great as the power that moves B.
tion” (motus circularis simplex). Each individual orb moved with regularity
Although Buridan devoted a question to determine whether the inferior
and uniformity. The observed planetary positions, which reveal changes in
spheres o f planets are moved more quickly than the superior spheres, he
velocity and direction (from progressive to retrograde motion), result from
could not, nor could anyone else, offer any absolute response.28 Despite
the interaction o f tw o or more simple motions. Ironically, the resultant and
observational knowledge o f the planetary periods, it was not possible for
observed irregular compound motions were perceived as somehow less real
Buridan and his fellow scholastics to determine the real speeds o f the pla­
than the simple motions that produced them.
netary orbs. Whether the orb that carried Mars moved more quickly, less
Whatever the appearances, scholastic authors treated each planet as if it
quickly, or at the same speed, as the orb that carried Venus could not be
moved with uniform speed. It therefore seemed natural to inquire whether
determined without arbitrary assumptions about the size o f orbits, speeds,
all planets moved with the same uniform speed. All knew that the planets
motive powers, and even magnitudes.
completed their respective periodic revolutions in different times.27 But, as
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, some abandoned much if not
Buridan expressed it ([De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 20], 1942, 220), “ although the
all o f the basic terminology o f regular and uniform motion, while others
Moon completes a circulation more quickly than the Sun, it does not follow
retained it. The Coimbra Jesuits, for example, seem to have abandoned the
that it [the Moon] is moved more quickly because the path o f the Sun’s
earlier language, although they did employ a few similar terms. They inquire
sphere is much greater.” Despite the disparity in their circular paths, the
whether the celestial motions are “ uniform and equable” (uniformes et ae-
Sun might move as quickly as the Moon. O r it might move with the same
quabiles), thus signifying that these two terms are equivalent. Although they
velocity as the Moon, “ if we assumed that the ratio o f the Sun’s sphere to
ignore the distinction between simple and compound motion, they did
the M oon’s sphere in magnitude is as the ratio o f a year to a month; and
differentiate between “ equality o f distance” (aequalitas spatii) and “ equality
if it were a greater ratio, it would be moved more quickly [than the Moon]. ”
o f time” (aequalitas temporis). The former concept is equivalent to the me­
H ow might the disparity between the periodic revolutions o f superior
dieval idea o f uniformity and difformity, the latter to that o f regularity and
and inferior planets be explained? If the speeds o f a superior and an inferior
irregularity. As an illustration o f the first, they use the familiar example o f
planet are equal, then their circles, or paths, must be unequal; and if the
an irregularity with respect to the whole heavens, presumably the daily
motion, where those parts nearer the poles traverse a smaller distance in
(Et adhuc inveniuntur maiores difformitates in aliis planetis, quia moventur pluribus
motibus quam sol). See also Oresme, Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 13, 1968, 413.
27. Mercury, Venus, and the Sun, however, were observed to complete their periodic rev­ 28. Albert o f Saxony treated the same question as did Buridan and in a similar manner. See
olutions in the same time. The periods o f the other planets differed. See Buridan, De Albert’s De celo, bk. 2, qu. 16, 1518, n i v , col. 2 -ii2 r, col. 2.
caelo, bk. 2, qu. 20, 1942, 220.
496 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M OTION S AND THEIR CAUSES 497
the same time as parts farther away. But the overall motion o f the heavens the planets are not carried around with a “ simple and equable motion, nor
is uniform, because all the parts complete their motion in the same time can they be.” 30
that is in an “ equality o f tim e.” 29
B y contrast, Bartholomew Amicus, as we have already seen, retained
2. Contrary motions
virtually all o f the terminology, probably because he drew most o f it,
approvingly, from Albert o f Saxony’s De caelo. The widely accepted observation that each planet had two simultaneous
motions in opposite directions, namely the daily east-to-west motion and
the periodic west-to-east motion, posed a perplexing dilemma for medieval
natural philosophers, especially since Aristotle had denied the possibility o f
c. The effect of the triumph of fluid heavens over hard orbs
two such contrary motions in one and the same body.
The distinction between simple and compound motion presupposed accep­ A contrariety o f forms or dispositions was deemed impossible if they
tance o f the existence o f celestial orbs, which, by the late sixteenth century, existed in one and the same thing simultaneously, although they might exist
at the latest, were assumed by most astronomers and natural philosophers in one and the same thing successively. From this standpoint, Jean Buridan
to be hard and rigid. B y approximately 1630, as we have already seen argued ([De caelo, bk. 1, qu. 8], 1942, 38) that a circular motion could not
(Chapter 14, Sec. VIII) many and probably most scholastic natural philos­ be contrary to a rectilinear motion, because both motions could exist si­
ophers followed Tycho Brahe and switched from hard orbs to a fluid me­ multaneously in the same body, as is evident when those who play with
dium devoid o f orbs, although some continued to assume a hard orb for globes move one rectilinearly from one terminus to another even as the
the fixed stars. With the abandonment o f celestial orbs, the m otion o f the globe is continually rotating. But circular motions around the same poles
planets could no longer be attributed to orbs, which disappeared from the in opposite directions are contrary motions, although circular motions in
heavens. opposite directions around different poles did not qualify as contrary mo­
As a consequence, the rationale for distinguishing between simple and tions.
compound celestial motion vanished. The irregular observed planetary mo­ All were agreed that the celestial orbs could not move with contrary
tions, with their retrogradadons, direct motions and stations, could no motions around the same poles (see Sec. II.7). But what about contrary
longer be conceived as the consequence o f a combination o f simple regular motions that are successive? Was it possible that an orb could move in one
motions made by numerous hard, celestial orbs. As most scholastics were direction for a period o f time and then move in the opposite direction tor
aware, the Copernican system allowed for a direct and reasonable expla­ the next period o f time? This suggestion was rejected, because if the celestial
nation for these irregularities. They were the consequences o f an earth in motions are assumed eternal into the future, the contrary motion o f a present
annual motion, passing and being passed by other planets. Although the spherical motion could never occur: for w hy should an orb moving in one
Copernican option was not available to Catholic natural philosophers, those direction suddenly reverse that direction?
scholastic natural philosophers who assumed fluid heavens w ould have been Could motions to contrary places occur, as happens in rectilinear motions
constrained to rejec the traditional distinction between simple and com­ when a body moves between upward and downward directions? Buridan
pound motion, as did Melchior Cornaeus, who. in a brief paragraph, men­ also denied this possibility, as did his fellow scholastics. Celestial motions
tions the numerous irregularities o f planetary motion and concludes that do not move from one contrary place to another. Indeed, a celestial orb
does not move from its present place into another place; it always rotates
29. Alter asserting that one o f two things to be explained is whether the celestial motions in the same place.31
are uniform and equable, the Conimbncenses continue ([De eoelo, bk. 2, ch. 6, qu. 2,
art. 2], 1598. 288): '•Sciendum est posse nos expendere vel aequalitatem spatii. quod a 30. “ Ergo semper eodem simplici et aequabili motu non feruntur, neque terri possunt. ”
mobili eiusve partibus decurntur, vel aequalitatem tempons, quod in tali spatio pera- Cornaeus [De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 1. qu. 4, dub. 3], 1657, $04. In accepting fluid heavens
grando consumitur. Si lgitur secundum pnorem considerationem loquamur motus coe- rather than hard orbs, Cornaeus (508) denies that eccentrics and epicycles are physically
lestis quoad partes ipsius coeli non est aequabilis quandoquidem aequali tempore aliae real but allows that they could be imagined, as Christopher Schemer had suggested in
partes minus, aliae maius spatium peragrant, ut primo supenons arnculi argumenro os- his Rosa Ursitta.
tendebatur." To illustrate the circumstances under which "equality o f distance” is not 31. Buridan includes all these arguments. For similar ones, see Johannes de Magistris [De
realized, the Conimbncenses point to an example (287) in which parts o f a heaven traverse celo, bk. 1, qu. 2], 6, col. 1. In his discussion. Bncot, De celo, bk. 1, >r, col. 1, assigns
unequal distances in the same time, as when parts nearer the poles traverse smaller circles three requisite conditions for the occurrence o f contraries in local motions: (1) that the
than do parts farther from the poles. On "equality o f time." they say (288): "Si autem motion occur from contrary place to contrary place: (2) that the opposite motions occur
sermo sit de motu coeii secundum posteriorem notionem. de qua potissimum philosophi along the same shortest line or path: and (3) if one o f the contrary motions is natural to
et astrologi loqui consueuerunt, dicendum erit esse ilium prorsus umformem et aequa- something, the other contrary motion must be violent. Bncot goes on to argue that none
bilem.” o f these conditions applies to celestial motions.
49^ THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M OTION S AND THEIR CAUSES 499

Although we have thus far considered only the kinematic aspects o f them35 - the best way to subvert the doctrine o f individual return was to
contrary motion, later in this chapter (Sec. II.7), we shall see how contrary undermine the doctrine o f the Great Year. One powerful method o f achiev­
motions became intertwined with the theories o f al-Bitrujl, who linked ing this goal was to suggest and, if possible, to demonstrate that some or
conceptions o f force and the dragging o f inferior orbs by superior orbs. all o f the alleged celestial motions were really incommensurable. Indeed,
one had only to show that any two planetary motions were incommen­
surable. Then, if all the planets were assumed to start from some particular
configuration, they could never again enter into the same relationship in
3. On the commensurability or incommensurability o f the celestial
the same places.
motions and the Great Year
This argument, however, was not applied in the ancient world and during
The relationship between celestial motions was hardly confined to those the centuries o f the early Middle Ages. Although the doctrine o f the Great
ot a contrary nature. A number ot medieval and early modern authors Year and celestial commensurability seem to have played little or no role
tound occasion to inquire about the commensurability or incommensu­ during the early Middle Ages, they must have entered Europe during the
rability o f those m otions.3“ Interest in this theme goes back to classical late twelfth or the thirteenth century, as is evident from one o f the articles
antiquity, when Greek and Roman authors believed that the celestial condemned in 1277. The sixth article declares “ That when all the celestial
motions are commensurable, that is, related by rational ratios. C om ­ bodies have returned to the same point - which will happen in 36,000 years
mensurability seemed to follow from the widespread belief in the uni­ - the same effects now in operation will be repeated.” 36
formity o f nature and especially in the regular and uniform repetition o f N ot long after. Duns Scotus (ca. 1266-1308) may have been the first to
celestial configurations and events. One ot the most important o f these use the incommensurability argument to reject precise cyclical returns when
events was the Great, or Perfect, Year, which Cicero defined as follows: he declared that “ This opinion [i.e., exact return] can also be disproved
O n the diverse motions o f the planets the mathematicians have based with respect to its cause, for if it could be proven that some celestial motion
what they call the Great Year, which is completed wrhen the sun, moon, was incommensurable to another, . . . then, I say, it tollows that all the
and five planets having all finished their courses have returned to the motions will never return to the same place” (Oresme, De commensurabilitate,
same positions relative to one another. The length ot this period is hotly 1971, 119). As an example o f incommensurable motions, Scotus assumes
debated, but it must necessarily be a fixed and definite tim e.” 3- During that tw o bodies are moved with equal speeds on a square. One body moves
antiquity and the Middle Ages, numerous periods were proposed for the on the side o f the square, the other body moves on the diagonal o f the same
Great Year, the most popular being 36,000 and 49,000 years. The former square, and Scotus infers that they would never return to the same positions
was derived from Ptolemy s Almagest, based on a value ot precession o f they held at the outset. Scotus admits, however, that a “ great discussion”
the equinoxes o f 1 degree in 100 years.3 34
2 would be required to determine if such incommensurability actually exists.
The temptation to draw deterministic inferences from these repetitions In 1343, Johannes de Muris completed his Quadripartitum numerorum.
proved irresistible, especially to Stoic authors, who concluded that the Great which included a section on the commensurability or incommensurability
Year entailed an exact and identical substantive and sequential repetition o f o f celestial motions. 37 De Muris was one o f the first Latin scholars to enter
all celestial configurations and terrestrial events. In their judgment, Socrates into a mathematical discussion o f commensurability, imagining various
and Plato, and every other individual, would return in each Great Year and
3$. In the City of God, bk. 12. ch. 13, Augustine speaks ot'philosophers who have introduced
do precisely what they had done in every preceding Great Year. Some “ cycles ot'time, in which there should be a constant renewal and repetition ot the order
tound this deterministic doctrine o f individual return attractive, especially ot' nature: and they have therefore asserted that these cycles will ceaselessly recur, one
when it was linked with astrology. passing awav and another coming, though they are not agreed as to whether one per­
manent world shall pass through all these cycles, or whether the world shall at fixed
For opponents o f this doctrine — for obvious reasons, Christians were intervals die out, and be renewed.” Augustine [Dodsj, 1948. 1:498. Later, in the same
among its severest critics, with Saint Augustine as the most famous o f chapter (499), Augustine warns against interpreting Solomon’s famous remark that “ there
is no new thing under the sun” as support for cycles “ in which, according to those
philosophers, the same periods and events o f time are repeated; as if, for example, the
32. In what tollows, I largely follow my own essay, “ The Concept o f Celestial Commen­ Philosopher Plato, having taught in the school at Athens which is called the Academy,
surability and Incommensurability from Antiquity to the Sixteenth Century,” chapter 3 so, numberless ages before, at long but certain intervals, this same Plato, and the same
in Oresme. De commensurabilitate, 1971. Brief remarks about Amicus and Riccioli have school, and the same disciples existed, and so also are to be repeated during the countless
been added. cycles that are yet to be.” Augustine calls upon Christians to reject this doctrine.
33. The passage is from Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods (Cicero [Rackham], 1933. 173); 36. See Oresme, De commensurahilitate, 1971, 109—110.
see also Oresme, De commensurabilitate, 1971, 103. 37. For a summary o f the relevant propositions in de Muris’s Quadripartitum, see Oresme.
34. Ptolemy gives these values in Almagest, bk. 7, ch. 2 [Toomer], 1984, 328. ibid., 86-97.
500 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL MOTIONS AND THEIR CAUSES 501

scenarios where two or three bodies traveling with commensurable veloc­ interest was at best modest and usually peripheral. An exception, perhaps
ities move simultaneously on circles. In purely kinematic terms, de Muris the only one, is Nicole Oresme, who devoted two complete treatises to the
calculates the number o f conjunctions they would enter into and the number subject: the Ad pauca respicientes and the later Tractatus de commensurabilitate
o f days between conjunctions, and so on. uel incommensurabilitate motuum celi. In his original and unusual De propor-
De Muris devotes a brief section to incommensurable motions. He as­ lionibus proportionum, he presented the mathematical foundations for his
sumes two concentric but incommensurable circles or circumferences, belief in the probable incommensurability o f celestial motions. The im­
which are related as the diagonal and side o f a square, where the sides are portance o f this theme for Oresme is further underscored by his use o f it
presumably taken as unity. If two bodies, one on each circle, are assumed in a number o f other w orks.40
in conjunction and begin to move with commensurable motions, they will The mathematical theorems on which Oresme based his conclusion that
never again through all eternity conjunct in the same point, because, despite the celestial motions are probably incommensurable were first formulated
the commensurabilicy o f their motions, they traverse incommensurable dis­ in his De proportionibus proportionum, or On Ratios oj Ratios, composed in
tances. the 13 50s.41*Here Oresme developed ideas that first appeared in rudimentary
Johannes de Muris, like most o f those interested in celestial incommen­ form in Thomas Bradwardine’s Tractatus de proportionibus. For Oresme, a
surability (except for Nicole Oresme), was little concerned as to whether “ ratio o f ratios” (proportio proportionum) always involved tw o rational or
the planetary motions were commensurable or incommensurable. He knew irrational ratios that are related by a third ratio, which could be either rational
that after astronomers predict a conjunction, they use their senses to de­ or irrational (what we would call an “ exponent” ). Thus in the relationship
termine whether the conjunction has occurred.38 Long before de Muris A/B = (C/D)p,q, the exponent p/q could be either rational or irrational.
wrote, Averroes had explained (Oresme, ibid., 108) w hy technical astron­ The exponent itself is the ratio o f ratios. A number o f the propositions o f
omers found it unprofitable to argue about the commensurability or in­ the De proportionibus proportionum attempt to determine whether the ratio
commensurability o f celestial motions. Whatever the judgm ent, it was o f ratios is rational or irrational. Thus if the ratio o f ratios p/q is rational,
ostensibly irrelevant, because astronomers were well aware that their ob­ the ratios A/B and C/D, which could be rational or irrational (or one rational
servations and data were only approximate. What might not count as a and the other irrational), would be considered commensurable and represent
conjunction, in the strict and precise mathematics o f incommensurability, a “ rational ratio o f ratios.” Similarly, if p/q is irrational, then A/B and
might well be visually perceived as a conjunction. If so, it would be treated C/D form an “ irrational ratio o f ratios.” In the context o f Oresm e’s pro­
as a real conjunction. portionality theory, the ratios 3/1 and 27/1 form a rational ratio o f ratios,
And long after de Muris, Bartholomew Amicus, who considered the because 27/1 = (3/ i )3/‘; but 3/1 and 6/1 form an irrational ratio o f ratios,
problem o f celestial incommensurability in the seventeenth century, argued because 6/1 # (3/ i)p/,?, where p/q is rational. In this case, p/q is irrational,
that we cannot measure the celestial motions with precise accuracy. Indeed, although Oresme could not express the relationship in either symbolic or
we cannot even know the relationship between the velocities o f tw o bodies rhetorical terms.
near us; how much less, then, can w e know such relationships between the In the tenth proposition o f the third chapter o f the De proportionibus,
velocities o f celestial bodies.39 Oresme constructed a demonstration to show that any tw o given, unknown
ratios were more likely to be incommensurable than commensurable. The
demonstration involved probability considerations. Oresm e’s “ p roof” is
a. Nicole Oresme
by way o f an illustration. For any given sequence o f ratios, n/i, where n
Am ong those who considered the problems o f celestial commensurability = 2, 3, 4. . . , Oresme shows that more irrational than rational ratios ot
and incommensurability during the medieval and early modern periods, the ratios can be formed. As an example, he takes 100 rational ratios from 2/
1 to 101/1 and by taking them two at a time shows that 9,900 possible
38. In chapter 24 ot his Quadripartitum, de Muris declares: “ But I am unconcerned whether ratios o f ratios can be formed. Because he was only interested in ratios ot
it is ever this [way] or chat [i.e., whether the celestial motions are commensurable or
incommensurable]. For an astronomer, however, it suffices that he can predict conjunc­
greater inequality, where the numerator is greater than the denominator,
tions ot planets and stars in such a way that the senses are incapable ot' showing it only half o f the total, or 4,950, are relevant. O f these 4,950 possible ratios
otherwise.” See Oresme, ibid., 371. To my original translation, I have added the word o f ratios, Oresme shows that only 25 can be rational, with the remaining
“ celestial” within the square brackets.
39. Amicus, De carlo, tract. 5. qu. 6, dubit. 10, art. 3, 1626, 333, col. 2, offers this as the 4,925 irrational.44
first o f four conclusions in which he asserts his own opinion. “ Prima conclusio non potest
a viatoribus certe scin scientifico mensura adaequata caelestium motuum quia difficilius 40. We find some trace o f relevant discussions in his De spera, De celo, Questiones super
cognoscitur mensura quantitatis caelorum et motuum caelestium velocitatis quam duorum oeometriam Euclidis, Quodlibeta, and in his final work. Le Liure du del.
sensibilium nobis propinquorum sed horum mensura et motuum velocitas praecisa non 41 . This section is drawn primarily from Grant, 1988. 35—38.
potest certo cognosce, ergo neque caelestium.” 42. The 25 are formed from the following geometric series: (2/1)". where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
502 THE C E L E S T I A L REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES 503

From these relationships, Oresm e concluded that in a set o f ioo rational by will alone and with no other force, effort, or difficulty, and the heavens
ratios, from 2/1 to 101/1, the ratio o f irrational to rational ratios o f ratios do not resist it, as I believe were the opinions o f Aristotle and Averroes.” 4>
is 4,925/25, or 197/1. By extrapolation, he further argued that if more and The “ analogy” was probably fairly strong, and many scholastics probably
more rational ratios were taken, say 200 or 300, and so on, the disparity thought o f an intelligence or angel as a force and ot the orb it moved as,
between irrational and rational ratios o f ratios would increase, from which in some sense, a resistance. Amicus was probably typical when he spoke
Oresme inferred the existence o f many more irrational than rational ratios. o f a celestial mobile having the same constant ratio to its m over.46
That there could be more o f one type o f ratio o f ratios than another was What Oresme hinted at here, he formalized in the final proposition o f
made plausible for Oresme by analogy with perfect and cube numbers, the De proportionibus (ch. 4, prop. 7) when he took the momentous step o f
because “ however many numbers are taken in a series, the number o f perfect applying his mathematical conclusions to celestial motions. Thus did O r­
or cube numbers is much less than other numbers and as. more numbers esme conclude that “ When tw o motions o f celestial bodies have been pro­
are taken in the series the greater is the ratio o f non-cube to cube numbers posed, it is probable that they would be incommensurable, and most
or non-perfect to perfect numbers. Thus if there were some number and probable that any celestial motion o f the heaven [that you might choose]
such information as to what it is or how great it is, and whether it is large would be incommensurable to the motion o f any other [celestial] sphere
or small, were w holly unknown, . . . it will be likely that such an unknown [that you might choose]” (Oresme, De prop, prop., 1966b, 305 [translation
number would not be a cube num ber.” 4' From this example and by analogy, altered]).
Oresme infers that ratios o f ratios exhibit the same characteristics, which Oresme even suggests four propositions to which his ideas are applicable,
he expressed at the conclusion o f the tenth proposition: one o f which asserts that “ If tw o planets, with respect to longitude and
latitude, should be conjuncted once in a point, they will never again be
And so it is clear that with two proposed unknown ratios - whether they are rational conjuncted [in that same point].” 47 In addition to these four propositions,
or not - it is probable that they are incommensurable. . . . Therefore, if many [un­ Oresme declares that he can demonstrate “ many other no less beautiful
known ratios] are proposed it is [even] more probable that any [one o f them you propositions from the same principle.” Moreover, “ many errors about phi­
choose] would be incommensurable to any other [that you might choose]. . . . N ow losophy and faith could be attacked by the use o f these [propositions], as
the more there are, the more one must believe that any [one o f them you might [for example], that [error] about the Great Year which some assert to be
choose] is incommensurable to any other [you might choose], for if it is probable 36,000 years, saying that celestial bodies were in an original state and then
that one proposed ratio o f ratios is irrational, it is more probable when many are return [to it in 36,000 years] and that past aspects are arranged again as ot
proposed that any one [you might select at random] would be irrational.4" old” (Oresme, De prop, prop., 1966b, 307). Here, then, Oresme thought
his conclusion about celestial incommensurability could destroy the theory
In the fourth chapter, Oresme applies the ratio o f ratios to physical mag­ o f the Great Year, a concept which, as we saw, was condemned in 1277.
nitudes. The relationships are now transformed into the following general But in tw o later treatises on celestial motions, Oresme did not apply the
F, F, probability considerations based on ratios o f ratios ot force to resistance.
1', where F is a force applied to a resistance, R, and v jv . In his two treatises devoted solely to the commensurability and incom­
tyPe: 1
is the ratio o f velocities that arises from the two force-resistance ratios. mensurability o f celestial motions, the Ad pauca respicientes and a much
Oresme’s examples in chapter 4 concern terrestrial motions, where, if expanded version o f it, the later Treatise on the Commensurability or Incom­
F > R, and F is applied to R, a velocity is produced. Oresme then extends mensurability of the Celestial Motions (Tractatus de commensurabilitate i>el incom-
the range o f these relationships to the celestial orbs. But how, we might mensurabilitate motuum celi), he employed purely kinematic theorems.48 The
ask, can a ratio F/R be applied to celestial orbs, where there are no forces commensurabilities and incommensurabilities are derived from relationships
or resistances? Oresme suggests that such a ratio “ ought not to be called a o f distances traversed, times, and velocities.49 Force and resistance play no
ratio o f force to resistance except by analogy, because an intelligence moves
45. Ibid., 293. In his final work, Lc Livre du del, Oresme spoke vaguely o f forces and
6. Taking these six ratios two at a time, we obtain (6 x $)/z = 15 possible rational ratios resistances implanted in celestial orbs by God. On this see Section II.4. d ot this chapter.
ot ratios; (3/1)", where n = 1, 2, 3, 4, from which six rational ratios o f ratios can be 46. “ In motu caeii non est medium resistens sicut est in motu recto, sed tantum ibi esse
formed; and from each o f the following, one rational ratio o f ratios can be formed: (5/ mobile, quod semper servat eandem proportionem cum motore, nain semper est similium
1)". (6/1)", (7/1)", and (10/1)". where in each instance n = 1, 2. See Oresme, De prop, partium, figurae, et naturae.” Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6. dubit. 6, art. 3. 1620.
prop., 1966b, 41. 315, col. 2.
43. Ibid., 249-251. 47. Oresme, De prop, prop., 1966b, 307. For clarification, I have added the bracketed material.
44. Ibid., 253-255. Some o f the words added within square brackets are additions to my 48. The Ad pauca respicientes is not described here.
original translation. 49. According to [an Von Plato. 1981, 190, “ a few o f Oresme's theorems on the consequences
504 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 505

role, and probability considerations are ignored. Oresme is content to de­ twenty-five propositions concerned with commensurable motions, in which
termine whether two or three mobiles will conjunct once, whether they bodies are assumed to move with commensurable speeds on concentric
will conjunct again or have ever conjuncted before, and similar questions. circles;53 part 2 contains twelve propositions, in each o f which the motions
But he does not ask what, if any, force-resistance relationships produced are incommensurable. In these two parts, Oresme sought to derive various
those velocities and whether they are more likely to be incommensurable consequences from the motions o f two or more bodies whose speeds are
than commensurable. Indeed, the proposition cited two paragraphs earlier first assumed to be commensurable and then incommensurable. He wished
from the De proportionibus - that “ If tw o planets, with respect to longitude to show how bodies would relate to one another if their motions were
and latitude, should be conjuncted once in a point, they will never again assumed commensurable, and how they would relate if their motions were
be conjuncted [in that same point]” - which Oresme proposed as an example assumed incommensurable. In both the Ad pauca respicientes and the Treatise
o f the kind o f proposition to which his probability doctrine o f ratios of on Commensurability, Oresme was concerned with exact punctual relations
ratios would apply, was included in both o f these treatises on celestial o f bodies m oving with circular motion. Thus he ignored aspects near or
commensurability and incommensurability.50 But in neither o f these in­ around a point.54 The punctual character o f Oresm e’s approach is illustrated
stances is there any trace o f the application o f ratios o f force and resistance.51 by his definition o f conjunction, which is said to occur “ when the centers
The relationships are purely kinematic. o f any mobiles are on the same line drawn from the center [of the world]”
The two treatises differ in their orientation. The Ad pauca respicientes, the (Oresme, De commensurabilitate, 1971, 179).
earlier one, includes«a supposition in which the relationship between any In a significant passage, Oresme (ibid.) defines commensurability and
two randomly chosen quantities from among many quantities is assumed incommensurability and emphasizes the purely kinematic character o f his
to be probably incommensurable (see n. 51). This is applied to celestial treatise:
motions in only one proposition. The later Treatise on Commensurability,
however, includes no such assumption, probably because its format ex­ I take the commensurability and incommensurability o f circular motions in terms
cluded such a possibility. The entire treatise is intended as an objective o f the magnitude o f the angles described around the center or centers, or in terms
attempt to determine whether the celestial motions are commensurable or o f the circulations, which is the same thing. Thus, things are moved commensurably
incommensurable. Thus Oresme could not assert the probable incommen­ when, in equal times, they describe commensurable angles around the center, or
surability o f celestial motions, although he refers to it once in the great when they complete their circulations in commensurable times. Circulations are
debate that concludes the treatise. '2 For a better appreciation o f its structure incommensurable when they are completed in incommensurable times, and when,
and content, especially the crucial debate at the conclusion o f the work, let in equal times, incommensurable angles are described around the center. Accord­
us briefly examine its organization. ingly, conjunctions, oppositions, aspects, and all the motions ascribed to the heavens
The treatise is divided into a prologue and three parts. Part 1 consists of by astronomers are to be measured in this way, since a ratio o f velocities varies as
a ratio o f the circular lines described by the mobiles. Whether or not it ought to be
o f the possible incommensurability o f the revolution times o f bodies in uniform circular taken in this w ay is not relevant to what is proposed here.
motion have their counterpart in the modern theory of ergodic dynamical systems.”
50. In the Ad pauca respicientes. see pt. 1, prop. 4 (Oresme, De prop, prop., 1966b, 395) and
in the Treatise on Comtnensurabtlity, pt. 2, prop, i (Oresme, De commensurabilitate, 1971, Oresme thus acknowledges that his definitions may differ from the way
249). astronomers actually proceed. In most propositions, he arbitrarily applies
51. Nevetihcless. in pt. 1 o f his Ad pauca respicientes, Oresme (De prop, prop., 19660, 385— kinematic consequences to astronomical aspects, with conjunction as the
387) includes the following probability assumption, as supposition 2: “ If many quantities
are proposed and their ratios are unknown, it is possible, doubtful, and probable that any paradigm case.
[one o f them) would be incommensurable to any other [of them you might choose].” As if to reestablish a strong link between his kinematic approach and
Oresme invokes this supposition only once, in pt. 2, prop. 17 (ibid., 423), which an­ nature, Oresme goes on to explain (ibid.) that
nounces: “ It is probable that in any instant the celestial bodies are related in such a way
that they were never so related in the past, nor will be so related at any time in the future;
nor was there, nor will there be, a similar configuration or disposition through all incommensurability can be found in every kind o f continuous thing, and in all
eternity." The demonstration depends on the probability that some o f the quantities instances in which continuity is imaginable, either extensively or intensively. For a
relevant to the motions and positions o f planets - namely, “ circles, latitudes, distances,
magnitude can be incommensurable to a magnitude, an angle to an angle, a motion
eccentricities and many motions and diversities" - are probably incommensurable, as the
second supposition proclaims. But this is in no way linked to the incommensurabilities to a motion, a speed to a speed, a time to a time, a ratio to a ratio, a degree to a
and irrationalities associated with the doctrine o f ratios o f ratios and its application to degree, and a voice to a voice, and so on for any similar things.
ratios o f force and resistance.
52. It is introduced as one more argument in favor o f celestial incommensurability, following 53 - As a minor exception to this statement, the circles are eccentric in proposition 20.
a series o f arguments in favor o f celestial commensurability. 54 - See Oresme. De comensurabilitate, 1971, 8 and 178, lines 45—49.
506 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M OTIONS AN D THEIR CAUSES 507

In the twelve propositions o f part 2, Oresme demonstrates the conse­ do indeed produce beauty in the world. But if they were united with ir­
quences of celestial incommensurability but does so without using the theo­ rational ratios, a much richer variety o f effects would be produced. Indeed,
rem from the De proportionibus proportionum. Instead, he usually assumes Geometry combines the tw o and thereby adds much more splendor to the
incommensurable velocities — and occasionally mixes in a commensurable heavens. If Arithmetic did produce the music o f the spheres, it would be
motion - of two or more bodies m oving on concentric circles and describes monotonous, since it would be based solely on fixed, rational ratios. O nly
their possible relationships. He shows that if any tw o celestial motions are by adding Geom etry’s infinite variation could celestial music be made in­
incommensurable, the precise positional relationships o f the bodies with teresting.57 Indeed, if the heavenly motions were commensurable, con­
those motions would be impossible to determine. If tw o or three celestial junctions and other astronomical aspects could only occur in a certain finite
bodies enter into any astronomical aspect, say conjunction or opposition, number o f places in the sky, which, as a consequence, would appear to be
they could never again enter into that same relationship in the same points. preferred over other places. Would it not be better that such events be
Knowledge o f precise past relationships and future dispositions would be capable o f occurring anywhere in the sky?
impossible. Celestial events, such as conjunctions, oppositions, and eclipses, Arithm etic’s arguments had presupposed the possibility o f acquiring exact
would necessarily be unique and nonrepetitive. knowledge. Geometry denies the possibility, insisting that we must rest
A reader who had finished the first tw o parts would have no inkling content with approximations. Exact knowledge is not even desirable, since
whether celestial motions were commensurable or incommensurable, or not only would it discourage further observations, but the precise knowl­
both. This judgm ent was supposed to be made in part 3, the concluding edge o f future events that it might provide would make us like the immortal
section, where Oresme presents a debate presided over by A pollo and in­ gods, a repugnant thought.58
volving as protagonists Arithmetic and Geometry, each o f w hom cites T o avoid these difficulties, Geometry urges that we assume celestial in­
numerous classical sources in her own support. Arithmetic, w ho presents commensurability. As her final argument, she reminds Arithmetic and
her case first, argues passionately for the commensurability o f celestial mo­ Apollo (321) that a mathematical demonstration elsewhere — clearly a ref­
tions, while Geometry does the same for incommensurability.55 The debate erence to his De proportionibus proportionum — has shown that “ when any
occurs within the framework o f Oresm e’s dream and terminates without a tw o unknown magnitudes have been designated, it is more probable that
judgment. For just as Apollo is to render a decision as to whether the celestial they are incommensurable than commensurable, just as it is more probable
motions are commensurable or incommensurable, Oresme awakens. that any unknown [number] proposed from a multitude o f numbers would
As a vehicle, the dream was a convenient literary device for avoiding a be non-perfect rather than perfect. Consequently, with regard to any two
definite decision. But it also served an ulterior motive. N ot only has O r­ motions whose ratio is unknown to us, it is more probable that that ratio
esme’s rude awakening robbed us o f a unique opportunity to acquire a is irrational than rational. ’’
profound truth, but it has made us dependent on the appeals o f Arithmetic Oresm e understood that sense perception could not determine the com­
and Geometry for whatever insight we may attain on this important prob­ mensurability or incommensurability o f the celestial motions. This is made
lem. Readers are now aware that at best they must formulate their own clear at the outset o f the dialogue in part 3, when Apollo informs him (28 5)
judgments on the basis o f the two orations, which incorporate the onlv that our senses cannot achieve exactness. “ For if an imperceptible excess -
kinds o f arguments and appeals that humans can know and understand. Let even a part smaller than a thousandth — could destroy an equality and alter
us briefly describe some o f them. a ratio from rational to irrational, how will you be able to know a punctual
In behalf o f commensurability, Arithmetic emphasizes the enormous util­ [or exact] ratio o f motions or celestial magnitudes?’’ Apollo convinces O r­
ity o f rational ratios, which produce pleasure rather than the offensive effects esme that “ the judgment o f the senses cannot attain exactness. But [even]
o f irrational ratios. It is rational ratios that produce the harmonious music if the senses could attain such exact knowledge, one could not know whether
o f the celestial spheres. B y far the most telling argument is Arithmetic’s he had judged rightly, since an insensible [or undetectable] addition or
claim that unless the celestial motions are commensurable, astronomical subtraction could alter a ratio but would not change the judgm ent. There­
predictions and tables, as well as knowledge o f future events — thus did fore, I do not vainly presume that the aforesaid problem is solvable by
Arithmetic align herself with astrology - would be impossible.56 mathematical demonstration.’’
Geometry represents magnitude in general, and therefore encompasses Oresm e did not believe that he had demonstrated the incommensurability
both rational and irrational relationships. She concedes that rational ratios
57. Geometry, however, appears skeptical o f the very notion ot music trom the celestial
spheres.
55. This paragraph is drawn from Oresme. ibid., 6, and Grant. 1988, 37. 58. Because Oresme has staged a debate among ancient pagans, he speaks ot "gods” and
56. Here I draw on Oresme, De commensurabiiitate, 1971. 68—69. includes no biblical references.
508 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 509

o f the celestial motions. But there is good reason to believe that he favored
b. Amicus and Riccioli
incommensurability over commensurability, largely because he had else­
where shown the mathematical probability that some, and perhaps most, ce­ Because o f the difficulty o f the subject, celestial incommensurability was
lestial motions are incommensurable. Moreover, the structure o f part 3 o f never widely discussed. Few traces o f it are found m the seventeenth century.
the Treatise on Commensurability favors G eom etry’s arguments. Incommen­ Am ong those who considered the subject were Bartholomew Amicus and
surability provides us with a more varied world and also guarantees that Giovanni Baptista Riccioli. O f the two accounts, Am icus’s is the more
we shall not attain exact knowledge, especially about the celestial motions. substantial.63 Although Oresme is never mentioned - only al-Battani, Pliny,
Finally, as we saw, Geometry alone appeals to a mathematical demonstra­ and Ptolemy are cited - most o f Am icus’s ideas have counterparts in his
tion, one that is probable but, under the circumstances, the only kind at­ works, such as, for example, Am icus’s description o f a basic theorem for
tainable. Amid all the rhetoric and appeals to authority, that demonstration commensurability and one for incommensurability. With regard to the for­
was the most solid foundation on which to base a judgm ent. mer, he says that if two bodies moving commensurably are now in con­
B y advocating the probability ot celestial incommensurability, Oresme junction, they will be conjoined again in the same place.64 But if tw o bodies
sought to persuade others that celestial effects were inherently unpredictable. are now in point A and are moving incommensurably, they will never again
As a dedicated foe ofjudicial astrology, he hoped to weaken its foundations conjunct in the same place, nor indeed will they conjunct in any other point
and strike a blow at the astrologers, who had aroused his deep concern by which is separated from the point o f conjunction by a distance that is
virtue o f their considerable influence on the king o f France, Charles V. He commensurable to the whole circle.6'
was annoyed by their pretentious claims o f punctual exactness, claims that Amicus describes three opinions as to whether the celestial motions are
they could never fulfill. His treatises on celestial incommensurability were representable by rational or irrational ratios. All seem to have counterparts
partly intended to deflate the astrologers, as well as to emphasize our in­ in Oresm e’s work. Those who favor rational ratios argue that God “ has
ability to acquire exact know ledge.59 made all things in number, weight, and measure,” which signifies ration­
Declarations o f originality in medieval treatises are relatively rare. Oresme ality.66 M oreover, just as the celestial orbs are the most perfect bodies and
makes such a claim for his Treatise on Commensurability when he informs are therefore assigned the most perfect shape, the sphere, so also are rational
us that “ if another has set out the more fundamental principles [or elements ratios nobler than irrational.67 Indeed an irrational ratio is rather a “ dispro-
found in this book], I have yet to see them .” Moreover, he also tells us
that he “ did not release this little book without [first] submitting it for
thev comprised a single work, bearing almost identical titles: Tractatus proportionum nicholai
correction to the Fellows and Masters o f the most sacred University of oren (the Paris edition varies slightly by substituting “ horen” for “ oren” ). For further
Paris.” 60 Perhaps because o f this, and the fact that he wrote on the subject information, see Oresme, De prop. prop.. 1966b, 130-131.
in many places, a number o f Parisian scholastics utilized some o f his con­ 63. In the sixteenth century, Girolamo Cardano devoted 6 o f 233 propositions in his Opus
novum de proportionibus to mobiles moving in circles. Although counterparts to all o f his
clusions, including Henry o f Hesse, who mentions Oresme by name; Pierre propositions can be found in Oresme’s Treatise on Commensurability, Cardano nowhere
d’Ailly, who plagiarized most o f part 3 o f the Treatise on Commensurability;61 applies his propositions to celestial motions. See Oresme, De commensurabilitate, 1971,
Marsilius o f Inghen; and Jean Gerson (1363—1429). T o this group, we may 142-160.
64. “ Si duo mota commensurabiliter sunt nunc coniuncta, ipsa in eodem puncto coniungen-
add the Bolognese physician and astrologer John de Fundis, who, in 1451, tur." Amicus, De carlo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 10, art. 1, 1626, 332, col. 2. For Oresme’s
wrote a hostile commentary on Oresm e’s Ad pauca respicientes, the only version, see Treatise on Commensurability. pt. 1. prop. 4 in Oresme, ibid., 192 (Latin).
critique known thus far on either o f Oresm e’s two major treatises on celestial 65. “ Quod si duo incommensurabiliter mota sunt nunc coniuncta in puncto A, numquam
alias in eodem comungentur, nec in alio distar.te ab hoc per partem suo toti commen-
incommensurability. If Oresme exercised any influence, it was either surabilem.” Amicus, ibid.. 333, col. t. Amicus has here described propositions 1 and 2
through the authors just mentioned or by reason o f the dissemination of o f part 2 o f Oresme's Treatise on Commensurability. The first proposition (Oresme, ibid..
his De proportionibus proportionum and Ad pauca respicientes, which were twice 249) declares that “ If two mobiles have moved with incommensurable velocities, and are
now in conjunction, they will never conjunct in that same point at other times.’’ The
published together in the first decade o f the sixteenth century, once in Venice second proposition adds the second part of Amicus’s enunciation: “ If two mobiles are
in 150$, and again in Paris, around 1510.62 now in conjunction, they will never conjunct at other times in any point separated from
their present point o f conjunction by a part o f the circle commensurable to the whole
59. In the Ad pauca respicientes, pt. 2, prop. 19, Oresme (De prop, prop., 1966b, 427) provides circle.” Ibid., 251.
reasons on the basis ot which one should properly conclude “ that astrology is vain." 66. This famous passage is from the Book of Wisdom 11.21. Oresme puts these words into
60. Both statements occur in Oresme, De commensurabilitate, 1971, 175. Arithmetic’s oration (see Oresme. ibid.. 205 and 340—341, n. 19). For the rest o f Amicus’s
61. D ’Ailly incorporated these passages in his Tractatus contra astronomos (in Oresme, ibid., arguments cited in this paragraph, see Amicus, ibid.. 333, cols. 1—2.
I3O-I30- 67. Arithmetic says (Oresme, ibid., 291): “ Therefore, just as the more perfect figure is ap­
62. In both editions, Oresme’s works are accompanied by other treatises, mostly on pro­ propriate for the celestial orbs, so [also] is the more noble ratio best suited tor their
portionality. The De proportionibus proportionum and Ad pauca respicientes are printed as if" motions, so that there is no lack o f physical beauty to these bodies. "
5i o THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 5 11
portion.” "x According to writers on “ perspective,” or optics, things that Despite our inability to know the exact ratios o f motions, Amicus believes
delight the sight are related by rational ratios. The harmonies that produce that we can preserve astrological, and presumably astronomical, science.
pleasure in tastes and odors and the harmonies that delight the ear are all We may distinguish tw o aspects o f astrology ([De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6,
based on rational ratios/’9 Finally, and most importantly, Amicus presents dubit. 10, art. 3], 1626, 334, col. 1, conclus. 4), theoretical and judicial/"
the common argument that without rational ratios we could not predict The theoretical part relies on approximate, not exact, measures, just as some
future conjunctions and aspects and therefore could not know future effects. other sciences do, such as the science o f weights and measures and the
The science o f astrology would be in jeopardy.6 70
9
6
8 musical consonances. The judicial aspect, which treats o f powers arising
The second opinion that Amicus describes represents those who hold that from conjunctions and aspects, also depends on a broader concept o f mea­
irrational ratios better represent the relationships o f the celestial region.7' sure. The efficacy o f these powers depends on a broadly conceived sense
The perfection o f the universe consists in variety; therefore it is best if the o f a conjunction, one that may range over some degrees ot lonc itude, not
heavens embrace all kinds o f ratios, including those that are irrational.72 To one that is punctually exact. It is like the power o f a medicine, the strength
reinforce this point, Amicus emphasizes that when magnitudes are un­ o f which is not precisely known, any more than is the exact degree o f a
known, it is more probable that they are mutually incommensurable.73 He sickness.
also repeats another Oresmeian idea, namely that if the celestial motions Amicus seems to have conceded that both rational and irrational ratios
are commensurable, conjunctions would only occur at a small number o f exist among the celestial motions. But we cannot know for certain whether
points. But this is false, for w hy should certain parts o f the ecliptic be any particular ratio o f celestial magnitudes is rational or irrational. Thus it
deprived o f conjunctions o f Sun and Moon? With the assumption o f in­ is essential to accept astronomical aspects as falling within sufficiently broad
commensurable motions, however, conjunctions could occur in any part limits so that we can determine where they occurred in the past and where
o f the ecliptic.747
*
5 they will occur in the future.
The third opinion represents Am icus’s own view. We wayfarers (viatores) Riccioli adopts essentially the same attitude. He explains that astronomy
cannot know the ratios o f celestial motions, because a very small mutation has not yet been able to determine “ whether the periods o f celestial motions
will change one kind o f ratio into another, say a rational ratio into an are mutuallv commensurable and consist o f rational ratios, or whether in­
irrational ratio.7’ Indeed, since we cannot know things near our senses, how deed they consist o f irrational ratios.” "’7 The probability that they might be
much less likely is it that we can know the velocities o f celestial motions. incommensurable is never mentioned. We learn more about Riccioli’s at­
If the celestial ratios were irrational, not only would we be unable to know titude when he takes issue with Kepler, who, in his Epitome, argued that
the positions o f future aspects, but w e could not represent such positions the ratios o f the periodic times o f the planets are irrational and thus partake
by numbers or fractions o f numbers with respect to a whole circle. As­ o f infinity, that is, indefmiteness, which, for Kepler, meant an absence ot
tronomers could not use rational, fractional parts o f circles as the basis for beauty. Because o f their indefinite nature, Kepler denied that irrational ratios
a set o f precise measures. cculd be the w ork o f a creator M ind/S Riccioli granted that such ratios
might be irrational, and therefore incapable o f precise expression: any
68. "Nam irrationalis est potius disproportio.” Arithmetic says much the same thing (ibid..
290-292, lines 90-91), even using the term disproportio. expression o f them would tend toward infinity, that is, involve an infinite
69. For Oresme, see his De commensurabilitate. 1971, 293. process. But Kepler was mistaken in his interpretation o f infinity as lacking
70. Oresme says similar things in ibid., 305. in beauty. After all, the Divine Immensity and Eternity have every perfec­
71. These arguments appear in Amicus, Do caelo. tract. 5, qu. 6. dubit. 10. art. 2. 1626, 333,
col. 2. tion o f the infinite and do not lack beauty. There is also no evidence to
72. In the great debate in Oresme’s Treatise on Commensurahiiity, Geometry makes this point indicate that there is a lack o f beauty in celestial motions that encompass
(Oresme, De commensurabilitate, 1971, 311). both kinds o f ratios. Finally, Riccioli finds it unacceptable that Kepler makes
73. This is, o f course, Oresme’s fundamental assumption, which he could claim to have
derived from his probability theorem in the De proportionibus (see Section 1. 3.a o f this
chapter). 76. Although Amicus uses only the term astrologica. and not astronomica, it is likely that he
74. See Oresme, De commensurabilitate, 1971, 319 for this same point. meant the theoretical side to apply to both astronomy and astrology. The judicial side,
75. "Tertia opinio est dicentium a viatoribus non posse agnosci qualis sit proportio motuum as we shall see, seems relevant only to astrology.
caelestium quia per insensibilem partem potest fieri mutatio unius generis proportions 77. “ An autem periodi motuum celestium sint commensurabiles invicem et ex rationalibus
in aliud, scilicet rationalis in irrationalis, et mihi placet.” Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. proportionibus constantes. an vero ex irrationalibus nondum adeo protecit Astronomia,
A, dubit. 10, art. 2, 1626, 333, col. 2. Much earlier, in his Treatise on Commensurahiiity. ut certo controversiam hanc dirimere liceat satisque fuerit opimones indicasse." Riccioli,
pt. 3, Oresme expressed the same sentiment (ibid., 28s). In a feigned rebuke to humans Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2. ch. 6, 1651, 269, c-d. 2.
by Apollo, Oresme has the latter declare that we are ignorant o f "ratios relating to things 78. Riccioli cites book 4, page 312, o f Kepler’s Epitome. For a translation o f the passage, see
ot the world,” largely because “ an imperceptible excess — even a part smaller than a Kepler, Epitome [Wallisj, 1952, 894. For the Latin quotation, see Riccioli’s Almagestum
thousandth - could destroy an equality and alter a ratio from rational to irrational.” novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2, ch. 6, 1651, 270, col. 1.
512 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S A N D THEIR CA USES 513
God the author o f rational ratios but denies that he is the author o f irrational demonstrations, w e can derive a set o f consequences that may be revealing,
ratios.798
*
0 and even startling, about the “ real” celestial aspects that we can never
Christopher Clavius found occasion to mention briefly the Great Year actually detect. Incommensurability meant that precise relationships could
and celestial incommensurability. He reports that belief in a Platonic year never be known, not only because our senses are weak, but more impor­
o f 49,000 years is widespread. “ B u t,” says Clavius, “ they seem to assert tantly because o f the nature o f mathematics or by virtue o f the very structure
this rashly, since according to many the motions o f the heavens are mutually o f the universe itself, either o f which reason guarantees that astronomical
incommensurable, so that it cannot happen that all the stars enter into the aspects never repeat. Predictions o f future celestial configurations are there­
same positions and order that they now have or once had.” 8° Thus was fore not possible, nor is the determination o f exact past relationships.
Oresme’s intricate doctrine o f the probable incommensurability o f the ce­ The implications o f this doctrine were potentially far-reaching. s‘ In a
lestial motions encapsulated in a sentence or two. world where celestial incommensurability is probable, both astronomy and
astrology become inherently inexact sciences. Nature, or mathematics, de­
crees their inexactness. If Jupiter and Mars, for example, could only conjunct
c. The impact oj the doctrine oj celestial incommensurability in a given point through all eternity, any other alleged conjunctions at that
N o one from the medieval and early modern periods has yet been identified same point would be merely approximate and would produce slightly dif­
who can be said to have treated the subject o f celestial commensurability ferent effects. The Great Year, as we saw, would be impossible, because
or incommensurability in any manner comparable to that o f Oresme, all the planets can never enter into the same disposition in which they were
whether in extent, depth, or sophistication. The accounts o f Amicus and 36,000, or 49,000, years before.
Riccioli pale by comparison. Both refused to adopt one side or the other Oresme even used the doctrine o f celestial incommensurability to refute
and allowed that both types o f ratios were seemingly relevant. The evidence Aristotle’s fundamental concept that whatever had a beginning must have
was inconclusive. We are unable to arrive at precise or exact measures and an end and that what has no end cannot have had a beginning. He had only
observations. For Riccioli (Almagestum novum, 1651, pars post., bk. 9, sec. to use the incommensurability doctrine to determine one or more unique
2, ch. 6, 269—270) the beauty o f the world arises from both kinds o f ratios. celestial events, which terminated one cosmic condition that had existed
Oresme was, o f course, aware o f such arguments and attitudes. One is from all past eternity and which immediately thereafter began a new cosmic
even tempted to say that he invented most o f them. On numerous occasions, condition that would last through all o f future eternity.82
Oresme acknowledges that our senses are weak and therefore we cannot Unfortunately, none o f these interesting consequences was really dis­
achieve precise measurements. But his arguments had nothing to do with cussed in subsequent centuries. In a strong sense, Oresm e’s incommen­
measurements and whether we can empirically detect whether a ratio is surability doctrine was unique; it had neither predecessors nor successors.
commensurable or incommensurable. Indeed, we cannot. Oresm e was All that survived o f Oresm e’s ideas was the declaration o f the probability
not interested in approximations but in propositions or theorems based on of celestial incommensurability. B y the sixteenth and seventeenth cen­
exact punctual relationships. Although we cannot detect these punctual turies, few even knew what this assertion signified and w hy it was pro­
relationships observationally, we can draw consequences from reasoning claimed. N ot only were the supporting details ignored or unknown, but
mathematically about them. If the celestial motions are probably incom­ the question as to whether the celestial motions were commensurable or
mensurable, as Oresme believed on the basis o f his own mathematical incommensurable became one o f whether they were rational or irrational,
and the latter, in turn, was usually resolved by the assertion that our
79. In a continuing response to Kepler, Riccioli declares (ibid., col. 2), at the conclusion of senses were incapable o f determining whether celestial motions were truly
his section on whether the celestial motions are rational or irrational: "Sed neque evidens represented by the one or the other, or both. Because o f this, astronomers
est proportiones, quae sunt nobis ineffabiles, aut saltern quia in infinitum tendunt esse and astrologers were content with approximations that made the question
expertes omnis pulchritudims, cum Divina Immensitas et Aeternitas habeat perfectionem
omnem infinite nec tamen sua pulchritudine careat. Sicut neque evidens est non esse of commensurability or incommensurability essentially irrelevant. What
pulchrius in motibus caelestibus esse utriusque generis proportiones. Denique non placet entered into general discussion, as we find it in Amicus’s De caelo, were
quod Deum authorem facit proportionum effabilium, negat autem ineffabilium.” Kepler bits and pieces o f the doctrine that were probably derived ultimately from
used the term ineffabiles for “ irrational,” as he explains when he says “ ineffabiles. irra-
tionales vuigo.” See Kepler, ibid., where Wallis includes the Latin phrase. Oresme’s works, though without benefit o f any context or realization o f
80. “ Sed temere hoc assere videntur, cum enim secundum plerosque motus coelorum sint the source.
inter se incommensurabiles fieri non potest, ut unquam omnia sidera eundem situm et
ordinem quern nunc habent aut olim habuerunt obtinere possint.” Clavius [Sphere, ch.
1], Opera, 1611, 3:29. In the first edition o f 1570, Clavius makes no mention o f incom­ *6- In this and the next paragraph, I rely on Grant. 1978c, 112-113.
mensurability (see Oresme, De commensurabilitate, 1971, 134—135, n. 123). For a few examples, see ibid., 113.
5 14 THE C E LESTIA L REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES SIS

II. T h e d yn am ics o f celestial m o tio n accidental motion caused by the “ circular motion o f the outer sphere, which
is moved by the first m over” (Stewart, 1973, 539). Whether this distinction
I. Aristotle on internal and external celestial movers
between the “ first unmoved m over” and all the others led Aristotle to
assume a hierarchical distinction between them is a moot point.H,>If Aristotle
In examining the possible animation o f the heavenly bodies, we had occasion did distinguish between them, he differentiated only the first unmoved
to consider motive intelligences and their role as causal agents in celestial mover from all the rest. The unmoved movers o f the second sphere, or
motion (Ch. 17, Sec. V). We must now investigate more systematically fourth sphere, or fortieth sphere had identical natures. As we shall see,
not only motive intelligences but the entire range o f medieval and early however, Avicenna, Averroes, and others invoked criteria to distinguish
modern scholastic ideas about the causes o f celestial motion. As was so one from another.
often the case in cosmology, Aristotle played a central role jn shaping ideas In the Metaphysics (bk. 12, ch. 7), Aristotle discusses the first immovable
about celestial movers, although his statements in the Physics, De caelo, and mover, or prime mover, as it would be known in the Middle Ages. The
the Metaphysics left subsequent readers and commentators with seemingly first heaven, or outermost sphere o f the fixed stars, moves with an incessant,
conflicting advice. They found Aristotle advocating internal movers in some uniform motion that had no beginning and will have no end. The first
places and external movers in other places. Thus in De caelo (1.2.2693.5- immovable mover is the cause o f that motion, but, as its name clearly
7), Aristotle seems clearly to favor an internal principle o f motion when he implies, it does not itself undergo motion o f any kind. How, then, does it
asserts that the fifth element in the heavens, or the celestial ether, is a “ simple cause motion without being in motion? “ It produces motion by being
body naturally so constituted as to move in a circle in virtue o f its own loved,” was Aristotle’s response (Metaphysics 12 .7 .1072b.3-4). But what
nature” and when he explains later in the same treatise (2.1.284a. 14-15) that loves the prime, or first, mover? Does each physical, celestial orb love it?
the motion o f the heaven “ involves no effort, for the reason that it needs O r is it rather the unmoved mover associated with each orb? Although
no external force o f compulsion, constraining it and preventing it from Aristotle is unclear on this point, the latter interpretation seems the more
following a different motion which is natural to it.” *3 plausible. For although Aristotle thought o f the celestial ether, from which
But in the Physics (bk. 8, ch. 6) and the Metaphysics (bk. 12, ch. 8), Aristotle the orbs, planets, and stars were made, as in some sense alive, and even
presented a different picture o f celestial motion, one in which only external divine, he gives no indication that ethereal bodies were capable o f the in­
movers were operative. In the Metaphysics, where he considers the astro­ tellective action o f loving. Such an activity would have been more appro­
nomical theories o f Eudoxus and Callippus, Aristotle (as we saw in Ch. priate to the unmoved mover associated with each sphere, since Aristotle
13, Sec. I), arrived at a total o f 55 spheres to account for the motion o f all attributes to them a capacity for thought. Indeed, their sole activity is
the celestial bodies. Although his system o f concentric spheres had few thinking about their own thoughts. For this reason, Aristotle may have
supporters in the Middle Ages, his description in the Metaphysics o f the assumed that the immaterial, unmoved mover associated with each sphere
manner in which those spheres were moved was destined to have consid­ was capable o f loving and that each orb moves because its unmoved mover
erable influence. For here, in contrast to De caelo, Aristotle speaks o f ex­ loves the first immovable mover, which Aristotle conceived as God.'’"
ternal, spiritual movers, one for each orb."4 In fact, he speaks o f them as
86. In Aristotle’s judgment (Metaphysics 12.8.10732.36-10738.3). the unmoved movers, are
“ immovable m overs,” o f which the one associated with the outermost "substances which are o f the same number as the movements of the stars [i.e.. planets],
sphere o f the fixed stars is called the “ first immovable m over.” These and in their nature eternal, and in themselves unmovable, and without magnitude.” The
movers are transcendent, or at least separate and distinct from the orbs with bracketed qualification is mine. Among these substances, he adds, “ one . . . is first and
another second according to the same order as the movements o f the stars" (Aristotle
which they are associated. They are also without magnitude, and therefore (Ross], 1984). Thus they have an order, but Aristotle does not here indicate whether they
lack parts and divisibility. Although the immovable movers are all identical, differ. Wolfson. 1973a, 17, says that “ there is no distinction at all in the immaterial movers
the first is immobile both essentially and accidentally, whereas all the other themselves; the distinction between them is only a distinction in their relation to things
outside themselves - a distinction o f external relation which, as we have shown, does
immovable movers are immovable essentially but not accidentally.^ The not affect their nature." By contrast, Stewart, 1973, 545, believes that “ there seems to
accidental motion o f all immovable movers but the first is, presumably, an8 5
4
3 be in Aristotle a hierarchy o f being implicit in the doctrine o f the unmoved mover. The
first unmoved mover is prior in that it is unmoved both essentially and accidentally,
whereas the planetary movers are only unmoved essentially. The first unmoved mover
83. For the translations, see Aristotle [Guthrie], i960. See also Wolfson. 1973b, 23. Aristotle is also prior in the sense that the planetary movers receive additional motion from the
seems to have assumed that sublunar bodies are also intrinsically capable o f natural self­ movement o f the outer heaven, which is moved by the first unmoved mover.
movement. If unimpeded, a heavy, earthy body will, by its nature, tend to fall toward 87. Ross, 1949, 181, and Kellv. 1964. 7. adopt this interpretation. But it is problematic, since
the center o f the world. the first unmoved mover thinks only its own thoughts - indeed, us thoughts are ot itself
84. Here I follow Wolfson. 1973a. 1-11. - and is presumably unaware o f anything outside o f itself. If this is also an attribute ot
85. See Woltson, 1973-1. 7 . and Stewart, 1973, 544-545. the other unmoved movers - recall that Aristotle assumed them identical - then they too
516 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S A N D THEIR CAUSES 517
As God, the prime mover enjoys the best kind o f life. Taking no cog­ from its orb, though associated with it in some sense. It follows that as
nizance o f things external to itself, the prime mover lives the fullest life by each orb moves around with uniform circular motion, its soul also moves
thinking o f itself, as the most worthy object o f thought. “ We say therefore,’’ around with it. Hence the soul o f a celestial orb is necessarily in motion.
Aristotle concludes (Metaphysics 12 .7 .1072b.29-30 [Ross]), “ that God is a But the soul o f an orb is not the direct cause o f the orb’s motion. Motion
living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and arises because o f the soul’s intellectual desire and love for the separate in­
eternal belong to God; for this is G o d .” And, as if to emphasize the unique­ telligence that is also associated with the same orb. The direct cause o f
ness o f the prime mover, Aristotle assumes that ic is located at the circum­ motion is therefore the separate intelligence, which causes the soul to love
ference o f the universe, because “ the things nearest the mover are those and desire it so that the soul will move its orb around and around.92 Thus
whose motion is quickest, and in this case it is the motion o f the circum­ does the separate intelligence act as a final, and perhaps even as an efficient,
ference that is the quickest: therefore the mover occupies the circumference” cause o f the motion o f the orb and its soul. In apparent agreement with
(Physics 8.10.267b.7-8).88 Thomas, a modern commentator on Aristotle suggests (Ross, 1949, 181)
The concept o f a prime mover played a significant role in Aristotle’s that “ we must probably think o f each heavenly sphere as a unity o f soul
physics and cosmology and is the theme o f the eighth book o f the Physics. and body desiring and loving its corresponding ‘intelligence.’ ” 93 On this
In the sixth chapter o f that book, Aristotle explains that up to this point interpretation o f Aristotle, which Thomas himself did not accept, the soul
he had “ established the fact that everything that is in motion is moved by functions as an internal mover and the separate intelligence as the external
something, and that the mover is either unmoved or in motion, and that, mover. In Thom as’s own interpretation, each intelligence is an unmoved
if it is in motion, it is moved at each stage either by itself or by something mover, and the first o f these is accorded no special status, which seems to
else; and so we proceeded to the position that o f things that are moved, the agree with Aristotle’s intent.
principle o f things that are in motion is that which moves itself, and the
principle o f the whole series is the unm oved.” 89 But if everything that is 2. Medieval concepts o f the prime mover
moved is moved by another, “ we have a series that must come to an end,
and a point will be reached at which motion is imparted by something that Scholastics usually chose one or another o f these three interpretations. But
is unmoved” (ibid., 8.10.267b. 1—2). The series o f movers terminates with whether the cause o f celestial motion was conceived as internal or external,
the first immovable mover, thus avoiding a potentially infinite sequence of or a combination o f the two, a major problem concerned the ultimate source
movers and moved things. Versions o f this argument would be frequently o f celestial motions. Was it God, or the prime mover, as God was often
repeated. called in the context o f cosmological discussions? It so, how did God cause
Aristotle seems to have bequeathed tw o different explanations for the the celestial motions?
cause o f celestial motion: one internal, the other external. In truth, in ac­ Whereas Aristotle was ambiguous about the relationship o f the prime
cordance with Thomas Aquinas’s interpretation, Aristotle was also the mover to other movers, Christians were unequivocal: as God, the prime
source o f a third account that fused the first tw o .90 According to Thomas, mover was in no way to be confused with any other celestial movers,
who probably drew his interpretation from Avicenna, who, in turn derived to the position ot Aristotle, between us and the highest God, there exists only a two­
it from a long Neoplatonic tradition, Aristotle distinguished two immaterial fold order o f intellectual substances, namely, the separate substances which are the ends
substances associated with each celestial orb: a soul and a separate intelli­ o f the heavenly motions: and the souls o f the spheres, which move through appetite and
desire" (Sic igitur secundum Anstotelis positionem inter nos et summum Deum non
gence.91 The lormer is an integral part o f its orb, whereas the latter is distinct pomtur nisi duplex ordo intellectualium substantiarum. scilicet substantiae separatae quae
sunt fines coelestium motuum. et animae orbium quae sunt moventes per appetitum et
would be unaware o f any other mover and thus could hardly be expected to love something desiderium). See also Weisheipl’s excellent account (1961, 320). Gilson. 1955, 196, has a
outside themselves, not even the first unmoved mover. Thus a version ot" the first inter­ succinct description o f Avicenna’s interpretation.
pretation may have been intended. Each celestial sphere is somehow capable o f loving 92. Duhem, Le Systetne, 1913—1959, 8:324, describes precisely this relationship as the cause
its own unmoved mover and moves around and around as a consequence o f that love. o f celestial motion when he declares that “ Greek and Arab Neoplatomsts exercised the
88. Aristotle [Hardie and Gave], 1984. Ross, 1949, 180-181, regards this statement as “ an genius o f their minds on the relation w'hich unites the intelligence to the orb that it moves:
incautious expression.” He believes that “ Aristotle’s genuine view is that the prime mover to each orb, they will conjoin a soul that will be its immediate mover. This soul will
is not in space” and cites De caelo 1.9.279a. 18, where Aristotle declares that “ there is know, admire, love the separate intelligence and desire to become like it; and this eternal
neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there, is o f such desire will maintain the perpetuity o f celestial motion.”
a nature as not to occupy any place” (Aristotle [Stocks], 1984). 93 - The difficultv with Thomas Aquinas's interpretation, and David Ross's as well, is that
89. Physics [Hardie and Gave] 8.6.2593.29—2590.1. See also Physics 8.5.2563.13—21. in the sections o f the Metaphysics where Aristotle considers the intelligences, or separate
90. Mastrius and Bellutus ([De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 4, art. 3], 1727, 3:503, col. 1) present the substances, he makes no mention o f the souls o f orbs and, consequently, neither have 1
same three opinions. in my brief description o f Aristotle's views. Both Albertus Magnus and Robert Kilwardbv
91. In the Treatise on Separate Substances, Thomas says ([Lescoe], 1963, 46): “Thus, according adopted substantially the same interpretation as did Thomas (Weisheipi. 1961. 320).
518 THE CELE STI AL RE G IO N CELESTIAL M O T IO N S A N D THEIR CAUSES S I9

whether external or internal; indeed, God was the creator o f these other by another, a process that cannot go to infinity [from which one may
celestial movers. O f these two radically distinct entities - the prime mover infer the existence o f a prime mover that is not moved by anything
and all other celestial movers — we shall consider the prime mover first. else].’’97*Thus if A moves B and B moves C and C moves D, the process
Because Aristotle discussed the unmoved mover only in his Metaphysics and cannot proceed infinitely, because there are no mfinite processes in nature.
Physics - and not in De caelo - questions about the prime mover in medieval And yet it appears that a body is put into motion by something that is
cosmology usually appear in questions on those tw o treatises. '4 itself already in motion. T o terminate this potentially infinite process,
something had to exist which was itself absolutely immobile and which
could somehow also cause celestial orbs and bodies to m ove.911 Although
a. The existence and attributes oj the prime mover
he expressed it differently, Marsilius o f Inghen said much the same thing.
The existence o f a prime mover was most frequently demonstrated by the A celestial mover could only be the prime mover if it had “ primacy o f
necessity to deny an infinite regress o f cause-effect relationships. It was causality” (de primevitate causalitatis) over all other celestial movers and
always assumed that such relationships could not proceed indefinitely and independence from them. The latter condition presupposes that the other
had to terminate with a prime mover. The denial o f infinite regress could movers can cause motion only by virtue ot the prime mover, which also
be applied to proofs o f a prime mover in different ways. For Mastrius and has more influence than any ot the others.99
Bellutus the existence of the prime mover was demonstrable in tw o ways: As used in medieval scholasticism, the term prime mover (primus motor
(1) by physical means, using motion as the illustration o f infinite process; or primum movens) was equated with G o d ,100and therefore had the customary
and (2) by metaphysical means, using causality and production, where it is attributes assigned to the deity, among which were immobility, immuta­
assumed that causes cannot proceed in infinitum and must eventually come bility, infinite power or strength, indivisibility, and absence o f magnitude.101
to a first cause that is itself uncaused. 9
45
97. “ Omne quod movetur. ab alio movetur: sed non est processus in infinitum, ergo.” Ona
Marsilius o f Inghen also employed the denial o f an infinite regress to [Physics, bk. 8, qu. 1, art. 8], 1598, 376V. col. 1. Mastrius and Bellutus, Physics, disp.
demonstrate the existence o f a prime mover. We must arrive at some being 15, qu. 8, art. 3, 1727, 2:380, col. 1, mention and discuss the same principle.
which, if it is moved, is moved by itself. Marsilius then shows that the 98. Although we shall not enter into further subtleties associated with the concept that
“ everv thing that is moved is moved by another," occasional exceptions were noted.
prime mover must be independent o f all other things. For we can always Thus William o f Ockham reports, with seeming approval, that the Commentator, Av-
ask whether something is dependent or independent o f any other thing. If erroes, insisted that something could be moved by another in two ways, the first of
it is independent, it is the prime mover. If not, we can ask the same question which involved a mover that was numerically distinct from the thing moved. In this
sense the principle “ omne quod movetur ab alio movetur" always holds. In a second
o f another being. But this process cannot proceed to infinity. It must stop way, however, something could be moved by another thing that was in a distinct place
at something that is independent o f everything else, which is, Marsilius or location, and in this sense the principle could fail. As his example, Ockham mentions
insists, the prime m over.96 that although the first sphere is moved by something that is really distinct from it,
namely the prime mover, the latter has no distinct place because as God, it is not locatable
There was almost universal agreement with Aristotle that a being had and therefore has no place (Ad primum istorum respondet Commentator quod moveri
to exist - a first, or prime, mover - who provided the starting point for ab alio potest esse dupliciter: vel ab alio numero distincto vel ab alio distmeto situ. Pnmo
all cosmic motions ot the celestial and sublunar regions. For most scho­ modo omne quod movetur ab alio movetur. Secundo modo. non oportet: licet emm
prima sphaera movetur ab aliquo realiter distincto, ut a primo motore, ille tamen non
lastics, this seemed to follow obviously from the Aristotelian principle, distinguitur situ ab isto, quia non habet situm). Ockham, Brans Summa lihri Physicorum,
as expressed by Peter de Oha, that “ every thing that is moved, is moved bk. 8, ch. 2, 1984, 125—126. Ockham's example had little or no impact on the principle
“ every thing that is moved is moved by another."
99. In response to the question as to what is meant by “ primacy" when we use the term
94. For Aristotle's discussions, see Metaphysics, book 12, and Physics, book 8, and for the “ prime mover" (primus motor), Marsilius explains: “ Quantum ad primum notandum
medieval questions on those discussions, see the “ Catalog o f Questions." Appendix I. quod quando dicitur motorem celi esse pnmum hoc intelligitur de primevitate causalitatis
qus. 152-165. et independentie in ordine essentialium moventium que sic se habent quod postenus non
95. "Duplici medio demonstrari potest existentia primi motoris physico et metaphvsico. movet nisi in virtute primi moventis et induentis plusquam facial movens posterius."
Medium physicum est motus, quo usus est Ar. 8. Phys. et 12 Metaphys; metaphvsicum Marsilius o f Inghen, Physics, bk. 8, qu. 9, 1518, 85V, col. 1.
est causalitas et productio quo demonstravit 2 Met. 2 in nullo generc cause posse in 100. In a question on the prime mover. Buridan [Physics, bk. 8. qu. 11], 1509, U9r, col. i,
infinitum progredi. sed ad unum pnmum deveniendum esse.” Mastrius and Bellutus for example, asks “ Whether the prime mover, namely God, is o f infinite power
[Physics, disp. 15, qu. 8, art. 3], 1727, 2:380, col. 1. Mastrius and Bellutus seem to hold [strength]” (Utrum primus motor, scilicet Deus. sit infinite vigons). See also Peter de
that the metaphysical proof is stronger than the physical. Ona, Physics, bk. 8, qu. 1, art. 8, 1598, 377r. col. 1. Marsilius o f Inghen, Physics, bk.
96. "Tunc ponitur ista conclusio quod aliquis est primus motor probatur quia in moventibus 8, qu. 8, 1518, 84V, col. 2, explains that the term primus motor is equivalent to the
et motis essentiahter ordinatis non est processus in infinitum, ut patet septimo hums. expressions prima causa and ultimus finis.
Igitur est devenire ad pnmum motorem, qui si movetur, movetur a seipso et non ab 101. In a single paragraph, Chrysostom Javelli includes all o f these attributes when he dem­
alio." Marsilius o f Inghen [Physics, bk. 8, qu. 8], 1518, 84V, col. 2. In the next, or second onstrates [Physics, bk. 8, tract. 4, ch. 3]. 1568. 1:201. col. 2. that “ motor primus est
conclusion, Marsilius shows that the prime mover must be independent. omnino immobilis et incorporeus et penitus indivisibilis. Et arguitur sic: nullam habet
520 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S A ND THEIR CAUSES 521

All o f these attributes were discussed, sometimes in separate questions (see motion does not, but continues on without end, celestial motion could be
“ Catalog o f Questions,” in Appendix I).104 Immobility was among the most neither violent nor natural in the ordinary Aristotelian sense.109 It was as­
widely considered, because it was essential that the prime mover be able to sumed to be voluntary motion, that is, motion produced by an act o f will.
cause motion without itself being in m otion.10’ By analogy with natural Within this context, a popular and perhaps convincing medieval argument
examples, scholastics found it easy to assume the existence o f such an entity. was developed, pointing toward a prime mover. It involved three seemingly
They observed that a magnet causes iron to move toward it but is itself exhaustive possible relationships between a voluntary mover and a thing
unmoved; color causes sight, which is a kind o f motion, but the color itself that is moved. Thus Buridan and Albert o f Saxony argued that there is (1)
does not move; and even if the Sun were at rest, it would heat terrestrial, something that causes motion and is itself in motion, just as (2) there is
or inferior, things.104 Indeed, if a prime mover were moved by something something that is in motion but does not itself cause motion; therefore (3)
else, it would not be a prime m over.,os Therefore it must either be moved something must exist that causes motion but is not itself in motion, which
by itself or not moved at all. But it cannot move itself, because it would would be the prime m over.1,0
then both be a cause o f motion and be in motion - that is, it would be N o w a mover, or something that causes motion, is naturally prior to,
simultaneously in a state o f actuality and potentiality.106 Whatever qualifies and more perfect than, something that is only moved - that is, only in
as a prime mover, however, must be devoid o f potentiality. Hence the motion. Buridan argues further that something that is prior to something
prime mover cannotjnove itself.107 M oreover, Buridan argues that the first else ought to be separable from it more readily than a posterior thing is
thing in every genus ought to be the most simple. In the genus o f things separable from the thing prior to it. Therefore an immobile and immutable
causing motion, this absolutely simple first thing is what causes things to mover that is incapable o f being acted on and which meets all the con­
move but is not itself moved. '°* During the Middle Ages, motion was ditions just described ought to exist. But this is the prime m over.1,1
divided into three types: natural, violent, and voluntary motion. Because Albert o f Saxony invoked the daily motion in support o f a prime mover
all ordinary natural and violent terrestrial motion comes to rest and celestial who ought to cause things to move perpetually and uniformly. The daily
motion was an example o f a perpetual and uniform motion from which
magmtudinem, ergo etc. Probatur antecedens: quoniam consequentia est nota, non habet one could infer an immobile prime mover. Variation in motion, explains
magnitudinem intinitam quoniam ilia non datur. ut probatum est in tertio phvsicojrum]; Chrysostom Javelli, who agrees with Albert’s argument, “ proceeds from
nec fimtam quoniam probatum est in capite praecedenti non posse esse in magmtudine variation in the m over.” Without detectable variation in the daily motion,
linita potentiam intinitam. Sed motor primus immobilis est potentiae infinitae cum sit
movens tempore infinito, ut dictum est supra. Ergo constat ipsum esse penitus sine
Albert and Javelli inferred the immobility o f the prime mover. Moreover,
magnitudine et incorporeum, etc. Haec de tertio capite sufficiant." In earlier chapters, if the prime mover were itself in motion, it would bear continually differing
Javelli shows that the prime mover is one (200, col. 1) and otTntimte power (200, col. relationships to terrestrial things and cause different effects than we now
1 - 201, col. 2).
102. Not all scholastics included a discussion on the prime mover in their questions or
observe. Because no such effects are detected, we may infer a prime mover
commentaries on the Physics. Among those who did not are Thomas Compton-Carleton that causes perpetual and uniform m otion.1'*
([P/iysiVs], 1649) and Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza ([P/iysi'cs], 1615), who includes a section
on the First Cause but does not really treat o f the prime mover. 109. This is Hugo Cavellus’s argument (Metaphysics, bk. 12. qu. 8, 1639, 4:830, col. 2), but
103. From our sample list o f authors, at least nine, from Pseudo-Siger o f Brabant in the it is applicable to the Middle Ages.
thirteenth century to Peter de Ona in the seventeenth, asked whether the prune mover n o. Buridan, Physics, bk. 8, qu. 6. [509, in r , col. 1; Albert ot Saxony, Physics, bk. 8, qu.
is absolutely immobile (see the “ Catalog o f Questions” in Appendix I, qu. 159). 8, 1518, 81 r, col. 1. In the seventeenth century, Cavellus assumed the same tripartite
104. Rundan, Physics, bk. 8, qu. 6, 1309, 114V, col. 2. otfers these very examples when he division (ibid.).
says: “ Color movet visum absque hoc quod moveatur; et magnes quiescens attrahit h i . Buridan, ibid.
terrum; et si sol quiesceret adhuc calefaceret ista inferiora.” |ohn Major [Physics, bk. 8], 112. This is Albert’s fourth conclusion in favor o f a prime mover (see Physics, bk. 8, qu. 8,
1526, sig. kiii recto, col. 1, presents the same examples, along with a Latin text that is 1318, 8ir, col. 1). Forjavelli’s discussion, see Physics, bk. 8, tract.-q., ch. 1, 1568, 1:200,
very nearly identical with Buridan s. col. 1, where Javelli seeks to prove “ quod ad sempitemitatem unius motus requiritur
105. See Bundan’s “ second wav" (secunda via). Buridan, ibid. immobilitas omnino ipsius motoris” and offers the following as proof: “ Secundum
106. As a continuous cause o f motion, the prime mover would be considered in a state of probatur ex regularitate et umformitate quam videmus in pnmo motu qui est motus
actuality. It it could also cause its own motion, it could only do so because it has the diurnus et arguitur sic: motus primus est maxime regularis; ergo motor primus est
potentiality tor motion. Therefore at some point, it would be simultaneously in a state omnino immobilis. Probatur consequentia quoniam ad sensum videmus irregularitatem
o f actuality and potentiality. motus procedere a vanetate motoris. Nam quia moventia inferiora non semper sunt in
107. Albert ot Saxony [P/iysics, bk. 8, qu. 8], 1518. 8ir, col. 1. For a much more detailed eadem dispositione quia fatigantur in movendo, ideo in interioribus non datur motus
argument that makes the same point, see Buridan, Physics, bk. 8. qu. 6, 1309, n qv, col. unus continuatus regularis quia igitur motor primus causat motum maxime regularem
2 - r 13r, col. 1. et aeternum, signum est quod semper eodem inodo se habet; ex consequent est omnino
108. Buridan, ibid. With a few different examples, Albert o f Saxony makes essentially the immobilis et invariabilis.” Although Buridan omits mention o f the daily motion, he
same argument in Physics, ibid. gives essentially the same argument (Buridan, ibid., cols. 1-2). Buridan and Albert offer
S22 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES 523

o f each o f these equally prime mobiles is a prime mover and that there are
b. Is there more than one prime mover?
as many prime movers as there are celestial o rb s."'
Convinced o f the existence o f at least one prime mover, scholastics also In a series o f six conclusions, Marsilius rejects ill arguments for a plurality
inquired whether there might be more than one. In the sense that God is o f prime movers. Although he allows for the possibility o f a plurality o f
the prime mover, there could, o f course, not be more than one, although worlds, Marsilius, in the first conclusion, denies that this implies a plurality
the question was posed. It was, however, possible that other unmoved o f prime movers, one for each world. In fact, he argues that a plurality o f
movers might exist that functioned as prime movers. The central problem worlds is impossible, and therefore so is a plurality o f prime m overs.""
was to define or explicate the imaginable ways in which a plurality o f prime Marsilius further argues (in the second conclusion) that the celestial orbs
movers might exist. Chrysostom Javelli raised the question ([Physics, bk. are not equal, because they differ in location (situs), place (locus), and position
8, tract. 4, ch. 3], 1568, 1:201, col. 2) because the first heaven, or the (positio). Since no two celestial orbs are equal, their movers cannot be equally
outermost physical orb o f the cosmos, is the first moved thing and seems prime. O nly one prime mover can be supreme.
to have a double mover, namely an intelligence that is conjoined to the Following the sixth and final conclusion, Marsilius declares: “ it is obvious
heaven itself and also a separate mover that is distinct from the first heaven. that a plurality o f prime movers does not exist in any o f the ways in which
Could these be two prime movers? Javelli, and most scholastics, distin­ a plurality o f prime movers is imaginable. Indeed, there is only one prime
guished between an intelligence that is somehow conjoined or associated mover. But the unity o f the prime mover is proved, not only from what
with the first, or outermost, physical o r b " 3 and a mover that is completely has been said, but from the order o f the universe, from its state o f efficient
separate from that orb. According to Javelli, the conjoined intelligence is and final causes, [and] from the unity and perfection o f the world” (ibid.,
not really a prime mover, because it is subordinated to the separated mover, 86r, cols. 1-2).
by which we must understand God as prime mover.
Marsilius o f Inghen developed a much more elaborate approach con­
cerning the possibility o f a plurality o f prime movers and, as expected, 3. Medieval concepts o f the other celestial movers
denies it ." 4 He distinguished three ways in which a plurality o f prime During the late Middle Ages, to inquire whether circular motion was natural
movers could be imagined: (1) if the mobile celestial bodies were all equally to a celestial orb was to ask, in effect, how a celestial orb was moved, that
prime - that is, it there are no differentiations among any o f the celestial is, what caused its m otion ."7 To argue that its motion was really natural
bodies to be moved - and completely independent movers were then applied - that is, occurred by the very nature o f a celestial orb - was in effect to
to any one o f them; (2) to one o f these equally prime mobiles, different reject other causes o f motion, whether internal (impressed forces or souls)
prime movers are applied simultaneouslv; and (3) to the same, or another, or external (intelligences or angels). The most significant alternative to
equally prime mobile, different equally prime movers are applied succes­ natural celestial motion arising from the very nature o f the orb was voluntary
sively (Marsilius o f Inghen [Physics, bk. 8 , qu. 9 ] , 1 5 1 8 , 8 5 V , cols. 1 - 2 ) . motion effected by agents capable o f willing, such as intelligences, angels.
Marsilius then subdivides each o f these three ways. For example, the first
way can be subdivided into tw o other ways. In one w ay, we can imagine 115. “ Primus modus potest subdivide secundum quod dupliciter possunt imaginari plura
a plurality ot worlds in each ot which there is one prime mobile (for example, mobilia eque primo. Uno modo quod sint plures mundi in quorum quodlibet sit ununi
the sphere o f the fixed stars) to which one prime mover is applied. As a mobile primuin et cuilibet lllorum mobilium priorum sit unus motor primus applicatus.
Alio modo quod in isto mundo sint plura mobilia eque primo ita quod smt plures orbes
second subdivision, we can also imagine only one world in which all o f the cell et quilibet illorum sit independens ab alio. Et sic cuilibet motor potest did motor
celestial orbs are completely independent o f each other and o f exactly equal primus.” Ibid., 85V, col. 2.
status - that is, they are equally prime mobiles. It follows that the mover 116. Marsilius explains (ibid.) that “ if there were a plurality o f worlds.,, the earth o f one would
descend to the earth o f another; and there would be a plurality o f times and a plurality
o f gods, and between these worlds there would be a vacuum. All these are impossible.”
a tew more arguments, which need not be included here. For a radically different set of In light o f the general acceptance o f the possibility o f a plurality o f worlds alter the
arguments on the very same question, see Benedictus Hesse [Physics, bk. 8, qu. 16), Condemnation o f 1277 and therefore the rejection o f the argument that "the earth ot
1984, 730-73 5, who emphasizes terminological and logical distinctions. one [world] would descend to the earth o f another” (see Ch. 8, Sec. II.2), Marsilius s
113. Authors varied in their conception o f the first physical heaven. It could have been the rejection o f that possibility and his acceptance of the movement o f an earth trom one
tenth, ninth, or eighth spheres. The tenth and ninth spheres would have represented possible world to another are surprising. Perhaps his position on these issues was con­
long-term motions of the fixed stars (precession and/or trepidation), whereas the eighth ditioned by his immediate goal o f denying the existence o f more than one prime mover.
sphere represented the daily motion. 117. In the “ Catalog o f Questions” in Appendix I, questions 173-175 specifically raise some
114. “ Utrum plures smt motores pnm i.” Marsilius o f Inghen, Physics, bk. 8, qu. 9, 1518, o f these issues, but questions on the role o f intelligences and angels frequently involved
85r, col. 2-86r, col. 2. issues about the causes o f motion ot celestial orbs.
524 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 52 5

and souls. "* But there was at least one other conceptual possibility: some­ external movers or some internal power, though probably not a soul. A
thing might be impressed into an orb that enabled it to move but that was few, however, thought the alternatives might be equally probable, a position
not inherently natural to it, such as, for example, an impressed force, or that Saint Bonaventure favored when he asked “ Whether celestial motion
“ impetus,” as it was often called. We must now examine these different occurs by [means] o f a proper form or by an intelligence.” 122 During the
motive powers and see how they were thought to operate. Middle Ages a celestial mover was conceived in a variety o f ways: as an
M ost scholastic natural philosophers and theologians were agreed that intelligence, an angel, a form, or a soul. Some ot these terms were used
one angel or intelligence was associated with each orb, or with each planet interchangeably. In Greek and Arabic Neoplatonism,, soul and intelligence
(see Sec. II.4. e). No single angel was capable o f m oving all the heavens, were quite distinct, the former conjoined to its orb, the latter associated
because o f the latter’s enormous magnitude and variety o f motions. " 9 They with that orb as a separate and distinct entity. The identification o f angels
were also in general agreement that God did not cause - although he could and intelligences had already been made by Avicenna, al-Ghazali, and Moses
if he wished - the celestial motions directly, as an efficient cause, but rather Maimonides and was soon widely adopted in the Christian West, although
had assigned this task to an intermediate or secondary cause o f his own with significant exceptions.123 Occasionally the term “ intelligence” was
creation.120 But what secondary cause? Had God chosen to m ove them by equated with an internal form. Whatever their differences, these entities
some distinct and separate entity, say an intelligence or angel? O r had he shared certain fundamental properties: all were divinely created, spiritual,
rather chosen to move the celestial orbs by some form, or soul, or natural immaterial, devoid o f magnitude, indivisible, and incorruptible, although
innate force and thus allow them to be self-moving? A number o f scholastics the divine will could choose to destroy them. O f these entities, intelligences
considered this issue in the form o f a question that asked whether the celestial and angels were generally categorized as external movers, while souls and
orbs are moved by intelligences or by some internal or innate form or forms were usually perceived as internal movers conjoined to their bodies.124
power, perhaps even a soul, although, after the Condemnation o f 1277, However, when intelligences were equated with forms, they were assumed
this last option, which implied fully living orbs, was exercised by few, if to function as internal movers.
an y.'21 Most chose one or the other o f the two options: either separate, John o f Jandun illustrates both usages for the term “ intelligence” when
he asks “ Whether an intelligence that moves an orb is conjoined to the orb
1 18. One could also argue that celestial motion was violent, but no one did. In a series of essentially as the substantial form ofits matter.” ,2S In his lengthy discussion,
four questions about the heavens. Michael Scot asks first. “ Whether celestial motion is
natural, violent, or voluntary” (Primo, utrum motus celi sit naturalis vel violentus vel Jandun, who describes the question as “ unusual” (inconsueta), distinguishes
voluntarius). Michael Scot [Sphere, lec. 5], 1949, 288. two opinions: the first is that an intelligence that moves its orb is united to
119. “ Quia Angeli virtus est limitata et finita, non videtur autem omnes celos posse esse it as part ofits very being, so that it would be false to say that it is essentially
adaequatam sphaeram activitatis umus Angeli propter ingentem magnitudinem: insuper
propter motuum varietatem.” Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2. qu. 4, art. 4, separated from its o rb .126 The second opinion, which is not explicitly as-
1727, 3:504, col. 2, par. 147, otter a brief discussion.
120. Raphael Aversa [De caelo. qu. 34, sec. 7], 1627, 150, col. 1, put it directly: “ It is never­ 122. Ibid., 348, col. 1-349, col. 2. In addition to the eleven other individuals who discussed
theless certain that God could indeed move both the first movable sphere [primum mobile] some form o f this question (see the “ Catalog o f Questions,” Appendix I, qu. 197), we
and every other heaven [or orb]. In fact, he does not move them immediatelv by himself’ may add Franciscus de Marchia, whose opinions Duhem describes (Le Systeme, 1913—
(Certum tamen esse debet Deum potuisse quidem per se immediate movere tarn primum 1959 - 8:325-328). Clavius, although he grappled with numerous cosmological issues in
mobile quam omne aliud caelum. De facto tamen non movere se solo immediate). his famous Commentary on the Sphere of Sacrobsoco, appears to have ignored celestial
Compton-Carleton. De coelo, disp. 4, sec. 3, 1649, 409, col. 2, asserts that although P. movers, except for an occasional mention o f intelligences, usually with reference to
Lessius and some others hold that God alone moves the celestial orbs, the common someone else’s discussion. He offers no distinct causal account o f the celestial motions.
opinion is that they are moved by intelligences (Quaeres primo, utrum movear.cur coeli Perhaps this is only a reflection o f the fact that Clavius was more astronomer than natural
ab Intelligentijs? P. Lessius cum alijs nonnullis dicit moven eos a solo Deo. Communis philosopher.
tamen sentenda affirmat moved ab Intelligentijs). Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., 123. Duhem, ibid., 6:30. Duhem (8:324) holds that Muslim, Jewish, and Christian philos­
bk. 9, sec. 2, ch. 1, 1651, 248, col. 1, also characterized it as the “ common opinion.” ophers, who received the concept o f celestial souls and intelligences-from pagan sources,
The common opinion had been just as common in the Middle Ages, when it was held adapted these entities to monotheism by identifying angels with intelligences and calling
by Thomas Aquinas and numerous others (for example, Ulrich o f Strasbourg; see Du- the latter by the former term. Although the identification o f angel with intelligence was
hem, Le systeme, 1913-1959, 8:39). quite common. I have observed no analogous equation o f angel with celestial soul.
It was contrary to faith to allow that any other thing or entity, except God, could 124. In this regard, see Thomas Aquinas, De caelo, bk. 2, lec. 3, par. 3, 1952. 156.
create anything. Thus Thomas Aquinas [Sentences, dist. 14, qu. 1, art. 3], 1929-1947, 125. “ Utrum intelligentia movens orbem sit coniuncta orbi secundum esse, ut forma sub-
2:353, describes an opinion, probably Avicenna’s, in which God, as first cause, creates stantialis suae materiae.” John ot Jandun [Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 13], 1553, I 34 r.
an intelligence, which in turn creates the soul o f a celestial orb, from which soul the col. 2.
substance ot the orb itself is produced. Thomas repudiates this opinion, because “ our 126. “ Notandum quod ista quaestio est inconsueta et procedam sic: quod primo tangam duas
faith, which assumes that only God is the creator o f things, does not suffer it” (Hoc opiniones cum suis ratiombus; secundo solvam rationes secundum tenentes has opiniones
autem fides nostra non padtur, quae solum Deum rerum creatorem pomt). et quilibet tunc eligat quae sibi videbitur probabilior. Prima est opinio unius et est quod
121. As we saw, Bonaventure [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, pt. 1, art. 3, qu. 2], Opera, 1885. intelligentia movens orbem effectivae est unita orbi in esse existentiae ita quod est talsum
2:348, cols. 1-2, rejected souls as possible celestial movers. ipsam dicere esse separatam in esse existentiae ab orbe.” Ibid., 134V, col. 1.
526 THE CE LESTIA L RE GION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 52 7

serted but is clearly understood and which Jandun thought more probable, applied to an angel that was associated with a celestial o rb .'30 Celestial
holds that an intelligence is w holly separate from its orb.'"7 intelligences thus formed a species, or subset, within the genus o f angels.
That Jandun thought the theory o f a separate intelligence was only more Although the terms angel and intelligence could be used interchangeably,
probable, rather than reasonably or definitely certain, is not difficult to the questiones literature reveals a preference for intelligence.131 B y the sev­
understand. Some o f those who defended the first opinion and assumed enteenth century, it was the “ common opinion” that external intelligences,
that an intelligence is united to its orb seem to have qualified their under­ or angels, caused the motion o f the planets and stars, and not some form
standing o f “ united” or “ conjoined” to make it more palatable to those or internal m over.'32 O f the two options, then, that which assumed intel­
who argued for a complete separation between intelligence and orb. In one ligences as separate, external movers clearly predominated. Whatever the
interpretation, for example, they insisted that the intelligence and its orb term employed, intelligences or angels were usually conceived as spiritual
were not one with respect to their being but only with respect to “ appro­ substances created by the First Intelligence (God) even before the world
priation” (secundum appropriatiotiem), that is with respect to a particular re­ itself was created. The properties attributed to them were usually those that
lationship, namely that between a mover (the intelligence) and a thing that Aristotle had attributed to the prime mover and the other unmoved movers,
is moved (the celestial orb). Strictly speaking, the relationship is between namely immobility, indivisibility, and absence o f magnitude. Although
a mover and the thing it moves, not between a form and its matter. Sup­ angels possessed considerable power, they could not exceed the finite pow­
porters o f this interpretation viewed the relationship as analogous to that ers conferred on them at the Creation. An angel could move bodies, indeed,
between a sailor and his ship. The sailor and the ship do not form one it could move a rare and light celestial orb, but it did not follow, for example,
unified thing but, in some important sense, the sailor causes the ship to that it could move the heavy earth or create a vacuum .'33 Its powers were
move. 12S great, but limited and puny in comparison with those o f God. Although
Another argument which sought to further weaken any sense o f essential for Aristotle the immaterial intelligences were limited to the number o f
or organic union between intelligence and orb focused on the distribution celestial motions, where it is understood that each motion is effected by a
within the, orb o f the power (uirtus) o f the intelligence. Ordinarily, forms celestial orb, Christians assumed an enormous number o f immaterial, spir­
which perfect and complete some extended thing or object were thought itual substances. Although many identified planetary intelligences with an­
o f as spread uniformly throughout its magnitude. The relationship between gels, most angels were assumed to enjoy separate existences and to be
intelligence and orb, however, is quite different. The former is related to completely independent o f bodies o f any kin d .'34
the latter as a point is united to its line. Although a point is united to a line
essentially, it is not extended throughout the line. Here the essentiality is 130. On Avicenna, see Weisheipl, 1961, 303. Albertus Magnus was a notable exception,
retained between intelligence and orb, even as the dissemination o f the rejecting the identification o f intelligences and angels (Weisheipl, i960, 323, and 1961,
power o f the intelligence is relegated to a minute part o f the o rb .'2'3 The 307). Albertus explains that the ancient Peripatetics did not discuss angels but that among
moderns certain Arabs - for example, Avicenna and Algazel - and certain Jews - tor
partisans o f this opinion thought ot intelligences as internal movers but example. Isaac Israeli and Moses Maimonides - had discussed them. “ Moreover, they
weakened the sense o f unity between intelligence and orb. For the most agree that intelligences are substances which the common people call angels” (Concor-
part, however, intelligences were unambiguously conceived as external diter autem isti dicunt quod inteiligencie sunt substancie quas uulgus angelos uocat et
dicunt). Weisheipl, i960, 323. From the thirteenth to the seventeenth century, most
movers, as I shall now emphasize. considered intelligences and angels identical, as did Richard ot Middleton ([Sentences,
bk. 2. dist. 14. art. 1, qu. 6], 1591, 2:173) and Giovanni Baptista Riccioli (Almagestum
iwi’nm, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2. ch. 1, 1631. 248. col. 1). In the Catwivio. Dante remarks
that the common people refer to the intelligences as angels (see Kelly. 1964, 24).
4. External movers: intelligences (or angels) 13 1. In the “ Catalog o f Questions” in Appendix I, see questions 195-202. and 206. where
intelligentia was preferred over angelus or its variants. Among users of the term “ angel.”
Following Avicenna, the terms “ intelligence” (intelligentia) and “ angel” (an- we can include Cornaeus. De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 1, qu. 4, dub. 2, 1657, 504, who says
gelus) were usually taken as synonymous where the term intelligence was that “ the common opinion o f the ancients, the philosophers, and the Fathers held that
each orb was turned by an angel,” and Oresme (Le Liure Ju del, bk. 2, ch. 2. 1968,
289), who uses the terms “ intelligence” and “ angel” interchangeably within the same
127. Jandun says (ibid., 135r, col. 2) that “ those who hold the second opinion, which seems paragraph. Bonaventure (Sentences. bk. 2, dist. 14, pt. 1, art. 3, qu. 2, Opera. 1885.
more probable and seems to be the intention o f Aristotle and the Commentator, solve 2:349, col. 1) also used them synonymously when he declared that “ another position is
the arguments o f the other [or first] opinion” (Sed isti qui tenent secundam opinionem, that God moves the heaven by means o f a created intelligence, or an angel” (Alia vero
quae videtur esse probabilior et de intentione Aristotelis et Commentatoris, solvunt positio est, quod Deus movet caelum mediante Intelligentia creata, sive mediante An­
rationes altenus opinionis). gelo). Riccioli also used the terms interchangeably (Riccioli, ibid.).
128. For the Latin passage, see ibid., 134V, col. 2. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 4, dubit. 132. For more on the “ common opinion,” see note 120 ot tins chapter.
1, art. 1, 1626, 163, col. 1 and art. 4, 167, col. 1, also mentions the sailor—ship analogy. 133. Suarez, Disputationes metaphysicae, disp. 35, sec. 6, 1866. 2:476, col. 2, par. 27.
129. John o f Jandun, ibid., r35r, col. 1. 134. See Thomas Aquinas, 1963, 45.
528 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 529

lived in the thirteenth century.'36 The author o f the Liber de intelligentiis


explains that only God can m ove by will alone, for only God is pure act
so that his action is identical with his will. But the action o f any creature
is a mixture o f act and potentiality and cannot, therefore, be identical with
its will. It follows that an intelligence cannot move an orb simply by willing
it but must have some contact with, or penetration of, the orb’s b o d y .'37
Hence it cannot will the motion o f an orb from a distance. Perhaps the
article was also condemned because the assumption that an angel moves an
orb by its will alone seems too similar to the w ay the human soul moves
the body whose substantial form it is. The implied analogy suggested that
just as the soul and its body are alive, so also are the intelligence and its
orb alive. In other articles condemned in 1277, the bishop o f Paris had
repudiated the idea o f living celestial orbs.'3*
Because it was always understood that the will is guided by an intellect,
scholastics may generally have interpreted the condemned article to include
the intellect as well as the will. Hervaeus Natalis makes this abundantly
clear by repeatedly coupling the tw o terms in his analysis o f angels as celestial
m overs.'39 Richard o f Middleton explicitly links the angelic intellect and
will when he explains how a heaven is moved by an intelligence: “ a certain
potency [or power] o f this intelligence directed by the intellect and com­
manded by the will brings forth a certain power o f the heaven from potency
Figure io. Angels cranking the world to produce its circular motion. .
to act.
^ nuo
(British Library, Harl. MS. 4940, fol. 28. For another illustration ot'
When he condemned this article, the bishop o f Paris, who was an ide­
angels cranking the world, see Murdoch, 1984, 336.)
ological foe o f Thomas Aquinas, may have had the latter in mind. For
Thomas had indeed allowed for the possibility that an intelligence could
move a celestial orb by its will alone and may even have assumed it. His
Perhaps the most crucial question about celestial intelligences and angels fellow Dominican, Bernard de Trille, unambiguously proclaimed that an­
concerns the manner in which they were thought to move the celestial orbs. gels move the orbs by will alone (Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913—1959* 6:46).
We saw that in the Neoplatonic tradition, as reported by Thomas Aquinas Am ong Parisian scholastics who wrote treatises after the Condemnation
and others (see Sec. II. 1 and n. 92 o f this chapter), an intelligence causes o f 1277, some seem to have accepted and acknowledged the condemned
the soul o f its orb to love it to such an extent that the soul causes the body article without mentioning it, while others mentioned it and addressed the
to move. Under these conditions, the intelligence operates more as a final problem directly. A m ong the former was Richard ot Middleton, who,
cause than an efficient cause. B"*- while this opinion was frequently reported,
it was rarely, if ever, held by scholastic authors.
136. I follow Duhem’s summary o f the Liber de ititelligentiis in Le Systeme, 1913—1<=>59> 5:367
and 6:30. The text has been edited by Clemens Baeumker, IVitelo, ein Philosoph utid
Ndturjorseher des XIII. Jahrhunderts, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittel-
alters, vol. 3, pt. 2 (Munster, 1908).
a. The Condemnation of 1277 137. See Duhem, ibid., 6:30, and, for a translation o f the Latin text, 5:367; also Hissette,
[977, 134.
In the Condemnation o f 1277 at Paris, article 212 condemned the opinion 138. See Hissette, 1977, 134, and also condemned articles 92 and 213, in Denifle and Chatelain,
1889-1897, 1:548 and 555, respectively, and Hissette, 130-133. For other reasons why
“ That an intelligence moves a heaven by [its] will alone.” ' 35 W hy did the
the article may have been condemned, see the discussion on Hervaeus Natalis that
bishop o f Paris, who ordered the condemnation, find this article objection­ follows.
able? It is likely that he was influenced by a treatise titled Liherde intelligentiii, 139. Hervaeus Natalis [ScHtCdccs, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1], 1647, 243, col. 2-246, col. 2. Most
scholastics did the same. Suarez, however, remarks (Disputatio metaphysicae, disp. 35.
which has been attributed to Witelo, the great Polish optical writer who 13 5
sec. 21, 1866, 2:474, col. 2) that some authors insist that although the intellect directs
the will, the latter is the real motive force.
135. “ Quod intelligent™ sola voluntate movet celum.” Denifle and Chatelain, 1889-97, 1:535. 140. I give the full quotation from Richard shortly.
530 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 531

perhaps around 1293 or 1294, wrote a brief account,'4‘ wherein he explains to m ove anything with complete freedom o f choice, not according to some
that determination and relationship which it has to the thing that it moves.
Indeed, an angel cannot be said to move an orb or heaven by its w ill alone,
a heaven is moved by an intelligence in this sense: a certain potency [or power] o f because a good angel is a minister o f God and moves only what has been
this intelligence, directed by the intellect and commanded by the will, brings forth determined for it to move, whereas a bad angel cannot move any bodies
a certain power o f the heaven from potency to act, by which [power] the heaven without G od’s permission. Thus an angel’s mere decision to move a body
is determined for a definite motion commanded by the will o f the intelligence; and does not signify that the body will move. As Godfrey explains, “ T o order
by this power it moves the heaven itself. These things are so arranged [or ordained] that something happen does not signify that it will happen.” '46
for moving the heaven that an angel under God is the principal mover o f the heaven. But if an angel does not move by will alone, how does it move an orb
The power [v ir tu s ] caused in the heaven by this angel in the aforesaid manner is as or heaven? Godfrey suggests that, in addition to intellect and will, we should
if it were the instrumental m over.'4" assume that an angel possesses a third entity, which he calls a “ motive
force” (virtus motiva) and which he describes as “ something spiritual, simple,
Within this paragraph, Richard embodies the new approach, which sought indivisible, non-material, and non-local.” In Godfrey’s view, the intellect
to avoid entanglement with the condemned article. The angel’s will does and will bring the virtus motiva into play in order to move the body which
not directly and immediately move its heaven. Instead, the angel actualizes has been willed to move. Godfrey describes the virtus motiva as a third
a “ force” or “ pow er,” a virtus, which causes the orb or heaven to move. executive power or force (tertia potentia executiva). It is called into activity
As long as the intelligence or angel keeps this power, or instrument, ac­ by the intellect and will, which cannot by themselves effect or complete
tualized, “just so long will the heaven be moved; but when it ceases to the acts that they will. Godfrey explains that “ such a proximate and im­
cause the aforesaid influence [or power] and to conserve it in the heaven, mediate m otive force is assumed. . . because to grasp and desire a motion
the heaven will rest.” '43 or to m ove a thing or to order that some body be moved does not suffice,
Those in the second group provided more details, and even a name, for but a third executive power [or force] is required which by its action [effects]
the virtus invoked by Richard o f Middleton. T w o o f the most important what has been grasped or commanded.” '47
ot these authors were Godfrey o f Fontaines (ca. 1250-ca. 1306), who con­ Although Hervaeus’s account bears some resemblance to G odfrey’s, there
sidered the problem in his fifth quodlibet, and Hervaeus Natalis (d. 1323) o f is no evidence that the former was directly influenced by the latter. Hervaeus
the Dominican Order, who treated it in his Commentary on the Sentences.'44 explains that it was Aristotle who asserted that intelligences m ove the orbs
Because Godfrey wrote his account around 1288, probably before Hervaeus by intellect and will alone, but that the intellect and will o f an intelligence
wrote his, it will be advisable to consider G odfrey’s views first. Godfrey operate by the very nature, or essence, ot the intelligence. Therefore, despite
warns that one ought not to assume that an angel can m ove a heaven by the sense o f choice and decision that intellect and will seem to imply, an
its will alone, because this proposition was included among the condemned intelligence would be predetermined and have no capacity to choose whether
articles, by which he undoubtedly means the articles condemned at Paris or not it wishes to m ove its orb. I4‘s Hervaeus further criticizes those who
in 1277.145 It was condemned, Godfrey explains, because an angel was said14 *
2 believe that intelligences operate by intellect and will alone by observing
that if these two essential properties formed the essence o f an intelligence,
141. According to Gilson, 1955, 347, Richard “ completed the Fourth Book o f his Commentary it could will anything at all without limit, since it would be absolutely
on the Sentences soon alter 1294.” If he wrote the tour books sequentially, the second
perfect. But such perfection belongs only to G o d .'49
may have been completed around 1293 or 1294.
142. “ Dico ergo quod celum movetur ab intelligentia per hoc: quod aliqua potentia ipsius What is Hervaeus’s solution? The key lies in his interpretation o f the
intelligentiae intcllectu dirigente et voluntate imperante aliquam virtutem educit de po­ condemned article, which he describes as “ a certain article, which, as is
tentia celi ad actum qua coelum determinatur ad motum determinatum imperatum ab
intelligentiae voluntate; et per illam virtutem ipsum coelum movet se. Sunt ergo ista sic 146. “ Et quia imperare quod aliquid hat non est tacere illud.” Ibid., 24.
ordinata in movendo coelum quod angelus sub Deo est celi principalis motor. Virtus 147. “ Sed ponetur tabs virtus proxime et immediate motiva. . . , quia scilicet apprehendere
causata in celo ab ipso angelo modo praedicto est quasi instrumentalis m otor.” Richard et appetere motum vel rem movere vel imperare quod corpus aliquod moveatur non
of Middleton, Sentences, bk. 2, disc 14, art. 1, qu. 6, 1591, 2:173, col. -. sufficit, sed requiritur tertia potentia executiva per eius actum sic apprehensi et imperatr.
143 - “ Et quandiu haec virtus continuabitur in coelo per ipsius intelligentiae potentiam tamdiu et per hoc patet ad argumenta.” Ibid.
celum movebitur et cum desinet praedictam intfuentiam causare et conservare in celo 148. As Hervaeus put it (Sentences, bk. 2, disc 14, qu. 1. art. 3, 1647, 244, col. 2), ‘according
celum quiscet.” Ibid. to this path, any whatever intelligence is more determined by its very nature tor moving
144. Both authors were treated by Duhem in Le Systeme, 1913-1959, 6:46-51, where he its orb than fire is for heating [things]" (Et secundum hanc viam unaquaeque intelligentia
translated sections of their arguments. ex natura sua erat magis determinata ad movendum orbem suum quam sit ignis ad
145- “ Nec tamen dicetur angelus movere caelum sola voluntate, quod est reprobatum inter calefaciendum).
articulos condemnatos." Godfrey o f Fontaines, Quodlibet V, qu. 6, 1914, 22-23. 149. Ibid., 244, col. 2-245, col. 1.
532 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELEST IAL M O T I O N S A N D THEIR CAUSES 533
said, condemns as erroneous to posit that angels move the orbs by will B y the late sixteenth century, at the latest, this changed. The assumption
alone, so that they could move bodies at the pleasure for command] o f their o f a third power, or an executive power (potentia executiva), to carry out
w ill.” 150 Hervaeus thus understands the objection o f those who condemned the wishes o f the intellect and will o f an angel was by then fairly common.
the article to be that angels or intelligences could move any body whatever, The tradition o f Godfrey o f Fontaines and Hervaeus Natalis, and perhaps
without limitation o f size, merely by willing it. Thus angels would have other thirteenth- and fourteenth-century authors, had taken hold. In the
infinite capacities equal to G od’s. Hervaeus o f course rejects such an inter­ late sixteenth and the seventeenth century, however, they would ask
pretation and suggests that intelligences can only exercise their wills to move whether that executive force, or virtus motiva, transferred or transmitted an
things that are proportioned to their finite power Even if an angel should impressed force to the physical orb itself. With this question we are dealing
wish to do so, it cannot move bodies larger than the finite maximum for with tw o forces, one external to the celestial orb (the angel or intelligence),
which it has been created. the other internal to it (the impressed force). It will be more appropriate to
Just as Godfrey o f Fontaines did, Hervaeus distinguishes between the will treat this later development in a subsequent section o f this chapter (Sec.
o f an intelligence and its capacity to execute that will. The message o f the II.6).
condemned article is that an angel or intelligence cannot move by its will Although normally independent o f bodies, intelligences were capable o f
alone, if by this we understand a capacity to move anything indifferently.151 uniting with bodies for special operations: for example, with the celestial
Hervaeus explains chat “ Besides the will which the angel possesses, a definite orbs to cause their motion. In this capacity, intelligences were said to “ assist”
relationship [or proportion] exists between the mobile body and the will (,assistere) the celestial orbs to move. The expression “ assisting intelligence,”
o f the mover, insofar as the will o f the mover is a finite motive force [virtus which was apparently absent from medieval usage, appears to have come
motiva finita].'"s2 into vogue during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.154 But precisely
B y adding a virtus motiva to the intellect and will, Godfrey and Hervaeus what “ assisting” was intended to convey is unclear. A t least three different
may have begun a tradition that continued into the seventeenth century. interpretations have some plausibility. Were intelligences assisting entities
N ot only does an intelligence require an intellect and will, but the intellect because, as G od’s creations, they were surrogates given the duty and power
and will can only be exercised by means o f a third spiritual entity, which to m ove the celestial orbs and could therefore be viewed as G od’s assistants
is conceived as a “ finite motive force,” a virtus motiva finita, and which and helpers? O r did intelligences assist the orbs because they were their sole
Godfrey called an “ executive pow er.” The intellect and will o f an intelli­ movers? O r, finally, were the orbs perhaps moved by two complementary
gence are necessary conditions for an angel to move an orb, but they are powers, one internal, the other external, where the intelligence, or external
not sufficient. T o achieve motion an angelic will must also relate as a finite power, was only a partial mover and therefore could be conceived as as­
motive force to the body it wishes to move. And for motion to occur, the sisting the internal force?
angel’s finite motive force must be sufficient to move the body it wills to In a one-sentence declaration that “ the heavens are not moved by them­
move. In all this, we must understand that the virtus motiva is in the angel, selves; nor [are they moved] by an internal form; nor directly by God alone;
not in the body or orb that it moves. The virtus motiva is not an impressed but they are moved by assisting intelligences or angels,” Giorgio Polacco
force which the angel transmits to the orb in order to m ove it. Neither seems to lend support to the first opinion that the intelligences are G od’s
Godfrey nor Hervaeus seem to have had any knowledge o f impressed forces assistants. 155 B y denying that God moves them alone and following that
or the impetus theory, which received its full development somewhat later with a declaration that assisting intelligences or angels move the heavens,
in the fourteenth century.'5515 3 Polacco links God with the intelligences and implies that the role o f the
latter is to assist the former. Bartholomew Amicus is one o f a number ot
150. “ Sciendum quod est quidam articulus, qui ut dicitur, condemnat sicut erroneum ponere scholastics w ho provide arguments for believing that the' second interpre-
Angelos movere orbes per solam voluntatem, ita quod ad nutum pro voluntate possint
movere corpora.” Ibid., 245, col. 2.
151. “ Et sic potest intelligi articulus ut sit sensus: quod angelus per solam voluntatem non power distinct from each [of them]” (Quaeri solet an intelligentiae celos. vel universim
movet, ita quod ad nutum subsit sibi quod oportet indifferenter movere.” Ibid., 246, angeli, corpora moveant solo intellectu ac voluntate, an vero per potendam ab utraque
col. 1. ilia distinctam). Among medieval authors who assumed that such a power was necessary,
152. “ Quia praeter velle, quod est ex parte angeli, requiritur determinata proportio inter Riccioli lists Duns Scotus, Henry o f Ghent, Franciscus Mayronnis, Peter Aureoli, and
corpus mobile et ipsum velle moventis, secundum quod velle moventis est virtus motiva one “ Godophredus,” probably Godfrey o f Fontaines.
finita.” Ibid. 154. Among those who used the term assistere or assistentes are Galileo, De caelo, qu. 6 (L),
153. In a section titled “ On How the Intelligences Move the Heaven or Planets” (De modo 1977 . 155; Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 7, 1627. 147, cols. 1-2 and 150, col. 2; Riccioli,
quo intelligentiae caelum vel sidera movens), Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., ibid., 248, col. r, and Giorgio Polacco, Anticopemicus Catholicus, 1644, 63.
bk. 9, sec. 2, ch. 1, 1651, 250, col. 1, says that it is customary to ask “ Whether intel­ 155. “ Coeli nec a se ipsis; seu forma sua intnnseca; nec immediate a solo Deo; sed ab intel-
ligences, or, universally, angels, move the heavens by intellect and will alone or by a ligentiis, seu angelis, assistendbus moventur. ” Polacco, ibid.
534 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 535

tation may have been largely intended. In one place, Amicus declares that and with a certain speed.” ' 59 Although Aversa chose to ignore the possibilitv
an “ assisting form ” (forma assistens) is something that gives motion and that God might have achieved the same results by programming each orb
operation to a subject without serving as its actual form .15615
*Here “ assisting”
8
7 with some kind o f internal power, rather than assigning it an already pro­
seems to imply that the intelligence supplies the full motive power. Amicus grammed external intelligence, others had long before considered that op­
offers a similar description later when he describes four different opinions tion, as we shall see (Sec. II. 5.b, c)
as to whether the cause o f celestial motions is internal or external. As the
second opinion, which Amicus characterizes as the most common among
theologians and philosophers o f the Peripatetic school, the celestial orbs are b. The location of an intelligence with respect to its orb
said to move by assisting intelligences, where once again each intelligence If an intelligence, or angel, is a separate, spiritual substance rather than an
seems to be the total immediate cause o f its own orb’s m otion .'57 But informing form, where is it located with respect to the orb it moves? Does
evidence in favor o f the second opinion is also compatible with the first “ separate” mean outside the orb? O r is the intelligence located within the
interpretation. The intelligences may m ove the orbs wholly by their own orb but nevertheless completely distinct from it? Few scholastics posed such
efforts, but they may also have been perceived as doing G od’s w ork and questions, and therefore they rarely provided explicit responses. Amicus,
therefore performing as assistants. for example, insisted that an intelligence was united to its whole orb only
Amicus also pro vides evidence in favor o f the third interpretation. In that by the contact o f force or power, but not by informing the orb as an inherent
opinion, a celestial orb is assumed to be moved partly by a proper, internal part o f it.160 Aversa thought that it ought to have a real presence in its orb,
form and partly by an external assisting intelligence.,5fi Because it was not but not in the whole orb. Its immediate presence should be felt only where
the sole mover, the intelligence in this situation could be construed as only it could truly “ assist” (assistere) the orb. In Aversa’s opinion, the fastest-
assisting the motion o f the orb. Whatever “ assisting intelligence” was in­ m oving part o f the orb was most in need o f assistance, so he suggested that
tended to convey, Raphael Aversa was convinced that it was essential that an assisting intelligence might be located in that part o f the orb that lies in
every heaven or orb be moved by one. Am ong one o f eight arguments in the middle, between its poles.161 Under these circumstances, does an in­
tavor o f intelligences as opposed to internal forces or forms, Aversa insists telligence always remain immobile, in a fixed space, as every part o f the
that the latter could not account for the various activities o f planets and rotating orb passes by? O r does it assist only a particular fixed part o f the
orbs. For not only do orbs and planets move in one direction rather than heaven, and thus turn around with the orb while remaining in that fixed
another and toward one pole or another, but the first movable sphere (pri- place?162 Although Aversa offers no opinion on these alternatives, he pro-
mum mobile) moves toward the west, while the planets move from west to
east. Moreover, they all move around different poles, and their speeds and
159. “ Septimo ulterius, si spectemus naturam ipsius caeli, nulla potest esse maior ratio cur
times differ. Aversa concludes that such differences o f behavior could not potius caelum moveatur ab hac parte versus illam et non e contra, vel versus polum
be produced by an internal nature and by some power or force o f the heaven. aliamve quamvis partem; cur pnmum mobile ob hoc ortu in hunc occasum, planetae
vero ab occasu in ortum; cur primum mobile super illos polos, planetae super alios.
Rather we should assume that “ every heaven is moved by an assisting
Item cur motus fiat in tanto vel tanto tempore: cur aliud caelum moveatur velocius,
intelligence which has been divinely ordained to move in a certain direction aliud tardius. Non utique potest omnis huiusmodi differentia determinari ex intrinseca
natura et virtute caeli. Oportet ergo faten omne caelum moveri ab intelligentia assistente
156. “ Tertio notandum formam assistentem did quae dat subiecto motum et operadonem quae luxta divinum praescriptum movet tali certa parte et tanto certo tempore.” Aversa,
absque eo quod illud informet.” Amicus. De caelo, tract. 4, qu. 4, dubit. 1, art. 1, 1626, De caelo. qu. 34, sec. 7, 1627, 149, col. 1.
162, col. 2. 160. “ Intelligentia unitur orbi toti tantum per contactum virtutis, ergo non per informationem
157. “ Secunda opinio est dicentium moveri ab intelligentiis orbibus assistentibus et nullo quia informatio supponit indistantiam formalem inter extrema.” Amicus, De caelo. tract.
modo a caeli forma active; ex ordinatione primae causae ad mundi conservationem est 4, qu. 4, dubit. 1, art. 3, 1626, 166, col. 1.
communis omnium theologorum et philosophorum ex schola peripatetica.” Ibid., tract. 161. “ Debetque unaquaeque Intelligentia per realem praesentiam insidere suo orbi quern
5, qu. 6, dubit. 2, art. 2, 293, col. 2. Riccioli, who also presented four different inter­ movet. Et quia did non debet esse praesens toti caelo, assistere debet immediate alicui
pretations o f the cause o f celestial motions, lends support to this interpretation in the certae parti. . . . In qua vero parte assistat Intelligentia vensimile est assistere parti mediae
last o f them when he identifies the common opinion on celestial movers, explaining that inter polos cuius partis motus velocissimus est.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 7, 1627,
the “ heavens and planets are moved by intelligences or by angels as assisting and im­ 150, col. 2. Aversa seems to have in mind a sphere whose fastest-moving part would
mediately effective causes.” As did Amicus, Riccioli also described this interpretation be the circumference o f its equatorial circle, or, as he puts it, the “ middle part between
as the “ most common” (Quarta opinio: eaque communissima est caelum et sidera moveri the poles” (parti mediae inter polos).
ab intelligentiis seu ab angelis tamquam assistentibus et immediatis causis effectivis). 162. “ Et vel ipsa Intelligentia semper manet immota in quodam certo spado, verbi gratia in
Riccioli, Altnagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2. ch. 1, 1651, 248, col.x. nostro oriente aut alio, in quo proinde successive fiat praesens diversis caeli partibus
158. “ Tertia opinio est dicentium hunc motum partim esse a propria forma, partim ab in- quae in gyrum ibi succedunt. Vel assisdt semper certae cuipiam parti caeli atque adeo
telligentia assistente.” Amicus, ibid., 294, col. 1. semper cum ilia circumgyrat.” Ibid., 150. col. 2—151. col. 1.
536 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S A N D THEIR CA USES 537

vides a relatively rare discussion on the problem o f the location o f intelli­ ismundus Serbellonus, who located the angel within a part o f its planet or
gences with respect to their orbs.1'" sphere but assumed that its power radiated throughout the sphere.167 In the
Some years later, Riccioli wrote in a similar vein. What distinguishes fourteenth century, Nicole Oresme held a similar opinion when he insisted
Riccioli’s account is that it was presented as a separate question - “ Whether (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 2, 1968, 289) that an intelligence need not “ be
and where the motive intelligences rest” - within a chapter o f his Almagestum everywhere within or in every part o f the particular heaven it m oves.”
novum (pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2, ch. 1, 1651, 250, col. 2). Although he does Indeed, as we saw, John o f Jandun indicated that even those who assumed
not mention Aversa, Riccioli seems to agree with him, insisting that while intelligences as internal movers denied that they were “ spread” or “ diffused”
it is fitting that an intelligence lead each planet (not an orb, however; see homogeneously throughout the orb itself. An intelligence could thus be
Sec. II.4.e), the intelligences “ are not everywhere nor can they produce an located somewhere within the physical bounds o f the orb but was not
impetus or motion in a body that is enormously distant. . . . Their place is assumed to occupy every part o f it. If we recall that most scholastics con­
limited and circumscribed, and their force is finite. ” 16164 Mastrius and Bellutus
3 ceived o f intelligences as angels, the assumption that the intelligence, or
adopted a similar stance when they declared that “ not even an angel is angel, is located within the boundary o f its orb but not in any particular
diffused through the whole orb as in a place, but only in a part, namely place within the orb fits well with traditional medieval ideas about the nature
that which is moved most quickly, as is the case for the part near the o f angels.
equator.” 165 IndeecT, it will be somewhere in the epicycle on which the During the Middle Ages, spiritual substances - that is, angels or souls -
planet is carried. were assumed to occupy places or spaces in ways that were both analogous
Riccioli, who rejected planetary orbs (see Sec. II.4.e) did, however, as­ to, and different from, the ways in which material bodies occupy places.I6S
sume the existence o f a single orb for the fixed stars. Where did the intel­ According to Peter Lombard, who was instrumental in forging this dis­
ligence, or intelligences, reside within or in relation to this orb? Adopting tinction, a body or corporeal substance occupies a place that is coextensive
a rather skeptical tone as to whether one or more intelligences cause the with its length, depth, and width. Peter called this a body’s ubi drcumscrip-
circular motion o f the starry orb, Riccioli suggests locations for each sce­ tivum. B y contrast, a spiritual substance, an angel or soul, despite its lack
nario. He explains that “ if there is only one [intelligence that moves the o f dimension and magnitude, was assumed to occupy a place, but was not
sphere o f the fixed stars, it will be in] whatever point o f the heaven on the necessarily coextensive with it. The place merely delimited or set bounds
equator is east with respect to some horizon. It will be necessary to deter­ to the location o f the angel or soul. In fact, it might be better to express
mine some particular region, say Palestine, in the eastern horizon o f which this as Oresme did (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 2, 1968, 289): “ for each angel
the angel is.” But perhaps one angel is insufficient to m ove so vast an orb there is a certain amount o f space which it cannot exceed nor increase by
as that o f the fixed stars. If so, then several intelligences might be arranged the power with which it was endowed at its creation or by its nature, not
around the orb. It appears that the angel, or angels, are within the orb of without divine miracle, although its power can indeed be diminished.” ,6y
the fixed stars itself. A t the termination o f his question, Riccioli invokes It was essential to place limits to the locations o f angels, because no created
Job 38.33 by way o f acknowledging his, and everyone’s, feeble understand­ thing can be everywhere and everything must be somewhere. This way o f
ing o f such matters.166 occupying a place was characterized by the expression ubi dejinitivum.
Those who assumed that celestial intelligences are separate movers of Although few, if any, to my knowledge, explained the location o f in­
celestial orbs, or planets (see Sec. II.4. e), and who further held that a separate telligences in celestial bodies by this distinction, it was apparently applied.
intelligence was somehow within the boundaries o f the orb it moved, did An angel or intelligence need not have a fixed location within the boundaries
not usually hold that an intelligence was diffused throughout the extent of o f the physical orb but could be anywhere within, ranging from the oc­
its physical orb, as is evident from the views o fd e Ona, Aversa, and Riccioli cupation o f some particular point or locale to the occupation ot the full
described in the preceding paragraphs, to which w e may add that o f Sig-
167. “ Dico intelligentiam movere immediate omnes partes sphaerae. etiam si uni tantum
163. Ibid.. 151, col. 1, attributes the first alternative to Aristotle. assistat per suam entitatem quia omnibus assistit per suam virtutem cum omnes sint
164. Riccioli buttresses his argument by appeal to Scripture and the Church Fathers. intra sphaeram suae activitatis, quemadmodum Sol illuminat totam suam sphaeram
165. “ Ex quo patet ad 3: non enim angelus est per totum orbem diffusus tamquam in loco, aeris.” Serbellonus [De caelo, disp. 1, qu. 4, art. 3], 1663, 2:44, col. 1, par. 35.
sed uni tantum parti, illi scilicet quae velocius movetur qualis est pars aequatori pro- 168. Here I follow Grant, 1981a, 129-130 and 342-343, nn. 66-67.
pinqua. Et si zonis planetarum unus angelus tantum assistit erit in ilia parte in qua 169. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 6, art. 3, 1626. 315, col. 2, says that intelligences
immersus repentur epiaclus.” Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 4, art. 4, cause motion by the arrangement o f the “ author o f nature,” whose will they never
1727, 3:504, col. 2, par. 148. transgress because o f their uprightness (Resp. secundo: inteiligentias movere ex ordi-
166. In the New English Bible, the verse reads: “ Did you proclaim the rules that govern the natione auctoris naturae, cuius voluntatem. ob rectitudinem quam habent, nunquam
heavens, or determine the laws o f nature on earth?” transgrediuntur).
53 S THE CE L E S T IA L R EGIO N CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES 539

dimension o f the orb. Most, however, seem to have restricted intelligences tradicdon, Suarez distinguished between separate substances that move ce­
to some part o f an orb or planet. lestial orbs and those that do not. The former are immobile, the latter are
not. If motive intelligences that cause the motion o f celestial orbs were
mobile, they might - presumably because they have will and intellect -
c. Are intelligences immobile, or do they move with their orbs? depart from their respective orbs. But this chaotic possibility is foreclosed,
At first glance, it would appear that separate movers, or intelligences, should not by the union o f intelligence and orb or the “ inform ing” o f the latter
be carried around by the orbs in which they are located. This seems to by the former, but by the accidental nature o f the relationship o f a natural
follow from the assumption that each intelligence is located somewhere mover to its mobile. Despite their distinct identities, they are perpetually
within the termini o f its orb. And yet, as we saw, Aristotle described all joined in a binding relationship.171
intelligences as “ unmoved m overs.” H ow could an intelligence be carried But there were dissenters. Qresme (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 2, 1968,
around as its orb turns and also be an unmoved mover? That is, how could 287-289) was among those who insisted that celestial intelligences do move
it be simultaneously in motion and immobile? Few confronted this question with their orbs, emphasizing his disagreement with Aristotle and Averroes
directly. But once Aristotle’s unmoved movers became identified with Is­ on this point. In the seventeenth century, Serbellonus repeats this sentiment
lamic and Judeo-Christian angels, the question had no clear-cut solution. when he declares that “ the motive intelligences o f a planet are moved with
Angels were capable o f motion. Did this also hold for angels that were their motions [that is, with the motions o f the planet],” 172 an opinion that
celestial movers? N o definitive answer emerged. Riccioli seemed to share when he declared that the angel that caused the
Some would probably have denied motion to the intelligence o f an orb, Sun’s motion - he rejected hard, planetary orbs — also moved around with
largely because Aristotle had described them all as unmoved movers, even the Sun.173 Because o f the conflict between Aristotle’s concept o f unmoved
though the first unmoved mover, or prime mover, was identified with movers and the Judeo-Christian concept o f angels, it is difficult to determine
God, who was always sharply distinguished from all other unmoved movers on any a priori basis how a given author might have resolved this difficult
o f his own creation. Although Aristotle made no explicit and unambiguous issue.
assertions about hierarchical differences between unmoved movers, the
unique, infinitely powerful, and omnipresent God o f the Christian faith d. Do intelligences use energy in moving celestial orbs?
could not be equated with each o f a plurality o f identical, or perhaps similar,
independent unmoved movers. Indeed, distinctions between unmoved In the medieval view, by functioning as an object o f desire and love an
movers had already been made in the Aristotelian commentarv literature intelligence somehow causes its orb to move. In a not readily explicable
o f the Islamic world by Avicenna and Averroes, both o f w hom called the manner, an intelligence was thought to exert some kind o f force on the
external unmoved movers “ intelligences” (Wolfson, 1973a, 11—12), a term orb, whether as a final or efficient cause, or both. If intelligences exerted
that would thereafter be commonly employed in the Latin West. something identifiable as a force to move the celestial orbs in their circular
Despite the lesser status o f all celestial movers other than the prime mover, paths, it was not unreasonable to inquire whether an intelligence could, in
some opted for their im m obility.170 Peter de Oha ([Physics, bk. 8, qu. i, some sense, become fatigued or tired from its efforts. After showing that
art. 9], 1598, 379r, col. 2) argued that an assisting intelligence does not the heavens were indestructible and ungenerated, Aristotle himself set the
inform an orb - it is completely separate from it - and therefore does not stage for discussion when he confirmed that not only does the heavenly
move around with the orb. The common view was that an intelligence region not suffer from the maladies o f a mortal body, but “ its motion
caused celestial motion by being desired, either as an object o f love by the involves no effort, for the reason that it needs no external force o f com­
soul o f the orb or by the orb itself, but was not itself in motion. There is, pulsion, constraining it and preventing it from following a different motion
however, something troubling about intelligences being both angels and which is natural to it.” 174 Averroes’ elaboration on this passage was widely
unmoved movers. For angels were capable o f self-motion and could traverse
171. See Suarez, Disputationes metaphysicae, disp. 35, sec. 3, 1866, 2:455, col. 2-456, col. 1.
distances. They were not naturally immobile. Francisco Suarez took cog­
pars. 49-50. In his disputation 35, “ On Created Immaterial Substance” (“ De immateriali
nizance o f this anomaly when he observed that Scripture, and many the­ substantia creata"), sec. 3, 2:424, col. 2-477, col. 1, Suarez has an illuminating discussion
ologians, assumed the motion o f angels but that Aristotle had proclaimed o f “ The Attributes o f Intelligences.”
172. “ Intelligentias motrices planetarum moveri ad motum ipsorum.” Serbellonus. De caelo.
the immobility o f celestial intelligences. T o cope with this seeming con-
disp. 1, qu. 4, art. 3, 1663, 2:43, col. 2, par. 33.
173. For the text, see note 190 o f this chapter.
170. We saw earlier (in Section II.4.b o f this chapter) that Aversa asked whether or not an 174. On the Heavens 2.1.2843.14-16 in Aristotle [Guthrie], i960. For the Latin versions of
intelligence moved with its orb but failed to provide an answer these words from both Greek and Arabic sources, see Maier, 1958, 215.
540 THE CE L E S T IA L RE GIO N CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 54 1

accepted ([De caelo, bk. 2, comment. 3], 1562-1574, 5 : 9 6 V , col. 2). The o f a deficiency in some part o f his body. It would, however, include those
heavens do not suffer from fatigue or effort, because the labor and effort instances where the weakness arose because a man walked around too much
required to move them differs from the labor and effort o f animals. The or was unable to sleep.180 In cases involving sensitive powers in a cognitive
latter have contrary motions, in the sense that the soul may seek to go in being, the parts engaged in laborious effort lose certain spirits, and even
one direction but the material, or heavy, part o f the animal seeks to move humors, which nature had provided for such efforts. By rest, the parts
to a contrary part. This tension o f opposites, which requires effort and recuperate.181
produces fatigue, is absent in the heavens. As John o f Jandun explained it Since intelligences are cognitive active powers and act as the motive forces
([De coelo, bk. 2, qu. 2], 1552, 2qr, col. 2), a celestial heaven, or orb, does for the celestial orbs, it would follow that any diminution o f that power in
not have any tendency to move with a motion other than circular. It lacks any o f them would produce some kind o f “ fatigue.” However, this fails to
any inclination to move up or down, because it is neither heavy nor light. occur, for one o f two reasons: either because the motive intelligences possess
Hence no effort or labor is required to move it. an intensive, infinite potential for keeping the celestial orbs in uniform
In Michael Scot’s thirteenth-century translation o f De caelo from Arabic motion or because by their very natures they are “ fatigueless forces,” so
to Latin, the Latin expression for “ effortless,” or “ without labor,” is non that the level o f effort and power never varies.182
fatigatur.'7i But what does a term like fatigatio, “ fatigue” or “ effort,” really Although all were agreed that the celestial intelligences did not become
mean in the context o f celestial motion? In inquiring “ Whether or not a fatigued, they disagreed over the manner in which they preserved their level
heaven is moved with any fatigue,” Jean Buridan - and others - saw the o f power and how they were to be characterized. Was each intelligence able
need to define the meaning and usage o f that term .176 Because active powers to cause the motion o f its orb because it possessed an infinitely intensive
resist and purely passive powers do not, Buridan concluded that only the power? O r could it perform its task with a finite power? In part, the problem
former can suffer fatigue. Moreover, a concept like fatigue or effort is not involved the relationship between the prime mover, or God, and the created
applicable to inanimate objects.'77 T o say that an ax is tired because it no intelligences.
longer cuts as well as it did, or that earth is disturbed because it is no longer To resolve the problem, however, one had first to explain a seemingly
as fertile as it was, is nothing but an improper mode o f speaking.178 Such anomalous situation, namely how all the celestial motions could be o f finite
terms are also inapplicable to certain animate beings, such as plants, because velocity in the absence o f resistance. In medieval physics, where velocity
the latter are incapable o f cognition. Buridan is thus led to define fatigatio was conceived as arising from the application o f a force to a resistance, a
as “ the diminution o f a cognitive, active power because o f its action over velocity would become infinitely great as the resistance became infinitely
a long period.” 179 But this would not include such instances as a man who small or zero (Maier, 1958, 207). Thus even a finite motive power, when
is tired or troubled because he is weak from old age or illness or because applied to a body moving without resistance, should produce an infinite
velocity. But, as was evident, the celestial bodies move with finite speeds.
175. For the Latin passage, see Averroes, De caelo, bk. 2, text 3, 1562—1574, 5:96V, col. 2,
K-L.
How could this be? The solution lay in a vital distinction: celestial movers,
176. Indeed, Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 1, 1942, 130, considered the terms fatigatio, vexatio, or intelligences, were deemed voluntary agents operating by intellect and
labor, and poena as synonymous. Among others who discussed the definition ot fatigatio will (and also capable, some thought, ot generating a kind o f motive force),
were Albert o f Saxony, De celo. bk. 2, qu. 9, 1518, 107V, col. 2 and Amicus, De caelo,
tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 7, art. 1, 1626, 311, cols. 1-2, who used the term defatigavo, as in contrast to natural motive powers, which acted naturally or mechanically.
indicated in the verv title o f the question “ An motus caelorum sit cum defatiganone. With the exception o f Oresme, the force-resistance model for representing
177. “ Postca videtur mihi quod adhuc fatigatio vel labor non soient proprie attnbui inani- the velocity o f terrestrial motions was judged inapplicable to the heavens.
matis.” Buridan, ibid., 131.
178. Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 9, 1518, 107V, col. 2, observes that a stone that
falls or a fire that burns ought not to be characterized as “ fatigued.” Noncognitive active 180. “ Unde non dicimus hominem fatigatum vel vexatum si sit impotens ex senectute vel
powers are incapable o f fatigue. Bricot, De celo, bk. 2, i486, i6 v , col. 2, says the same ex aegritudine vel ex defectu membri, sed si fiat impotens vel minus potens quia nimis
thing. ambulavit vel nimis vigilavit. ” Buridan, ibid.
179. “ Sed nunc oportet videre quid est fatigatio vel vexatio. Et apparet mihi quod fatigatio 181. Albert o f Saxony offers much the same argument (De celo, bk. 2, qu. 9, 1518, 107V,
est diminutio virtutis activae cognoscitivae, propter longam eius actionem.” Buridan, col. 2) and probably drew it from Buridan, whom he relied on rather frequently. De
De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 1, 1942, 131. Buridan probably influenced the definitions offered Magistris (De celo. bk. 2, qu. 1, 1490, sig. k^r. col. 1), Versor (De celo, bk. 2, qu. 1,
by Albert o f Saxonv, ibid., and the fifteenth-century scholastic Johannes de Magistns 1493, i6v, col. 1), and Bricot (De celo. bk. 2, i486. i6v, col. 2) present similar arguments.
(De celo. bk. 2, qu. 1. 1490, sig. k3r, col. 1), who both define the term fatigatio in almost 182. See Maier, 1958, 216. I have relied heavily on Maier’s splendid account o f the vires
the same words. For similar versions, see Versor, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 1, 1493, i6v, col. infatigabiles. Another possible cause o f the diminution o f celestial motion might arise
1; Paul o f Venice, Liber celi, 1476, 32, cols. 1-2; and Amicus. De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, from external resistances opposed to the rotating orbs. This suggestion was routinely
dubit. 7, art. 1, 1626, 311, col. 1. Amicus, who wrote one o f the lengthiest questions rejected, because the celestial ether in which the orbs were immersed and from which
on whether the heavens suffer fatigue from their motions, attributes the definition to they were made was assumed incorruptible and unchangeable. Therefore no resistance
Albert, whom he mentions at least five times in his discussion. could arise to vary the motion o f the rotating orbs.
54 2 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES 543
In earlier treatises, Oresme had also accepted the prevailing interpretation,183 merous arguments. Moreover, we also saw that many in the Middle Ages,
although he seemed willing to speak o f forces and resistances in the heavens especially Thomas Aquinas, thought that the creation o f the world was
analogically. In his last and perhaps greatest work, Le Livre du del et du compatible with its possible eternity. Thus infinites o f various kinds were
monde (bk. 2, ch. 2, 1968, 289), Oresme seems to move beyond analogy to frequently assumed.
argue that God had initially implanted forces and resistances in each celestial O f these, a few were relevant to celestial motions. First there is a temporal
orb but goes on to say that “ these powers and resistances are different in infinite, which presupposes the eternity o f the world, and therefore the
nature and in substance from any sensible thing or quality here below .” eternity o f celestial motions. O n the assumption o f an infinite, eternal time,
Unfortunately, Oresme does not explain how die force and resistance o f however, a fundamental problem arose: how could a finite intelligence move
an orb relate to the intelligence, or angel, which is also a m otive power. Is its orb with a uniform, finite celestial motion over a period o f infinite time?
it the implanted force-resistance relationship that moves the orb, or is it Could this be achieved only by means o f an infinite motive force, or could
the intelligence? O r are force and intelligence one and the same?184 Although it be done with a finite motive power? Whatever the appropriate response
the language o f ratios o f force and resistance was thought inapplicable to to these questions, natural philosophers and theologians were agreed that,
the celestial motions, some scholastics thought analogically in terms o f force in celestial intelligences, the prime mover was the immediate source o f all
and resistance relationships, usually implicitly, though occasionallv explic­ motive power, whether finite or infinite. Both options won some support.
itly. 185 Let us first consider the implications that follow from the assumption that
All were agreed, however, that the prime mover possessed infinite, in­ intelligences possess infinite motive power.
tensive power and that he caused motion both as a final and as an efficient Because it is a creature o f intellect and will, an intelligence could choose
cause. As the means o f producing celestial motions, the prime mover created to apply its infinite motive power in one o f two ways: it could either (1)
intelligences that were voluntary agents capable o f operating by intellect apply it all at once and produce an instantaneous or infinite motion o f a
and will. Latin scholastics were aware that Aristotle and Averroes had celestial orb; or (2) utilize it gradually and produce a finite motion over an
treated the prime mover and the other intelligences as virtual equals, at least infinite time. In the latter situation, the intelligence’s total motive power is
in the sense o f assuming that they were all eternal.'86 The equation o f God like an infinite source o f energy that is gradually consumed over an infinite
with the intelligences that he himself had created was unacceptable to Chris­ time as it produces a uniform, finite motion at every instant. Maier explains
tians. Hence they turned to other solutions. (1958, 194) that “ such a virtus motiva can consume its energy o f motion
Scholastics commonly assumed that the longer a given uniform motion little by little in an infinitely long time in such a way that the effect at any
endured, the greater the power that would have to be expended by its moment is a finite one. Just as Sortes [i.e., Socrates] can, by choice, apply
motive force, which implied that an infinite force would be required to the energy standing at his disposal and use it either in labor o f short but
sustain an eternal motion (Maier, 1958, 192). O bviously, an eternal motion intensive duration or in a less intensive w ay and lasting longer, so also can
could only occur if the world was eternal. In the syncategorematic sense, the intelligences do this.” For the heavens, the intelligences have obviously
as we saw earlier (Ch. 4), time and motion and the world as a whole were chosen to produce finite, uniform motions and thus to expend their infinite
often considered eternal, or at least assumed to be so for the sake o f nu­ supply o f energy bit by equal bit, through all eternity.
N ot all were prepared to concede that a finite entity, such as an intelli­
183. In the De proportiotiibus, ch. 4, prop. 6, Oresme declares (De prop, prop., 1966b. 293) gence, could include within itself an infinite force . 187 The infinite duration
that the relationship ot an intelligence to the orb it moves should be described as one o f celestial motions did not warrant the inference that the intelligences that
o f force and resistance only by analogy, “ because an intelligence moves by will alone,
caused those motions require infinite motive powers to maintain them eter­
and with no other force, effort, or difficulty.” Although many had abandoned the idea
that intelligences move by the will alone and introduced an executive power that angels nally. O nly the prime mover is an intensively infinite- being. All other
used to produce a virtus motiva, as we saw, Oresme was still operating here with the old celestial intelligences, or movers, are only capable o f finite intensity. Despite
principle condemned in 1277.
the fmitude o f their respective motive powers, the intelligences do not
184. A few lines after the preceding quotation (ibid., 289), Oresme suggests angels as movers
when he declares that “ possibly, as soon as God had created the heavens. He ordained exhaust themselves in causing the unceasing, eternal motion ot their orbs.
and deputed angels who should move the heavens and who will move them as long as Exhaustion or depletion o f energy fails to occur, because the prime mover
it shall please Him .”
constantly replaces it. According to Maier (1958, I 95 )> in this explanation
185. All those who spoke o f an angel using its executive power to generate a virtus motiva to
move its orb were probably implicitly thinking o f a force-resistance relationship. But “ the operation o f the celestial movers consists in this, that they transform
Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 6, art. 3, 1626, 315, col. 2, was somewhat
explicit when he declared that movers and mobiles in the celestial region have the same
constant ratio (proportio). See note 46 o f this chapter for Amicus’s text. 187. For this interpretation, see ibid., 195-196. As representatives o f this group, Maier in­
186. See Maier, 1958, 193. cludes Buridan and William o f Alnwick (195-206).
544 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 545
energy, which is not their ow n but which is furnished to them successively ever, regarded the planets as unattached bodies immersed in a very rare,
from outside [by the prime mover], into m otion.” fluid ether. H ow did these seemingly free-moving planets traverse their
In both approaches, the uniformity and finitude o f celestial motions were paths? Were intelligences involved?
explained and reconciled with the infinites o f duration and power. Many scholastics continued to invoke intelligences as celestial movers,
only they now associated them with the planets, rather than the orbs. Having
e. The rejection of hard planetary orbs did not cause the abandonment of rejected hard planetary orbs, Arriaga confronted the question o f w hy the
separate intelligences denser planets did not fall down through the rarer ethereal medium through
which they moved. W hy did they not fall toward the center o f the world?
In his Epitome of Copernican Astronomy, composed between 1618 and 1621, Because, as he put it, “ they are sustained by the angel by which they are
Kepler considered the problem o f intelligences as celestial movers. Because moved around.” 189*Riccioli makes much the same argument when he de­
he followed Tycho Brahe and rejected hard, solid orbs, Kepler inquired clares that “ Sacred Scripture sufficiently confirms that an angel which moves
whether intelligences might yet play a role in causing planetary motion in the Sun also moves around itself and accompanies the Sun, which it
y y 190
an orbless world. In the fourth book o f the Epitome, he initially declares: moves.
“ If there are no solid spheres, then there will seem to be all the more need
o f intelligences in order to regulate the movements o f the heavens, although
the intelligences are not gods. For they can be angels or some other rational 5. Internal movers
creature, can they not?” The question for Kepler, then, was whether in­
telligences, or angels, or mind - he used these terms interchangeably - could a. Souls and the possible animation of the heavens
move planets, rather than orbs, directly. Kepler concluded that they could In medieval tradition, souls o f orbs were conceived very differently from
not. He sought to convince his readers with a number o f related, and rather intelligences. The latter were distinct and separate from the orbs they
unimpressive, arguments. Thus he insisted that if mind could produce pla- moved, even though they might have been located “ within” them in some
netarv orbits, those orbits would be perfect circles. But, as he himself had sense. Most, though not all, o f those who imagined souls as celestial movers
shown, the orbits were not circular but elliptical. Since right-thinking in­ conceived o f them as organically integrated into, or “ conjoined” (conjuncta)
telligences would not willingly choose elliptical over circular orbits, Kepler to, their respective orbs and therefore not separate substances.191 For them
concluded that intelligences did not direct planetary motions. His remaining the soul o f a celestial orb was as integrated into its orb as the human soul
arguments challenge the ability o f intelligences to draw correct planetary was into the human body. The soul o f an orb functioned as the form, and
orbits in the fluid ether.188 “ It is not possible,” Kepler insisted (Epitome, the material orb functioned as its body. If celestial orbs were composites
1952, 892), “ for the planetary globe to be carried around by an intelligence of body and soul, did this not imply that the celestial orbs were alive? It
alone.” For Kepler, “ the natural powers which are implanted in the pla­ did indeed, which is w hy most scholastic authors shied away from the
netary bodies can enable the planet to be transported from place to place” assumption o f souls as celestial m overs.192
(ibid.). But what about intelligences? Were they essential forms o f their orbs, so
Scholastics who continued to accept the existence o f hard orbs - for that they might also be construed as forming a living thing with their
example, the Coimbra Jesuits, Amicus, Com pton-Carleton, and Serbel- physical orbs? An anonymous fourteenth-century author represented me-
lonus - continued to regard intelligences as celestial movers. After 1630,
however, many if not most scholastics - including Pedro Hurtado de Men­ 189. First Arriaga (De caelo, disp. 1, sec. 4, subsec. 2. 1632. 505, col. 2) asserts the question:
“ Dices illi planetae sunt solidi et densiores, ergo sunt graviores quam caeli; ergo cadent
doza, Roderigo de Arriaga, Francisco de Oviedo, Giovanni Baptista Ric- quia cum caeli fluidi sint non possunt eis resistere.” He replies that “ eos [the planets]
cioli, Franciscus Bonae Spei, Melchior Cornaeus, and George de Rhodes - sustenari ab angelo a quo circumaguntur. ”
abandoned hard, planetary orbs in favor o f the fluid heavens advocated by 190. “ Hoc posito si ad litteram accipiatur, ut accipi potest. Sacra Scriptura. satis hinc potest
confirmari angelum, qui Solem movet, ipsum quoque circuire ac Solem quem movet
Brahe and Kepler, although some o f them - Riccioli and Hurtado de Men­ concomitari.” Riccioli, Almagestum tiovutn, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2, ch. 1, 1651. 250,
doza, for example (see Ch. 14, Sec. VIII and n. 87) — also assumed that the col. 2. A few lines later. Riccioli mentions that Arriaga holds the same opinion, referring
fluid ether was surrounded by a hard orb o f fixed stars. All o f them, how­ to the same passage cited in the preceding note.
•9 i. According to Weisheipl. 1974. 28, Thomas Aquinas must be classified as an exception,
because he assumed that the soul o f a sphere was a separate substance and therefore
188. For Kepler’s arguments, see the Epitome, 1952, 891—893. Riccioli, Almagestum novum. regarded it o f little consequence “ whether the sphere was moved bv a soul inherent in
pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2, ch. 1, 1651, 249, cols. 1-2, who summarized and repudiated the body or by a distinct substance, separate from matter, moving the sphere through
Kepler’s arguments against intelligences, observed that the circle is not the only pertect its efficient causality.” Also see note 194 in this chapter.
figure. Indeed, the ellipse is also perfect, as are many other figures. !92. For more on the animation o f the heavens, see above. Chapter 17, Section V.
546 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES 547
dicval opinion when he denied this, because “ an intelligence is not able to tradition after Thomas was overwhelm ingly against the attribution o f life
be the form o f any body, and therefore the heaven is not animated, because to the heavens.'95 This was perhaps partially a consequence o f the C on­
an intelligence is not conjoined to the heaven with respect to itself [secundum demnation o f 1277 by the bishop o f Paris, who condemned at least four
se] but only with respect to its operation, as is said in the De substantia orbis.,, articles that proclaimed the existence o f souls in the heavens; that souls were
Because an intelligence is not conjoined essentially to the matter o f the orb, equivalent to intelligences; and that intellective souls could cause celestial
the author goes on to show that “ an intelligence is not a form or soul of motions.196 In the sixteenth century, John Major mentions that the as­
the heaven, and consequently the heaven is not animated except in this sumption o f celestial animation was condemned by Stephen, the bishop o f
sense, that the heaven has operations as if it were an animated body, and Paris.197 Because he agreed with the bishop o f Paris, Major assumed that
this is because o f the intelligences conjoined to it, not with respect to essence, “ the heaven does not have an intelligence or intellectual nature as its
r ” 198
but with respect to operation.” Thus intelligences, or angels - our author form.
seems to take them as synonymous - are conjoined to orbs but not as their Even before the Condemnation o f 1277, Saint Bonaventure had rejected
forms or souls. For “ a separated soul and an angel differ in this: that a soul as “ erroneous” - that is, theologically erroneous - the idea that the heavens
is essentially unitable to a body as a perfection to its perfectible thing; an had souls and was therefore a “ great animal” (magnum animal). The position
angel, however, is not unitable. For although we read that angels assume Bonaventure attacked was %he one often attributed to Aristotle in which it
bodies, they are nevertheless never united to them with respect to essence was assumed that each celestial orb had a soul that was directed by a me­
but only with respect to appearance or operation.” 193 diating intelligence.199 In Bonaventure’s judgment, an inhering soul was
Even better reasons were formulated for rejecting souls for celestial orbs. tantamount to the assumption o f a living orb. N ot only are Catholic doctors
In his questions on De caelo, Galileo provides an excellent summation of against this opinion - Bonaventure reminds his readers that John Damascene
medieval ideas on this important subject (qu. 6 [L], 1977, 149). If each had rightly declared that “ the heavens are inanimate and insensible” 200 -
celestial orb was informed by a real soul, the latter, according to Aristotle but Bonaventure observes that the philosophers also find it wanting, because
and all natural philosophers, would have to consist o f three levels o f activity an intellectual substance, such as a soul, could not be united to a body
the vegetative; the sentient or sensitive; and the intellective. But a celestial without vegetable and sentient functions. If the celestial orbs possessed such
orb cannot have a vegetative soul, because it would then require food, and functions, however, they would be corruptible bodies, which is contrary
this would make it corruptible and therefore not eternal. N or can it have to the universally accepted doctrine that they are incorruptible.
a sensitive soul, because it would require a vegetative soul and a sense of
touch, neither o f which exists in the heavens.
b. Forms or nature
This leaves only the intellective soul. Can an intellective soul alone ani­
mate the heavens? Although some have believed this possible by assuming If souls had few adherents, other kinds o f internal movers won significant
that the intellective soul is an intelligence and the form o f the heavens, support during the Middle Ages. Already in the thirteenth century, John
Galileo rejects this and denies that intelligences can inform the orbs. Intel­ Blund and Robert Kilwardby argued for the natural, intrinsic capability o f
ligences exist apart from bodies and move them as efficient causes. Galileo the heavenly orbs for self-motion. Sometime around 1200, when the works
concludes (ibid., 154) that “ apart Irom intelligences no other souls are con­ o f Aristotle began entering western Europe, Blund denied that souls move
stituent in the heavens.” the heavens. The firmament and other heavenly bodies are moved by an
The essential and organic union o f genuine souls with physical orbs would who observes that even if the celestial orbs are alive, their life is uniquely intellective
have made living things o f the orbs. Although Thomas Aquinas was in­ and in no way vegetative or sensitive.
different to this problem and perhaps ambivalent about it,'9-3 the medieval 195. Most o f the Church Fathers - for example, Saints Basil, John Damascene, and Jerome
— rejected animate heavens, as did John Philoponus, who was not a Church Father. A
193. My translation from “ Compendium o f Six Books,’’ BN Latin MS. 6752, 23 ir. The notable exception was Saint Augustine, who expressed uncertainty. See Dales. 1980,
anonymous author does not ate Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which attributes celestial motion 533. Hissette (1977, 68) observes, o f the much-debated question about the animation o f
to intelligences that are distinct from the spheres they move. The De substantia orbis was the celestial spheres, that many medieval theologians were inclined to reject it.
a widely known work by Averroes. 196. For translations, see Dales, 1980, 545—546.
194. Thomas (in his Suinma contra ‘’entiles, bk. 3, ch. 23, and in De caelo, bk. 2. lec. 3, 1952, 197. “ Secundo ponere corpora celesda ammata est articulus excommunicatus a domino Ste-
156, par. 3) thought it important only that an orb be moved by an intellectual substance. phano episcopo Parisiensi.” Major [Sewfenct’s, bk. 2, dist. 12], 1519b, 65V, col. 1.
Whether that intellectual substance was an informed soul or a separated substance was 198. “ Quinta conclusio: celum non habet intelligentiam vel naturam intellectualem tanquam
irrelevant. Since the former would have implied a living orb and, on certain interpre­ formam eius.” Ibid.. 6sr. col. 2.
tations, even the latter might have been so construed, we may reasonably infer that 199. If Aristotle held such an opinion, he never made it explicit. See Section II. 1 o f this
Thomas was either unable to arrive at a judgment or thought it unimportant to do so. chapter and especially notes 91-93.
For the translated passage, see Dales, 1980, 543 and note 46; see also Litt, 1963, 109, 200. Bonaventure. Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, pt. 1, art. 3, qu. 2, Opera, 2:348. col. 2.
548 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 549

innate nature - he makes no mention o f angels, intelligences, or forms - jectile motion o f terrestrial bodies, Buridan prepares the stage for the ap­
which causes it to move with circular m otion.201 “ T o Blund,” Dales informs plication o f impetus to celestial motion by proclaiming that the Bible does
us (1980, 538), “ the forms o f the heavenly bodies are totally immanent in not specify that intelligences move the celestial bodies. Since the Bible
matter and not connected through a hierarchy o f intelligences to God Him­ provides no textual support for intelligences as celestial movers, Buridan
self, as they were in both Neoplatonic and Aristotelian thought.” feels free to dispense with them and to suggest instead that
In 1271, in response to a question as to whether angels move the celestial
bodies, Robert Kilwardby expressed an opinion quite similar to that of God, when He created the world, moved each of the celestial orbs as He pleased,
Blund.202 The celestial orbs move by their own spontaneous, natural incli­ and in moving them He impressed in them impetuses which moved them without
nations in the same manner as heavy and light terrestrial bodies move his having to move them any more except by the method of general influence
downward and upward by their ow n natural tendencies. B y attributing whereby he concurs as a co-agent in all things which take place. . . . And these
celestial motions to innate natural tendencies, Kilwardby was led to denv impetuses which He impressed in the celestial bodies were not decreased nor cor­
that God is the immediate mover o f the heavens and that angels are celestial rupted afterwards, because there was no inclination of the celestial bodies for other
movers. As Weisheipl explains K ilw ardby’s interpretation (1961, 316), “ To movements. Nor was there resistance which would be corruptive or repressive of
each planet and orb God gave an innate natural inclination to move in a that impetus."04
particular way in rotational motion; to each he accorded an innate order,
regularity and direction without the need o f a distinct agency like a soul, Buridan’s impetus was thus a permanent quantity which, in the absence o f
an angel or Himself here and now producing the m otion.” external resistances or contrary tendencies, would m ove each celestial orb
with the same velocity forever. Although Buridan applied his brilliant im­
c. Impetus or impressed force petus theory to celestial motion, we must not suppose that he was seeking
to produce a single, unified mechanics for the terrestrial and celestial regions.
Where Blund and Kilwardby were satisfied with the postulation o f a vague, As evidence o f this we may point to his retention o f Aristotle’s sharp
innate capacity conferred on celestial orbs to enable them to move in regular, dichotomy between the two regions.203
uniform, circular motions, Jean Buridan, in the fourteenth century, applied Although Buridan’s Questions on De caelo was not published until 1942,
his well-developed and quantified impetus theory to celestial motion.203*In his Questions on the Physics, which included the detailed version o f his impetus
his Questions on the Physics (bk. 8, qu. 12), following an elaborate description theory, was printed in Paris in 1509, 1515, and 1516.206 Despite these early
o f the properties and behavior o f impetus, or impressed force, in the pro­ sixteenth-century printings, Buridan’s version o f celestial impetus seems to
have exercised little direct influence on the subsequent history o f scholas­
201. “ Dicimus quod firmamentum movetur a natura, non ab anima, et alia supercelestia; et
ille motus naturalis est propter perfectionem habendam in interioribus.” Blund [Callas tic natural philosophy. In the literature consulted for this study, it is not
and Hunt], 1970, 4, par. 10. See Dales, 1980, 538, where Blund’s brief paragraph is cited. Instead, Buridan’s contemporary, Albert o f Saxony, came to represent
translated, and Weisheipl, 1961, 317. fourteenth-century impetus theory as it was applied to celestial motion.
202. In 1271, John o f Vercelli, master general o f the Dominican Order, sent a list of forty-
three questions to three Dominican masters in theology: Albertus Magnus, Thomas Ironically, Albert probably derived his version from Buridan.
Aquinas, and Robert Kilwardby. As Weisheipl observes, the first five questions are ot Albert o f Saxony’s brief discussion o f celestial impetus occurs in his
great interest to historians and philosophers ot science. They are. in Weisheipl’s trans­ questions on the Physics, book 8, question 13, the final question o f the
lation:
treatise, usually cited as the ultima questio. That Albert’s version, rather than
1. Does God move any physical body immediately?
2. Are all things which are moved naturally, moved under the angels’ ministry moving
Buridan’s, became historically important is probably attributable to the fact
the celestial bodies? that Albert’s treatise was published not only in Paris in 1516 and 1518, but
3. Are angels the movers ot celestial bodies? .
4. Is it infallibly demonstrated according to anyone that angels are the movers o f celesnal
204. Translated by Clagett, 1959, 536, par. 6; reprinted in Grant, 1974, 277. Because o f the
bodies? _ .,
5. Assuming that God is not the immediate mover o f those bodies, is it infallibly theological implications o f his theory, Buridan was sufficiently uneasy to conclude his
brief account o f the cause o f celestial motion by emphasizing its tentative nature “ so
demonstrated that angels are the movers o f celestial bodies?
that I might seek from the theological masters what they might teach me in these matters
See Weisheipl, 1961. 286-287; for his discussion o f Kilwardby’s views, 31 5—3 as to how these things take place” (Clagett, ibid., 277-278). In his De caelo, bk. 2, qu.
203. For excellent accounts o f Bundan’s impetus theory, see Clagett. 1959, 505-540; Maief- t2. 1942, 180-181, Buridan says essentially the same thing in fewer words but makes
1951, “ Die Impetustheone.” 113-314; and, in Maier, 1964, “ Die naturphilosophisc e no mention o f the theologians. See Clagett, ibid.. 561, par. 7, for a translation of the
Bedeutung der scholastischen Impetustheorie,” 353~ 379 , which has been translated by passage, and Grant, 1974, 282, where it is reprinted.
Steven Sargent under the title “ The Significance o f the Theory o f Impetus for Scholastic See Clagett, 1959, 525.
Natural Philosophy,” in Maier, 1982, 76—102. 206 See Lohr, 1971, 168-169.
550 THE CELESTIA L REGION CELESTIAL M O T IO N S A N D THEIR CAUSES 551

also in Padua ( 1 4 9 3 ) and Venice ( 1 5 0 0 , 1 5 0 4 , and 1 5 1 6 ) (Sarnowsky, 1 9 8 9 , motive forces.211 Aversa managed to attribute both to Albert when he placed
4 5 0 ) . B y the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century, Italy had emerged him among those who thought that “ the heavens are moved by themselves
as a far more significant source o f scholastic natural philosophy than Paris. and by an internal power [or force] proper to their form, just as animals
Hence Albert’s Italian publications (including his questions on De caelo) are moved among us and heavy bodies are moved downward and light
were widely read and cited, while Buridan’s remained virtually unknown. bodies upward.” 212*
In that final question o f the eighth book o f his Physics ( 1 5 1 8 , 8 3 V , cols. B y the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century, Albert’s terminology
1 - 2 ) , Albert o f Saxony presents a brief version o f Buridan’s celestial impetus was supplemented by the term impetus. Although he did not accept it,
theory, although he does not em ploy the term impetus, but uses equivalents Riccioli gives a good description o f celestial impetus theory, suggesting that
such as virtus motiva (twice), virtus impressa (twice), and qualitas motiva.207 God could make a body with impetus already impressed in it. If such an
The question itself concerns projectile motion in general^ with Albert ask­ impetus were not gradually corrupted by a contrary impetus produced by
ing, “ By what is a projectile moved upward after its separation from the heaviness, it should endure forever. Because lightness and heaviness are
projector?” 20* After describing three opinions, Albert declares: “ There is absent from the heavens, the impetus would not be destroyed and would
another opinion which for now I think more true, [namely] that a projector indeed function as a prope^form. Once in orbit, the celestial orb would
impresses into a projectile a certain motive power which is a certain innate move around perpetually.2' 3
quality, unless some impediment occurs in the opposite direction toward Early modern scholastic natural philosophers largely avoided celestial
which the projector projects.” 209 After tw o illustrations showing that a impetus or internal movers and opted instead for external movers in the
denser body can receive more impressed force than one less dense and that form o f intelligences or angels. The extent to which this interpretation was
a longer lance can be hurled a greater distance than a shorter lance because entrenched in the seventeenth century is revealed by Thomas Com pton-
the former is capable o f receiving more impressed force, Albert applies the Carleton, who declared that this “ com m on” opinion “ has come into such
concept o f impressed force to the heaven's by observing that if this opinion use among all, so that it is almost a crime to deny it.” 21+
is correct, “ it would not be necessary to assume as many intelligences as A few, however, thought it unnecessary to appeal to God or angels as
there are orbs. Thus it could be said that the First Cause created the celestial movers. Indeed, they thought it as likely, if not more likely, that the celestial
orbs and impressed one such m otive quality on each o f them, which moves orbs were moved by an internal form or power. Franciscus Bonae Spei was
the orb. N or is this power [or force] corrupted there, because such an orb one o f them. While conceding that common authority favored angels as
is not inclined toward any opposite motion, etc.” 210 the cause o f celestial motions, Bonae Spei (De coelo, comment. 3, disp. 3,
On the basis o f this discussion, Albert o f Saxony wras frequently and dub. 6, 1652, 13, cols. 1-2) countered that reason made it tar more probable
rightly included among those who denied the need o f motive intelligences that the heavens were moved internally. If angels really moved the heavens,
and who explained the celestial motions by means o f an internal force; he w hy could w e not say that God or angels moved a stone toward the center
was also, but less appropriately, included among those who assigned the o f the world; or, since we can observe that animals are self-moved, why
cause o f celestial motions to the internal forms o f orbs without mention ot do we not also say that the heavens are similarly self-moved by internal

207. It appears that Albert relied on an earlier version o f Buridan’s Physics, composed around 211. See Conimbricenses, De caelo, bk. 2. ch. 5, qu. 5, art. 2, 1598, 266; Bonae Spei [comment.
1350, in which Buridan himself had not yet developed his technical terminology but 3, De coelo, disp. 3, dub. 6], 1652, 13, col. 1, par. 85; and Mastrius and Bellutus, De
used terms like qualitas and virtus motiva, much the same as Albert did. Buridan’s final coelo, disp. 2, qu. 4, art. 3. 1727, 3:503, col. 1; Aversa. De caelo. qu. 34, sec. 7. 162'',
version, called the ultima lectura and represented by the 1509 Paris edition, was probably 147, col. 1; and Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2, ch. 1, 247, col. 1.
completed after 1355 but before Buridan’s death around 1358. It was in this final version 212. “ Ioannes Maior 2. Caeli cap. 5, Albertus de Saxoma 8. Physics, quaest. ultima, volunt
that Buridan employed the term impetus. For the details, see Sarnowsky, 1989, 50—51- caelum moveri per se et ab intrinseco virtute propriae suae tofmae, sicut apud nos
208. “ Ultimo quaeritur a qua moveatur proiectum sursum post separationem lllius a qua moventur animalia et sicut moventur gravia deorsum, levia sursum." Aversa, ibid.
proicitur.” Albert o f Saxony, Physics, bk. 8, qu. 13, 1518, 83r, col. 2. Although I have been unable to locate Major’s discussion, he was usually cited along
209. “ Alia est opinio quam pro nunc reputo veriorem quod proiiciens imprimit proiecto with Albert as a proponent o f internal force or torm.
quandam virtutem motivam que est quedam qualitas que innata est movere nisi fiat 213. Riccioli, Almaqestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2. ch. r, 1651, 247, col. 1. As advocates
impedimentum aliunde ad eandem differentiam positionis ad quam proiiciens proiicit.” o f this theory, Riccioli, who did not accept it, cites Major and Albert ot Saxony, the
Ibid., 83V, cols. [-2. latter in the last question (quaestio ultima) ot the last book ot his Physics (that is, question
210. “ Iuxta istam opinionem potest dici quod non esset necesse ponere tot intelligentias quot 13; see n. 208).
sunt orbes. Unde diceretur quod prima causa creavit orbes celestes et cuilibet eorum 214. “ Communis tamen sententia affirmat moveri ab intelligentijs quod ita iam invaluit apud
impressit unam talem quaiitatem motivam que ilium orbem taliter mover. Nec ilia virtus omnes, ut pene nefas sit id inticiari cui proinde ob tot tamque doctorum hominum
ibi corrumpitur propter hoc quod talia orbis non est inclinatus ad motum oppositum. auctoritatem subscribo omnesque constanter asserunt non posse motum ilium provemre
etc.” Ibid., col. 2. ab intrinseco.” Compton-Carleton, De coelo. disp. 4, sec. 3, 1649, 409. col. 2.
CELESTIAL M O TIO N S A N D THEIR CAUSES 553
552 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N

means?2' 5 Even Scripture favors the internal hypothesis. After all, Joshua 6. External and internal motive forces that act simultaneously
did not order angels to cease moving the Sun and M oon but directly com­
manded the Sun and Moon to cease their motions.2 216 While Bonae Spei did
15 a. Acceptance of angels and impressed force:
not argue with any strong sense o f commitment for internal movers, he the Coimbra fesuits and Riccioli
seems to have preferred them over external movers. He was, in any event
[slow that we have devoted separate sections to external and internal movers,
prepared to deny the need to explain the cause o f celestial motion by appeal
we are ready to examine their combined use. T o qualify for discussion in
to God and angels.
this section, an author must have reported or adopted explanations o f ce­
In a similar manner, Thomas Com pton-Carleton, although he accepted
lestial motion by means o f (i) intelligences or angels and (2) an additional
the testimony o f the doctors o f the Church and the many others who denied
force that is caused by an intelligence and somehow impressed in a celestial
that motion can arise from an internal cause, admitted that he failed to see
orb. We shall see that the post-1277 interpretations o f Godfrey o f Fontaines
the force o f the argument against internal movers. After two arguments in
and Hervaeus Natalis, and probably others, were developed further. God­
which an internal cause o f celestial motion is shown to be no less tenable
frey and Hervaeus both rejected the condemned idea that angels move
than an external cause, Com pton-Carleton says that the solution to the
celestial orbs by will (and intellect) alone and introduced a third force - an
problem lies in deciding whether or not the motion o f the heaven is natural.
“ executive power” (potentia executiva) that carried out the wish o f the angel
If celestial motion is derived from an internal cause, the motion must be
by applying the force - the virtus motiva - needed to move the orb. Around
natural; but if not, then the cause would seem to be “ preternatural” to the
1320, Franciscus de Marchia (ca. 1290-after 1344) assumed that an angel
heaven, where, in the manner o f fire in its own sphere, an orb, or heaven,
moved its orb by impressing a certain power (uirtute. . . impressa) into it.218
neither seeks nor rejects m otion.217
Thus rather than have the motive power operate from within the angel, de
Franciscus de Oviedo (De caelo, contro. i, punc. i, 1640, 461, col. 2)
Marchia conceives o f the motive force as something impressed from the
thought that explanations o f the cause o f celestial motions could only be
angel into the orb. B y the late sixteenth century, the Coimbra Jesuits and
probable. There were no compelling arguments. God could indeed have
Francisco Suarez, and perhaps others before them, expressed opinions about
created celestial bodies that are internally self-moved. Because the Fathers
the possibility o f an impressed force, or impetus, being transmitted by an
and doctors o f the Church leaned toward external movers, O viedo accepts
angel to its celestial orb.
their traditional position.
Am ong those who adopted the concept combining angels and impressed
Despite the widespread acceptance o f external movers in the form of
force were the Coim bra Jesuits, in their commentary on De caelo first pub­
intelligences or angels, there was, even among supporters o f the common
lished in 1592, where they clearly imply that the idea was accepted earlier
opinion, such as Compton-Carleton and O viedo, a sense that the question
by others;219 and Giovanni Baptista Riccioli, who, in turn mentions others
was difficult and that the deciding factor might be the w eighty, traditional
who also adopted this approach in the seventeenth century.
opinions o f the Fathers and doctors o f the Church. T o have assumed the
The discussion by the Coimbra Jesuits occurs in the context o f a question
existence o f internal movers would not have been judged outrageous in the
as to whether the celestial motions are uniform. That the angel associated
late sixteenth and the seventeenth century. From the previous discussion,
with each heaven impresses force into that heaven or orb is assumed. On
however, we may conclude that internal forces, such as forms or impetus,
the basis o f such an assumption, the question is whether celestial motions
were more popular in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries than in the
can be uniform. The response hinges on the way in which the angel im­
sixteenth and seventeenth.
presses its force. If it moves its heaven in the same manner as a javelin or
wheel, then uniform motion seems unlikely. The continuation o f such mo­
215. “ Contirmatur primo: alioqui non est cur similiter non dicam lapidem in centrum a Deo
aut Angelis moveri. Item motum progressivum animalium ab illis et non ab animabus tions requires that the force or energy involved in pushing the javelin or
intrinsecis esse. Si enim propter experientiam motus illis tanquam ab intrinseco sese wheel be constantly renewed or the motion will cease. B y analogy, the
moventibus tribuatur, quidni et coelis? Bonae Spei, comment. 3, De coelo. disp. 3, dub. impressed force in the orb will be continually diminished, and the orb would
6, 13, col. 1, par. 86.
216. ’’Contirmatur secundo quia scriptura magis nostrae sententiae favet quam oppositae qui come to a halt unless the impressed force is restored. If the force is impressed
losue primo datur soli et lunae imperium ne moveant se, non autem Angelis ne soleni
et lunam moveant, quod alioqui iieret.” Ibid., par. 87. 218. See de Marchia’s commentary on the Sentences, bk. 4, qu. 1, in Schneider, 1991, 50,
217. “ Et per haec patet solutio ad id, quod hie quaeri solet utrum scilicet motus coeli dicendus
lines 3-6 and $2, lines 87-89; also see ibid., 236-237.
sit illi naturalis, necne? Si enim sit ab intrinseco non est dubium quin sit caelo naturalis; 219- With respect to the idea o f an angel impressing a force on a heaven, the Conimbricenses
sin minus, dicendus podus illi videtur praeternaturalis, sicut et motus ignis in sua sphaera, say (De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 6, qu. 2, art. 3, 1598, 289) “ responderi solet a quibusdam
ubi nec motum petit, nec respuit.” Compton-Carleton. De coelo, disp. 4, sec. 3, 1649- productionem impulsus.” No names are provided.
409, col. 2-410 (incorrectly paginated as 310), col. 1.
554 THE CE L E S T IA L REGION
CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES 555
in an instant, it will soon diminish, and another instantaneous increment
Thus did the Coimbra Jesuits favor the notion o f a temporary, impressed
o f torce will have to be impressed. As a consequence, alternate diminutions angelic force. B y continually impressing increments o f force into its orb to
and increments would occur, and the motion could not be uniform. Sim­
replace what was just lost - indeed, we have to suppose that the replacement
ilarly, if the angel impresses force over some temporal interval and in suc­
o f impressed force occurs simultaneously with the loss - the level o f force
cessive instants, the impressed force will increase over every moment o f
is kept constant, and every celestial motion could be uniform.
that time interval, and the speed o f the orb will continuallv increase. Here
In a briefer treatment, Riccioli assumes that angels possess a torce or
again, there will be no uniform m otion . 2' 0
power distinct from the intellect and w ill .225* Following in the footsteps o f
T w o solutions are proposed. The first holds that the impressed force Godfrey o f Fontaines, whom he mentions, and many others, Riccioli calls
which the angel transmits to its heaven or orb is sufficient to m ove the orb it an “ executive power” (potentia exequutiva). It is the means by which an
at its requisite speed. In this solution, the impressed force remains perpet­ angel impresses a certain “ translative quality,” or impetus, into a mobile,
ually constant, never diminishing or increasing.22’ This solution is akin to or celestial body, from which motion follows immediately . 22'1 The com­
Buridan’s (described earlier in this chapter), where, instead o f employing
bination o f angels and impressed force, or impetus, was thus a reasonably
an angel, God impresses the totality o f impressed force, or impetus, on each popular theory in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, by which time
orb at the beginning ot the world, after which its motion is forever uniform the more vague thirteenth-century virtus motiva, or virtus impressa, was trans­
because the impressed force remains constant.
formed into the more precise fourteenth-century impetus, which, as we
This response was found wanting 201222 because it assumed that the impressed
noted, had received its fullest development from Buridan.
force was an invariable quantity. The Conimbricenses were apparently con­
vinced that the impressed force is a quality with a disappearing nature”
(sit qualitas suapte natura evanescens), just as are the impressed forces that b. Rejection of the combination of angels and impetus:
push an arrow or a stone upward . 22324But if the celestial motions are uniform, Suarez and Serbellonus
how does an angel maintain a constant level o f impressed force to produce In his Disputationes metaphysicae, first published in 1*97, Francisco Suarez
a uniform motion for its own orb? Some think more correctly,” say the rejects the idea that angels impress forces into the orbs to cause their mo­
Conimbricenses,
tions. In this, he may have been reacting to the Coim bra Jesuits. A t the
outset, Suarez, without mentioning names, assumes the probability o f ear­
that the impulse which the angel impresses continually in any whatever part of time
lier opinions that are traceable to Godfrey o f Fontaines and Hervaeus Natalis.
is successively diminished and that it is simultaneously restored by the same angel
Thus he thought it more probable that an angel has a proper “ motive power”
in a perennial and continuous influx, so that as much as is lost on the one hand is
or “ force” (virtus motiva) that is distinct from the intellect and w ill .” 7 Indeed,
restored on the other. And thus the impulse [or impressed force] is perpetually Suarez even calls this force an “ executive pow er” (potentia executiva), thus
conserved in the celestial spheres with the same intention and degree.444
using the same expression as Godfrey o f Fontaines more than 300 years
220. Secundo, impulsus quern Angelus coelo imprimit, suapte natura evanescit, quemad- earlier.228
modum et is qui nostratibus rebus lmpnmitur, ut laculo vel rotae. Igitur ne coeluni But where Godfrey and Hervaeus spoke only o f a motive force that was
interquiescat oportebit eiusmodi impulsum assidue redintegran. Haec^ autem redinte- used by the executive force to implement the will o f the angel or intelligence,
gratio vel ht in instanti, vel in tempore et successive. Si in instanti, certe immediate post
Suarez speaks o f impressed forces transmitted by the angel into the body
illud mmuetur impulsus, atque adeo motus coeli remittetur: si in tempore et successive,
aliquod ei incrementum accedet ex continua productione sicque motus celerior evadet.
225. He characterizes it as the “ more correct" position and says that it was adopted by Duns
Non potest ergo coelum aequabiliter agi.” Ibid., art. i, 287.
Scotus, Henry o f Ghent, Franciscus Mavronnis, Peter Aureola,.Godfrey ot Fontaines,
221. Impulsus perseverat secundum omnia instantia ac totum tempus, quod a principio
the Conimbricenses, Suarez, and Amicus. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk.
motus coelestis hucusque defluxit et neque ulla nova impulsus pars advenit, neque ulla
abit. Sed idem impulsus integer sub eodem gradu et intentione perpetuo efficitur et 9, sec. 2, ch. 1, 1651, 250, col. 1.
226. “ Suppono autem ex dictis alibi a nobis in tractatu de angelis eos imprimere quahtatem
conservatur.” Ibid., art. 3, 289.
quandam translativam mobilis a loco ad locum, quae vocatur impetus et ex qua sequitur
222. “ Verum haec responsio non satisfacit. ” Ibid.
immediate motus.” Riccioli, ibid. He adds that Molina, Vasquez, and Tanner also teach
223. In this question, the Coimbra Jesuits bring together the two basic medieval versions ot
impetus theory: temporary versus permanent impetus. the same doctrine.
227. “ Unde etiam ad se movendum est mihi probabilius Angelum habere propriam virtutem
224. “ Quare rectius alii occurrendum censent, videlicet impulsum quern Angelus coelo im­
motivam distinctam a voluntate.” Suarez, Disputationes metaphysicae, disp. 35, sec. 6,
primit continenter in qualibet parte temporis successive dimmui simulque perenni et
1866, 2:475, col. 1, par. 22. Earlier in the same paragraph, Suarez explains that a faculty
continuo lnduxu ab eodem Angelo rehci, ita ut quantum ex una parte amittur, tantundem
exists in intelligences that differs from the intellect and will. (Haec autem ratio eumdem
ex alia resarciatur. Atque ita perpetuo conservari in sphaens coelestibus impulsum sub
locum habet in intelligentiis; est ergo in eis etiam haec tacultas diversa ab intellectu et
eadem intentione et gradu.” Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 6, qu. 2, art. 3, 1398,
289-290. voluntate).
228. Ibid., cols. 1-2.
CELESTIAL M O T IO N S A N D THEIR CAUSES 557
556 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N
“ it is vain to do with more what can be done by less.” 233 N ot only can
or orb. Indeed, Suarez uses the term impetus and thinks o f it as something
angels not impress impetus into bodies, but they cannot impress any qual­
impressed into the heaven or orb but distinct from the motion it produces
ities into bodies.234
Thus he, or his source, was influenced by the traditional impetus theory as
Although Suarez thought the impressed-force explanation defensible, he
it was developed in the fourteenth century.
did reject it. Unfortunately, Suarez mentions no names in his entire dis­
Suarez explains that some feel that just as “ a man impresses an impulse
cussion, so that we cannot identify other discussants nor learn o f any sup­
when he moves any body, so also does an angel, because local motion does
porters o f the theory combining angels and impressed force. But whatever
not seem otherwise possible.” 230 The impressed impetus is characterized as
Suarez’s source for this topic, it bears unmistakable links with the tradition
a ‘‘certain quality” that is ordained to produce local motion. The impetus
of impetus theory deriving from the fourteenth century.
produces motion when the mobile body is separated from its mover. Suarez
Some seventy years after the appearance o f Suarez’s discussion, Sigis—
admits that one could easily defend this mode o f speaking.
mundus Serbellonus adopted much the same interpretation but offers a
However, because it seemed unnecessary and superfluous, Suarez could
clearer exposition and reveals an interesting adaptation to the new cos­
see no good reason to assume an impressed-force theory o f celestial motion.
mology. Serbellonus distinguishes tw o ways in which an intelligence could
W hy should an angel impress impetus into something in order to move it
move a mobile. It could do so directly or by means o f a force which it
when the angel could achieve the same result by the direct application of
impresses into the mobile. T o move a body the first way, the intelligence
its own instrumental motive force (virtus motiva), which it can exercise by
communicates motion directly and successively to the body it moves. The
its continual presence in or on the orb or body? Hence the angel need not
motion arises immediately from a relationship between mover and moved.
impress impetus into an orb to enable the latter to move when it is separated
As we might surmise, the second way includes an extra step. Initially, the
from its original mover, in this case the angel itself. An angel can always
intelligence immediately moves the mobile, but in doing so it also transmits
be directly present to the body it moves. It requires no surrogate force to
to it an impressed force, an impulsus, which then takes over and continues
act in its behalf. Impulses or impressed forces are in no w ay necessary for
the motion o f the celestial body. The impressed force is capable o f moving
motion; otherwise God would be unable to move a body without first
its mobile even if the intelligence itself remains immobile.235
impressing a force into it, which is absurd.231
With the two options described, Serbellonus indicates his preference.
When an angel moves itself, it does not impress an impulse or impetus
Although there is some ambiguity, he seems to opt for the simpler expla­
into its own substance. It moves itself only by making a motion. Why,
nation, which is that the angel moves its planet directly, without impressing
therefore, should we, without good reason, multiply entities to explain the
any force into it.236 His argument is much the same as Suarez’s. W hy should
way angels move orbs?232 M oreover, when an angel moves, it is surely
an angel employ an instrument, such as impressed force, when it can achieve
unnecessary that it should first wish to impress impetus and then wish to
the same results by moving something directly and immediately?237 M ore-
move a body. It is only necessary that it wish to move the body. And for
this purpose it has sufficient force and can produce the desired effect without 233- M y interpretation of: “ Denique declaratur, quia cum Angelus movet, non est necesse
the aid o f anything else. Drawing on O ckham ’s razor, Suarez declares that ut velit impriinere impetum, sed tantum ut velit movere. Nam ad hoc habet sufficientem
virtutem et il!e effectus motionis localis est de se tactibilis absque alio; ergo tunc efficiet
Angelus solum motum absque alia priori qualitate vel impulsu; ergo verisimile est semper
229. “ Rursus vero inquiri potest circa hanc facultatem, an intelligentia ad movendum corpus sic movere, quia frustra faciet per plura quod potest facere per pauciora.” Ibid.
imprimat in illo impetum distinctum ab ipso motu.” Ibid., col. 2, par. 24. The Con- 23a. “ Atque hoc etiam modo generalius defenditur, Angelos nullam qualitatem per se posse
imbricenses did not use the term impetus, preferring impulsus almost exclusively. corporibus imprimere.” Ibid.
230. “ Aliqui enim sentiunt, sicut homo imprimit impulsum dum movet aliquod corpus, ita 235. Here is the text on which this paragraph is based: “ Dicend. 1. Intelligentiam posse
etiam Angelum quia motus localis non videtur aliter posse fieri.” Ibid. movere coelum mediante motu solum et mediante impulsu impresso. ^xplicatur. Tunc
231. “ Fortasse tamen non est necessarium ut Angelus, quando immediate movet corpus corpus movetur per motum solum quando movens est ipsi immediatum et successive
imprimat ei impulsum, sed immediate ipsum motum, et nihil aliud. Ratio est, quia recipit ab ipso motionem; per impulsum vero cum imprimitur illi motus virtute cuius
impulsus solum ponitur ut sit instrumentum moventis quando separatur a mobili; ergo moveri potest etiamsi motor desistat a motione per aliquod tempus. Unde motus sim-
quando movens immediate adest, et in se habet sufficientem vim motivam, non indiget pliciter in primo sensu consurgit ex complexo mobilis et moventis in actu; secundo
impulsu tanquam instrumento separato quo moveat. Nec vero talis impulsus est de impulsus vero fit quidem per complexum ex mobili et motore in principio impressionis,
necessitate motus localis; alias nec Deus ipse posset movere corpus nisi imprimendo illi at sequitur per se in mobili.” Serbellonus, De caelo, disp. 1, qu. 4, art. 3, 1663, 2:43,
impulsum, quod videtur ridiculum et gratis dictum. Cur enim non potent Deus efficere col. 1, par. 29.
in corpore solum localem absque alio novo effectu?” Ibid.. 2:475, col. 2—476, col. 1. 236. In the latter part o f his argument, Serbellonus tries to answer a few other objections to
par. 25. the assumption o f impressed force, but it seems that he thought it best to eliminate
232. “ Nulla est ergo ratio vel necessitas imprimendi talem impulsum. Sicut Angelus movendo impressed forces.
se non imprimit suae substantiae impulsum, sed motum; quid enim necesse est multi- 237. “ If therefore an impressed force [impulsus] is unnecessary for local motion, why is it
plicare entia aut instrumenta sine causa?” Ibid., 2:476, col. 1, par. 25.
55» THE CE L E S T IA L REGION
CELESTIAL M O T IO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES 559
over, an angel would m ove a sphere with the same power with which it
^ians,” 241 thus suggesting that the article condemned in 1277 continued to
moves itself. Since it causes itself to m ove without impressing any force
play a role. Otherwise, Serbellonus would have felt no need to explain that
into itself, w hy can it not also move a sphere or mobile by itself without he was omitting any judgm ent about the means by which an angel moved
resort to an impressed force?238
its planet or orb.
But what celestial bodies do the angels or intelligences move? As one Having decided that an angel moved its planet by itself and not by an
who believed in the fluidity o f the planetary heavens - he insisted that the impressed force, Serbellonus chose to delve no further. It sufficed that he
planets are not affixed to orbs239 - and for whom only the firmament o f had chosen between the angel as direct cause o f motion or as indirect cause
the hxed stars was solid and hard, Serbellonus associated the motive intel­ by virtue o f its ability to impress a force into bodies. The rest - whether
ligences with the planets rather than with orbs. He declares that there are an angel moved itself and its orbs by intellect and will or by something
“ as many motive intelligences o f celestial bodies as there are such distinct else - was best left to the theologians. We see here how intelligences and
bodies.” Because there are so many different motions among the planets, angels had become little more than names for motive forces that were used
no single intelligence could move them. Hence one intelligence is assigned to explain the efficient causes o f celestial motion. Indeed, as we shall see in
to each planet. Indeed, not only does one intelligence assist each planet, but Section II. 8 o f this chapter, Serbellonus, though perhaps more emphatic
we must assume that at least one intelligence moves the four satellites o f than most, belongs to a long tradition going back to the thirteenth century.
Jupiter, and perhaps one intelligence moves each satellite; the same must
be said o f the two alleged satellites o f Saturn. The satellites o f Jupiter, and
presumably also o f Saturn, are too far away to be moved by the same c. The influence o f al-Bitruji: Mastrius and Bellutus
intelligences that move Jupiter and Saturn directly.240 As was often stressed,
the range o f influence o f intelligences or angels was limited. Hence more The impressed force discussed in the preceding sections was supposedly
intelligences were needed. introduced into every orb or planet by an angel or intelligence. Each orb
If angels or intelligences caused the planetary motions, how did they do or planet received a quantity o f impressed force, or impetus, from the single
it? Did they move by intellect and will or by some third force or power? angel assigned to it. There was, however, another important version ol
When Serbellonus published his second volume in 1673, with its important impressed force that we must now consider and for which we turn to
section on the heavens, almost four hundred years had elapsed since the Mastrius and Bellutus, who incorporated quite a different concept of im­
Condemnation o f 1277, when the idea that an intelligence could m ove a pressed force into their explanation o f the causal factors in celestial motion.
heaven by will alone was denounced. What was Serbellonus’s response to In a lengthy question on the local motion o f the heavens, with numerous
this perennial problem? A brief introductory sentence at the beginning o f subdivisions, Mastrius and Bellutus had much to say about celestial movers.
his lengthy discussion on “ H ow Intelligences M ove Celestial Bodies” tells Although they concede that God could have created internally self-moving
it all. “ We do not inquire,” he commences, “ about the quality o f motive celestial bodies, they declare instead that “ the heavens are moved externally,
power in intelligences, namely, whether it is distinct from the intellect and not internally,” 242 by an “ incorporeal and spiritual” intelligence. Moreover,
will or, indeed, results from each. This [problem] pertains to the theolo- they further assume that “ angels move by a power formally distinct from
the intellect and w ill,” which they describe as an “ executive pow er” (potentia
assumed in angels who are intimately present [in their celestial bodies] and have sufficient executiva)f4i thereby associating themselves with all those scholastics - rang­
power to push [the bodies in which they are present]?” (Si ergo impulsus non est ing from Godfrey o f Fontaines to Francisco Suarez - who saw fit to describe
necessarius ad motum localem, non est cur ponatur in angelis cum sint intime praesentes this centuries-old causal explanation o f celestial motions.
et habeant sufficientem virtutem impellendi). Serbellonus, De caelo, disp. 1, qu. 4, art.
3, 1663, 2:43, col. 1, par. 29. In the world o f hard planetary spheres which formed.the frame of their
238. “ Deinde angelus per eandem virtutem movet sphaeram per quam se ipsum movere cosm ology, Mastrius and Bellutus assumed that the outermost sphere of
potest. Sed se movere yotest sine impulsu impresso in se ipso; ergo etiam sphaeram ita the world, or the primum mobile, was moved by an intelligence. In their
movere poterit. ” Ibid.
239. “ Deinde cum planetae, per nos, non sint affixi propriis orbibus. . . . ” Ibid., art. 2, 2:42,
col. 1, par. 23.
241. “ Non quaerimus de qualitate virtutis motivae in intelligentiis, an scilicet sit distincta ab
240. “ Non solum autem cuilibet planetae propria intelligentia assistit, sed etiam cuicunque intellectu et voluntate; an vero ex utraque resultet. Pertinet enim hoc ad Theologos.
alteri syderi, quod in firmamento non sit: sic quatuor satellites Iovis propriam intelli-
Ibid., art. 3, 43 , col. 1, par. 28.
gentiam motncem habere debent quia vario ac multiplici motu circa Iovem teruntur et 242. “ Dicimus, primo. celos ab extrinseco moveri, non ab intrinseco.” Mastrius and Bellutus,
ratione distinctionis et distantiae, quam ab ipso servant, non recte sub dominio eiusdem De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 4, art. 3, 1727, 3:503, col. 1, par. 138.
intelligentiae constituuntur. Hoc idem dicendum de duobus Saturni comitibus.” Ibid., 243. “ Angelos movere per potentiam formaliter distinctam ab intellectu et voluntate.” Mas­
par. 25. As noted earlier, the rings o f Saturn were for a time thought to be two satellites trius and Bellutus, ibid., art. 4, 1727, 3:504, col. 2, par. 148. A tew lines later they
like those o f Jupiter.
explain that the “ executive power” (potentia executivci) transmits the will ot the angel.
CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 561
560 THE CELEST IAL REGIO N
(uiS motiva) by means o f its executive power would produce disorder and
view, it was the only intelligence associated with the celestial orbs.244 The confusion in the inferior orbs.248
manner in which this unique celestial intelligence moved its orb, the primum If the unique intelligence associated only with the primum mobile is in­
mobile, was not by the will and intellect alone but by a third entity, an capable o f m oving all the orbs, and there are no other intelligences, what
“ executive force,” which transmitted the will o f the angel to the orb in the could cause the motion o f all the orbs enclosed within the primum mobile?
form o f a motive force. In their interpretation o f Aristotle, Mastrius and Mastrius and Bellutus reply: the primum mobile itself. Just because the primum
Bellutus viewed the primum mobile as an aggregate o f orb and intelligence mobile is moved by an external intelligence does not preclude it from being
where the latter moves the orb by virtue o f its love o f the prime mover. a mover. They envisioned the following process: acting as an efficient cause,
Thus the prime mover, which is common to all motions, may be regarded the single intelligence directly causes the primary motion o f the primum
as the final cause and the intelligence as an efficient cause in producing the mobile. As the latter moves in its east-to-west daily circular motion, it
motion o f the primum mobile, which is also “ the first [of all motions and transmits impulses, or impetuses, to the solid, hard, contiguous celestial
also] the cause, regulator, and measure o f other m otions.” 245 orbs that it surrounds and contains. As the impetuses, or impressed forces,
But what about all the other enclosed spheres? Was each o f them also are transmitted downward from one orb to another, the force is weakened,
moved by an intelligence, as Aristotle and most other scholastics had be­ and the orbs cannot complete a full circulation in twenty-four hours. Con­
lieved? B y implication, Mastrius and Bellutus seem to deny this, since they sequently, the daily paths o f the planets are not perfect circles, but incom­
speak o f only one celestial intelligence, which they associate solely with the plete arcs o f circles that form spiral lines.249
primum mobile. Did this one intelligence, therefore, m ove all the orbs o f the These spiral lines result from the daily east-to-west motion and what
celestial region? N o .246 The influence and power o f a single angel was appears to be a periodic or sidereal west-to-east motion. In reality, Mastrius
deemed woefully inadequate to supply operating power to the entire celestial and Bellutus argue, the planets move only in an east-to-west direction, and
region.247 The motions o f the celestial region were too complex and its not at all from west to east. Flowever, the velocities o f the planets in their
magnitude too great to be served by a single intelligence. east-to-west daily motions are such that they traverse slightly less than the
According to the Coimbra Jesuits, this was precisely the erroneous theorv full circle attained in twenty-four hours by the daily motion o f the sphere
held by Girolamo Fracastoro in his Homocentrica, sive de stellis, published in o f the fixed stars. Hence every day each planet completes slightly less than
1538. Fracastoro believed that a single intelligence could move all celestial a complete circulation, and its path actually traces out an imaginary spiral
orbs. But, in an approach that Mastrius and Bellutus would adopt, the line. As it completes its daily spiral - that is, as it falls slightly short o f
Coimbra Jesuits assert ([De caelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 8, art. 1], 1598, 277), completing a full circular path each day - every planet gives the appearance
that one intelligence - whether actually in the outermost sphere or only o f m oving backward from west to east.250
conjoined to it - could not simultaneously produce the variety o f differing, Mastrius and Bellutus fashioned a causal explanation o f celestial motion
and perhaps even oppositely directed, motions o f so many orbs. A single
intelligence would be incapable o f producing the totality o f impulses or
248. “ Namque licet non oporteat Angelum in toto supremo globo esse, ut eum moveat. sed
forces required for all the celestial motions. Indeed, because o f the inade­ satis sit ei coniungi in certo situ, fieri tamen non poterit ut ab eo situ dispertiat impulsum
quacy o f a single intelligence or angel, the transmission o f its motive force ad praedictos motus omnium sphaerarum et errantium syderum, cum plerique eorum
motuum sint ad partes oppositas, vel quasi oppositas, et alii majorem, alii minorem
impulsum desiderent pro magnitudine temporis et spatii quod conficiunt. Sane quidem
Z44. In their assumption that a single intelligence or angel is the ultimate cause o f all celestial si per intermedia corpora impulsus ille descenderet susque deque omnia turbaret, nec
motions, Mastrius and Bellutus. like Girolamo Fracastoro before them, appear to have tarn efficeret motum quam tumultum. Addimus etiam nec vim motivam unius Angeli
repudiated the Aristotelian rule that every orb has its own angel or intelligence, so that quae haud dubie limitata est videri sufficere ad producendum simul tantum impulsum
there are as many celestial intelligences as there are orbs. quantum omnes ii motus requirunt.” Conimbricenses, De caelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 8, art.
245. Here is the relevant text for this passage: “ Dicimus . . . Aristotelem in texto 43 assignasse 1, 1598, 277. Mastrius and Bellutus mention only Aristotle, not Fracastoro. It seems
numerum intelligentiarum quarum singulae sunt particulares et proprii motores orbiutn. that they only shared with Fracastoro the idea o f a single intelligence operating on the
Praeter istas autem assignavit primum motorem communem omnibus, de quo locutus celestial orbs.
fuerat in texto 36, dum dixit movere ut amatum et desideratum. In texto veto 38, accepit 249. “ Sic primum mobile movet coelos inferiores ab ortu in occasum et quia virtus in corpore
primum mobile pro aggregato ex orbe et intelligentia, nam supra dixerat primum mo­ distanti minus efficaciter diffunditur, hinc impetus a primo mobili impressus non causat
torem movere ut amatum, ergo nequit intelligi de primo orbe tantum, non enim orbis in coelis inferionbus perfectum circulationem, sed cum aliquali retardatione propriae
movetur ad amorem, sed de orbe et intelligentia. Dicitur autem specialiter et appropriate intelligentae impellunt orbes ad latera, ex quibus virtutibus resultat motus quidam mod-
primum mobile movere, quamvis ut sic concurrat ad alios orbes quia motus primi mobilis ificatus ab ortu in occasum per lineas spirales.” Mastrius and Bellutus. De caelo, disp.
est primus, causa, regula, et mensura aliorum motuum.” Mastrius and Bellutus, De 2, qu. 4, art. 1. 1727, 3:502, col. 2, par. 134. Fracastoro expressed a similar judgment
caelo, disp. 2, qu. 4, art. 4, 1727, 3:504, col. 1, par. 146. when he assumed that an outer orb can communicate motion to an inner orb. It was
246. “ Idcirco non sufficit unus angelus ad omnes motus celorum exercendos.” Ibid., 505. not necessary to associate an intelligence or angel with each orb or planet.
col. t, par. i so. 250. For the description o f spiral motion, see Mastrius and Bellutus, ibid., 501, col. 2—502,
247. “ Quod quamvis nullam reperiat contrarietatem in medio, tamen determinatam sphaeram col. 1, par. 130.
habet suae actionis.” Ibid.
562 THE CELESTIAL REGION
CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AN D THEIR CAUSES 563
from three separate components: (i) a single intelligence that moves the
the highest sphere since the power for their motion depends on the distance from
outermost mobile sphere, or primum mobile, an idea ultimately derived from
the prime mover, the source of all power. The motion of the highest simple sphere
Aristotle, whom they mention, and perhaps also from the Homocentrica
is simple and invariable, always maintaining the same speed. The spheres which are
(1538) o f Girolamo Fracastoro, whom they do not mention; (2) an impressed
closer to the simple sphere move more swiftly and powerfully, for the source (of
torce, or impetus, that originates from the daily motion o f the primum mobile
their motion) is the highest sphere. But those bodies which are farther away are
but which is successively diminished as it is transmitted downward from
less powerful, and their motion is slower, for motion depends on the amount of
orb to orb; this concept seems ultimately traceable to al-Bitrujfs De motibus
power. This statement - that motion depends on the amount of power - is one on
celorum, as translated by Michael Scot in the early thirteenth century, and
which everyone will agree."5'
perhaps also to Fracastoro; and (3) spiral paths o f the planets, produced by
the successively diminishing impressed forces, an idea probably derived
from al-Bitrujl. The most frequently used Latin expression for “ power” or “ force” in
As real paths o f planets, spiral lines can be traced back to Plato and were Michael Scot’s translation o f al-Bitruji’s De motibus celorum is virtus,254 The
mentioned in the Middle Ages by Averroes, al-Bitrujl, Albertus Magnus, term impetus is absent, because it came into common use only in the latter
Sacrobosco, and Oresm e.251 B y invoking spiral lines as a consequence o f a part o f the fourteenth century, when, as we saw earlier, Buridan even
gradual dissipation o f an impressed force as it passes from orb to orb, associated it with the celestial orbs (though he assumed that God had im­
Mastrius and Bellutus seem to have causally derived the tw o basic planetary planted such forces at the creation). Its use by Suarez, Mastrius and Bellutus,
motions, east-to-west and west-to-east, from the single east-to-west motion the Coim bra Jesuits, Amicus, and Serbellonus, in the late sixteenth and the
o f the primum mobile, a motion caused ultimately by the single intelligence seventeenth century indicates that this significant term was still in vogue.255
associated with the primum mobile.
The idea that impressed force could be transmitted “ inward” or “ down­
ward” from the primum mobile to each o f the inferior planetary orbs was 7. A l-B itruji and the desire to avoid contrary motions
probably derived ultimately from al-Bitruji’s De motibus celorum, o f which A l-Bitruji’s explanation o f celestial motion and the acceptance o f some
printed editions had been available since 1531;252 or it was derived from version o f it by Alessandro Achillini, Mastrius and Bellutus, and others,
Fracastoro’s Homocentrica, available since 1538, where Fracastoro seems to was motivated in part by a desire to avoid assigning contrary motions to
acknowledge a debt to al-Bitrujl (whom he calls “ Albateticus” ). A glance one and the same celestial body. In the usual medieval discussions o f celestial
at al-Bitrujfs account will reveal how strong is the probability that Mastrius motions, it was assumed that one and the same planet was continually
and Bellutus drew directly from it: undergoing simultaneous contrary motions. For not only did every planet
have a daily motion from east to west in twenty-four hours, but at the
We say that the highest sphere always moves about two fixed poles from east to same time it was slowly m oving in an opposite west-to-east direction to
west, completing one revolution in a day and a night. It causes the motion of the complete a periodic motion through the zodiac: Saturn in thirty years,
universe, and its motion is swifter than all the motions below it, for all those spheres Jupiter in twelve, and so on. From the standpoint o f Aristotelian physical
lose some of its motion. The amount of this loss varies with their distance from theory, one and the same body could not undergo simultaneous contrary
the highest spheres [sphere?! which causes their motion. Each of these lower spheres m otions.256 “ It seems absolutely impossible in any w a y ,” Raphael Aversa
desires to imitate the highest sphere and trails along according to the amount of insisted, “ that any mobile be truly carried with contrary motions, unless it
power which it retains from the highest sphere, but its form is maintained by its
proper motion. Thus each of them moves with this other motion about its poles, 253. Goldstein’s translation from al-Bitrujl, 1971, 76-77, par. 57 (I have inserted the bracketed
trailing behind the motion of the highest sphere and combining with it, imitating word). I have used Goldstein’s translation from the Arabic and Hebrew because it
the highest sphere. The spheres below the highest sphere differ in the speed with corresponds reasonably closely to the Latin translation in al-Bitrujl [Carmody], 1952,
92 (1-3). According to Dreyer (1953, 298), Fracastoro "assumes that an outer sphere
which they trail the highest sphere, and this varies according to their distance from may communicate its motion to an inner one, while an inner one does not influence an
outer one, and he is therefore able to let the Primum Mobile communicate its daily
251. For a briet description o f the generation o f spiral lines, see Oresme, De comensurabilitate. rotation to all the planets without having with Eudoxus to assume one sphere for each
1971, 31-33, especially note 49 with its figure. Al-Bitrujl describes spiral motion in planet to produce the daily rotation.”
chapter 9 ot his De motibus ,clorum. See al-Bitrujl [Carmody], 1952, 40—41, 51—54, 98 254. See al-Bitrujl [Carmody], 1952, 4b.
(21), and al-Bitrujl [Goldstein), 1971, 85-86, par. 72; 101, par. 106. 255. For the Coimbra Jesuits, see De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 8, art. 1. 1598, 276; for Amicus.
252. See al-Bitrujl [Carmody], 51 (Carmody’s summary o f ch. 8), 92-94 (all o f ch. 8); al- De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 1, 1626, 289, col. 2.
Bitruji [Goldstein], 76--g. pars. 57-62 (all o f ch. 1). 256. In Physics 8.8.2642.28-29, Aristotle declares that “ it is impossible for a thing to undergo
simultaneouslv two contrary motions.” Aristotle [Hardie and Gaye], 1984-
CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 565
564 THE C EL EST IA L REGION
Clavius sought to defend traditional Ptolemaic astronomy and cosmology,
could be replicated in many places. ” 2S7 T o avoid these difficulties, Aristotle with its eccentrics and deferents turning in different (and often opposing)
with his concentric orbs, and Ptolemy, with his concentrics and eccentrics directions. T o do this, he had somehow to eliminate or sidestep the problem
and many other astronomers and cosmologists assumed that every real o f contrary motions. Clavius assumes the traditional opinion that the primum
astronomical motion is produced by only one orb. The daily motion had mobile moves from east to west to account for the daily motions and that
its own orb, and the periodic motion o f each planet was also represented each o f the inferior spheres from Saturn to the M oon has its own proper
by a single orb. motion from west to east. As the primum mobile moves in its daily east-to-
Despite these efforts, it was obvious that the position o f one and the same west motion, it drags the inferior planetary orbs with it, so that they also
planet was nonetheless represented by at least two oppositely directed orbs. have a daily east-to-west motion. Therefore each planetary orb has a proper
Thus it still seemed as if cosm ology was in violation o f Aristotle’s dictum motion to the east and also a simultaneous daily motion to the west. But
against contrary motions. According to Clavius, critics o f contrary celestial are these not contrary motions?
motions, apparently arguing by analogy with upward and downward rec­ Clavius denies this. The two simultaneous oppositely directed motions
tilinear motion on earth, insisted that one o f those motions would have to o f a planetary orb are not contraries, because o f a distinction Clavius makes
be violent. But violent motions had to terminate and could not be perpetual. between an absolute (simpliciter) motion and one that is relative (secundum
Hence some celestial motions would be o f finite duration, rather than per­ quid). His crucial argument is made by means o f an analogy involving a
petual, an unacceptable consequence. M oreover, it was the nature o f a ship m oving at maximum speed from east to west (surrogate for the primum
violent motion to weaken over time, which violated the general consensus mobile), while its captain walks at a slower pace from the bow o f the ship
that the heavens always move with the same, uniform speed. Finally, con­ to its stern, or from west to east (surrogate for a planet’s proper motion):
trary motions are superfluous. W hy assume contrary motions when the
same results can be achieved by a single, unidirectional motion? With this assumed, do you not see that the captain is moved from east to west
Although many natural philosophers and astronomers ignored this di­ absolutely because the motion of the ship is much quicker than the proper motion
lemma, it remained a perennial underlying problem in medieval and early toward the contrary direction by which he is moved, and because of this he always
modern scholastic cosmology. Al-BitrujT’s (or Alpetragius’s) solution was withdraws more from the east and approaches the west. However, is he not si­
well known. He denied contrary motions and assumed that all celestial multaneously moved relative [secundum quid] to the east, that is, [is he not moved]
motions were from east to west but that the planets moved with lesser toward the eastern parts of the ship, but not absolutely? Do you not also see that
velocities than the daily motion. In the passage from al-Bitruji quoted ear­ if the ship remained unmoved, the captain would then be moved absolutely from
lier, the latter explains that “ The spheres below the highest sphere differ in west to east, since it [the ship] always approaches more to the east and withdraws
the speed with which they trail the highest sphere, and this varies according from the west? Finally, do you not see that the same thing would happen if the
to their distance from the highest sphere since the power for their motion captain moved with a quicker motion than the ship? In this manner, therefore, must
depends on the distance from the prime mover, the source o f all pow er.” it be understood that the inferior heavens are moved from west to east under the
B y adopting some version o f al-Bitruji’s theory o f concentric spheres zodiac of the primum mobile.'sy
with its exclusive east-to-west motions, a number o f medieval and early
modern authors sought to eliminate contrary motions. They devised various These motions fail to qualify as contrary because at every instant the proper
causal accounts to explain the motions. Mastrius and Bellutus, as w e saw, eastward motion o f a planetary orb is not equal to its daily westward motion
assigned one intelligence for the primum mobile and assumed that the inferior
orbs were moved by means o f successively transmitted impressed forces. carried with two motions: from east to west and west to east.” Translation from Clavius,
In lieu o f impressed forces, they might have assigned one intelligence to Sphere, ch. 1, Opera, 1611, 3:25. For the full discussion, see 25-28.
each o f the inferior orbs but may not have wished to invoke intelligences 259. “ Moveatur navis aliqua ab oriente in occidentem maxima celeritate; nauclerus autem
eodem tempore, gradu admodum tardo perambulet navim a prora in puppim. Quo
needlessly. posito, nonne vides nauclerum simpliciter quidem moveri ab oriente in occidentem eo
Christopher Clavius thought al-Bitrujfs theory sufficiently important to quod ad motum navis celerius multo quam proprio motu in contrariam partem moveatur
provide a lengthy description o f its rationale, along with a refutation.258* et ob id semper magis ab oriente recedat occidenti vero appropinquet? Simul tamen
secundum quid moveri ad orientem, id est, ad partes orientales navis, non autem sim­
pliciter? Nonne etiam vides, si navis immota consistent nauclerum simpliciter tunc
257. “ Verum quocumque modo apparet penitus impossibile idem mobile fern vere contariis moveri ab occidente in orientem, cum semper magis ad orientem accederet et ab occi­
motibus nisi replicetur in pluribus locis.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 6, 1627, 145. dentem recederet? Nonne denique idem contingere conspicis, si nauclerus citatiori motu
col. 1. incederet quam navis? Ita igitur intelligendum est coelos inferiores moveri sub Zodiaco
258. “ Alpetragius [i.e., al-Bitruji] and Achillini, with other authors, embraced this opinion primi mobilis ab occidente in orientem.” Ibid.. 28.
because in no way could they imagine that one and the same celestial body could be
566 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL M O TIO N S AND THEIR CAUSES 567

caused by the dragging effect o f the primum mobile. They would be contrary
8. D id angels and intelligences function as mechanical forces?
only if, after referring their motions to the same fixed point, one motion
advanced as far toward that point as the other motion w ithdrew from it. We have now seen enough to conclude that medieval and early modern
But this does not occur, because from any fixed point and for any interval explanations o f the causes o f celestial motions were unusually varied. Within
o f time less than a day, a planet’s westward daily motion will be greater the most basic division into external and internal movers, there was a rich
than its proper eastward motion during the same interval.260 Raphael Aversa variety o f explanations and suggestions to account for the regularities and
set much laxer conditions for contrary motions, which he nevertheless irregularities o f celestial motion: intelligences, angels (the two were usually
rejected. N o fixed point was necessary to establish opposite motions; one but not always synonymous), forms, souls, and natural inclinations or ten­
could simply allow that two opposite motions were oblique to each other, dencies o f the orbs themselves. Even the abandonment o f hard orbs did not
moving around different poles and in different paths. Y et even w ith these compel scholastic natural philosophers to reject their array o f explanations.
tar less stringent conditions, Aversa thought it “ impossible that the same They could simply attribute the same intelligences and motive forces to the
mobile be carried with different motions in different directions.” 261 individual planets. It would take Isaac N ew ton’s theory o f universal grav­
Although Clavius acknowledges that these two motions are indeed com­ itation to sweep them from the sky.
m only spoken o f as “ contrary m otions,” he quickly adds that this is so Because angels or intelligences were easily the most widely invoked causes
only because the opposing terms “ east” and “ west” are used.262 And because o f celestial motion, we shall conclude this chapter with a brief assessment
they are not really contrary motions, Clavius says that neither o f them will o f the manner in which they were perceived. We have seen that although
be a violent motion. But even if one o f them were violent, it could still be they were not assumed to be fully living beings — they lacked nutritive and
perpetual and retain its power at the same level, because the m otive cause sentient levels o f activity - their exercise o f w ill and intellect were thought
that produces its regular motion is itself perpetual and capable o f acting to confer some level o f life on these bodiless, immaterial creatures. Since
without loss o f energy or effort.263 The motive cause, presumably the prime medieval celestial intelligences and angels were the direct descendants o f
mover, will supply the necessary energy required to maintain every celestial Aristotle’s unmoved movers, the language o f love - the love o f an orb for
motion at its appropriate speed. its intelligence - associated with Aristotle’s unmoved movers reinforced the
Aversa had a more plausible solution. There can be only one motion for strong sense that intelligences were alive. Scholastic thinkers had little dif­
any single heaven or orb, but that single motion may arise from several ficulty in assigning life to immaterial, dimensionless, spiritual entities such
causes. One cause might push it in one direction, another cause in another as intelligences and angels. After all, God also possessed these properties
direction, presumably even in the opposite direction. As a result o f the and a host o f others - omnipresence, omnipotence, infinite immensity, and
interaction o f these competing causes, an orb would tend toward one di­ so forth. Surely, one would have to consider God as a living being. Thus
rection or another. But it would move in only one direction and never in whatever else may be thought about celestial intelligences, all were agreed
contrary or opposite directions at the same time.264 that they were alive in some important sense.
Despite the attribution o f life, however, intelligences and angels associated
260. “ Ex hac porro declaratione et exemplis adductis, perspicuum relinquitur duos praedictos as movers o f celestial orbs seem to have performed more as mechanical
coelorum motus quorum unus est ab onente in occidentem, alter ab occidente in orien- forces than as living, spiritual entities. With an emphasis on souls, angels,
tem, non esse contrarios cum non simpliciter ad terminos contrarios, puta ad orientem
et ad occidentem hant. ut explicavimus. Contrarii namque motus referri debent ad unum and intelligences, we might suppose that scholastics perceived their world
idemque punctum fixum, ut videlicet uno motu ad lllud punctum accedatur et ab alio as primarily an organic whole rather than as a largely mechanically operating
ab eodem recedatur, quod in motibus coelorum minime fieri diximus.” Ibid., 29. system. In truth, intelligences were made to operate far more as impersonal,
261. Here is the full text: “ Addunt aliqui duos dictos motus unius caeli non esse vere contrarios
quia unus non tendit directe adversus alterum, sed in obliquum, nempe super diversos efficient causes than as love-inspiring, spiritual, final causes. Indeed, the
polos et per diversam lineam. At similiter impossibile apparet idem mobile ferri diversis language o f love was largely ignored or abandoned, because it was super­
motibus, id est ad diversas partes.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 6, 1627, 145, cols. fluous and even misleading. Each intelligence was assumed to move its own
1-2.
262. “ Dicuntur tamen isti duo motus communi loquendi modo contrarii et oppositi ratione sphere as a direct, efficient cause, not because o f its love for something else
terminorum contrariorum, puta orientis et occidentis.” Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1, Opera. or because o f something else’s love for it.
1611, 3:29. When Jean Buridan and his followers suggested that God might have
263. “ Quare ad primam rationem Alpetragii et Achillini respondendum est illos motus non
esse contrarios. . . et ob id neutrum esse violentum. Adde, non sequi etiamsi conced- chosen to move the celestial orbs by impetuses impressed in them at the
eremus alterum illorum esse quodammodo violentum ilium non fore perpetuum atque
debilitari posse, cum causa eius motiva sit perpetua et infatigabilis. lllud enim violentum cuiusque caeli et orbis, tamen proveniens a pluribus causis quarum una impellit mobile
solum didtur non posse esse perpetuum quod causam fatigabilem et non perpetuam versus unam partem, alia versus aliam. Et ita prodit motus quidam certo modo attem-
habet. Hoc enim simpliriter et per se violentum didtur.” Ibid., 26. peratus et modificatus, ut mobile semper ad unam simpliciter partem tendat, sicut in
264. “ Res ergo ita mtelligenda et explicanda est quod vere et realiter unus sit motus unius- unico semper loco reperitur.” Aversa, De caelo. qu. 34, sec. 6, 1627, 145, col. 2.
568 THE CELESTIAL REGION

Creation rather than by external intelligences, he was merely substituting


one impersonal force for another. Despite Buridan’s concern about the
19
reception o f his suggestion by the theologians, there seems to have been
little or no reaction. Indeed, Albert o f Saxony also adopted this interpre­
tation and passed it on to scholastics in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen­
turies.
The influence o f the celestial
Although many medieval scholastics may have agreed with Moses Mai-
monides that “ t’is love that makes the world go round,” the love involved region on the terrestrial
had little or nothing to do with emotion or spirit. The love Maimonides
alludes to was an impersonal force, just as were the intelligences, angels,
impetuses, and souls. It was probably so even with Aristotle himself. The
metaphysical language associated with celestial motion masks a genuine
attempt to understand the causes o f celestial motion in purely physical terms. If celestial motion and its causes represented the category with the greatest
Indeed, by denouncing those who thought the heavens were alive because number o f cosmological questions, the second largest category was easily the
they were said to have a soul and also those who thought that angels could influence o f the celestial region on the terrestrial. It is tempting to ascribe this
move their orbs by will alone, the authors o f the Condemnation o f 1277 keen interest to the role o f astrology, since astrological influences constituted a
would seem to have strengthened this tendency. formidable subset o f the total range ofeffects that were thought to be exercised
What Francis Carm ody said (1952, 46) about Averroes (ibn Rushd) is by the celestial region on the terrestrial. If by astrology, however, we mean
applicable to the whole range ot medieval thought about celestial movers: the prediction ofnatural events and human behavior on the basis ofkno wledge
“ One may well think o f desire for perfection and assimilation through love o f alleged powers inherent in individual celestial bodies and their positions in
as metaphysical interpretations; but there is evidence even in Ibn Rushd that the heavens, as well as their manifold configurations and interrelationships,
these terms, based on Aristotle’s principles, had lost the intervening im­ then astrology plays very little role in scholastic natural philosophy. Com m en­
plications and become, in due process o f semantic reduction, no more than taries and questions on Aristotelian treatises rarely contained specifically astrol­
the vocabulary o f physical thought.” ogical discussions or predictions. Such discussions would have been deemed
irrelevant, for which reason they will be inconspicuous in this account.

I. Celestial actions and human free will

As composite entities, human beings were comprised o f a material body


and an immaterial, spiritual soul under which the human will was subsumed.
From the early centuries o f Christianity, Church authorities vigorously
opposed the pagan astrological tradition that assumed almost axiomatically
that celestial bodies influenced both the human body and its immaterial soul
and will. Since human free will, which enabled Christians to choose to sin
or not to sin, was a part o f the intellective soul, Christian theologians
vigorously denounced those who claimed that celestial influences were de­
terminative o f human actions and that free will was an illusion. The Chris­
tian position was that the heavens could not act directly on the free will
because the latter was part o f the intellective, or rational, soul, which was
a spiritual entity. The rule for Christians was that corporeal agents could
not directly affect a spiritual entity.1 John Major reflected the centuries-

l - Amicus sums up these rules ([De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 8, dubit. 7, art. 3 (incorrectly given
as 4)], 1626, 443, col. 1): “ Tertio sequitur caelum neque agere directe in liberum arbitrium
patet ex dictis quia est pars animae intellecnvae (ex 3 De anima 42) atque adeo spintualis.
Et ideo non subdita directe agenti corporeo, ut patet ex dictis.”
CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 571
570 THE CELEST IAL REGION
Such a claim required little by way o f proof, according to Thomas o f Stras­
long Christian attitude when he concluded that “ the heaven has no influence
bourg, because “ we daily perceive many real changes that we can reduce to
on the rational soul.” ' Although the practice o f and belief in astrology were
no other agent than the heaven itself. ” s Mastrius and Bellutus distinguished
widespread during the Middle Ages, 5 most Christians were careful to avoid
four kinds o f effects that seemed to embrace virtually the whole range o f pos­
compromising free will and the rational soul. On the face o f it, at least,
sibilities producible by celestial bodiesr(i) accidents, by which they intended
they would have supported John M ajor’s conclusion.4
principally the primary qualities o f hotness, coldness, wetness, and dryness;
Because o f the inability o f celestial influences to affect the rational soul,
(2) inanimate bodies, comprising elements; bodies compounded o f elements,
what follows in this chapter concerns only the effect o f celestial bodies on
or “ mixed bodies,” and the latter’s two subdivisions, “ imperfect mixed bod­
material bodies o f the terrestrial region.
ies,” such as rain, clouds, and snow, and “ perfect mixed bodies,” such is
metals, stones, and gems; (3) animated bodies having souls to the vegetable
and sensitive levels; and (4) animated bodies having rational souls.9 To these,
II. The general claim for celestial influence we might add the lowest form o f animated body, one that is spontaneous!',
generated from putrefaction and is therefore lower on the ladder o f nature
Knowledge about the impact o f the celestial region on the terrestrial was
than a body with a vegetable soul.
deemed o f vital importance because it was thought that the former, which
The ubiquitous and pervasive medieval principle o f celestial dominance
was incorruptible and unchanging, was the ultimate source o f physical
over terrestrial matter derived its authority and status from Aristotle and
change in the latter, which was subjected to incessant generation and cor­
Ptolemy, although a variety o f other authors - Latin, Greek, and Arabic -
ruption. That sublunar things might in some way affect and cause changes
had reinforced that belief in a number o f physical and astrological works
in the celestial region was never seriously entertained.5 The changeable and
that were available in western Europe by the end o f the twelfth centurv
ignoble bodies o f the terrestrial region were judged incapable o f affecting
the incorruptible heavenly bodies.
That celestial bodies exerted a vital and even controlling influence over ma­ III. The basis o f belief in celestial causes
terial things in the terrestrial region, which included everything below the of terrestrial change
concave surface o f the innermost lunar sphere, was universally accepted.6
Themon Judaeus was representative o f his age when he declared that “ every l. The theory o f celestial causation
natural power o f this inferior, sensible world is governed by the heaven.” 7
It was Aristotle above all others who provided the intellectual basis for the
2. “ Quarta conclusio: celum in animam rationalem non habet influentiam ullam.” Major conviction that the heavenly region excelled the terrestrial. In a series
[Sentences, bk. 2, disc. 14. qu. 8], 1519b, 79V, col. 1. arguments in De caelo (bk. 1, chs. 2 and 3), Aristotle contrasts the nature!,
3. Although Nicole Oresme accepted the reality o f celestial influences on the terrestrial realm,
he was an ardent foe o f astrological prognostication. (For more, see Ch. 18, Sec. 1.3.a.) uniform, and eternal circular motions o f the heavenly bodies with the nat­
4. Although Giovanni Pontano assumed, in at least one place in his De rebus coelestibus, that ural, nonuniform, and finite rectilinear motions o f the four elementar
celestial bodies affect the human soul and mind, “ elsewhere in this treatise and in other
writings, he says that astrology deals only with the corporeal and that the mind and soul world must be contiguous to the superior motions so that our sublunar world can :r
are independent ot stellar influences.” Trinkaus, 1985, 453. For Dante's more conventional governed from there.
opinions, see North. 1986, 82-85. 8. Alter enunciating his first conclusion (“ Prima est: quod celum habet actionem realerr. -
5. Roger Bacon is a qualified exception. In his De multiplicatione specierum, pt. 1, ch. 5, he ista interiora” ), Thomas o f Strasbourg [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1, art. 2], 15'-
argued (Bacon [Lindbergj, 1983, 73) that “ a species is produced in celestial bodies not only 157V, col. 1, declares: “ Ista conclusio non indiget multa probatione quia quotidie mu ',
by other celestial bodies, but also by terrestrial things.” Since we see things by means ot reales alterationes percipimus quas in nullum aliud agens reducere possumus quarr.
species o f the eye, “ when we see the stars the species o f our eye must be generated in the ipsum celum.”
heaven, just as in the elemental spheres” (ibid., 75). The very act o f sight causes a terrestrial 9. “ Ad quatuor genera omnes effectus producibiles a coelestibus corporibus reducere p: -
thing to affect the heavens. But Bacon denied that these visual species could destroy one sumus, claritatis gratia: primum genus accidentia constituent: secundum corpora quaecc.—.
thing in the heavens and generate another and thus did not challenge the doctrine o f celestial inanimata, ut elementa, mixta, etc.; tertium omnia animata vegetabili anima, ac sensin' :.
incorruptibility. The visual species that reached the stars did not alter the heavens. Rather, quartum tandem, quae constant anima rationale ” Mastrius and Bellutus [De coelo, dif :
they assimilated celestial nature to terrestrial “ for the sake o f well-being and greater unity 2, qu. 7, art. 2], 1727: 3:511, col. 1, par. 191. In par. 195 (511, col. 2), they further die:;;
o f the universe and to meet the needs o f sense, especially sight, the species o f which comes mixed bodies into “ imperfect” and “ perfect.”
to the stars and to which the species o f the stars come in order to produce vision.” 10. Among these, the Arabian author Albumasar, or Abu Ma’shar Ja’far ben Muhamrr..:
6. In this chapter, I draw heavilv on Grant, 1987c. Amicus, De caelo. tract. 6. qu. t. art. 1, ben ’Umar al-Balkhi, was perhaps the most influential. His Introductorium in astronon;:. -
1626, 348, col. 1, says that all Peripatetics and theologians believed that the heavens act was heavily astrological but drew much from Aristotle's natural philosophy. W ith :.:
on inferior things. He also mentions numerous philosophers and Church Fathers who realizing it, manv Latin authors o f the twelfth century first met elements o f Ariston: ;
supported that opinion. natural philosophy in Albumasar’s Introductorium, which was translated in 1133 bv Jc
7. “ Tertia conclusio: omnis virtus naturalis huius mundi inferioris sensibilis gubernatur a o f Seville and in 1140 by Hermann o f Carinthia. See R. Lemav, 1962. and North, 10 -
celo.” Themon Judaeus [Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 1], 1518, 155V, col. 2-i56r, col. 1. Sim­
7- 9 -
ilarly, Major. Sentences, bk. 2. dist. 14, qu. 7. 1519b. 78r, col. 2, declared that the inferior
572 THE CELESTIAL REGION
CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 573
terrestrial bodies and concludes that each type o f motion must be associated
with radically different kinds o f simple bodies. B y virtue o f uniform circular shall see, largely on the Sun, into a solid foundation for judicial and ho-
motions that have neither beginning nor end, the celestial bodies are assumed roscopic astrology.15
to be eternal and incorruptible. A ll terrestrial bodies, by contrast, suffer The ideas o f Aristotle and Ptolemy concerning the role o f celestial influ­
incessant generation and corruption. Because he was convinced that the ences on terrestrial affairs had an enormous impact. Because Aristotle’s
celestial substance was incorruptible, Aristotle assumed that it was a divine works formed the core o f the university curriculum during the Middle Ages,
ether, declaring its divinity in a number o f places." It therefore seemed his ideas on celestial influences were frequently discussed in commentaries
fitting that the incorruptible, divine, celestial substance should exercise an on his works, in commentaries on the Sentences o f Peter Lombard, or in
influence over the behavior o f the corruptible and ever-changing sublunar the form o f separate questions in treatises titled De materia celi. Rarely did
bodies. scholastics devote a distinct, separate treatise to the subject. An exception
Using Aristotle’s basic cosm ology o f four sublunar elements and a fifth, was Thomas Aquinas, who, in response to a question from a soldier, sought
radically different celestial element, or ether, Claudius Ptolemy (fl. 2nd c. to explain the manner in which the celestial region influenced terrestrial
a . d .), in his Tetrabiblos (or Quadripartitum, as it was known during the Latin bodies.16
Middle Ages), assumed that Thomas begins his analysis with the elements. M any actions o f an element
are caused directly by the nature o f the element itself. " A stone, for example,
a c e r ta in p o w e r e m a n a t in g f r o m th e e t e r n a l e th e r e a l s u b s t a n c e is d is p e r s e d th ro u g h is moved towards the center [of the earth] according to the property o f
a n d p e r m e a te s th e w h o l e r e g io n a b o u t th e e a r th , w h i c h t h r o u g h o u t is su b je c t to earth dominant in it. Metals also have the power o f cooling according to
c h a n g e , s in c e , o f th e p r im a r y s u b lu n a r e le m e n t s , fire a n d a ir a re e n c o m p a s s e d and the property o f water. ” 17 But the manifold activities o f a body do not always
c h a n g e d b y th e m o t io n s in th e e th e r , a n d in tu r n e n c o m p a s s a n d c h a n g e all else, follow' from the nature o f its primary constituent element, as, for example,
e a rth a n d w a t e r a n d th e p la n ts a n d a n im a ls t h e r e i n . " in the case o f the magnet’s attraction for iron and the ability o f certain
medicines to purge humors. Such actions constituted occult phenomena,
That such a power emanated from the heavens and affected the earth was and their causes had to be sought in the behavior o f superior agents, o f
made virtually self-evident to Ptolemy and almost everyone else by the which two kinds are distinguishable: (1) the heavenly bodies, and (2) “ sep­
behavior o f the Sun and the M o o n .112
13 B y analogy with, and extrapolation arate,” or “ separated,” spiritual substances, a category that embraced angels,
from, these two most prominent celestial luminaries, the other planets and demons, and celestial intelligences.13
stars were also assumed to cause a never-ending succession o f terrestrial A superior agent can act on an inferior body in one o f two ways: it can
effects. Because celestial bodies possessed different powers and had different either impart to it some power or form that enables the inferior body to
positions, their effects also varied. Depending on a complex set o f rela­ perform a certain action, or it imparts no form or power to it but by its
tionships, planets and stars could cause either beneficial or harmful effects. own motion causes the inferior body to move, just “ as a carpenter uses a
B y a judicious combination o f observation and theory, it was even possible saw for cutting.” As illustrations o f the second type o f occult phenomena,
to know when and where these effects would occur.14 Thus did Ptolemy Thomas mentions the power o f the M oon to cause the ebb and flow o f the
transform Aristotle’s vaguely described celestial influences, focused, as we tides, which it accomplishes by its ow n movements that somehow physi­
cally agitate the w ater.ll' Separate substances achieve similar effects by curing
11. De carlo 1.3.270b. 1—14.; Metaphysics 1074b.!—14; De partibus animalium 1 .5.644b.23-26; sick people through contact with a saint's relics. Here again, no form is
Nicomachean Ethics 6 .7 .1141b. 1-2; and De mutido 2.3922.8-9. Although the last-named
treatise was not by Aristotle, it was always so regarded in the Middle Ages. See also See also North, 1987, 7-8.
Solmsen, i960, 289-290. 16. Thomas Aquinas, Letter [McAllister], 1939. McAllister omits the Latin text but gives an
12. Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, bk. 1, ch. 2 [Robbins], 1948, 5-7. For a brief summary o f its content. English translation from volume 24 of the Vives edition of Aquinas’s Opera omnia (1871-
see Thorndike, 1923-1958, 1:110—116. 1880); for a later edition, see Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII P.M.
13. “ For the sun, together with the ambient, is always in some way affecting everything on edita, vol. 43 (Rome, Editori di San Tommaso. 1976), 183-186. McAllister (15) says the
the earth, not only by the changes that accompany the seasons o f the year to bring about letter was probably written sometime between 1269 and 1272 and, since Thomas died in
the generation o f animals, the productiveness o f plants, the flowing o f waters and the 1274, reflects his mature thoughts on this important subject. The authenticity of the
changes o f bodies, but also by its daily revolutions furnishing heat, moisture, dryness, treatise has never been challenged.
and cold in regular order and in correspondence with its positions relative to the zenith. !7 - Thomas Aquinas, Letter [McAllister], 1939, 20. The translation extends over pages 20 to
The moon, too, as the heavenly body nearest the earth, bestows her effluence most 30 .
abundantly upon mundane things, for most o f them, animate or inanimate, are sympa­ Ibid. 21, 79-80. For Thomas, God is the creator o f all separate substances. Whether
thetic to her and change in company with her; the rivers increase and diminish their Thomas also included God, who is, o f course, a spiritual substance, in the class o f separate
streams with her light, the seas turn their own tides with her rising and setting, and plan15 substances is irrelevant to our discussion, but Thomas seems clearly to imply this in his
and animals in whole or in some part wax and wane with her.” Ibid., 7. Treatise on Separate Substances [Lescoe], 1963, 108.
14. Ibid., 11-13. *9 - North (1987, 8) describes a similar idea bv Albumasar, from whom Thomas may have
Jr
CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 575
574 THE C EL EST IA L R EGIO N

implanted in the relics, but the divine power nevertheless uses them to Roger Bacon), Saint Bonaventure spoke for virtually all scholastics o f the
Middle Ages when he declared:
perform the miraculous cures (Thomas Aquinas [McAllister], 1939, 22).
Species o f bodies or objects that have had forms implanted in them by a
T h e r e a s o n w h y s u p e r io r t h in g s a c t o n in fe r io r t h in g s . . . is b e c a u s e t h e y a re n o b le r
superior agent act in a constant manner. Thus every magnet attracts iron,
b o d ie s a n d e x c e l in p o w e r , j u s t as t h e y e x c e l w i t h r e s p e c t to lo c a t io n . A n d s in c e
and rhubarb always purges a certain humor. By contrast, species ot inferior
th e o r d e r o f th e u n iv e r s e [ordo universitatis] is th a t th e m o r e p o w e r f u l a n d s u p e r io r
bodies in which forms or powers are not intrinsic act irregularly. In such
s h o u ld in flu e n c e th e le ss p o w e r f u l a n d in fe r io r , it is a p p r o p r ia t e f o r th e o r d e r o f th e
instances, the superior agent chooses certain members o f a species and
u n iv e r s e th a t th e c e le s t ia l lu m in a r ie s s h o u ld in flu e n c e th e e le m e n t s a n d e le m e n ta l
confers the power on them alone. Thus “ not every bone nor all relics of
b o d ie s .'4
the saints heal upon touch, but those o f some at some times, . . . nor does
all water ebb and flow according to the movement o f the.m oon” (ibid.).
But how are the two types o f superior agents — that is, the celestial bodies When the creator o f the world made the celestial bodies incorruptible,
or orbs and the separate substances - related? As was customary during the he ordained that they should rule over corruptible and inferior things and
Middle Ages, Thomas assumes that separate substances are superior to for the attainment o f this goal assigned appropriate powers to each celestial
luminary.
corporeal celestial bodies. N ot only do the former exist apart Irom matter,
but Thomas assumed that they are unm oved,'0 whereas the latter exert their
power by their movements. Indeed, the separate substances operate through 2. The empirical basis for celestial causation
celestial bodies to affect the inferior bodies o f the terrestrial region .'1 Thomas
now had the basis for a grand cosmic hierarchy, one that was popular in Thus far I have emphasized metaphysical and even intuitive appeals and
the Middle Ages. At the top are separate substances, followed by the celestial arguments in support o f celestial causal superiority. But empirical evidence
bodies, which are controlled by the separate substances. The inferior bodies, was also invoked. Indeed, beginning with Aristotle there was a steady
in turn, are organized “ in such a w a y . . . that some are less perfect and accumulation o f experiences that were believed to demonstrate the reality
closer to matter, while others, however, are more perfect and closer to o f celestial causation in the terrestrial world. The radical contrast between
superior agents.” 22 In this scheme, the forms o f the elements were the most celestial and terrestrial bodies, the former incorruptible and the latter con­
tinually undergoing change, was itself founded upon observation. “ For in
imperfect, while bodies that approached greater uniformity o f composition
“ became in some way or other like to heavenly bodies. . . . And therefore the whole range o f times past, so far as our inherited records reach,” declared
the greater the uniformity o f mixture which such bodies approach, so much Aristotle, “ no change appears to have taken place either in the whole scheme
the more noble a form do they receive from God. Such is the human body, o f the outermost heaven or in any o f its proper parts,” 2
*5 a claim he supported
13
0
which, enjoying a most uniform composition, as the excellence o f touch by locating meteors, comets, shooting stars, and the M ilky Way in the fiery
in men indicates, has a most noble form, namely a rational soul. ” 23 Thom as’s sphere just below the M oon.26 B y contrast, incessant changes in the sublunar
hierarchical order was arranged according to the nobility ot specific forms, region were readily observable,27 a fact that confirmed the superiority o f
the celestial region to the terrestrial.
all o f which (except, o f course, the soul) derived from superior agents
The most graphic evidence o f specific celestial causation, however, was
associated with the celestial region.
provided by the Sun. Once again Aristotle pointed the way. Numerous
Hierarchy was thus the essential reason w hy celestial bodies and sub­
observations ot the Sun’s annual motion in the ecliptic prompted him to
stances affected the behavior o f terrestrial bodies. It was fitting and proper
that what is more noble and more perfect should influence and guide what
24. Saint Bonaventure [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, pt. 2, art. 2, qu. 2 (“ Utrum diversa luminaria
is less noble and less perfect. With perhaps an occasional exception (possibly
diversas habeant impressiones super corporalia” )], Opera, 188$, 2:360, col. 2. Richard o f
Middleton includes a similar paragraph in Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 5, 1591,
2:188, col. 2. For medieval views on celestial perfection, see Grant, 1985c. Because visual
20. As we saw in Ch. 18, Sec. II.4. c, scholastics differed on this point, some assuming that
rays had to be multiplied or extended all the way to the celestial region for us to see
separate substances are immobile, others that they are mobile and move with their orbs.
celestial bodies, Roger Bacon was convinced that terrestrial influences could affect the
21. Thomas Aquinas, Letter [McAllister], 1939, 25. As John ofjandun put it ([De coelo, bk.
celestial region, but he denies that this would detract from the nobility o f the heavens.
1, qu. 1], 1552, 2r, col. 2): “ The Commentator [Averroes] says in the first book ot this
See Bacon [Lindberg], 1983, 72-75 (text and translation), lxi-lxii (Lindberg’s description);
[De oie/o] that the heaven is the tie [or link: ligamentutn] between abstracted [that is,
also see note 5, this chapter.
separated] substances and inferior things.”
25. Aristotle, De caelo 1.3.270b. 13-17 [Stocks], 1984.
22. Thomas Aquinas, ibid., 26.
20. See the first book o f Aristotle’s Meteorology, especially 1.1.338b.21-25, 1-3-34.1 a.3u—35;
23. Ibid. Thomas placed inanimate bodies, such as stones, metals, and minerals, above simple
1.4.3423.30-31; and 1.8.346b. 10-15.
elemental bodies. The former have not only the powers o f the elements but also other
27. Aristotle, De generatione et cormptione i . i . 3 14b. 13-15.
virtues derived from specific forms that were imparted to them by superior agents.
5 76 THE CELESTIAL REGION
CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 57 7
declare that “ there are facts o f observation in manifest agreement with our
theories. Thus we see that coming-to-be occurs as the sun approaches and ation o f its motion with the tides. Indeed, the association o f the Moon with
decay [occurs] as it retreats.” 2* The Sun also produces the rains that make liquid prompted Themon to mention that humors in animals increased when
life on earth possible (Meteorology 2.2.354b.24-33). Indeed, the Sun’s circular the Moon waxed and decreased when it waned. Physicians regularly linked
motion produces the cycle o f the seasons, and therefore the things associated the M oon’s motion with the critical days o f an illness, which suggested to
with those seasons (De generations et corruptions 2 .1 1.338b. 1—5). Aristotle Themon that “ this could not occur unless the M oon did act powerfully on
also assigned a role to the Sun in human generation when he declared that these inferior things.” 33
“ man is begotten by man and by the sun as w ell” (Physics 2 .2 .194b. 13-14 But the Sun and M oon were only the most obvious celestial agents. The
[Hardie and Gaye]). Although the Sun’s actions on the earth were more other planets also caused a great variety o f terrestrial activities. Tow ard the
noticeable than those o f any other celestial body, Aristotle held that the very end o f the sixteenth century, the Coimbra Jesuits described powerful
totality o f celestial motions was the ultimate source o f change for terrestrial correspondences that were assumed to obtain between the planets and ter­
bodies (Meteorology 1.2.3393.20-33). restrial objects. The planets corresponded to the different parts o f the human
During the period under investigation here, approximately 1200 to 1700, body: the Sun to the heart; Mars to the gallbladder; Jupiter to the liver;
a considerable variety o f other “ experiences” was offered as clear evidence Mercury to the mouth and tongue; Saturn to the head; and so on.34 Also
that the heavens influenced the inferior region."9 As the most obvious source mentioned are the famous Shakespearean “ ages o f man” linked to the seven
o f celestial influence, the Sun and M oon were most frequently cited. Ac­ planets, a linkage that was probably already ancient when Ptolemy included
cording to the Coimbra Jesuits, the Sun’s motion was assumed to cause the them in his Tetrabiblos.3S The M oon corresponds to infancy; Mercury to
four seasons o f the year along with the two equinoxes and tw o solstices, boyhood; Venus to adolescence; the Sun to youth; Mars to the virile age;
thus producing coldness and hotness, which in turn made the generation Jupiter to old age; and Saturn to very old age or senility. Because gold
and destruction o f things possible.2 30 Lesser activities o f the Sun were not
9
2
8 cannot produce gold, nor a gem produce a gem, George de Rhodes (De
ignored, such as, for example, its power to cause heliotropism in flowers coelo, bk. 2, disp. 2, qu. 3, sec. 1, 1671, 297, col. 1), in the seventeenth
and to make the cock crow daily before sunrise.3' In the fourteenth century, century, inferred that only the heavens could cause metals and gems.
Themon Judaeus cited a number o f such experiences (per experientias).32 The ancient world was the source o f this and most similar beliefs. A l­
After the Sun has risen, its light causes heat and also makes seeds and fruits though Aristotle was not among them, some already believed that each
grow; the setting o f the Sun at night causes the temperature to drop and planet influenced a particular species o f metal. The following correspond­
also produces wind and rain. ences, which de Rhodes and many others repeated, were already established:
The Moon manifests its terrestrial influence by the w ell-know n associ- gold was related, or corresponded, to the Sun; silver to the Moon; iron and
steel to Mars; lead to Saturn; tin to Jupiter; mercury to Mercury; copper
28. Ibid., 2 .10.336b. 16-19 [Joachim], 1984. or bronze to Venus.36 Another famous correspondence related the planets
29. Although many scholastics provided lists o f experiences, the examples presented here and bodily humors, for it was assumed that Mars causes yellow bile, Saturn
have been drawn from Themon Judaeus, Meteorology; the Conimbricenses, De coelo; melancholic humor, the Moon generates phlegm, and the Sun and Jupiter
Amicus, De caelo; and de Rhodes, De coelo.
30. Conimbricenses [De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 1, art. 2], 1598. 191. Amicus also included create blood.37 Many also assumed that the planets dominated the four
this one in his lengthy list o f experiences (De caelo, tract. 6, qu. i, art. 1, 1626, 348, col. sublunar elements, where planet and element paired o ff according to similar
2). The tractate on the influences o f the heavens on inferior things (“ Tractatio sexta: De qualities. Thus Saturn dominated earth, the M oon water. Mercury air, and
influxibus caelorum” ) constitutes the longest tract in Amicus's extensive commentary on
De caelo. Mars fire. Indeed, these four planet-element pairings were believed to de-
31. Conimbricenses, ibid. The experience o f heliotropism was included by Amicus, ibid..
349, col. 2, while the cock-crowing example was repeated by de Rhodes [De coelo, disp. 33- Themon Judaeus, ibid. See also Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 1, art. 2,
2, bk. 2, qu. 3, sec. 1], 1671, 297, col. 1. 1598, 191; Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 1, art. 1, 1626, 348, col. 2, and de Rhodes, De
32. Themon Judaeus, Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 1, 1518, 155V, col. 2. Themon was at the coelo, disp. 2, bk. 2, qu. 3, sec. 1, 1671, 297, col. 1. for similar and nearly identical
University o f Paris during the 1350s and perhaps 1360s. In a brief preface to the work examples o f lunar efficacy.
just cited, George Lokert, its editor, ranked Themon, Albert o f Saxony, and Jean Buridan 34- Conimbricenses, ibid., and Amicus, ibid., 349, col. 1.
as a famous triumvirate of eminent men in the celebrated school o f Paris. The passage is 35- See Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, bk. 4, ch. 10 [Robbins], 1948, 441-47. Earlier in the treatise,
quoted by Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, 11. These three scholars were known to Lokert Ptolemy had proposed four ages o f mankind (bk. 1. ch. io. 59-61).
because each had had one or more questiones published on Aristotle’s natural books. 36. De Rhodes, De coelo, disp. 2, bk. 2, qu. 3, sec. 1, 1671, 297, col. 1; see also Themon
Because none o f his questions on Aristotle’s natural books was published until this century. Judaeus, Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. i, 1518, 155V, col. 1 and Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6, qu.
Oresme, who was more brilliant than any o f the three, may have been unknown to 1, art. 1, 1626, 348, col. 2-349, col. 1.
Lokert. 37- Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 1, art. 2. 1598, 191 , and Amicus, ibid., 349,
col. 1.
THE CELEST IAL RE GIO N CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 579
578

termine human complexions: the Moon and water produce a phlegmatic not sufficient. Human offspring could not be generated or survive unless
complexion; Mercury and air a bloody complexion; Mars and fire a choleric the Sun performed its role in the universal scheme o f things, that is, unless
complexion; and Saturn and earth a melancholic com plexion.38 the Sun produced the seasons and the heat that enabled life to survive. At
Finally, it was generally assumed that celestial virtues were the cause of the very least, celestial bodies were essential as concomitant causes that
magnetism. So closely were these related that together they were thought worked in harmony with the causes that operated within terrestrial bodies.
capable o f producing perpetual motion. Themon Judaeus reports that the Problems arose, however, in apportioning roles to celestial and terrestrial
author o f the De magnete (probably Peter Peregrinus, who wrote a Letter causes. Because the celestial region was acknowledged as nobler than the
on the Magnet) declared that if a piece o f iron were placed at each o f the two terrestrial realm, there was often a tendency to overemphasize the causative
poles o f a properly mounted spherical magnet, the magnetic sphere would role o f the celestial region, to the detriment o f terrestrial causation. As­
revolve perpetually and synchronously with the heavens, hecause each part trologers, o f course, did so regularly. But others did so as well, since it
o f the magnet would correspond to a similar part o f the heavens. Thus each had become customary to heap praise on the heavens and their powers and
part o f the heavens influences its corresponding part on the magnet, “ which to declare that all things are governed by the heavens. A reaction to this
would not happen,” says Themon, “ unless every part o f the heavens influ­ tendency is already detectable in the Condemnation o f 1277, as we shall
enced that stone (or magnet] here b elow .” 3'4 see.
The phenomena just described were characterized as “ experiences” and
were thought sufficiently corroborative to convince anyone o f the pervasive
role played by celestial bodies in terrestrial affairs. Am ong such experiences, IV. Can celestial bodies generate living things?
Themon even included the belief o f astrologers that human fortunes and
misfortunes depended on the heavens.40 Because scholastic natural philosophers were agreed that celestial bodies
We have now examined the theoretical and empirical basis for belief in were nobler than inanimate terrestrial bodies,41 they had no difficulty in
the powerful role o f celestial causation in terrestrial affairs. But we must assuming that celestial bodies played a significant, if not essential, role in
keep in mind that if Aristotle and medieval natural philosophers fully ac­ causing generation and corruption among inanimate terrestrial objects.42
cepted a powerful role for celestial control over terrestrial activities, that However, no broad agreement developed as to whether those same celestial
role was not total and complete. Aristotle and his medieval followers also bodies could also produce living things in the terrestrial region. A major
accorded to ordinary terrestrial bodies composed o f matter and form the obstacle was the powerful Christian belief that any living thing, however
ability to develop their own potentialities and to affect other bodies without low ly, was nobler than any inanimate celestial body. Mastrius and Bellutus
the aid o f the heavens. As Thomas Aquinas expressed it, “ A ston e. . . is took it “ as absolutely true that a fly, a flea and a plant are absolutely nobler
moved towards the center [of the earth] according to the property o f earth than the heavens,” 43 a view that was contrary to Aristotle’s opinion. On
dominant in it” (Letter [McAllister], 1939, 20). In its fall to earth, the stone the assumption that a principal cause cannot be less noble than its effect, it
could affect other things with which it came in contact. All o f this did not would require some ingenuity to argue that celestial bodies were capable
seem to involve celestial bodies. H ow could this be? If terrestrial bodies o f generating animate beings nobler than themselves.
had inherent powers o f development and also had the power to affect other Neverthless, scholastics were reluctant to abandon the idea that celestial
bodies, then what role did the heavens play?
41. As Aversa expressed it ([De eaelo, qu. 35, sec. 8], 1627, 194, col. i): ‘‘Corpora enim haec
A frequently cited statement from Aristotle may serve to explain this inanimata sunt absque dubio ignobiliora corporibus caelestibus. ”
apparent dilemma. In the Physics (2.2.194b. 13-14 [Hardie and Gaye]), as 42. In his Orthodox Faith, bk. 2, ch. 7, 1958, 219, John Damascene was one o f the few
Christians who denied the causal efficacy o f celestial bodies on terrestrial bodies when he
we saw earlier in this section, Aristotle explained that “ man is begotten by
declared that “ the stars do not cause anything to happen, whether it be the production
man and by the sun as w ell.” Often using some version o f this phrase, o f things that are made, or events, or the destruction o f things that are destroyed.”
medieval natural philosophers signified that both terrestrial and celestial Although Thomas Aquinas cites this passage ([Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 15, qu. 1, art. 2],
1929-1947, 2:370, 371), he sought to explain it away by insisting that Damascene was
powers were involved in terrestrial activities. A man and a woman were
denying that celestial bodies could influence inferior bodies solely by themselves, without
able to produce offspring naturally, since they possessed the requisite causal any help from God. Thus Damascene was essentially denying a form o f idolatry (Ad
powers. But although those powers were necessary, they were apparently secundum dicendum, quod Damascenus intendit negare a corporibus caelestibus illam
causalitatem quae idolatriam inducebat, ut patet ex praedictis). Ibid., 372.
43 - “ Quare concedendum ut absolute verum muscam. pulicem et plantam esse celo nobiiiores
38. Amicus, ibid.
simpliciter.” Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 3, 1727, 3:501, col. 1, par. 123.
39. Themon Judaeus, Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 1, 15 ■ S. 155V, col. 2. Citing only Agricola,
For more on the greater nobility o f even the lowest animate beings over celestial bodies,
Amicus, ibid., provides a similar account o f the magnet and perpetual motion.
see Chapter 11, Section II.
40. Themon Judaeus, ibid.
580 THE CELESTIAL REGION
CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 581
bodies played a role in the generation o f some, or all, living things. Aristotle
of the lowest forms o f life. But even with the higher forms, indeed the very
proved a source o f support. Aristotelian natural philosophers recognized at
highest, the human species, Aristotle had attributed a role to the Sun when
least two kinds o f living things that were the result o f a generative and/or
he declared that “ man is begotten by man and by the sun as w ell,” 48 sig­
natural process: those that were born by means o f seed, which scholastics
nifying that without the Sun the conditions o f human life could not be
called “ perfect animals,” and those living things that were spontaneously
sustained. Thus were scholastics encouraged to suggest ways in which the
generated from decaying matter, as were a number o f insects, or from
heavens might be involved in the generation o f some, op all, living things.
within by secretions from the organs o f animals.44 These spontaneously
Thomas Aquinas distinguished sharply between the generation o f perfect
generated and secreted creatures o f the second category were described as
and imperfect animals. The former were not generated solely by the uni­
“ imperfect animals.” 45 At least some imperfect animals, say a frog, were
versal power (universalis virtus) o f the Sun but also required a seed within
thought capable o f coming-to-be either by spontaneous generation or by
which a particular power (virtus particularis) resided. But for imperfect an­
means o f seed. A question that naturally arose was whether a frog that was
imals, namely those generated by means o f putrefaction in the absence o f
spontaneously generated by means o f putrefaction was o f the same species
any seed, the power o f the heavens suffices.49 Indeed, in causing the pu­
as a frog that was generated by means o f seed.46 Because he could fmd no
trefaction that results in an imperfect animal - say, a fly or a frog or a flea,
w ay to distinguish between them, Johannes Poncius assumed that they were
to name comm only used examples - it seems that the heavens produce not
no less members o f the same species than were tw o men o f the human
only their bodies but also their souls. The heavens are therefore the direct
species.47 The most plausible place to involve the heavens - especially the
cause o f life in these imperfect creatures. Although Thomas seems to have
Sun - in the generation o f living things was in the spontaneous generation
had no difficulty with this concept, others would later fmd objectionable
44. In his Generation of Animals and History oj Animals, Aristotle developed an elaborate ladder the idea that the heavens could confer life, even on spontaneously generated
o f nature, based upon various reproductive modes associated with different levels o f vital creatures. Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza, for example, conceded that while
heat (see Ross, 1949, 116-117). At one point Aristotle says (History of Animals, 5.1.5393.23- the Sun could produce plants and minerals, it was unable to generate living
25 [Thompson], 1984) that “ with animals some spring from parent animals according to
their kind, whilst others grow spontaneously and not from kindred stock; and of these things from putrefaction, because the Sun is less perfect than those living
some come from putrefying earth or vegetable matter, as is the case with a number of things.50 M ost scholastics, however, would fmd a role for the celestial
insects, while others are spontaneously generated in the inside o f animals out of the bodies, especially the Sun, in the generation o f living things that were
secretions o f their several organs.”
45. Johannes Poncius, in his supplemental commentary on the Sentences ot Duns Scotus, considered more perfect than the Sun. At the very least, many felt that an
makes this common distinction when he says: “ Moreover, here I call those animals perfect explanation or justification was in order.
which always require the generative action o f other animals by means ot the etfusion of One o f these was Durandus de Sancto Porciano. Durandus shows that
seed; those animals which are sometimes generated without a similar mode o f propagation
- for example, frogs, wasps, flies, and similar things - are, for this reason, called imperfect others had been thinking about this problem when he reports an opinion
animals” (Voco autem hie. . . animalia perfecta ilia quae semper requirunt actionem ge- in which it was assumed that, although the heaven is not a living thing, it
nerativam aliorum animalium mediante effusione seminis; ad differentiam aliorum ani- can nonetheless generate living things because it is moved by a living thing,
malium, quae absque simili propagatione quandoque generantur, ut sunt ranae, vespae,
muscae, et similia, quae propterea animalia imperfecta nuncupantur). See Poncius [Sen­ namely, an intelligence. Through the power o f its living intelligence, there­
tences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 3], 1639, vol. 6, pt. 2:742, col. 1. fore, an orb could produce a living thing in the terrestrial w orld.5' Durandus
46. “ Here you seek whether animals made directly from putrid matter without generated rejects this opinion because he finds it implausible that a heaven could receive
seed - for example, wasps [and] frogs - belong to the same species with animals made
from generated seed - for example, wasps and frogs” (Quaeres hie obiter an animalia. anything from its intelligence, whether it was the power o f acting or the
verbi gratia, vespae. ranae, ex putri materia absque semine generata sint eiusdem speciei power to produce anything.5"
cum animalibus, verbi gratia, cum vespis et ranis, ex semine generatis). Poncius, [De But like most others, Durandus was nevertheless convinced that some-
coelo, disp. 22, qu. ult. (qu. 10)], 1672, 633, col. 1. par. 116.
47. “ Secondly, this is proved [as follows]: because there is no apparent reason for making a
specific distinction between them and [because] all other judgments indicate that they 48. Physics, 2.2.194b. 13-14 [Hardie and Gave], 1984.
belong to the same species no less than do two men. Therefore, they belong to the same 49- For twenty-eight statements from the works o f Thomas Aquinas, see Litt, 1963, 130-
species” (Probatur secundo: quia nulla apparet ratio distinctionis specificae inter ilia; et U 3-
omnia alia iudicia sunt quod sint eiusdem speciei non minus quam duo homines. Erg0 50. “ Plantas et mineralia a Sole produci ostendi, disput. 9 Physic, sect. 4, animantia vero
sunt eiusdem species). Ibid. In support o f his position, Poncius cites Scotus, Thomas etiam ex putrefactione genita non hunt a Sole, qui est illis imperfectior. perfectio enim
Aquinas, Richard o f Middleton, Ockham, and John ofjandun. We may add Michael Scot obiecti arguit maiorem perfectionem quam quaelibet actio Solaris.” Hurtado de Mendoza,
([Sphere, lec. 9], 1949, 314), who cites with seeming approval the claim by Averroes, m De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 6, 1615, 375, col. 2, par. 67.
the latter's commentary on book 10 o f Aristotle’s Metaphysics, “ that there is no difference 5i- “ Est intelligendum quod quidam dicunt quod coelum, licet non sit vivens, quia tamen
between things generated from seed by propagation and from things made by putrefac­ movetur a substantia vivente, scilicet ab intelligentia. virtute eius potest aliquod vivens
tion” (Item to methe. dicit commentator quod nulla est diversitas inter generata ex semine generare.” Durandus [SeMteMces, bk. 2, dist. 15, qu. 1], 1571, 157V, col. t, par. 6.
per propagationem et ex se per putrefactionem). 52. After giving a few reasons, Durandus concludes: “ Quod non acquint virtutem agendi,
non acquirit virtutem aliquid producendi. ” Ibid.
582 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 583

how the heavens could produce life or play a role in its generation. He The “ seed” (semen) theory espoused by Durandus and the Coim bra Jesuits
proposed a theory that was repeated during the sixteenth and seventeenth met opposition from Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and Raphael Aversa in
centuries. Durandus likened the heavens, or any individual heaven or orb, the seventeenth century. Hurtado declares his disagreement with Durandus
to a seed. Although a seed is not itself a living thing, it is derived from a and the Conimbricenses, “ who assert that the heavens are sprinkled as if
living thing and can produce a living thing. As something analogous to a with seeds endowed with the power to generate these animals.” He offers
seed, a heaven, or orb, is not alive, yet it possesses the power to produce little detail but says that they have assumed their seed theory “ without any
life, which it does not receive from its intelligence. It receives this power basis” and that the theory “ is improbable, if the talk is about a proper seed. ”
directly from God, who initially conferred upon the heavens the seed o f all Thus Hurtado rejects the analogy. In his view, Durandus and the C on­
generable and corruptible things. God produces this power in the heavens, imbricenses used the term “ seed” im properly.57
and once there it functions just as does the semen o f a horse* which generates Aversa argued that animals that procreate by seed need only the seed and
a power in the horse to produce a horse.53 not a concomitant external influence from the heavens. The production o f
The Coim bra Jesuits, who accepted Durandus’s theory, added further an animal does not arise trom something external to the animal, as happens
qualifications and refinements. Some had objected that the seed to generate when a fire generates a fire. N o additional instrument (instrumentum) is
a new living thing ought somehow to be conjoined to the thing that is required for producing a new anim al.'8 Indeed, Aversa found superfluous
generated. And yet if the heavens are like seeds, they are far removed from the idea o f the heavens as an “ instrument o f G od .” If God is the universal
the terrestrial things that they are alleged to help generate. T o counter this cause o f all forms and powers but also finds it necessary to act in the
apparent difficulty, the Coim bra Jesuits point out that a seed requires two production o f each effect, then the heavens are no more an “ instrument o f
things: (i) that it not be separate from the thing that it generates; and (2) God” than any other secondary cause. With such an interpretation, all
that it should have within itself a generative power transmitted by the thing secondary causes would seem to be superfluous, because they could not be
that generated it. O nly the second condition is met. But that is sufficient genuine principal causes able to act in accordance with the powers conferred
to enable the heavens to function as if they were seeds, since it is not upon them .59
necessary that things that are called similar be similar in every respect.54 taneously without seed. Poncius listed frogs among animals that are sometimes generated
Durandus and the Coimbra Jesuits ignored a glaring difficulty. If a horse, without seed (see notes 45-46 o f this chapter).
for example, can produce the semen that will produce another horse, is it 56. “ Propter hoc conati sunt aliqui explicare caelum esse solum causam disponentem ad
generationem talium viventium, causam vero propnam et principalem esse adhuc alia
not superfluous to invoke the heavens? In his seventeenth-century summary similia viventia, ita ut in generatione ranae, verbi gratia, causa principalis sit adhuc alia
o f the theory o f Durandus and Conimbricenses, Raphael Aversa supplied rana. Quia, inquiunt, omnes dispositiones a caelo inductae sunt instrumentum debitum
an answer when he explained that they and others assigned to the heavens ac proportionatum alteri ranae ad producendum sibi sinulem ranam." Aversa, De caelo,
qu. 55, sec. 8, 1627, 195, col. 1. Poncius Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 3, 1639, vol. 6,
the role o f a “ disposing cause,” or the role o f an “ instrument o f God” pt. 2.742, col. 2, describes a similar theory in which he says that “ the principal productive
(;instrumentum Dei) rather than a direct, generating cause. The principal cause cause o f a frog is another frog, in virtue o f which the heaven produces this frog” (Alii
is the animal itself. Thus a frog is the principal cause in the generation ot dicunt causam principalem productivam animalium miperfectorum esse alia similia ani-
malia, verbi gratia, causam principalem productivam ranae esse aliam ranam, in virtute
another fro g .55 But the heavens are a disposing cause that makes the gen­ cuius caelum producit illam ranam).
eration o f the frog possible. 56 57. “ Neque assentior Durando et P. Conimb. asserentibus coelum esse respersum quasi
seminaria virtute gignendi haec animalia, turn quia sine fundamento ponitur, turn quia
$3. “ Ideo dicendum quod sicut in semine, quod non est vivens, est virtus generativa rei si intelligatur de proprio semine est improbabilis.” Hurtado de Mendoza. De coelo, disp.
viventis, pro eo quod semen decisum est a vivente. Sic in coelo, licet non sit vivens, est 2, sec. 6, 1615, 375, col. 2, par. 67.
virtus generativa rerum viventium, non quia motum ab intelligentia. nec quia virtus sit 58. “ Ac praeterea modus proportionatus et debitus generandi sibi simile in animalibus non
ei influxa ab aliqua intelligentia creata, sed quia productum est a Deo tatiquam quoddam est per modum extrinsecum, quo verbi gratia ignis generat ignem; sed per modum vitalis
semen omnium generabilium et corruptibilium. Et sic coelum agit in virtute Dei ad propagationis. Igitur in illo casu nullum est instrumentum proportionatum et debitum
productionem viventium, sicut semen equi in virtute equi generantis ad producendum alteri animali ad gignendum illud quod de novo producitur." Aversa. De caelo, qu. 35,
sec. 8, 1627, 195, col. 2.
equum.” Ibid., par. 7.
54. “ Respondemus coelum non vocari a nobis semen, sed veluti semen quod sit atfectum 59- “ Ideo rursus Durandus, . . . Conimbricenses, . . . et Ruvius, . . . Fonseca, . . . Suarez, . . . et
virtute quasi semmaria viventium. Nimirum ad rationem seminis duo (ut nunc cetera quidam alii asserunt caelum operari potius tanquam instrumentum Dei a quo vere accepit
omittamus) requiruntur. Alterum, ut non sit disiunctum a re quae generatur; alterum, ut omnem suam virtutem. Et ita Deum esse causam principalem illorum animalium. Verum
habeat in se virtutem generativam a gemtore tranl'usam. Nos ergo non ob priorem, sed si hoc dicatur inquantum Deus est causa universalis dans omnibus rebus suas formas et
ob posteriorem conditionem dicimus corpus coeleste esse quasi semen. Non emm ea quae virtutes et actualiter quoque concurrens ad omnem operationem; s c non magis did debebit
similia vocantur in omnibus similia esse oportet. ” Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. caelum in tali operatione agere ut instrumentum Dei quam omnia alia causa secunda in
omni alia operatione. At hoc non toliit quominus causa secunda in suo genere dicatur
3, qu. 6, art. 2, 1598, 212.
55. Although a frog was considered an “ imperfect” animal, it was generally believed that it vere causa principalis ac debeat esse vel aequalis vel maioris perfections cum suo effectu.”
Ibid., 196, col. 2.
could be produced from seed in a normal reproductive mode, as well as generated spon-
584 THE C E L E S T IA L R E G IO N CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 585

Did this imply that Aversa denied a role to the heavens? N ot at all. Aversa d o n o t im m e d ia t e ly a c h ie v e th e p r o d u c t io n o f a n y s o u l - n e it h e r as a p r in c ip a l ca u se

found common cause with Durandus and others, who had identified, as he [causa principalis] n o r as an in s t r u m e n t a l [instrumentalis] [ca u s e ] - [n o t] e v e n o f im ­
believed, a “ formative power” (virtus formativa) in the heavens which plaved p e rfe c t a n im a ls .

a role in the formation o f living things.606 12Whether the heavens act as an


instrument o f God or an instrument o f an intelligence or even as a principal In this conclusion, Poncius makes tw o points. First he insists that celestial
cause, Aversa was convinced that they acted “ by a peculiar power and bodies are capable o f producing all living things, even man. As evidence,
faculty that they have both for forming the bodies o f such living things, he cites Aristotle’s oft-quoted declaration that “ man is begotten by man
with their organs and parts, and for producing and bringing forth a soul and by the sun as w ell.” 66 Poncius would have agreed with Thomas Com p-
from the potency o f matter.” This power is appropriately called “ a for­ ton-Carleton, who described the heaven as a “ universal cause” (causa univ­
mative and animative power” (virtus formativa et animativa).6' ersalis) because it influences every sublunar effect,67 an expression that
But did this not raise the old dilemma: H ow can something less noble Thomas Aquinas had already used in the thirteenth century with much the
generate something more noble? that is, how could the less noble heavens same signification.68 Even reason supports this conclusion, since one can
generate more noble living things? Aversa explains that the heavens are not reason that someone born under one constellation would have different
necessarily more ignoble than all living bodies. Although the rational soul inclinations and tendencies than if born under another constellation. Some
and a man are noblq- than any heaven,6" plants, which operate solely with constellations are even thought to be helpful and others harmful.69
a vegetative soul, may not be absolutely nobler than celestial bodies.63 Poncius’s second point — that the heavens cannot directly produce a soul
Indeed, Aversa regarded the heavens as the principal cause o f all living - conflicted with an opinion shared by a number o f scholastic authors,
things that were generated without natural means, which presumably en­ especially Aversa, who was among those “ who thought that the souls o f
compassed all things that Aristotle, and many others, had regarded as pro­ imperfect animals, namely o f those [animals] that are produced without the
duced by spontaneous generation.64* Aversa leaves unclear whether the intervention o f seed, are produced by the heavens from putrid matter, as
heavens are also the “ principal cause” (causa principalis) o f living things that [with] frogs, wasps, fleas, and similar things.” 70 Because he remained con-
are generated from seeds. 65. “ Corpora coelestia concurrunt ad productionem vivendum omnium, edam hominum,
In his 1672 Aristotelian commentary from the Scotist point o f view, disponendo materiam tali vel tali modo in ordine ad recepdonem animarum. Non tamen
Johannes Poncius took issue with Aversa. He first enunciates an important atdngunt immediate productionem ullius animae. etiam ammalium imperfecdorum, ne-
que tanquam causa principalis, neque tanquam instrumentalis.” Poncius, De coelo, disp.
conclusion: 22, qu. ult. (qu. 10), conclus. 3, 1672, 631, col. 2, par. 108. Alluding more than likely
to both inanimate and animate things, Thomas Compton-Carleton, De coelo, disp. 2, sec.
C e le s t ia l b o d ie s a c t t o g e t h e r f o r th e p r o d u c t io n o f all l i v i n g t h in g s , e v e n m a n , b y 4, 1649, 404, col. 1, declared that “ the heaven is a principal cause with respect to effects
d is p o s in g m a t t e r in th is o r th a t m a n n e r in o r d e r to r e c e iv e s o u ls . H o w e v e r , th ey that are more imperfect than it; [but] it is an instrumental cause with respect to effects
that are more perfect than it” (Est autem coelum causa principalis respectu effectuum qui
60. “ Caeterum Durandus et alii plures tribuunt caelo peculiarem virtutem formativam ad sunt ipso imperfecdores; instrumentalis respectu effectuum ipso perfectiorum).
gignenda talia animalia inditam illi a Deo, veluti virtutem seminalem.” Ibid., 197, col. 66. Aristotle makes this remark in Physics, 2.2.194b. 14 [Hardie and Gaye]. Poncius, ibid.,
1. expresses the saying as “ Quod sol et homo generet hominem” which can be translated
61. “ Verum, sive caelum in tali operatione agat ut instrumentum Dei aut Intelligentiae, sive literally as “ the Sun and a man generate a man.” Michael Scot, Sphere, lec. 9, 1949, 314,
ut causa principalis, agit utique per peculiarem virtutem et facultatem quam habet, nun cites Aristotle's On Generation and Corruption, book 2, as the source o f this remark. See
ad efformanda corpora talium vivendum. cum suis organis et membris, turn ad produ- also Hurtado de Mendoza, De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 4, 1615, 374, col. 2, par. 57. Although
cendam ac educendam de potenda materiae animam. Nam utique debet exercere talem Compton-Carleton (ibid.) cited the usual text (Aristotle, Physics, bk. 2, text 26), he altered
operationem per virtutem aptam et propordonatam. Atque haec virtus recte dicetur virtus this frequently cited phrase to read: “ the Sun and a horse generate a horse” (sol et equus
formativa et animativa et ad instar virtuds seminalis in suo genere.” Ibid., cols. 1-2. generant equum). He also attributed to Aristotle (in the latter's De generatione, bk. 1, text
62. “ At sine dubio comparando formam caeli cum anima radonali et celum cum homine, 55) the opinion that the Sun is “ the author and parent o f sublunar things.”
manifeste quidem apparet valde nobiliorem gradum esse animae et hominis.” Ibid., qu- 67. “ Quaeritur ad quos in particulari effectus concurrant caeli et astra? Universim affirmare
33, sec. 7, 113, col. 1. videntur auctores coelum influere in omnes omnino effectus rerum sublunarium et prop-
63. “ Sed fortasse necesse non erit dicere corpora celestia esse simpliciter ignobiliora omnibus terea illud vocant causam universalem." Compton-Carleton, ibid.
corporibus animads. Quinimo si comparado fiat cum plands, quae sola vegetadva anima 68. Thomas used causa universalis as equivalent to the expressions natura universalis and agens
vivunt, non sunt sane adeo insignes operationes huius animae, ut debeant simpliciter universale. Litt, 1963, 154—166, has gathered fifteen examples o f these usages.
praeferri operationibus caeli.” Ibid., 112, col. 2. 69. Poncius (De coelo, disp. 22, qu. ult. [qu. 10], 1672, 631, col. 2, par. 108) offers this
64. “ D id ergo tandem poterit caelum ipsum esse sufficientem causam principalem talium information in support o f the first part o f his conclusion, namely that celestial bodies
vivendum iuxta id quod notavimus q. 33, sect. 7 non debere necessario caelum dici produce all living things.
essentialiter ignobilius omnibus corporibus vivendbus. Sic enim opdme caelum dicetur 70. Poncius (ibid.) includes Aversa, Fonseca, Marsilius [of Inghen?], and Suarez with those
vera causa principalis illorum vivendum que absque propagatione naturaliter generantur. “ qui putant animas animalium imperfectiorum, eorum scilicet, quae producuntur absque
Ibid., qu. 35, sec. S, 197, col. 1. For citations from question 33, section 7, see notes 62- interventu seminis ex putri materia, ut sunt ranae, vespae, pulices, et similia, produci a
63. coelis.” It is likely that Thomas Aquinas also believed this.
586 THE CELESTIAL REGION
CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 587
vinced that any soul is more perfect than celestial bodies, Poncius assumed
the cosmos was a continuum were motion, light, and influence able to cause
that “ [souls] cannot be produced by celestial bodies because what is more
the variety o f effects that was deemed indispensable for the preservation o f
imperfect cannot directly produce something more perfect. ” 71
inanimate and animate things in the terrestrial region.
And yet Poncius was puzzled about the assumption that the heavens are The three instrumentalities caused effects largely by producing the four
more imperfect than any living thing and found it difficult to explain. Life
primary qualities - hotness, coldness, wetness, and dryness - that generated
at the vegetative level hardly seemed more perfect than the celestial bodies.72
the four elements.75 Speaking for most scholastic natural philosophers, Bar­
Plants probably seemed less vital than spontaneously generated fleas or
tholomew Amicus declared: “ N o one denies that all elementary qualities
wasps. But Poncius did not abandon his belief that all living things were
are produced by the heavens, but, because they can be produced directly,
more perfect than any celestial body.
or per se, and indirectly, or per accidens, the debate concerns the manner in
Despite differences o f opinion, scholastic natural philosophers assigned a which they are produced.” 76 Although the three instrumentalities were the
significant role to the celestial bodies in producing living things, even as means by which celestial causes operated, most scholastics, probably fol­
they conceded that most, if not all, living things were more noble and lowing a long astrological tradition, attributed to each planet the power to
perfect than the heavens. We must now consider the ways in which celestial produce one or more primary qualities. Thus the Sun was capable ot causing
bodies were thought to effect sublunar bodies, both inanimate and animate. hotness in sublunar things and the Moon wetness. Astronomers and as­
trologers were agreed that “just as some planets make things hot, so others
make things cold.” 77 Indeed, Amicus ({De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 5,
V. The instrumentalities o f celestial action art. 2], 1626, 371, col. 2) traced coldness to Saturn, wetness to the Moon,
dryness to Mars, and hotness to the Sun. Although Amicus and other
With the causes o f so many effects and experiences attributed directly to scholastics traced the causes o f the four primary qualities to different planets,
celestial bodies, it was natural to inquire how those effects were transmitted they did not mean to attribute these qualities to the planets themselves. The
to the sublunar region. Three instrumentalities o f celestial action were often Sun itself was not a hot body, nor was the M oon a cold body, and so on.
identified: (i) motion (motus); (2) light (lumen); and (3) influence (influential).73 The Sun was capable o f causing heat in other bodies but did not itself
Scholastics were unanimous in the belief that these instrumentalities could possess the attribute hotness. The medieval mode o f expression was to call
operate only if the celestial and terrestrial regions were joined in a man­ the Sun virtually hot but not actually hot. This explains the usual terminol­
ner that made it impossible for vacua to exist between them, for otherwise, ogy, such as “ frigefactive,” and “ calefactive.” The Sun, for example, was
as Themon Judaeus explained, “ the heaven could not act on this calefactive, that is, capable o f causing heat in other bodies, but was not
world . . . ,because action cannot occur through a vacuum .” 74 O nly because
est agens et ilia inferiora patiuntur ab 1II0.” Themon Judaeus, Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 1,
71. “ Probatur secunda pars: quia anima quaecumque est perfectior formis coelestibus, ergo
1518, 1561-, col. 1. De Magistris also insisted that the heaven and inferior regions must
non possunt a corporibus coelestibus produci quia imperfectius non potest producere
be continuous in order to avoid a vacuum (see his Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 2, 1490. 8, col.
immediate perfectius.” Ibid., par. 109.
2). The denial o f vacuum at the points o f contact between the celestial ana terrestrial
72. “ Rationem autem assignare cur coeli sint imperfectiores quolibet vivente, est mihi valde
regions was but a special case o f the universally held medieval dictum that “ Nature abhors
difficile; nec sane occurrit ulla quae comprehendat viventia vita vegetativa tantum.” Ibid.
a vacuum.” See Grant. 1981a, 67-100. Although medieval natural philosophers frequently
73. Among those who accepted this threefold division were Themon Judaeus. Meteorology'
discussed imaginary vacua, not one o f them, to my knowledge, accepted the real existence
bk. 1, qu. 1. 1518, 155V, col. 1; Albert o f Saxony [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 12], 1518. 109V.
o f void space anywhere within the cosmos.
coi 1; Johannes de Magistris [Meteorology, bk. 1. qu. 2], 1490, 8, col. 2 (unpaginated; I
75- Aristotle explains the generation o f the four elements from the four primary qualities in
have counted from the beginning ot the 1Meteorology); Paul o f Venice [Liber celi[, 1476.
his On Generation atui Corruption.
sig. g3r, col. 2—g3v, col. 1; and John Case [Physics, bk. 8, ch. 6|, 1599, 825. The same
76. “ Nemo negat quod producantur a caelo omnes qualitates elementares. Sed quia possunt
threefold division was still in vogue during the seventeenth century; see, for example,
produci directe, seu per se, et indirecte, seu per accidens, discrimen est de modo prod-
Amicus, who treated each at great length in De caelo, tract. 6, qus. 5 (light), 6 (motion),
ucendi.” Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 8, dubit. 4, 1626, 418, col. 2. In offering his own
and 7 (influences or occult qualities), 1626, 356, col. 1-398, col. 2; Mastrius and Bellutus.
opinion. Amicus declares that “ these four qualities ought to be intended by nature, per
De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 2, 1727, 3:494, col. 1, par. 65 (where they substitute illuminatio
se and directly, by the actions o f agents that are ordained for the preservation o f the
for lumen) and disp. 2, qu. 7, art. 4, $17, col. 1, par. 226; and Illuminatus Oddus [De
universe. Among these agents are the heavens, without the influence ot which the status
coelo, disp. 1, dub. 29], 1672, 100—108. Oresme’s position is problematic: he accepted it
o f the universe could not be preserved." Ibid., dubit. 4, art. 2, 420, cols. 1—2. Mastrius
in one work, and in another he both accepted and subsequently rejected it. Thus he mav
and Bellutus held that the planets are the direct cause o f coldness, wetness, hotness, and
have been one o f the few who did not accept this threefold division o f the transmission
dryness (De coelo, disp. 2, qu. 7. art. 2, 1727, 3:511, cols. 1-2, pars. 192-193).
of celestial effects (see Sec. V.3 o f this chapter).
77 “ Unde sicut aliquae stellae calefaciunt, ita alique frigefaciunt; et omnes astronomi dicunt
74. The essentials o f Themon’s brief argument follow: “ Necesse est istum mundum esse
hoc.” John ofjandun, De coelo, bk. 2, qu. :2, 1552, 30r, col. 2. We must recall that
contiguum et immediatum celo. Probatur quia alias oporteret poni vacuum inter celum
although the Sun could cause heat in other things, it was not itselt hot; nor was the Moon
et mundum ’istum et tunc celum non posset agere in mundum istum . . . quia actio non
wet, and so on. The planets did not possess the primarv qualities that they were able to
fieret per vacuum. Patet etiam ex hoc: quia agens debet esse immediatum passo; et celum
cause in other things.
CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 589
588 THE CE L E S T IA L RE G IO N

itself hot. Saturn was a frigefactive body, but was not itself a cold planet rightly it seems, with the Averroist position.82 According to Johannes Ver-
Followers o f Aristotle had no choice but to make such a distinction, because sor in the fifteenth century, Thomas held that a cessation o f celestial motion
they were convinced that the four primary qualities - hotness and coldness would be followed by a cessation o f terrestrial, or inferior, m otion.83 At
and wetness and dryness — could not exist in the heavens as pairs o f op­ the end o f the sixteenth century, the Coimbra Jesuits attributed the same
posites. For if they did, they would inevitably cause changes and alterations opinion to Thomas, even as they disagreed with him on this important
84
in that region, the occurrence o f which Aristotle, and all his followers issue.
denied.78 During the next two centuries, supporters o f the Averroes—Aquinas po­
O ur concern, however, is not with the qualitative properties assigned to sition were much in evidence: John ofjandun in the fourteenth century and
this or that planet but with the three instrumentalities that were believed Johannes Versor and Johannes de Magistris in the fifteenth.85 In his com­
to produce the multiplicity o f effects that governed and preserved the world. mentary on De substantia orbis, John ofjandun fully supported this opinion
o f Averroes. Jandun explains that the destruction o f all inferior things would
follow upon the destruction o f celestial motion, not only because all inferior
I. Motion things depend for their existence - that is, their coming-to-be - on celestial
motion, but also because they depend on it for their very preservation. With
O f the three types o f celestial causes, the category o f motion was probablv reference to the second book o f Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione,
considered the mose- fundamental for generation and corruption. Although
Themon Judaeus had attributed to Aristotle the position that celestial motion
82. The “ contrary evidence’’ appears in Aquinas’s letter on the occult works o f nature, where
is the primary motion and therefore causes and rules all other motions,798 0it he seems to have assumed that the actions o f an element that derived from its nature
was Aristotle’s great Arabian commentator who made a much more sweep­ were independent o f celestial motions or influences (see Sec. III. 1 o f this chapter). How­
ing claim for the dominion o f celestial motion over terrestrial change. In ever, relevant passages from his other works support the interpretation o f Versor, the
Coimbrajesuits, and Amicus, as a scanning of a limited sampling o f nine passages gathered
his widely known De substantia orbis, Averroes declared that
by Litt, 1963, 146—147, reveals. Although Amicus includes Aquinas among those who
adopted the Averroist position, he does say that some believe that Thomas changed his
opinion (Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 8, dubit. 2, art. 2, 1626, 407, col. 1).
th e G iv e r o f th e c o n t in u a t io n o f m o t io n is [ a ls o l th e G i v e r o f c e le s t ia l m o t io n [dator
83. “ Sed secundum sanctum Thomam est dicendum quod cessante motu celi cessarent omnes
motus coeli], F o r i f n o t , m o t io n w o u l d b e d e s t r o y e d , a n d i f m o t io n w e r e d e s tr o y e d , motus inferiores.” Johannes Versor [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 5], 1493, 2or, col. 1. Perhaps
s o w o u l d th e h e a v e n i t s e l f [b e d e s t r o y e d ] . I n d e e d , th e h e a v e n e x is t s b e c a u s e o f its Versor had in mind Aquinas’s statement in De potentia qu. 5, art. 8. where Thomas
declares that “ with the cessation o f celestial m otion. . . there will be no action by which
m o t io n ; a n d i f c e le s tia l m o t io n w e r e d e s t r o y e d , th e m o t io n o f a ll in f e r io r b e in g s
matter is changed, [a process] which [normally] follows generation and corruption’’ (Et
w o u l d b e d e s t r o y e d a n d s o a ls o w o u l d th e w o r l d . F r o m th is [ th e n ], it is v e r ifie d ideo cessante motu coeli. . . non autem erit actio per quam transmutatur materia, quam
th a t th e G i v e r o f th e c o n t in u a t io n o f m o t io n is th e G i v e r o f e x is t e n c e t o a ll o th e r sequitur generatio et corruptio). M y translation from Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones dis-
putatae, 1925, 2:200, col. 1. Another statement supporting Versor’s interpretation occurs
b e i n g s .”0
in Aquinas’s [De caelo, bk. 2, lec. 4], 1952, 166. par. 342, where Aquinas declares: “ it is
better to say that, with the motion o f the heaven ceasing, every motion ot interior bodies
would cease, just as Simplicius says, because the powers o f inferior bodies are like material
For Averroes, then, not only were terrestrial bodies influenced and affected and instrumental things with respect to celestial powers, so that those [material and
by celestial motion but their very existence depended on it. For much of instrumental powers] do not move [i.e.. do not cause motion] unless they have been
the thirteenth century, Averroes’ attitude was influential. Sometime around moved [by something else, namely by celestial powers].” In this passage, Thomas is
presenting his own opinion, not Aristotle's. Since Thomas’s De caelo was apparently his
1271, Robcrtus Anglicus explained that the sky moved continuously because last work, we may conclude that we have here his final opinion on this topic.
without celestial motion nothing could be moved here below, thus implying 84. The Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 4, art. 2, 1598, 202, explain: “ therefore
that the inferior region could not exist without the heavenly motion.81 Saint Thomas thought that if the heaven ceased its motion, neither the heaven itself nor
sublunar bodies could produce anything from prior actions. . . . This,” they continue, “ is
Despite some evidence to the contrary, Thomas Aquinas was also identified, the opinion o f Saint Thomas, which, although it is defended in the Peripatetic school
with great probability and has neither few nor ignoble defenders, has nevertheless proved
78. For earlier discussions, see Chapter 17, Section IV.4, and Chapter 10, Section II. 1. a. unsatisfactory for us. ”
85. Nicole Oresme might appear to belong to this group when he declares (Le Livre du del,
79. Themon cites book 8 o f the Physics, where Aristotle derives the unmoved mover and
bk. 2, ch. 22, 1968, 511) that “ the position and grouping o f the heavenly bodies, the
establishes the superiority o f circular motion over rectilinear and therefore o f celestial
number, speed, quality, and diversity or difference o f their motions are all arranged
motion over terrestrial. See Themon Judaeus, Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 1, 1518, 156c.
col. 1. expediently and have for their principal purpose the generation and preservation ot ter­
restrial bodies.” (North, 1986, 93, offers his own translation o f this passage.) However,
80. See Averroes, De substantia orbis. 1562-1574, 9:10V, col. 1. The passage has also been
as we shall see shortly, in our examination o f Oresme’s use o f the Joshua miracle, Oresme
translated by Duhem in Le Systeme, 1913-1959, 6:59-60.
qualified this in the very same treatise and allowed that preservation o f terrestrial bodies
81. This is one o f tour reasons given by Robertus to explain why the sky moves. Robertus
Anglicus [Sphere, lec. 3], 1949, 154 (Latin), 208 (English). did not wholly depend on celestial motions.
590 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 591
Jandun explains that although the Sun’s motion around the ecliptic causes motion” (primus motus), that is, the daily east-to-west motion o f the spheres
generation and corruption in the lower world, the daily motion o f all celestial o f the fixed stars and planets. But the variety o f generations and corruptions
bodies causes the eternal continuity and preservation o f inferior bodies is caused by the approach and withdrawal o f the Sun in its annual west-to-
With such total dependence on celestial motion, the inferior, or sublunar east motion in the ecliptic (the oblique circle). The situation is even more
part o f the cosmos would obviously be destroyed if the celestial motions complex, however, because generations require a different source o f motion
ceased.86 For Jandun, as for all who adopted this position, the only exception than do corruptions. Hence a plurality o f celestial motions is essential to
to the total dominance o f celestial bodies over terrestrial bodies was human maintain the daily operation o f the universe.
actions. “ Celestial bodies,” Jandun explained, “ do not have the power for In view o f his strong emphasis on the necessity o f a plurality o f celestial
causing the intellect to understand or not to understand and for necessitating motions for terrestrial generations and corruptions, we are not surprised to
the will to choose or not to choose, or to will or not to w ill.” 878 learn, later in the same question, that Versor selects motion as the most
If the celestial region affected the terrestrial region by motion, some fundamental o f the three instrumentalities ([De celo, bk. 2, qu. 5], 1493,
scholastics, especially those who followed the Averroist position, inquired 2or, col. 1). Indeed, light and influence are both dependent on motion for
whether more than one motion is required to cause generation and corrup­ diffusion and multiplication to inferior things. Hence they could not them­
tion. In his treatment o f this question. Johannes Versor presented a series selves cause the motions o f inferior things. Celestial motion was thus the
o f six conclusions drawn from Aristotle’s De caelo and De generatione et supreme and sole cause o f terrestrial motion and change.
corruptione m Versor used the first five to establish the existence o f the four
elements (earth, air, water, and fire) and their need to undergo continual
generation and corruption.89 In the sixth conclusion,90 however, he argues a. Celestial motion and the generation of heat in terrestrial things
that a plurality o f celestial motions is necessary to cause terrestrial gener­
If the celestial region caused effects in the terrestrial zone, what effects did
ations and corruptions. However, the heavens do not only cause generations
it transmit, and how did it transmit them? What mechanism could convert
and corruptions but also conserve things. No one thing in the universe,
celestial motions to terrestrial effects? One persistent claim was that celestial
with its single circular motion, can perform both activities simultaneously.
motions produced heat in the inferior world.
Permanence and continuity o f existence are the province o f the “ prime
We can scarcely doubt the belief o f most scholastics that, directly or
86. “ Notandum est quod dicit [i.e., Averroes] si destrueretur motus coeli, et tunc destruer- indirectly, the motions o f the celestial orbs played a dominant, if not de­
entur omnia inferiora. Et hoc ideo quia coelum non est solum causa in esse istis inl'er- cisive, role in terrestrial change. This was so because nearly everyone be­
ionbus. sed etiam in conservari. Nam, sicut apparet secundo De generatione et lieved that, in some sense, celestial motions caused the tw o pairs ot
Commentator assumit secundo Coeli et tnundi, motus solis in obliquo circulo est causa
generationis et corruptioms; motus autem diurnus est causa continuitatis et perpetuitatis
fundamental qualitative opposites that Aristotle had identified as the ultimate
et conservationis aeterne in re naturali. Quare patet coelum esse causam istorum inferiorum mechanisms for all terrestrial change, namely hotness and coldness and
non solum in esse sed etiam in conservari; sed destructa causa conservativa, destruitur wetness and dryness. 91 O f these qualities, hotness was easily the most active
effectus; quare destructo motu coeli, destruerentur omnia ista interiora."John ofJandun,
De substantia orbis, 1552, 49r, col. 2. and important, and it was the quality most discussed. For Aristotle had
87. “ Corpora coelestia non habent virtutem ad causandum intellectum ad intelligendum vel declared in De caelo (bk. 2, ch. 7) that as the planets rotate, they cause heat
non intelligendum et ad necessitandum voluntatem ad eligendum vel non eligendum vel and light in the air below. Because each planet is carried around by an orb,
volendum vel non volendum.” For this opinion, see John o f Jandun, De coelo. bk. 1, qu.
i, 155—, col. 1.
the planets themselves and their orbs do not produce friction in the celestial
88. Versor, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 5 (“ Whether, in order to save generation and corruption in ether and do not catch fire, but somehow they manage to heat the air below
inferior things, it is necessary that the heaven be moved bv a plurality o f motions”), the Moon. Indeed, the Sun is a direct cause o f heat, because it is near the
1493, 19V. A somewhat briefer presentation o f the same six conclusions, called “ condi­
tionals” (conditionales), was also given by de Magistns, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 2 (“ Whether air and its motion is sufficiently rapid to cause the air to heat up.9" According
a plurality o f spheres and their motions must be necessarily assumed because o f generations
and corruptions” ), sig. kqv, col. 1. Since Versor and de Magistris were contemporaries 91. Thus Jean Buridan explains ([De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 17], 1942, 207, lines 26-30) that what
in Paris during the second half o f the fifteenth century, it is not implausible to assume follows is true and may be conceded, namely that “ the local motion ot the heaven causes
that one derived the six conclusions or conditionals from the other or else that both drew in inferior things both hotness and coldness, and wetness and dryness, not [however]
on an earlier source. Indeed, early in the fourteenth century, John o f Jandun considered properly and by itself [i.e., not directly]; but [indirectly through] the Sun and the planets,
the same problem (“ Whether in the heavens, a plurality o f motions ought to be assumed which cause hotness and coldness, wetness and dryness in inferior things.” Buridan's
for the different parts [of the heavens]” ) in five “ consequences” (consequentiae). John ot opinion conflicts directly with that which he attributes to Averroes. where the latter denies
Jandun, De coelo, bk. 2, qu 7, 1552, 2jr. cols. 1-2. the capacity o f individual planets and orbs to cause heat in inferior bodies but attributes
89. The first five are based on Aristotle, De caelo 2.3.2863.3-286^9, and De ^eneratione et that to the entire heaven, taken as a single thing.
corruptione, ch. 3. 92. See Aristotle, Meteorology 1.3.3413.19-28 [Webster], 1984, where Aristotle explains why
90. The sixth conclusion was drawn from Aristotle’s De generatione 2 .10.336a. 15—336b. 15. the Sun is the ideal planet to heat the air. “ For a motion that is to have this ettect must
592 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 593

to a usual interpretation o f Aristotle, the latter taught that “ all planets heat then each sphere ought to cause as much heat as any other sphere. But we
inferior things by their motions because they [the planetary motions] drag must rightly concede “ that the motion o f the Sun’s sphere causes more
the sphere o f fire, and the upper part o f the air, with them.” These motions hotness in inferior things than the motion o f other spheres, because it [i.e.,
cause parts o f the air and fire to separate and collide, setting them on fire. 93 the Sun’s sphere] adapts [or accommodates] for us the planet that has the
Thus Aristotle had attributed the cause o f heat in inferior things to both greatest capacity for making heat, namely the Sun itself.” 97
the Sun and other planets. For obvious reasons, it was the Sun that received However, Buridan reports that others - Averroes and Peter o f Auvergne,
the most attention, making it plausible to ask how the Sun’s motion could for example - sought to indicate ways by which one might link celestial
heat the air when the Sun lies beyond the M oon in the celestial region and motion directly to the production o f heat in inferior things. Averroes con­
the air lies below the fire, or is perhaps even intermingled with the fire, in ceived o f the multiplicity o f planetary orbs and the starry orb as forming
the sublunar region. In order for the motion o f the Sun, or its orb, to one single heaven that was akin to an animal. In this scheme, the multiplicity
produce heat in the sublunar region - even the sublunar region immediately o f orbs o f the single heaven were analogous to the various members o f the
below the concave surface o f the lunar sphere - it would have to generate animal.98 This one great body had as its concave surface the innermost
the heat by means o f friction, “ w hereby,” as Simon de Tunstede explained, surface o f the lunar sphere. Since it was a single body, capable o f acting as
“ a body capable o f causing heat is rubbed against another b od y.” 94 But a single body, the heaven could affect the region below the M oon’s concave
how could the Sun produce heat by friction when it was not even in contact surface because it was in direct contact with it and hence could act, as
with the airy region below? Buridan summarized it, “ not only by its ultimate [concave] surface, but
Here indeed was a difficult problem, as Jean Buridan recognized. He also by its total depth.” Thus the Sun, and all other orbs o f the whole
readily conceded that it was manifest to our senses that motion causes heat heaven, could act on the inferior region, but none o f them, including the
and can make some things hot. After all, if w e run we become hot; if we Sun, could affect anything independently. Thus the Sun did not need to be
vigorously rub two hard bodies together, we also produce heat; and if we in direct contact with the air in order to heat it."A s a member o f the single
blow on a fire we intensify the heat o f the fire. But the difficulty lies in body o f the heaven, its effect, and that o f all the other orbs, was felt at the
determining what local motion is and the particular mode by which it causes surface o f that body. Averroes’ idea o f conceiving o f the multiplicity o f
something to heat. According to Buridan, there are many different opinions orbs as a single heaven was perhaps motivated by the near-futility o f at­
on these issues.95 tempting to explain the transmission o f celestial effects from one orb to
But Buridan himself could find no persuasive argument that celestial another orb in Aristotle’s concentric system .100
motions directly caused heat in inferior things. They achieved this indirectly Peter o f Auvergne, who completed the unfinished De caelo o f Thomas
by agents, that is, by means o f some property or innate capacity that was Aquinas, suggested another means by which the Sun could generate heat
distinct from motion.96 If it were only circular motion that caused heat, in inferior bodies by means o f motion, although, like Averroes, he did not
assume direct contact with any solar sphere. Peter suggests that by its motion
be rapid and near, and that o f the stars is rapid but distant, while that o f the moon is the Sun radiates a certain insensible quality which is multiplied all the way
near but slow, whereas the sun’s motion combines both conditions in a sufficient degree. ”
93. This appears to be Amicus’s summary (De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 6, dubit. 4, [626, 387, col.
to the region o f the air, where it is capable o f causing the air, and perhaps
2) of Aristotle, Meteorology, book 1, chapter 3 (340b.4-u), although Amicus cites book
1. chapter 4. and Hervaeus seem to have shared the idea that celestial motion did not act directly on
94. "In ista quaestione supponendi sunt modi per quos calor potest produci a lumine vel terrestrial things. What else they may have shared is unclear.
motu. . . . Calor generatur a motu ex confricatione corporis calefactibilis ad aliquod aliud 97. “ Et sic bene concederetur quod motus sphaerae solis magis agit in ista inferiora calidi-
corpus." See Simon de Tunstede (Pseudo-Scotus) [Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 12], 1639, 3:28, tatem quam motus aliarum sphaerarum, quia applicat nobis planetam summe calefac-
col. 2. tivum, scilicet ipsum solem. Haec igitur communiter sunt concessa.” Buridan, De caelo,
95. “ Dicendum est breviter quod ad sensum est manifestum de multis quod motus calefacit bk. 2, qu. 17, 1942, 207.
vel est aliquando causa caloris; ut si curramus, et si corpora dura fricentur simul forti- 98. See Averroes [De caelo, bk. 2, comment. 42], 1562-1574, 5:125V, cols. 1-2. See also this
ter, . . . ; et sufflans in ignem acuit calorem ignis. Et sic quaestio est difficilis, propter volume. Chapter 13, Section I.
quam causam vel per quern modum motus localis sic calefaciat; et sunt de hoc multae et 99- See Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 17, 1942, 208.
diversae opiniones.” Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 16, 1942, 200. He also considers whether 100. In establishing his concentric system, Aristotle had inserted extra spheres (“ unrolling
the sphere ot the Sun heats inferior things more than do other spheres: “ Ista quaestio est spheres”) that were designed to prevent the set o f orbs associated with one planet from
satis dubia, quia valde dubium est quae res sit motus localis, et quo modo motus localis affecting the orbs associated with another planet (see Ch. 13, Sec. II. 1). Thus effects
agat calditatem” (ibid., qu. 17, 207). could not be transmitted down through the orbs toward the sublunar region. But even
96. As we shall see, Hervaeus Natalis held that motion was not even the active principle ot if scholastics ignored Aristotle’s scheme, they could not have devised any method for
the heavens. That distinction belonged to a mysterious, and not further defined, quality transmitting effects from one orb to another. The same may be said for those who
o f motion, which remained constant whether or not the heavens moved. Both Buridan adopted the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic compromise o f eccentric and epicyclic orbs.
594 THE C E LE STIAL REG IO N
CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 595
other inferior things, to become heated.,0' Thus did Peter seek to avoid the sidered the orbs hard, whereas Serbellonus conceived them as fluid, both
difficulties associated with attempts to explain the Sun’s generation o f heat denied the possibility o f friction between rotating celestial orbs.
by any motion o f its own that placed it in direct contact with things that But there were those who argued that some celestial motions could pro­
were far removed from it.
duce heat in the region o f fire down to the upper region o f air.105 Simon
Buridan himself offers no definitive solution but suggests that something de Tunstede held strictly to the idea that heat is generated by friction between
like the opinions o f Averroes and Peter o f Auvergne might prove reason­ a body capable o f being heated and some other body. After eliminating
able. 10
102 He was emphatic on only one thing: celestial motions did not cause light and other spiritual influences, Simon argued ([Meteorology, bk. 1. qu.
heat in inferior things directly, but only indirectly, in some unspecified 12, conclus. 1], 1639, 28, col. 2) that celestial spheres could, by motion
manner, perhaps in some way described by Averroes or Peter o f Auvergne. alone, cause heat in inferior things, but their range could extend no farther
One argument that seems obvious in retrospect concerns the most plau­ than the upper region o f air. He obviously assumed that friction occurred
sible place where the heavens might cause heat in the uppermost regions at the interface between the heavens and the upper region o f fire. The fire
o f the sphere o f fire, namely the interface between the concave surface of generated there was able to fall downward to the upper reaches o f the region
the celestial region - which is equivalent to the concave surface o f the lunar o f air and cause it to become, or remain, h ot.106 Amicus favored a similar
sphere - and the convex surface o f the sphere o f fire. Them on Judaeus posed interpretation, in which the circular motion o f the lunar sphere, in contact
this possibility, only to reject it on the grounds that no friction could exist with the fiery region below, produces and conserves heat by contact with
between two such highly polished surfaces. Thus celestial motion could not the inferior matter directly below. Indeed, the M oon is the collection point,
generate any mutual friction that would produce heat.103 so to speak, for the motions o f all the celestial orbs.107
The possibility that heat might arise from the celestial orbs themselves Scholastic opinion was thus divided. Some assumed that celestial motion
as they rotated was occasionally raised but quickly rejected. An anonymous directly produced heat, while others assigned an indirect role to motion,
fourteenth-century author described the celestial orbs as so highly polished which somehow produced a quality that enabled inferior bodies to become
that they were incapable o f causing heat by friction, which is the w ay heat hot. Motion, however, was not the only possible cause o f heat. Light seemed
is generated.'04 In the same vein, Sigismundus Serbellonus reminds us ([De an even more obvious source, and we shall determine later in this chapter
caelo, disp. i, qu. 4, art. 4], 1663, 2:45, col. 2) that the celestial ether is of (Section V.2) whether opinions about the role o f light in the production ot
the greatest subtlety and fluidity and thus does not lend itself to friction. heat were as diverse as those about motion. But first we must examine the
Moreover, no friction could arise without resistance, which is absent in the extent to which natural philosophers made the terrestrial region dependent
heavens. Despite the fact that the anonymous author just mentioned con­ on the celestial region as the source o f all, or most, change.
101. Peter resorts to an analogy with “ a certain fish,’’ probably an electric eel, which has the
capacity to stun, for which reason it is even called stupor. When this fish is taken in a
net, it shocks the hands o f the fisherman who holds it. This capacity to stun is not innate b. The degree of dependence of terrestrial change on celestial motion
in the fish but is received from outside (we are not told from where it comes) in the
form o f a certain quality that enables the fish to stun those who touch it. Mv source for From the thirteenth to the seventeenth century, there was a current ot
Peter's opinion is Buridan. De caelo. bk. 2, qu. 17, 1942, 208.
scholastic opinion that followed Averroes and made sublunar motion (and
102. After describing the interpretations of Averroes and Peter of Auvergne. Buridan says:
“You should speak up about these [interpretations] as you think best” (Dicatis ergo de therefore change) totally dependent on celestial motion. If the latter ceased,
istis sicut videtur vobis bonum). Ibid. so would the former. But already in the late thirteenth century this opinion
103. “ De tertio, scilicet qualiter celum ignem calefacit. Sit prima conclusio: quod hoc non fit was challenged by a straightforward denial o f its claim. In the Condem ­
per contricationem cell cum igne. Probatur: quia celum et ignis non confricantur quia
sunt politissima corpora in superficiebus se tangentibus. Sed ilia non fncantur, ut patet nation o f 1277, the bishop o f Paris and his advisers clearly had it in mind
per predicta.” Themon Judaeus, Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 6, is 18, 16 ir, col. 1. when in article 156 they condemned the opinion that “ if the heaven should
104. The anonymous author tirst explains that the claim that motion always causes heat when
stand [still], fire would not act on tow [or flax], because nature would cease
the parts in motion are in contact is not universally true (Hec autem opinio universaliter
non valet quia motus localis non semper est causa caloris, ut puta quando nulla fit
confricatio partium rei mote). Anonymous (“ Compendium o f Six Books” ), 2i4r. In a 105. On the three regions into which the sphere o f air was divided, see the passage trom
vacuum, a body in motion would not cause heat because no air exists with which it
d’Ailly’s Ymago mundi that I quote near the beginning o f Chapter 20.
could be in contact to cause friction and generate heat. But even where there is contact
106. Simon explained this by assuming that the strong impetus (impetus) which fire had tor
between moving bodies, heat might not be generated, as in the celestial bodies, which, rising carried it upward with sufficient momentum so that it was reflected trom the
though in contact, are too highly polished to produce friction (Ad propositum igitur concave surface o f the heavens, thus descending to the upper region ot the air, which
redeuntes dicendum est quod corpora celestia in suis modbus localibus non confricantur
it caused to become hot.
quia sunt corpora politissima. Nec inter ipsa sit aliqua confricatio talis ex qua possit 107. Amicus, De caelo. tract. 6, qu. 6, dubit. 4, 1626, 390 (incorrectly given as 382), cols.
gigni calor prout predicta opinio imagmabatur). Ibid., 214V.
1-2.
596 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 597

to operate.” '08 By the condemnation o f article 156 and a few others, the therefore fire would not burn tow, a clear allusion to article 156. Thus did
bishop o f Paris left no doubt o f his distaste for the idea that terrestrial actions Richard reject any attempt to make the sublunar elements and the bodies
were totally dependent on celestial motions and, by implication, perhaps compounded o f them totally dependent on the celestial motions. He believed
independent o f God’s actions.10 109*As a consequence, one had to concede, at
8 that “ although the elements could not do all the things they could do with
least in the diocese o f Paris, that if the celestial motions ceased, fire could the influence o f the heavens, they could nevertheless operate n some ways
indeed act by its own power and burn flax. by a natural operation.” They could do this because God had created the
The impact o f article 156 is already manifest during the last years o f the elements independently o f the celestial bodies. Under the influence o f con­
thirteenth century. In a discussion o f the third day o f creation in his com­ demned article 156, Richard rejected a necessary nexus between heaven and
mentary on the Sentences, Richard o f Middleton argued that the four ele­ earth whereby the latter was totally dependent on the former. The sublunar
ments created on the third day were not made by the power o f the heaven region was now accorded some capacity for independent activity.
from celestial matter created on the first day but were separately created by
God. “ ° He then inquired whether the elements could operate without ce­ c. Hypothetical consequences of the cessation oj celestial motion:
lestial influence.111 O f the three opinions Richard distinguished for this elemental and mixed bodies
question, the second asserts that if the heavens exert no influence on the
elements, the latter w ould cease to exist. This opinion is “ false and dan­ In the manner o f Richard o f Middleton, other scholastic authors imagined
gerous,” Richard declares “ because it seems to favor those who say that a terrestrial world in which all celestial motions had ceased by G od’s com­
prime matter was produced by God through the mediation o f the celestial mand. With the heavenly bodies assumed stationary, many believed that
body.” 11213Richard identifies Moses Maimonides as a supporter o f this con­ the regular powers o f those same bodies would continue to function as
demned opinion. According to Richard, Moses held that “just as if the heart before, except that the powers would now affect only those portions ot the
should cease from its motion for the blink o f an eye, a man would die and earth over which the bodies remained stationary.
his motion and powers would be destroyed, so also if the celestial motions Under these circumstances, Hervaeus Natalis, a Dominican follower o f
should rest through the point o f an hour [that is, for a moment], the whole Thomas Aquinas (though he differed with his master on this issue) insisted
world would disappear and all the things in it would be destroyed.” Moses that terrestrial change was not just a matter o f a stationary Sun heating or
said all this, Richard continues, “ believing that the heaven does not influence not heating elements. Elements had powers o f their own. Fire, for example,
anything except by m otion.” " 3 had sufficient power to act on its own, and the recipients o f its power
But it was precisely such an opinion, Richard insists, that the bishop of possessed a capacity for receiving its action — all without the motion o f the
Paris condemned when he threatened wich excommunication those who celestial region. In fact, Hervaeus held that motion was not even the active
held that if the heavens ceased to m ove the elements could not operate and principle o f the heavens. That distinction belonged to its quality, which
remained constant whether or not the heavens m o ved ."4 Hervaeus con­
108. The original version o f article 156 appeared as “ Quod si celum staret. ignis in stupam ceded, however, as would others, that without celestial motion the diversity
non ageret, quia Deus non esset.” Denifle and Chatelain. 1889-1897, 1:552. I have o f change would be considerably diminished, because every stationary star
translated the text as emended by Hissette, 1977, 142. Using the alternative readings
and planet could exert its power only over a limited part o f the earth.
supplied by Denifle and Chatelain, Hissette changed “ Deus non esset” to “ natura
deesset.” U p to this point, the terrestrial bodies under discussion have been o f an
109. One o f the “ others” is article 186, which states: “ That the skv never rests, because the elemental nature - that is, earth, water, air, and tire. Many were agreed
generation o f lower things, which is the end purpose o f celestial motion, ought not to
that such bodies would continue to change despite the cessation o f all celestial
cease; another reason is because the heaven has its being and power from its mover,
which things are preserved by its motion. Whence if its motion should cease, its existence motion. But what about mixed bodies — that is, what about bodies com­
would cease." Cited from Grant. 1974, 50. pounded o f at least tw o elements? Would they be capable o f change if
n o. Richard o f Middleton, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 2. qu. 5, 1591, 2:181.
celestial motions ceased? Sensing that he had gone as far as he could in
111. “ Utrum elementa possent aliquid operari si caelum non influeret in ipsa.” Ibid., 182,
col. 1. Richard’s arguments appear in question 6 on pages 182-183. downplaying the power o f celestial motion, Hervaeus explains (De materia
112. This is surely a reference to article 38 o f the Condemnation o f 1277, which denounces celi, qu.7, in Quolibeta Hervei, 1513, 5or, col. 1) that if the celestial motions
the claim “ that God could not have made prime matter without the mediation of a
celestial body.” From Grant, 1074, 48.
were not to be w holly superfluous - for he had already shown that they
113. Richard’s reference is to “ Rabbi Moses, ch. 67.” I have not found the reference in
Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, but Amicus (De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 3, art. 3, 1626, 114. Hervaeus discusses the problem ot' celestial influence in his De materia celi, questions 7
354, col. 1) says “ Rabbi Moyses” held that “ the heaven is in the universe as the heart and 8 (see Hervaeus Natalis, Quolibet Hervei, 1513, 47 v > col. 1—49r, col. 1 (qu. 7), 49r,
in an animal, [so that] resting for an hour all things would cease to exist.” N o reference col. 1—51V, col. 1 (qu. 8); for his denial ot celestial motion as an active principle, see
is given. 48V, col. 1.
59« THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 599
were unnecessary for the continued activity o f elemental bodies - it was s o n a b le t o s u p p o s e th a t it w o u l d s t o p h e a t in g o r b u r n in g e v e n s h o u ld c e le s t ia l
essential that they cause the generation o f mixed bodies. If they were also m o t io n s b e s t o p p e d . T o s a y th e c o n t r a r y is to s u p p o r t an a r tic le c o n d e m n e d at
unnecessary for the generation and corruption o f mixed bodies, it would P a r is . 1,7
follow that the motion o f the sky is superfluous, an unacceptable conse­
quence. Celestial motion must therefore be essential for the generation and At this juncture, and following upon an obvious reference to article 156,
corruption o f at least some mixed bodies. In this category Hervaeus included Oresme introduces the miracle o f Joshua at the battle o f Gibeon as a coun­
all mixed bodies derived from putrefaction, a process that depended exclu­ terinstance to the claim that the inferior region is totally dependent on
sively on the heavenly movements and which produced all metals, minerals, celestial motions. When Joshua commanded the Sun and M oon to cease
and some living things. For putrefaction to occur, however, different parts their motions, Oresme assumes that all other celestial motions also came
o f the sky had to pass over one and the same place and successively transmit to a halt. While all were at rest, however, “ generation and destruction did
rectilinear rays to that place. With the cessation o f celestial motion the not cease because during the period o f cessation the enemies o f Gibeon were
production o f all such mixed bodies would therefore immediately cease. killed.” While this corruption was going on at Gibeon, generation was
But if new mixed bodies were no longer generable upon the cessation of taking place elsewhere, for during this very time Hercules was said to have
celestial motion, what would happen to mixed bodies already in existence? been conceived by Jupiter and A lcm ena."H
They would certainly not disappear at the instant when the motions ceased. Jean Buridan and Albert o f Saxony agreed with Oresme that if the celestial
At the very least, the forms o f the elements that constitute each mixed body motions ceased, generation and corruption would continue indefinitely.
would continue to exist for a time. The continued existence o f mixed bodies They offered quite similar explanations. Buridan, for example, believed that
seemed apparent to Hervaeus from his conviction, com m only held, that the region o f earth lying under the Sun would convert water to air and fire,
the heavens exercised a preservative power over all inferior things. As whereas the opposite side o f the earth, where coldness dominated, would
evidence o f this, he invoked the miracle o f Joshua (Joshua io. 10-13) and continually convert fire and air into water. While water would diminish by
assumed that when Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, all other evaporation on that side o f the earth subject to the steady, invariant rays
celestial bodies also came to a halt. Although the Sun’s cessation o f motion o f the motionless Sun, it would continually increase in that region o f the
was a true miracle, “ the mixed bodies that remained have not been attributed earth perpetually deprived o f sunshine. “ N o w ,” as Buridan explains ([De
to any miracle by any doctor.” "- Hervaeus took this as proof that mixed caelo, bk. 2, qu. 10], I94 2< I 7 0 >
bodies would continue to exist by natural means after the heavenly motions
ceased. Their existence would eventually terminate, however, because it is a l w a y s n a tu r a l th a t w h e r e w a t e r is h ig h e r , it is m o v e d to a l o w e r p la c e . A n d
mixed bodies cannot endure forever, as is evident with living bodies. s o th is w a t e r is c o n t in u a lly m o v e d a r o u n d th e e a r th to a p la c e u n d e r th e S u n ; a n d
During the fourteenth century, it was not unusual, especially in com­ th is a ir o r fir e , g e n e r a t e d u n d e r th e S u n , is a ls o m o v e d to th e o p p o s it e sid e . A n d
mentaries on De caelo, to inquire whether terrestrial elements and bodies t h u s th e w a t e r th a t c o m e s u n d e r th e S u n is a lw a y s c o n v e r t e d in t o air; a n d th e a ir
could act independently if the celestial motions ceased; or, alternatively, c o m i n g to th e o p p o s it e s id e is c o n v e r t e d in t o w a t e r .
whether a plurality o f celestial motions was required for the occurrence o f
generation and corruption in inferior bodies. In 1377, one hundred years Under a motionless sky, and under the conditions described, such gener­
after the great Parisian condemnation, N icole Oresme considered the latter ations and corruptions could continue forever. Albert o f Saxony ([De celo,
question in his brilliant Le Livre du del et du monde."'’ Oresme straightaway bk. 2 , qu. 1 2 , conclus. 3 ] , 1 5 1 8 , 1 0 9 V , col. 2 ) held that even if the heavens
denies that a plurality ot motions is necessary for sublunar generation to ceased their motion, the rays o f the Sun as well as rays o f influence would
occur. Rather he insists that
117. In a much earlier work, his unpublished Quodlibeta, probably composed in the 1350s.
i f th e h e a v e n s w e r e at re st, c h a n g e a n d g r o w t h w o u l d s t ill e x is t , b e c a u s e i f f ir e w e r e Oresme had, without allusion to article 156, argued that generation and corruption would
continue even if the sky stopped moving. See Thorndike, 1923-1958, 3:414. Thomas
at th e p re s e n t m o m e n t a p p lie d to a m a tt e r w h i c h it h e a te d a n d b u r n e d , it is u n r e a - 15 o f Strasbourg (Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14. qu. 1, art. 2, 1564, 157V, col. 2) specifically
cites the text o f article 156 against those who insist that celestial motions are essential
115. As proof that mixed bodies would not disappear instantaneously if all heavenly motions for terrestrial changes. (“ Nec valet, si dicitur, quod hoc facit praesupponendo motum
ceased, Hervaeus declares: “ Huius enim probabile signum potest accipi ex hoc quod celi quia articulus Parisiensis dicit ‘dicere quod ignis non possit comburere stupam sibi
accidit tempore losue quando sol stetit. Probabile enim videtur quod tunc omnis motus approximatam, stante motu caeli, error.’ ”) Later, on the same page, Thomas indicates
corporum celestium cessaverit. Et licet statio solis attribuatur miraculo, tamen nnxta that the condemned article played a role in the position he adopted.
tunc remansisse non attnbuitur miraculo ab aliquo doctore.” Ibid., 500 col. 2. 118. Oresme explains (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 8, 1968, 377) that although this story is a
110. Oresme, Le Livre du del, bk. 2. ch. 8, 1968, 37 S~377 - As was rather common, Oresme fable, he mentions it only because “ it is probable that the memory o f this marvelous
grappled with the problem in the following form: “ If generation exists, there must be night dwelled among the pagans up to the time when Hercules was reputed a god and
many motions in the heavens.” deified by them, and they thought or imagined that he had been conceived that night.”
6oo THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 601

continue to radiate to earth and cause changes. O bviously, such generations chat a stone that was falling from a height should cease falling in the middle
and corruptions would differ from what w e normally observe, because the o f its descent, or that a fire should stop burning wood; it seemed paradoxical
influences o f the immobile Sun and planets would no longer be diverselv to him to assume that such activities would instantly terminate upon the
applied to the different regions o f the earth. cessation o f the celestial motions. Actions that really depended on the heav­
If some medieval scholastics were convinced that generations and cor­ ens would cease their activities only gradually.122
ruptions could continue if all celestial motions ceased, it was, afortiori, even Amicus went farther (De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 8, dubit. 2, art. 3 [corrected
more plausible for them to assume the persistence o f change if the sky had from 2], 1626, 409, col. 2-410, col. i). Even during the occurrence o f
but a single, unique motion which ceased. As Buridan explained it, “ I also celestial influences in winter, when the weather is cold, we see that fire
say that if there were only one celestial motion, there would yet be gen­ continues to produce heat. In fact, Amicus considerably reduced the dom­
erations and corruptions, etc., because there could be no fewer [generations inance o f the heavens when he argued that although the actions o f some
and corruptions with a single celestial motion] than if the whole heaven inferior causes depend on the heavens, others do not. Although the pro­
should rest.” 119 But as Albert o f Saxony reminded his readers, a single duction o f some living things and things that arise from putrefaction, and
celestial motion could not produce the usual variety o f daily generations also the generation o f metals, depend on celestial influences and motions,
and corruptions. O nly a multiplicity o f celestial agents could generate such many actions do not.
a diversity o f effects* The daily motion and the oblique motions o f Sun and Despite a wide-ranging attempt to attribute more causal activities to
planets in the zodiac are required. For “ the Sun and the other planets some­ terrestrial bodies and to reduce the previous overwhelming dominance o f
times approach us and sometimes withdraw from us, thereby making a the celestial region with motions and other causal influences, early modem
diversity o f times for us, namely winter and summer, and [making] the scholastic natural philosophers were undoubtedly in agreement with their
diversity o f generations and corruptions in inferior things.” 120 medieval predecessors that our terrestrial region is largely governed from
By the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century, the anti-Aristotelian the heavens and that if the influences and motions o f the heavens were to
and and-Averroist position, as represented by the Coim bra Jesuits, Aversa, cease for a brief time, “ the status o f this world would be disorderly [in­
Amicus, and Poncius, seems to have triumphed among scholastic authors, deed].” '23
who continued to cite article 156 and the Joshua argument against total
terrestrial dependence on celestial m otions.121 As their medieval predecessors
d. A dissenting voice
did, early modern scholastics usually distinguished (sometimes only im­
plicitly) those effects that were solely attributable to the celestial motions The ideas described here marked a considerable departure from Aristotle
(such as the seasons, or night and day) and those for which they were a and Averroes, who held that terrestrial generation and corruption were
necessary but not a sufficient cause. With the cessation o f celestial motions, w holly dependent on the celestial motions. We saw that Thomas Aquinas,
the seasons would cease immediately, as would day and night. One would Robertus Anglicus, John ofjandun, Johannes Versor, and Johannes de M ag-
experience only one season, or only day, or only night. But in the numerous istris, among others, upheld this judgment. Most o f those who sided with
cause-effect relationships where the heaven was a concurrent cause, actions the Averroist approach would probably not have denied thejoshua account
ought not to cease instantaneously or abruptly. It did not seem plausible to as a counterinstance to their position. But they would have insisted that
Aversa (De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 9, 1627, 200, col. 1) that a man taking a walk this was an abnormal state o f affairs, an instance o f G od’s direct intervention
should become immobile as soon as the heavens ceased their motions, or in the regular activities o f the physical world. Indeed, this was a way o f
neutralizing the impact o f article 156. Marsilius o f Inghen, who spent most
119. “ Dico etiam quod si esset solus unus motus caelestis, adhuc essent generationes et o f his academic life as a master o f arts before becoming a theological master
corruptiones etc., quia non minus essent quam si totutn caelum quiesceret.” Buridan.
near the end o f his life, took precisely this approach.
De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 10, 1942, 171. Albert o f Saxony repeats this opinion (De celo, bk.
2, qu. 12, conclus. 4, 1518, 109V, col. 2). In his commentary on the Sentences o f Peter Lombard, Marsilius consid­
120. Albert o f Saxony, ibid., conclus. 5-6. Earlier in the fourteenth century, John ot Jandun ered the question “ Whether the firmament dividing the waters from the
made much the same point (De coelo, bk. 2, qu. 7, 1552, zjr, cols. 1-2).
121. However, only the Conimbricenses allude to article 156, when they speak ot “ the 122. Amicus says this (ibid., 410, col. 1).
consensus o f the Parisian doctors, who condemned by one o f their articles the opinion 123. Aversa (De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 9, 1627, 200, col. 2) expressed it this way; “Just as an
o f those who believed that if the celestial motions ceased, tow [or flax] could not be animal is preserved and (unctions by [means otj life and by the motion o f its heart, so
burned by fire" (Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 4, art. 2. 1598, 203). F°r is this whole inferior world preserved and operated by the influence and motion o f the
the Joshua argument, see ibid.; Aversa, De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 9, 1627, 200, col. 1; Amicus, heaven. But it is sufficient [to know] that with the cessation o f the influence and motion
De caelo, tract. 6. qu. 8, dubit. 2, art. 2, 1626, 408, col. 2; and Poncius, De coelo, disp. o f the heaven for a brief period, the status o f this world would be disorderly and that
22, qu. 9, 1672, 630, col. 1, par. ioo. the world is truly disposed and governed by the influence and motion o f the heavens.”
602 THE CE LEST IA L REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 603

waters is, by its motion, the cause o f generation.” "14 Those who deny this 2. Light
insist that if the heavens were stopped or removed completely, the Sun
would yet illuminate and heat inferior things. Generation and alteration That the Sun’s light produced terrestrial daylight was too obvious to merit
would thus continue. This is confirmed by an article o f Paris that declares discussion. Attention was concentrated on the relationship between celestial
it an error “ to say that when the heaven has ceased its motion fire could light and heat. Most natural philosophers assumed that light, or lumen, from
not burn tow next to it.” 1"5 In his response, Marsilius distinguishes two a celestial source was a cause o f hotness. Disagreement arose over the manner
ways to approach the problem: natural and supernatural. With the heavens in which light causes hotness127 and even from which particular celestial
assumed motionless, he concedes that God could, presumably by his ab­ bodies. Jean Buridan, and other natural philosophers, took it as obvious to
solute power, cause the fire to burn tow. But God could do this only if he the senses that the Sun’s light caused heat. As further evidence o f this, one
decides to deviate from the “ accustomed course o f nature” (solitus cursus could produce heat with burning mirrors and even focus the Sun’s rays so
nature). As long as the accustomed, or common, course o f nature obtains, intensely that their heat would burn things.128 The common assumption
not even God could cause the fire to burn tow. that all planets receive their light from the Sun made it appear reasonable
Although Marsilius’s approach effectively neutralized article i$ 6 ,'26 the to infer that if the Sun’s light is heat producing, so also is the light o f the
latter appears nevertheless to have produced a reaction against the defenders other planets.129
o f total terrestrial dependence on celestial motion. Richard o f Middleton,
Hervaeus Natalis, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Albert o f Saxony, and
a. Light and its relationship to hotness and coldness
others insisted that terrestrial elements and ordinary compound bodies
would continue to undergo change even if all the celestial motions ceased. H owever, if all celestial bodies emit heat-producing light, how could this
A popular counterinstance to the Aristotelian position was the biblical ac­ be reconciled with another common assumption that some planets cause
count o f the Joshua miracle. Article 156 and the Joshua miracle were com­ coldness? Was there a problem here? Could one and the same planet cause
mon ingredients in the attempt to uphold the natural ability o f terrestrial hotness and coldness? At first glance, it might have been tempting to reject
bodies to suffer change in the absence o f celestial motion. B y the late six­ such a claim and to argue that some planets produced coldness and were
teenth and the seventeenth century, the anti-Aristotelian position seems to frigefactive, in contrast to others that produced hotness and were calefactive.
have triumphed among scholastic authors, who, as we saw, continued to The responses to this seeming dilemma were varied, but surprisingly, some
cite article 156 and the Joshua argument. would allow one and the same planet to cause both hotness and coldness.
In part, the controversy concerned the relationship between God and the M edieval interpreters o f Averroes, perhaps with reference to his discus­
celestial bodies. To make all terrestrial change dependent on celestial motion sion in De caelo (Averroes [De caelo, comment. 4 2 ] , 1 5 6 2 - 1 5 7 4 , 5 : 1 2 6 V , col.
was to concede too much power and dominance to the celestial region. As 1), sought to explain coldness as a lack o f hotness. According to John o f
Richard o f Middleton recognized, it made it appear as if the celestial sub­ Jandun, Averroes argued that celestial bodies did not cause hotness and
stance had somehow created the terrestrial elements. The condemnation o f coldness but only hotness. As far as Averroes was concerned, “ no celestial
article 156 in 1277 was probably a response to those w ho followed Averroes body causes coldness, but all cause hotness and this in different ways,
strongly deterministic interpretation in De substantia orbis. The continued because some make more heat and some less, as is appropriate to every
operation o f the sublunar world depended only on God, not on celestial
motions. As if to confirm this, many scholastics restricted the influence of 127. In a question that asks "Whether light generates hotness” (An lumen generat caliditatem),
celestial motions by assigning varying degrees o f independent action to John ofjandun explains: “ there is no doubt that light makes hotness, but there is diversity
terrestrial bodies. At the same time, however, they acknowledged that [of opinion] concerning the manner in which it causes the hotness” (Sciendum est de
quaestione quod lumen calefacit non est dubium; sed de modo secundum quern calefacit
without regular celestial motions the world as we know it w ould be im­ est diversitas). John ofjandun, De coelo. bk. 2, qu. 10, 1552, 2Qr, col. 1.
possible.12
6
5
4 128. See Buridan, De caelo. bk. 2, qu. 15, 1942, 193. This is the first o f four brief conclusions
which Buridan advances in his question on “ Whether, by their light, celestial bodies are
productive o f heat. ” Ot the tour, only the first two are directly relevant to light; the
124. Marsilius o f Inghen [Sentences. bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 10], 1501, 24IV, col. 2. remaining two are mentioned later in this chapter in the section on "influence” (Sec.
125. “ Confirmatur per articulum Parisiensis dicente quod dicere quod ignis non possit coin- V.3). Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2. qu. 21, 1518, 115V, col. 2, presents the same
burere stupam approximatani cessance motu celi: error.” Ibid., 2421, col. 1. four conclusions in the same order. It would appear that he derived them directly troin
126. It neutralized it because one could no longer make the categorical claim that with the Buridan. Amicus, in turn, drew directly upon Albert and repeated the same conclusions
heavens motionless, fire could not burn tow. For, if he chose to intervene, God could (see Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 5, 1626, 370, col. 1, under tenia opinio).
make the tow burn supernaturallv. Since we cannot know whether or not God would 129. This is Buridan’s second conclusion (Buridan, ibid., 193—194). It is repeated by Amicus,
intervene, we cannot infer that tow will not burn if the heavens are motionless. ibid., art. 2, 372, col. 2.
604 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 605

element and compound.” 130 Because all planets received solar light, they such a suggestion unacceptable.134 A single instrumentality such as light
could produce heat. But since planets varied in the degree o f light they could not cause both members o f a pair o f contraries such as hotness and
received, they also differed in the intensity o f heat they could generate. coldness.135 Because, as Buridan expressed it ([De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 15], 1942,
Coldness was thus a lesser degree o f hotness, or no hotness at all. On this 194), “ this world is governed by the heaven in all its dispositions,” and
heat continuum, coldness was not readily determinable but it could be since both earth and water are basically cold elements, it followed that
perceived if the level o f heat was very low or nonexistent. As an anonymous “ virtually cold” celestial bodies must exist in order to produce the coldness
fourteenth-century author put it, ‘‘such planets do not cause coldness, except in these elem ents.'36 One and the same celestial body could have powers
in the sense that they cause less heat. 31 As evidence that heat was the sole other than light. It could also be frigefactive.137 Thus some celestial bodies
operating quality and that cold was merely its perceptible absence, it was cause hotness, others coldness, and some bodies are basically hot (fire and
observed that when the M oon is full the nights are warmer than at other air) and others cold (water and earth).
times, which could occur only because there was more light at that tim e.132 An explanation reported by an anonymous author in the fourteenth cen­
In Averroes’ approach, if the amount o f light a planet receives varied tury conflicted with both Averroes and Buridan. It not only treated hotness
sufficiently, it might sometimes generate sufficient heat to cause hotness, and coldness as distinct qualities but allowed that both could issue from
but at other times its quantity o f light would be insufficient to produce one and the same planet. This was achieved by assuming that any illuminated
perceptible heat. Supporters o f the theory could then say it causes coldness. planet could cause heat. But if it also causes coldness, this is attributable to
Consequently, one and the same planet could be said to cause both hotness an invisible quality called “ influence” (influentia) .'38 A planet was thus ca­
and coldness at different times. If at full moon there was more heat than pable o f possessing two attributes, light and influence, simultaneously, each
at, say, new moon, when the Moon was invisible because no light reached performing a different specific function.
it, would this qualify as an instance o f the production o f hotness (at full
moon) and coldness (at new moon)? O nly if the absence o f light at new
b. How light produces heat
moon was deemed to cause coldness at that time.
Although their intention may have been otherwise, those w ho adopted Numerous explanations were proposed to describe how light, or lumen from
the theory attributed to Averroes were assuming, in effect, that light could the planets, which was not thought o f as either hot or a body, produced
produce both hotness and coldness, albeit the latter only indirectly by virtue heat. Buridan describes at least four, but rejects them all.'39 They are o f
o f an absence, or insufficiency, o f the former. Opposition was inevitable. interest because they show the range o f responses which confronted natural
For most scholastics, hotness and coldness were equal members o f a pair philosophers. O f the two that I shall describe here, the first assumes that
o f primary contrary qualities.133 Coldness could not be the mere absence
o f heat. One thing, such as light, could not produce both and could not 134. John o f Jandun was a rare exception. In his De coelo, bk. 2, qu. 12, 1552, 3or, col. 2,
he sought to explain that generic light could not produce both hotness and coldness,
generate the other merely by its absence. Thus was the question occasionally but the light o f specific planets was somehow different. Thus although “ light as light”
proposed, usually to be formally rejected, whether light, in addition to cannot produce coldness, the specific, individualized light o f this or that planet could
causing hotness, could also produce coldness. Could some stars emit light do so: for example, the light o f Saturn.
13$. Amicus offers this explanation when he declares (De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 5, art.
that was heat-producing and other stars - cold stars - radiate light that was 2, 1626, 374, col. 1): “ Secundo patet nulla astra esse frigefactiva per suum lumen quia
cold-producing? Most Aristotelian natural philosophers would have found eadem causa non est per unum instrumentum causa immediata contrariorum unde in
illis est ponenda.alia virtus per quam frigefaciant distincta a lumine et motu.” Albert o f
Saxony (De celo, bk. 2, qu. 21, 1518, 115V, col. 2, conclus. 3), citing astrologers as his
130. Jandun goes on to explain that “ perhaps the reason that he |Averroes] induced this is authority, argued that some planets cause coldness in inferior things -.but not by their
because motion and light produce hotness; but all bodies are moved with a local motion light.
and with quickness, which is required for motion; and also all celestial bodies that cause 136. See Buridan’s third conclusion in De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 15, 1942, 194.
hotness have light, although some more and some less.” John o f Jandun, De coelo, bk. W - “ Quarta conclusio est, quod necesse est Stellas habere virtutes alias a suis luminibus,
2, qu. 12, 1552, 30r, col. i. In this question, Jandun asks “ Whether some o f the celestial quia habent virtutes trigefactivas, et per lumina sua non frigefacerent, imo potius cale-
bodies make inferior things cold.” Buridan mentions the same opinion o f Averroes, facerent. ” Ibid.
when he declares (De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 15, 1942, 195), that “ Averroes speaks as if all the 138. “ Ad hoc respondent aliqui dicentes quod omnis planeta seu Stella inquantum illuminat
elements are naturally hot, which is false concerning earth and water.” caletacit. Sed si frigefacit, hoc est ratione altenus qualitatis invisibilis, quam non per-
131. “ Vel dicunt aliter, scilicet, quod tales stelle non frigefaciunt nisi ad istum sensum quod cipimus, que dicitur influentia.” Anonymous (“ Compendium o f Six Books"), 214V-
minus calefaciunt.” Anonymous (“ Compendium o f Six Books”), 2i5r. 2i5r. For a detailed treatment o f “ influence. ” see Section V.3 o f this chapter.
132. “ Et ad robur sue opinionis allegant Aristoteles dicentem Libro de animalibus quod noctes 139- They are given in response to a doubt, the third, which Buridan raised against his own
in plenilunio sunt calidiores quam in alio tempore, quod non accidit nisi ratione maions four conclusions. The third doubt “ concerns the mode by which light makes things
luminis ipsius lune.” Ibid. hot” (Tertia dubitatio est de modo per quern lumen calefacit). Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2,
133. O f the two, hotness was considered the active quality. qu. 15, 1942, 194.
6o6 THE CE LEST IA L REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 607

as solar light passes through the sphere o f fire it incorporates the heat o f nature.143 O r, as Them on Judaeus expressed it, the light from a luminous
fire within itself, just as light passing through a colored glass incorporates body “ can cause heat in a body susceptible o f heat.’” 44 But it cannot cause
the color o f the glass within itself. Buridan judges this response absurd, heat in a body that is not susceptible. Indeed, some luminous bodies can
because light is not a body. Moreover, if light did incorporate heat within illuminate a medium, or body, and yet not heat it. The Sun, for example,
itself in the sphere o f fire, it would lose it shortly afterward as it absorbed illuminates other celestial bodies but does not heat them, because celestial
coldness in the middle region o f the sphere o f air, which was generally bodies are not heatable. Indeed, the middle region o f the air can be illu­
conceded to be a frigid zone.'40 minated by planets, but it is not heated.145
The second explanation assumed that light rays refracted and intersected But w hy does light cause heat? Buridan dismisses the question as irrel­
in the sphere o f air. As a consequence o f the activity o f these light rays, evant. Light causes heat because it is a natural property o f light to do this
the air was parted in many places and thus rarefied and made h o t.14 141 Indeed,
0 in a thing that is capable o f being heated.'46 It is the same with all natural
the consequent motion o f the parts also made the air hot. Against this properties. If we ask w hy “ heaviness” (gravitas) moves its body downward,
opinion, Buridan argues that the greatest amount o f solar light and the the answer, says Buridan, is that it is a natural property o f heaviness to do
greatest amount o f heat occur in the summer. Thus the air should be most precisely that. Whereas some sought to provide a mechanism by means o f
agitated during the summer. But, counters Buridan, the contrary is true, which light generated heat, Buridan found this a vain enterprise.
because the air is most serene and tranquil at that time o f year. An even Others, however - Albertus Magnus, for example, and perhaps most
more telling counterargument, from Buridan’s standpoint, concerned light scholastics - sought to provide a cause for the production o f heat by light.
rays, to which he denied the status o f bodies and which therefore could not Albertus thought o f light as a “ proper form o f planets” (propria forma stel-
divide the air. But even if they could, it is impossible that the totality of larum) by means o f which the matter o f generable things is brought into
air should be everywhere divided. existence.147 The motion o f the first movable heaven, and o f the heavens
As his solution to the problem, Buridan argues that it is a natural property as a whole, radiated a kind o f general light into generable things. This light
o f light to heat something that is heatable, as long as that thing’s resistance (lumen) was akin to a kind o f life that existed in all natural things. It produced
to being heated is not stronger than the activity o f the ligh t.142 Although heat by dissolving matter. But Albertus distinguished another kind o f light
light causes heat, it will not do so in all situations. T o produce heat, (1) that was associated with specific celestial bodies, just as the light o f Jupiter
the light must be sufficiently intense; (2) the resistance to it must not be ditfers from the light o f Saturn.
too great; and (3) the subject or thing that is to be heated must have the Since it was understood that every planet was carried by an invisible orb,
capacity to absorb the heat - in scholastic parlance, it must be o f a heatable Albertus asked whether both orb and planet radiated light. Because o f their
invisibility, orbs could not shine, from which Albertus concluded that they
did net radiate light; and if they did not radiate light, they could not cause
140. Ibid., 195-196. Albert o f Saxony repeats the same idea in De celo. bk. 2, qu. 21, 1518, heat. Thus it was only the visible celestial bodies that emitted light and that
115V, col. 2-1 i6r, col. 1. as does Amicus, De caelo. tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 5, 1626, 370,
cols. 1-2, who derived this argument from Albert. Achillini, in his Liber de orbibus, 1545* were potentially capable o f producing heat. O f these, however, only the
S8r, col. 1, mentions that the middle region o f air is cold. In this criticism, Buridan
could have had Albertus Magnus in mind, since Albertus formulated a similar expla­ 143. “ Sed etiam sciendum est, quod ad hoc quod lumen caletaciat, tamen non apparet no-
nation. which is described later in this section (also see n. 151). tabiliter effectus eius nisi lumen sit bene intensum, et quod non sit mmia resistentia: et
141. Buridan, ibid., 196. lines 7-18. Buridan cites Aristotle, De caelo 2.7.2893.20-22, as cum hoc etiam. quod subiectum sit naturae calefactibilis.” Buridan, ibid., 197—198.
support for the claim that celestial bodies cause heat and light by causing friction in the 144. As the first o f three conclusions on light as a cause o f heat, Themon declares (Meteorology.
air. Buridan disagrees with Aristotle. bk. 1, qu. 8, 1518, 162V, col. 1): “ Tunc sit prima conclusio: quod omne corpus luminosam
142. “ Naturalis proprietas luminis est calefacere subiectum suuni si sit calefactibilc, et quod mediate lumine suo causat vel potest causare calorem in medio susceptivo caloris.”
resistentia non sit fortior quam activitas luminis.” Buridan, ibid., 197. In this regard, 145. “ Tertia conclusio: quod non omne luminosum omne medium quod illuminat calefacit.”
Buridan says (ibid.) that light is like many other natural properties, such as, for example, As one o f his examples, Themon says: “ Similiter corpus celeste illuminatur a sole et
“ heaviness” (yravitas), which has the natural property o f moving downward the body tamen non calefit quia celum non est calefactibile; et similiter de media regione propter
in which it exists. It will do this if the body is not already down and if the resistance virtutes aliarum stellarum vel influentias potest illuminan et non calefieri.” Ibid. The
which the body encounters is not greater than the power o f the heaviness. Similarly tor “ middle region” probably refers to the sphere o f air.
the property o f hotness, which causes the subject on which it acts to rarefy, it that 146. “ Ita non oportet quaerere propter quid lumen calefacit, nisi quia naturalis proprietas
subject is rarefiable. and so on (Sicut enim naturalis proprietas gravitatis est movere luminis est calefacere ipsum calefactibile." Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 15, 1942, 197.
deorsum subiectum in quo est. si non sit deorsum et non sit resistentia excedens virtutem lines 29-31.
gravitatis; et sicut etiam naturalis proprietas caliditatis est rarefacere subiectum suum. si 147. “ Si autem quaeratur causa, quare lumen ita tacit calorem, cum secundum dicta Peri-
sit bene disposituin ad rantatem). Albert o f Saxony’s opinion is the same as Buridan's. pateticorum neque lumen sit corpus .alidum neque radius eius: videtur esse dicendum.
It is the final opinion Albert describes, and he introduces it with the words “ there is quod lumen est propria forma stellarum et corporis caelestis, qua universaliter movetur
another opinion which I repute to be true.” De celo, bk. 2, qu. 21, 1518, ii6r, col. i- materia generabilium ad esse.” Albertus Magnus [De caelo. bk. 2, tract. 3, ch. 3], 197 *-
He also repeats Buridan’s arguments as they are described in my next paragraph. 5:147, col. 2.
6o 8 THE CELESTIAL REGION
C E L E S T IA L IN F L U E N C E 609
Sun radiated light that was strong enough to generate heat. ‘4* The Sun alone
who argued that, other things being equal, incident rays produce more
was capable o f generating heat, because o f its greater magnitude, thickness intense light and heat than do reflected or refracted rays.'54 But when an
purity, and so on .'w The Sun’s rays were thus suitable for generating heat aggregation o f light rays is reflected or refracted, those rays are able to
whereas the rays o f the other planets were not.
produce a more intense heat than an incident ray, as is evident from what
In Albertus’s interpretation, the rays o f the Sun do not m ove directly to happens when rays are focused with concave burning glasses.'55 Neverthe­
the sublunar region and generate heat. They acquire their heat-making less, Albertus Magnus conceived a means by which light, which is not hot
power from the fiery region through which they must pass. Albertus ex­ by nature, could become hot by drawing heat to itself on its way to earth.156
plains that the Sun’s light moves fire “just as the sphere o f the fixed stars
Some were prepared to deny that light itself could cause heat and instead
has to move earth, and the sphere o f the Moon has to move water, and the
attributed the generation o f heat to bodies that were illuminated by light.
five other planets have to move air.” 150 Albertus seems to accept the inter­
Buridan ([De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 15], 1942, 196) rejected this explanation
pretation o f “ some philosophers” (quidam philosophi) that the Sun’s rays do
because heat was not a form in these bodies. For example, water is composed
not themselves induce heat, but that the heat o f its rays is derived from the o f prime matter and the substantial form o f water, neither o f which was
fire which is moved by the Sun’s rays as they pass through it. Solar rays capable o f causing heat. Thus water illuminated by light might become hot,
cause the fire to move in the same manner as iron is moved by a magnet.'51 but it does not possess hotness. Hot water is not composed o f water plus
The Sun’s rays thus “ attract” or “ draw ” heat given o ff by the fire which hotness but is only water. Thus it will not cause heat in other things simply
is agitated by the movement o f those rays, a process that strongly suggests because it has been illuminated.
that Albertus conceived o f light as a b o d y .'5' After the now-heated solar Whereas Albertus Magnus chose to explain in concrete terms how light
rays move beyond the sphere o f fire on their way toward earth, they produce causes heat, Buridan chose to avoid such explanations. Instead he relied on
heat by refraction when many rays are brought to a focus at a point.'53 the notion that light causes heat because it is its nature to do so and then
Why Albertus chose to invoke refraction as the basic mode o f heat pro­
described the conditions under which it would naturally act to produce heat.
duction is unclear. A better account was provided by Them on Judaeus, Both approaches were influential in the seventeenth century in one and the
148. “ Si autem queratur, utrum totus orbis hoc modo sit causa caloris vel saltern omnes same person, Bartholomew Amicus. Buridan’s ideas were influential be­
stellae. dicimus, quod non, quia licet totus orbis sit de natura corporis lucidi, sicut dicit cause Albert o f Saxony chose to make most o f Buridan’s questions his own,
Avicenna, non tamen totus orbis micat. Et ideo pars, quae non micat, non emittit lumen,
and Amicus, in turn, adopted Buridan’s concepts and arguments from Al­
et ideo nullo istorum modorum est causa caloris. Sed et inter Stellas solus sol emittit
radios fortes, et ideo solus sol hoc modo est causa caloris.” Ibid., col. 1. bert o f Saxony. But Amicus was also familiar with Albertus Magnus’s
149. Albertus presents five reasons (ibid.) for this, which when taken collectively reveal what arguments in the latter’s commentary on De caelo and cites Albertus by
a perfect heat-causing body the Sun really is. The first four reasons describe properties
name a number o f times. Thus not only did Amicus, in his lengthy dis­
that enable the Sun, and no other planet, to be a heat-generating body. These properties
are its magnitude, which far exceeds that of the other planets and enables it to cause cussion, repeat Buridan’s idea that it is no more necessary to seek the manner
stronger effects; its thickness (spissitudo), or density, which exceeds that o f all the other in which light produces heat than it is to ask w hy heaviness (gravitas) is the
planets and enables the Sun to produce more friction and therefore cause more heat; its
cause o f falling, but he also accepted Albertus’s arguments about the role
light, which is denser than in other planets and therefore able to emit stronger rays and
better able to burn things in the sublunar region; and its greater purity and subtlety than o f the Sun in producing heat and the way solar rays acquire heat in the
the other bodies. For the fifth reason, see the next note. region o f fire.'5' Either Amicus was unaware o f any conflict, or he found
150. “ Quinta et ultima causa est, quia sol in natura sui luminis habet movere ignem, sicut et
it quite plausible to deny the necessity o f a causal explanation for the gen­
spbaera stellarum fixarum habet movere terram et sphaera lunae habet movere aquam
et sphaerae quinque aliorum planetarum habent movere aerem.” Ibid. Albertus adds a eration ot heat trom light while, at the same time, accepting Albertus’s
sixth cause (ibid., cols. 1—a), which he attributes to Avicenna, namely that the nearness causal explanation o f the w ay in which the Sun’s rays generate heat.
o f the Sun to the sublunar region gives it an advantage over the other planets (although
Venus and Mercury are nearer, they are never far from the Sun and are moved with it).
154. “ Secunda conclusio: quod omne luminosum fortius agit lumen et calorem per radium
151. “ Et ideo etiam quidam philosophi dixerunt, quod radius solis in eo quod radius, non
incendentem quam per reflexum radium vel refractum, ceteris paribus.” Themon Ju­
habet inducere calorem, sed calor est a proprietate ignis, qui movetur a radiis eius sicut
daeus, Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 8. 1518, 162V, col. 1. Themon goes on to explain whv
ferrum a magnetc et adducitur cum radiis eius.” Ibid. Precisely how the solar rays-fire
this occurs and compares the behavior o f the rays to light rays striking a concave burning
relationship was meant to operate in the manner o f the iron—magnet relationship is lett
glass.
unclear.
155. Ibid.
152. As we saw, Buridan denied that light was a body. For Buridan’s rejection o f the view
156. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, dubit. 5, art. 2, 1626, 373, col. 1, who briefly touches
adopted by Albertus, see note 140 o f this chapter.
on Albertus’s idea that light causes heat by agitating the Are in the fiery region under
1 S3- “ Retiexio autem est causa caloris, eo quod in reflexione multi radii dinguntur ad punctum
the Moon, thought Albertus failed to satisfactorily explain how light could become hot.
unum, ubi propter multiplicatum calorem aut calet locus aut in toto incenditur. ” Albertus
Later in the same section (art. 3, 375, col. 2-376, col. 1), however. Amicus repeats
Magnus, De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 3, ch. 3, 147, col. 2. Although Albertus used the term
virtually all o f Albertus’s arguments that 1 have described here.
refiexio, he seems to mean refraction.
157- Amicus, ibid., 373, col. 1 and 375, col. 2-376, col. 1.
THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 6 11
6io

Amicus, however, thought it important to inquire w hy light produces heat was usually explained in terms o f geometric optics. Heat was produced
more heat at some times, and less heat at other tim es.'5* In certain subjects, by incident, reflected, and refracted light rays,1*2 which Buridan would
more light seems to be accompanied by less heat and less light with more probably have explained by the nature o f light.
heat. For example, in the second, or middle, region o f air, there is less heat
than in the inferior region, even though the former region is nearer to the j. Influence
Sun and should have more light. Amicus admits that although we cannot
explain such phenomena, we ought to accept them, because they are ex­ Those terrestrial effects that were inexplicable by celestial motion or light
periences we cannot d en y.'59 In the sixteenth century, John Major argued were usually attributed to “ influences.” Celestial causes described as influ­
that “ other things being equal, where there is more light, there is more ences were invisible, as contrasted with the other two celestial causative
heat.” 160 Things, however, were not always equal, since Major conceded agents, motion and light. Buridan warned that we ought not to deny such
that there is more direct light in the middle region o f air than in the lower influences simply because they are invisible. After all, we do not perceive
region o f air nearer to us. But the greater quantity o f light in the middle the force that is disseminated from a magnet to the iron it attracts, and yet
region o f air, which is naturally cold, fails to produce any heat there. From we can see from the effect that it must be o f considerable p ow er.163 Amicus
the early thirteenth to the late seventeenth century, scholastic natural phi­ explained that because such an influence is not directly detectable by the
losophers were agreed that, directly or indirectly, light caused heat. Because senses - we know it only by its effects - as are celestial motion and light,
light was not considered naturally hot, few, if any, argued that it could it is said to be “ occult” and “ is called by the term ‘influx’ [irtjluxus], or
cause heat directly by moving down from luminous celestial bodies, es­ ‘influence’ [influentia].” 164
pecially the Sun, to the earth. Light had to be altered somehow and some­ In the manner o f its diffusion, celestial influence was most nearly akin to
where so that it could then cause heat in inferior things. Some - for example, celestial light and even to heat.165 But there were significant differences.
Albertus and Amicus - thought light was heated in the region o f fire when N ot only was light visible and influences invisible, but, more importantly,
its rays divided the fire and caused heat to be produced by friction. In some influences could penetrate solid, opaque bodies where light could not.'66
manner akin to the way iron moves to a magnet, heat was drawn to light One o f the most striking illustrations o f influence, cited by supporters o f
rays, which then became hot and could cause heat in terrestrial things. the influence theory, was the production o f metals in the bowels o f the
Before light rays could do this, however, they had to pass through the earth, where light could not penetrate.167 Indeed, it was because o f the
middle region o f air, which, in accordance with Aristotle’s statements in 162. Simon de Tunstede (Pseudo-Scotus), Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 12, 1639, 3:28, col. 2,
the Meteorology, was always assumed to be frigid. Buridan could thus coun­ describes the way that light produces heat: “ Whence heat is generated from light from
the coming together o f opposite rays, which are the incident ray and the reflex, or
ter that just as light incorporates hotness in the region o f fire, so it would
retracted, ray” (Unde calor generatur a lumine ex concursu radiorum oppositorum, qui
absorb coldness as it passes through the middle region o f air."’1 Obviously, sunt radius incidens et reflexus, seu refractas).
in Buridan’s judgment, light could not transmit heat to the earth in this 163. “ Et non debet hoc negari ex eo quod illam influentiam non percipimus sensibiliter quia
etiam non percipimus illam quae de magnete multiplicatur per medium usque ad ferrum,
way. Indeed, he could find no plausible explanations to account for the
quae tamen est magnae virtutis.” Buridan, De caelo. bk. 4, qu. 2, 1942, 250.
manner in which light transmitted heat from planets to terrestrial objects. 164. “ Hie autem influxus caeli perspicue tit per inotum et lumen, si vero non apparet sensui,
Convinced that celestial light did cause heat in terrestrial objects, but unable dicitur virtus occulta et communi nomine 'influxus,’ seu ‘influentia,’ dicitur.” Amicus,
De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 7, art. 1. 1626, 391, col. 1 (mistakenly paginated 381). On page
to determine any causal mechanism by which this was achieved, Buadan
397, column 2, Amicus says that we know influences by their effects.
concluded that no explanation was required. It was enough lor us to know 165. Themon Judaeus described influentia as “ a certain quality or power diffused through the
that, by its very nature, celestial light caused heat in terrestrial objects. whole world, just as the species o f heat or light is multiplied” (Dico quod est quaedam
qualitas sive virtus diffusa per totum mundum sicut multiplicatur species caloris vel
When light rays reached the terrestrial region, their capacity for causing luminis). Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 1, 1518, 155V, col. 2.
166. This is the second o f three ways in which Themon Judaeus (ibid.) distinguished influence
15X. “ Quarta conclusio non est quaerendus modus quo lumen producit calorem. sed cur
from light: “ Secundo differunt quia talis influentia non impeditur saltern totaliter si
aliquando producitur maior, aliquando minor.” Ibid., 373, col. 1. In taking up the first
aliquod corpus interponatur sed transit per corpora opaca et densa per que non potest
part o f this conclusion, Amicus uses the analogy about heaviness.
transire lumen sicut apparet de magnete quia unus movet alium superius in vase natantem
139. just as Aristotle explained that people continued to accept the actuality o f motion despite
si sub vase bene denso teneatur.” Amicus. De caelo. tract. 6, qu. 7, art. 2, 1626, 393,
Zeno’s paradoxes that were designed to deny its possibility. For the texts, see Amicus,
col. 1, mentions Themon by name and cites the three ways.
ibid., 373 (mistakenly paginated 383), col. 2.
167. See Themon Judaeus, ibid., and Amicus, ibid., 394, col. 2. Major, Sentences, bk. 2, dist.
160. 'Respondetur concedendo ubi est plus de lumine plus est de calore ceteris paribus.
14, qu. 7, 1519b, ySr, col. 2, and the Conimbncenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 3, art.
Major, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 7, 1519b, 78r, col. 1.
2, 1598, 199, also assumed the existence o f influences that generated metals in the earth’s
161. “ Iterum, sicut incorporaret sibi caliditatem in sphaera ignis, ita incorporaret sibi trigi-
interior. In his Questions on the Meteorology (Questiones Meteororum), Nicole Oresme savs
ditatem transeundo per mediam regionem aeris quae semper est frigida, et sic trige-
the same thing. For the Latin text, see Oresme. De causis mirahihum [Hansen], 1985, 45-
facerct.” Bundan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 15, 1942, 195-196.
612 THE CE L E ST IA L R E G IO N CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 613
inability o f light to penetrate to the earth’s interior that some scholastics that celestial bodies do not affect inferior things by light alone but also by
inferred the existence o f invisible influences. Following alchemical tradition. motion and by influences that are radiated by the same substantial forms
John Major ([Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 7], 1519b, 78r, col. 2) linked the of the celestial bodies that emit light rays. Indeed, influences radiating from
influence o f particular planets to the formation o f specific metals. Thus the M oon were responsible for the ocean tides.173 In his interpretation,
influences from Saturn produced tin, those from Jupiter lead, from Mars Amicus gives the impression that influences might radiate in some manner
iron, and so on, in the descending order o f the planets, for gold, copper, from the planets themselves. Since Amicus, and everyone else, assumed
mercury, and silver. Rather than vague influences, perhaps it would be that light radiated from planets, Amicus inferred that influences also radiated
more appropriate to assume that heat, which is caused by celestial light or from each planet. Long before, Richard o f Middleton had explicitly assigned
motion, reaches the interior o f the earth and causes metals and other things. the source o f light and influences to the substantial forms o f the planets.'74
O n this approach, celestial influences are superfluous to explain changes Themon Judaeus differed sharply. N ot only did he differentiate between
deep within the earth. Amicus rejects this argument. Heat produced on or the terrestrial effects o f light and influence, but he also distinguished the
above the earth’s surface could not reach deep enough into the earth to sources from which they arose: light came from the planets, but influences
cause the required effects. The density, opacity, and frigidity o f the earth were caused by the orbs, that is, the starless or planet-free parts o f the
would prevent this.168 heavens.'75 Unfortunately, the specific source o f celestial influences was a
Where a terrestriaj effect was not plausibly attributable to celestial light subject that attracted little attention.
or motion, many found it reasonable to assign its cause to some kind of Despite the arguments in favor o f celestial influences, there were a few
influence radiating from the heavens, always assuming that this influence scholastic dissenters who denied their existence and who believed that all
was greater on sublunar objects nearer the heavens than farther from them.169 terrestrial effects traceable to the celestial region could be accounted for
The concept o f influence served as a convenient explanatory device for those solely by motion and light. Perhaps the most eminent o f this group was
terrestrial effects that were not adequately explicable by celestial motion Nicole Oresme, although in his case the situation is confused. In his ques­
or light. A good example was the magnetism by which the poles o f a tions on Aristotle’s Meteorology, Oresme accepts the three instrumentalities.
magnet attract iron. Light could not explain this phenomenon, because He seems to do so again in his Contra divinatores horoscopios, where, at one
magnetic attraction occurred even in a dense fog, where light could not point, he declares unequivocally: “ I assume that celestial bodies act on this
penetrate.170 Amicus also argued that because celestial light is from the Sun inferior [region] by light, motion, and influence” '76 and proceeds to discuss
and is all o f one and the same species, it could not produce contrary effects instances o f celestial influence on the terrestrial region. But later in the same
in the terrestrial region. If one wished to argue that light was not o f one work, Oresme rejects influences, arguing that light and motion were suf­
species but varied from planet to planet, then, in Am icus’s view, this was ficient to account for “ saving the action or production in these inferior
tantamount to an admission o f influences, because these different lights things and their diversity.” Indeed, Oresme emphasizes that the heaven acts
would cause different effects. But to explain the way in which any one of “ by its light and motion and not by other unknown qualities, which are
these lights penetrated to the bowels o f the earth posed a formidable prob­ called influences, etc.” '77 In defense o f his position, Oresme invokes A v-
lem .171 In the thirteenth century, Richard o f Middleton considered the
charge that if light is the same in species for all celestial bodies, then the
173- “ Ad quintum dicendum quod corpora supenora non alterant ista inferiora per influentiam
latter could not cause diverse effects in the sublunar region.172 Richard replies4
6 luminis tantum, sed etiam per motum et per influentia immissas a suis formis substan-
tialibus cum radiis luminosis per quam influentiam causat luna mirabiles aestus oceani,
hoc est fluxum eius et refluxum.” Ibid., 189, col. 1. Oresme also said this in his Questions
46, n. 30. But, in his Contra divinatores horoscopios, as we shall see, Oresme denied the on the Meteorology (Questiones Meteororum: see Oresme, De causis mirabilium [Hansen],
existence o f celestial influences. 1985, 46, n. 30).
168. “ Nam hie calor non pervenit ad tantam distantiam praesertim resistente densitate, opa- 174- For the text, see note 173.
citate, et frigiditate terrae.” Amicus, ibid. 175- For the text, see Themon Judaeus, Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 1, 1518, 155V, col. 2, and
169. See for example, Oresme, Contra divinatores horoscopios [Caroti], 1977, 228. Grant, 1987c, 11, n. 42.
170. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 7, art. 2, 1626, 394, col. 2. r76. “ Suppono quod corpora celestia agunt hie inferius per lumen, motum, et influentiam.”
171. “ Et iam patet ex dictis non posse salvari omnia etc. Nam lumen productum a sole m Oresme, Contra divinatores horoscopios [Caroti], 1977, 228.
omnibus astris est eiusdem speciei, quare ex illo non possunt oriri tam multi effectus. 177- Here is the full passage: “ Tunc ponuntur conclusiones: Prima: quod ad salvandum
Illud autem quod est in singulis astris: si eiusdem speciei procedit idem argumentum; si actionem seu productionem in istis inferioribus et diversitatem ipsorum non oportet
diversae iam virtualiter admittitur influentias et cum maiori difficultate, ut patet ex ponere in celo qualitates seu influentiam aliam quam lucem et motum . . . ita quod celum
penetratione usque ad viscera terre.” Ibid., art. 4, 397, col. 2. quidquid agit per suam formam seu essentiam per lucem suam et per motum suum agit
172. “ Item actio corporum superiorum in ista inferiora est per lucem. Sed omnia luminana et non per alias qualitates ignotas, que dicuntur influentie etc.” Ibid., 274. Hansen
communicant in luce. Ergo in istis inferioribus non causant effectus diversos in specie. assumed (Oresme, De causis mirabilium [Hansen], 1985, 45) that although Oresme initially
Richard o f Middleton, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 5, 1591, 2:188, col. 1. accepted the threefold division in his Meteorology, he later rejected influence in his Contra
614 THE CELESTIAL REGIO N CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 615

erroes, the Commentator, who argued that a diversity o f proportions be­ Perhaps as important as any reason is the utility o f the concept o f invisible
tween qualities and elements “ is the cause o f the diversity o f inferior bodies influences. Occult phenomena could be attributed to such radiations. M ag­
composed o f the four elements; therefore that diversity is not attributable netic attraction was a typical example. The lodestone was an earthy body,
to the diversity o f the superior [celestial] bodies.” '78 Terrestrial elements but it had unusual attractive properties that could not be explained in or­
and compounds act upon each other to produce the diversity we observe. dinary Aristotelian term s.’83 Invoking a celestial influence seemed a reason­
Apart from the effects o f celestial motions and celestial light, no separate, able w ay o f resolving that problem and similar ones. Moreover, invisible
superfluous influences need be invoked. Oresme concludes that “ no other forces and powers were so common in medieval thought that adding yet
cause must be sought than that w'hich produces hotness or coldness, etc.; another, in the form o f a celestial influence, caused little intellectual dis­
but that is light and motion, etc.” '7'3 In at least one place in one work, comfort.
Oresme clearly rejected the existence and operation ot celestial influences
and did so because o f a conviction that all terrestrial effects could be saved
by celestial motions and light alone.’80
VI. Universal nature and the preservation o f the world
Other scholastic authors also rejected the role o f celestial influences. In
his Liber de orbibus, Alessandro Achillini thought that heat, rather than If the purpose o f celestial motions, light, and influence was to cause, directly
influences, could produce metals in the bowels o f the earth. lS‘ If we are to or indirectly, the great variety o f changes that occur regularly in the ter­
believe the Coim bra Jesuits ([De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 3, art. 1], 1598, restrial region, there was yet another kind o f action, indeed an influence,
196—197), those who rejected celestial influences did so because they were that was occasionally invoked to explain how the world as a whole was
reluctant to attribute a significant causative role to a force that was imper­ preserved and its order maintained.
ceptible to any o f our senses. From a positive standpoint, they believed In the ordinary course o f events, a body behaves in accordance with its
(197) that light, which could generate heat, was, along with the effects of “ particular nature” (natura particularis or specialis).’84 The latter embraced
motion, sufficient to explain all terrestrial effects that could be attributed the basic properties that made a body behave in its characteristic manner.
to the heavens.182 Thus a heavy body moves downward to its natural place, while a light
Despite some defections, most scholastic authors accepted a role for ce­ body moves upward to its natural place. But matter is also influenced by
lestial influences. W hy were celestial influences widely accepted as a third a “ universal cause” (causa universalis) or “ universal nature” (natura univer­
causative agent in the heavens? Probably because they seemed the most salis), which originates in the celestial region, from whence it is diffused
plausible and intelligible way o f extending celestial action into the bowels throughout the sublunar realm. Also described as a “ celestial” or “ super­
o f the earth. It was a far greater strain on credulity to attribute that function celestial agent” (agens celeste or superceleste), or a “ universal agent” (agens
to light, or to the heat that light might produce, than to assume that an universale), or even a “ celestial force” (virtus caelestis) ,,8s this powerful in­
invisible celestial influence could penetrate opaque bodies. fluence was contrasted with the “ particular nature.”
In the material plenum o f the Aristotelian cosmos, the universal nature,
divinatores horoscopios. But Hansen seems to have missed Oresme's earlier acceptance ot which was not Aristotle’s concept, was conceived as the vigilant guardian
influence in the same Contra divinatores.
178. "Secundo, quia secundum Commentatorem in secundo De generatione et super De celo
ot material continuity, a universal regulative p ow er.|8A Its most essential
diversitas proportionum qualitatum et elementorum est causa diversitatis istorum in- characteristic was an inexorable tendency to preserve and maintain the con­
feriorum compositorum ex quattuor elementis, igitur non propter diversitatem super- tinuity o f the universal plenum .’87 Or, to put it in other terms, its major
iorum.” Oresme, Contra divinatores horoscopios [Caron], 1977, 277.
179. “ Ergo non est querenda alia causa quam ilia que tacit ad calorem vel trigus etc., sed ilia
objective was to prevent formation o f vacua within the world. Whenever
est lux et motus etc., ergo etc.” ibid. formation o f a vacuum was imminent and danger o f separation threatened
180. No definitive judgment can be rendered until the order o f Oresme’s relevant works is
determined and until we can properly reconcile the two conflicting viewpoints in his 183. To my knowledge. Aristotle does not explain the attractive power o f magnets.
Contra divinatores. Oresme’s attitude in this work is, however, consistent with the position 184. I rely here on Grant, 1981a, 69.
he adopted in his final work, Le Livre du del et du monde. where, by means ot his "Joshua 183. Walter Burley used the first three expressions in his Questiones circa libros Physicorum, bk.
argument” (described in Sec. V .i.c o f this chapter), he sought to make the terrestrial 4, qu. 6 (“ Utrum vacuum possit esse” ), 6sv, col. 2-66r, col. 1. For the Latin text, see
region much less dependent on the celestial. also Grant, 1981a, 314, n. 107.
181. “ Ad secundum: pars terrae exterior passa a celestibus partem illi continuam alterat in 186. Among the descriptions that Bacon and Burley offered for the universal nature, we also
viscenbus terrae latentem aptam ut in metalla convertatur per antiperistasim, quoque find virtus regitiva universi. See Bacon, Liber primus. Communia naturalium, in Opera, fasc.
calor in viscenbus terrae fortificatur, etc.” Achillini, Liber de orbibus, 154s, $8r, col. 2. 3, 1911, 222, lines 23—26 and Burley, ibid.. 63V, col. 2. Centuries later. Amicus [Physics,
182. Among those who rejected celestial influences in favor o f motion and light alone, the tract. 21 (“ De vacuo” )], 1626-1629, 2:743, col. -, used the expression virtus regitivae
Coimbra Jesuits, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 3, art. 1, 1598, 196, mention Averroes, totius universi.
Avicenna, Avenazra (Abraham ben Ezra?), Pico della Mirandola, and George Agricola. 187. Bacon, ibid., 220, lines 11-15.
6i6 THE CELESTIAL REGION CELESTIAL INFLUENCE 617

cosmic continuity, the omnipresent universal nature would cause bodies to was called a “ universal cause.” In the first place, it was not so called because
act contrary to their particular natural tendencies: heavy bodies would rise o f any influence it exercised on the actions o f other particular causes but
and light bodies fall. T o preserve the continuity o f the universe, the heavens rather “ because its action is extended to more effects than that o f a particular
would even transform their natural circular motion to rectilinear motion. cause; secondly, [because] it is ordained for the universal good; and thirdly,
If fire were suddenly to descend from its natural place below the concave because, in some way, it helps other agents in their actions, since many
surface o f the lunar sphere, John Dumbleton believed that the heavens would effects require the cooperation o f the heavens, as is obvious from the gen­
immediately move down in a straight line to prevent formation o f the eration o f plants and similar things.” 193 Others, however, like Thomas
dreaded vacuum .188 Whether the universal nature was distinct from bodies Compton-Carleton, viewed the “ universal cause” as something that influ­
and acted independently from them when necessary or whether it was an enced every sublunar effect but seemingly ignored its role as an instrument
inherent property o f matter is left unclear.189 Also uncertain, though likelv, for the maintenance o f universal order.194
is the derivation o f the universal cause from the pseudo-Aristotelian Book From the thirteenth and into the seventeenth century, the concept o f a
on Causes (Liber de causis), which had been translated from Arabic to Latin universal nature or cause, or whatever name was employed, served a wide
in the twelfth century.190 range o f purposes that seemed to vary from author to author. Most, how ­
What is clear, however, is that by the end o f the fourteenth century the ever, emphasized its role as preserver o f the cosmos, a function it performed
concept o f a universal nature was widely accepted and most frequently by preventing formation o f vacua within the material continuum o f our
employed to explain nature’s abhorrence o f a vacuum .19' Indeed, it was world. In the broadest sense, however, the universal cause had a rather
sometimes encapsulated, without further elaboration, in the phrase “ Nature strange purpose. It was G od’s w ay o f preserving the world against contin­
abhors a vacuum .” The popularity o f this important concept continued on gencies that only he could cause.
into the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, when Achillini,
193. “ Dices caelum est causa universalis. Respondetur dici causam universalem, non quia
Suarez, Aversa, Amicus, and Com pton-Carleton, among others, appealed influac in actiones aliorum agentium particularium, sed quia eius actio extenditur ad
to it.192 In a brief but thorough account, Suarez ([Disputationes metaphysicae, plures effectus quam causa particularis; secundo, ad universale bonum ordinatur; tertio
disp. r8, sec. 2], 1866, 1:614, col. 1, par. 40) explained that God intervenes [Amicus has “ 3” ] quia iuuat aliquo modo alia agenda in actiombus suis, cum multi
effectus exigant concursum celorum, ut patet ex generatione plantarum et similium.”
with the universal nature to prevent the destruction o f the order o f the Amicus, ibid., col. 2.
universe, to prevent matter from remaining without form, and to make 194. See note 67 o f this chapter for the relevant text. .
certain that matter is not reduced to nothing. T o prevent the latter situation,
water, for example, is made to move upward to fill any potential vacuum.
But Suarez was uncertain whether God performed these acts by his will
alone or delegated the task to an intelligence.
Whereas Suarez described the universal cause in terms o f what it was
intended to prevent, Amicus put it more positively in explaining why it

188. The passage is from Dumbleton’s Sumrna logicae et philosophicae naturalis, pt. 6, ch 3,
and is described in Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913-1959, 8:162-163. For more on this, see
Grant, 1981a, 304, n. 19.
189. For further discussion, see Grant, 1973, 330—331, n. 6 (where I argue that Bacon and
Burley seem to have conceived it as something external), and 334, n. 13 (where Pseudo-
Aegidius Romanus seems to assume that God confers on things the ability to be joined
and connected when necessity demands it).
190. For the evidence, see Grant, 1973, 330—331, n. 6.
191. During the thirteenth century, Roger Bacon, Pseudo-Grosseteste, Johannes de Quidort,
and Thomas Aquinas used the concept. Litt, 1963, 154—166, cites fifteen occasions where
Thomas opposes the notion o f a universal cause to that o f a particular cause and five
instances where Thomas used the expression natura universalis. Among those who ac­
cepted it in the fourteenth century were Aegidius Romanus, John ofjandun, Franciscus
Mayronnis. Graziadei d’Ascoli, Johannes Canonicus, and Henry o f Hesse. For references,
see Duhem, Le Systeme. 1913-1959, 8:152-158, 160—161, and 166-168. To Duhem's list,
we may add Walter Burley.
192. See Achillini, Liber de orbibus, 1545, 58V, col. 1 (and 59r); Amicus, De caelo. tract. 6. qu-
8, dubit. 2, art. 2, 1626, 407, col. 1; Aversa, De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 9, 1627, 201, col. i-
20 C O S M I C R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H

that Albert ignored (this shift o f emphasis is reflected in the title o f this
619

chapter). The primary aim o f this chapter, then, is to concentrate on the


sorts o f questions about the earth that had cosmic relevance, rather than to
treat o f the earth’s topography, geography, flora, and fauna, or to describe
T he earth and its cosmic the generation and behavior o f the four elements and the compounds (min­
erals and metals) formed from them .2
relations: size, centrality, Before proceeding to these questions about the earth, I shall provide a
brief sublunar context for the earth by describing the broad features o f the
shape, and immobility three elements that were above it: fire, air, and water. I can do no better
than quote from Pierre d’A illy’s Image of the World (Ymago mundi), one o f
the most popular treatises o f the late Middle Ages, a w ork that was printed
early and exercised great influence in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu­
ries.3 “ After treating to some extent o f the heaven,” d’Ailly explains, “ we
In his questions on De caelo, Albert o f Saxony did something quite unusual, must now consider the things that lie under it” :
if not extraordinary. He presented an overall plan for the organization of
his questions by dividing his treatise into three parts, which were meant to
embrace the four books o f Aristotle’s De caelo. In the first book, Albert Immediately after [or below] the sphere of the moon, the philosophers place the
devotes questions to the whole world, while in the second he treats the sphere of fire, which is the most pure there and invisible because of its rarity. Just
nobler part o f that world, namely the heavens, to which he adds the earth, as water is clearer than earth and air than water, so this fire is rarer and clearer than
“ insofar as it is the center o f the heavens and o f the whole w o rld .” And in air, and so is the heaven [or sky] rarer or clearer than fire, except for the stars,
the third, or final, book, Albert considers the parts o f the world that are which are thicker [or denser] parts of the sky so that the stars are lucid and visible.
less noble than the heavens, namely the heavy and light bodies that make Afterwards is the sphere of air, which encloses water and earth. This is divided into
up the four elements.' These three themes - the world as a whole, and its three regions, one of which is the outermost (next to fire) where there is no wind,
two fundamental parts, the nobler celestial region and the less noble ele­ rain, or thunder, nor any phenomenon of this kind, and where certain mountains,
mental region - form the basis o f A lbert’s questions on De caelo. such as Olympus, are said to reach. Aristotle says that starry comets appear and are
To this point, I have tollowed Albert’s outline, which he believed, rightly made there and that the sphere of fire and this supreme region of air with its comets
perhaps, was what Aristotle himself had in mind. We have thus far con­ are moved simultaneously with the heaven [or sky] from east to west. The middle
sidered the world as a whole (Chs. 4-9) and then treated its nobler part, region [of air], however, is where the clouds are and where various phenomena
namely the heavens (Chs. 10—19). But w e have not yet completed Albert’s occur since it is always cold. The other [and third] region is the lowest, where the
vision o f the celestial region, since he also added to it the earth, “ insofar as birds and beasts dwell. Then follow water and earth, for water does not surround
it is the center o f the heavens and o f the whole w orld .” In this category, the whole earth, but it leaves a part of it uncovered for the habitation of animals.
Albert included four questions, the final four o f the second book (bk. 2, Since one part of the earth is less heavy and weighty than another, it is, therefore,
qus. 23-26), wherein he asks: first, whether the earth is in the center o f the higher and more elevated from the center of the world. The remainder [of the earth],
world; second, whether it always rests in the middle o f the world; third, except for islands, is wholly covered by waters according to the common opinion
whether it is spherical; and fourth, whether the whole o f it is habitable. of philosophers. Therefore, the earth, as the heaviest element, is in the center or
Although the earth was not considered a planet, its location near or at the middle of the world, so that the earth’s center is the center of its gravity; or, according
center made it a vital part o f the cosmic network. O f Albert’s four themes to some, the center of gravity of the earth and also of water is the center of the
(centrality, immobility, sphericity, and habitability), habitability will be world. And although there are mountains and valleys on the earth, for which reason
treated only in passing, largely replaced by the size o f the earth, a subject it is not perfectly round, it approximates very nearly to roundness. Thus it is that

1. “ Postquam tractavi circa pnmum huius quasdam dubitationes concernentes totalem tnun- 2. Thus I shall not treat the third and final part o f Albert’s threefold division on the light and
dum. Et similiter tractavi circa secundum huius dubitationes concernentes partem nobi- heavy elements o f the sublunar realm, which formed the substance o f books 3 and 4 o f
liorem mundi, scilicet celum et cum hoc terram prout est centrum cell et totalis mundi. Aristotle’s De caelo. Although some might wish to incorporate the sublunar realm into
Nunc volo tractare dubia concernentia gravia et levia, sicut sunt elementa que sunt partes medieval cosmology, it will not be included here.
mundi totalis minus nobiles quam sit celum.” Albert o f Saxony [De celo, bk. 3, qu. i]» 3. In the Ymago, d’Ailly relied heavily on Nicole Oresme’s Traitie de I’espere [McCarthy],
1518, n q v (incorrectly given as iiyv), col. 2. 1943 -

618
620 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O S M I C R E L A T I O N S OF TH E E A R T H 621

an eclipse of the moon, which is caused by the shadow of the earth, appears round. o f 24,902 English miles.7 Another estimate, derived ultimately from Era­
They say the earth is round, therefore, because it approximates to roundness.4 tosthenes, a Greek o f the third century a . d ., was put at 252,000 stades, a
good approximation to the true value.8Eratosthenes’ value was popularized
As we shall see, d’A illy ’s remarks about the earth were commonplace. in the Middle Ages in Sacrobosco’s Sphere and in d’A illy ’s Ymago mundi.
Because d’A illy derived most o f his report from Sacrobosco, their accounts
are quite similar.
Anyone traveling south or north along a meridian until the polestar shifts
I. The size o f the earth its elevation by 1 degree would have traversed a distance o f 700 stades,
which, when multiplied by 360 degrees, yielded a figure o f 252,000 stades.
The earth’s size was usually considered from tw o different vantage points,
D ’Ailly, but not Sacrobosco, equates 252,000 stades with 15,750 leagues,
one absolute, the other relative. The former concerned the absolute size of
where a league equals 2 miles.9 Using d’A illy ’s figure, the earth’s circum­
the earth in terms o f its circumference, measured in whatever units were
ference would be 31,500 miles, a considerable improvement over Aristotle’s
in vogue; the latter was a measure o f the earth’s size in relation to the whole
value but still wide o f the mark. The method described by Sacrobosco and
o f the spherical universe. Despite the seeming importance o f these two
d’A illy is not the one used by Eratosthenes, who derived his figure geo­
types o f measure, scholastics seem not to have devoted any specific question
metrically, but is one devised by Arabs in the ninth century. According to
to the earth’s size. *
d’A illy ,10 the Arabs reckoned a degree along the meridian not in stades but
Drawing on Alfraganus, John o f Sacrobosco characterized the size o f the
in miles, 56 2/3 miles, to be precise. Based on this value, d’A illy explains
earth as a mere point in comparison to the firmament. For if the earth were
that Alfraganus and other Arabs determined a value o f 20,400 miles for the
o f any significant size as compared to the sphere o f the fixed stars, we would
earth’s circumference (that is 360 x 56 2/3), a third estimate that was
be unable to see half o f the heavens.5 So small is the earth’s magnitude in
considerably less than the true figure.
comparison to the size o f the firmament that “ an eye at the earth’s center
In the same chapter in which he conveyed the estimate o f 20,400 miles,
would see half the sky, and one on the earth’s surface would see the same
d’A illy explained that “ According to Aristotle and Averroes at the end o f
h a lf’ (Sacrobosco, Sphere, ch. i, 1949, 122). According to Alfraganus, even
the second book o f De caelo et mutido, the end o f the habitable earth toward
a star is a mere point in comparison to the firmament. The earth, which is
the east and the end o f the habitable earth toward the west are very close
smaller than any star, must bear an even smaller ratio to that same firma­
and there is a small sea between” (Grant, 1974, 639). D ’A illy’s report o f
ment. Scholastics had no reason to disagree with any o f these claims.
20,400 miles as the Arabian value for the earth’s circumference and his
From such beliefs, it appears that medieval natural philosophers and as­
statement shortly afterward in the same chapter about a small intervening
tronomers conceived a universe that was quite large.6 We should lay to rest
sea played a role in making Columbus conceive o f a voyage o f discovery
the oft-repeated, but misleading, judgm ent that the medieval mind took
to America as feasible. Convinced that he could reach India by sailing
comfort in a small, intimate universe, the coziness o f which was shattered
westward from Spain, Columbus required evidence to convince Spanish
O i d y in the seventeenth century with the gradual acceptance o f its infinite
authorities o f the viability o f so bold and costly a venture. He found this
extent. If any sense o f coziness existed about the cosmos, it derived not
in d’A illy ’s Ymago mundi, which provided him with the support o f Aristotle
from its size but from its assumed intelligibility.
and Averroes, who were favorably disposed toward the idea that Spain and
Despite the conception o f the earth as a point in relation to the universe,
India were connected by the same ocean. In his personal, annotated copy
the earth had a measurable size, and at least three estimates were commonly
o f d’A illy ’s book, which is preserved in Seville, Columbus seized every
known. In De caelo (2.14.298a. 15—16), Aristotle reports that mathematicians
opportunity to emphasize that a degree is only 56 2/3 Roman miles and
estimate the earth’s circumference at 400,000 stades. Although the exact
that, consequently, the earth’s circumference is 20,400 miles, the smallest
value o f Aristotle’s stade is unknown, scholars estimate that his value ot
the earth’s circumference was approximately twice that o f the modern value
7. Cohen and Drabkm, 1958, 150, n. 2, give 600 feet as the value o f a stade. Because the
length o f a foot varied, so did that o f the stade.
4. I quote my translation from Grant, [974, 633. Aristotle’s statement is from Meteorology 8. The method used by Eratosthenes and Posidonius was reported by Cleomedes in the
1.7.344a. 9-23. For a longer and more systematic description o f the three regions, see latter’s On the Orbits of the Heavenly Bodies. For Cleomedes’ description, see Cohen and
Johannes Velcuno [Physics], 1534, 79r-89r; on 82v-88r, Velcuno treats fire, air, water, and Drabkin, 1958, 149-153.
earth, in that order. 9. For Sacrobosco’s description, see Sacrobosco, Sphere, ch. 1, 1949, 122-123, and for
5. Sacrobosco (Sp/iere, ch. 1 ], 1949, 122. For the source o f some o f these ideas, see Alfraganus d’ Ailly’s see Grant, 1974, 633-634.
[Campani], 1910. 69, and Alfraganus [Carmody], 1943, 7. 10. D ’Aillv conveys this in chapter 10 o f the Ymago mundi (for the English translation, see
6. For the rest o f this section on the earth’s size, I rely on Grant, 1971, 62. Grant. 1974, 638).
622 THE CE LE STIAL REG IO N C O S M I C R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H 623

o f the available estimates. Since 56 2/3 yielded the smallest value for the Buridan felt he had to resolve in coping with the question “ Whether the
earth’s circumference and lent credibility to his claim, Colum bus expressly earth always is at rest in the center o f the universe.” '3 That the earth should
declared that this number was an exact measurement o f a degree and, in a be situated in the center o f the world was evident on the basis o f the
few instances, drew a box around this all-important number in the text. A Aristotelian principle o f contrariety, in this case the pair o f contraries up
smaller earth made it likely that less ocean intervened between Spain and and down. If absolute up is taken as the concave surface o f the lunar orb,
India. To buttress his case, however, Columbus exaggerated Aristotle’s then absolute down, which is the contrary o f absolute up, must be the
support by attributing to him not only the opinion that a single ocean joined maximum distance from up. Absolute down must then be equivalent to
Spain and India but also the belief that it was navigable in a few days because the center o f the world. But what is absolutely heavy, namely the earth,
o f its smallness. Far from marking a departure from ancient and medieval ought to be located in the place that is absolutely down, namely the center
opinion, Columbus relied heavily on traditional views to support his daring o f the world. Hence the earth should be located at the geometric center o f
proposal. the w o rld .'4
N o w if the earth were a perfectly homogeneous body, its center would
coincide with the center o f the world. Indeed, if the earth were homoge­
II. The earth’s centrality neous, its center o f magnitude (medium magnitudinis) would coincide with
its center o f gravity (medium gravitatis), and both would coincide with the
1. The three centers
center o f the world. But the earth is hardly a homogeneous body. One
When discussing the overall organization o f the world, scholastic natural region o f it is covered with water and uninhabited, whereas the other part
philosophers customarily located the earth at the center o f the cosmos. With is where plants and animals live and is relatively free o f water. Thus the
greater sophistication, however, they soon realized that what lay at the Sun and the air make the uncovered part hot and more rare and tenuous,
center o f the world and what was meant by “ center” were unclear and, at while the other part, not so affected, remains denser and more compact.
best, ambiguous. T o clarify matters, three different kinds o f centers were “ N o w if one body in one part is lighter and in an opposite part heavier,
distinguished. Nicole Oresme presented them succinctly in a question on the center o f gravity will not be the center o f magnitude.” ' 3 Herein lies a
“ Whether the earth is naturally at rest in the center o f the universe” (Oresme problem: Which center is the center o f the w orld?If>
[De spera, qu. 3], 1966a, 65): the first is the center o f the whole world, Without hesitation, Buridan chooses the center o f gravity. Heavy bodies
“ namely a point equidistant from all parts o f the convex surface o f the are always moving toward the center o f the world, with heavier parts
whole w orld,” or the geometric center; the second kind is the earth’s “ center displacing less heavy parts. But if the center o f gravity is the real center o f
o f magnitude,” where the quantity o f earth on one side o f the center (pre­ the world, it follows that the earth is not in the center with respect to its
sumably o f a line drawn through the center) is equal to that on the other magnitude. Because o f the uneven heating effects o f the Sun and the uneven
side (of the line);11 finally, a third way is “ center o f gravity,” where the distribution o f the earth’s matter and surface waters, the center ot the earth’s
heaviness on each side o f the center (again, presumably o f a line drawn magnitude could never coincide with the true geometric center o f the uni­
through the center) is equal. These three definitions, sometimes in varying verse. Indeed, “ it follows that the earth is nearer to the heaven in the part
forms, were widely accepted even into the seventeenth century.'2
The question o f the earth’s centrality became one o f the doubts that jean 12* 13. “ Quaeritur consequenter: Utrum terra semper quiescat in medio mundi.” Buridan [De
caelo, bk. 2, qu. 22], 1942, 226. The translation is Clagett’s in Clagett, 1959, 594: reprinted
11. Oresme, De spera, qu. 3, 1966a, 65-67, takes “ center o f magnitude” in two ways. Taken in Grant, 19-4, 500-503, with additional commentary. As a glance at question 389 in the
properly, it concerns only spherical or circular magnitudes where all the lines drawn from “ Catalog ot' Questions” in Appendix I o f this volume will reveal, this was one o f the
the center to the circumference are equal. In its improper signification, center o f magnitude most popular questions in medieval cosmology.
is the middle o f anything, so that any magnitude will have a center. When John Major 14. Buridan, ibid., 230-231; for the translation, see Clagett, 1959, 596-597; Grant, 1974- >02.
defined “ center ot magnitude,” he did so in the “ proper” way, confining himself to the 15. Buridan, ibid., 231; Clagett, ibid., 597. par. 11; Grant, ibid., par. 11.
center o f magnitude o f a sphere: “ Centrum magmtudinis corporis est punctum a quo 16. Aristotle distinguished a center o f the world and a center ot magnitude but made no
omnes linee recte ducte ad circumferentiam sunt equales.” Major [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. mention o f a center o f gravity. In De caelo 2.14.296b 15-18, Aristotle explained ([Guthrie],
14, qu. 12], 1519b, 84V, col. 1. i960) that “ the earth and the Universe have the same centre, tor the heavy bodies do
12. Definitions similar to Oresme’s were furnished by the Conimbricenses [De coelo, bk. 2, move also towards the centre o f the earth, yet only incidentally, because it has its centre
ch. [4, qu. 3, art. 1 j, 1598, 381; Mastnus and Bellutus [De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 3, art. 2], at the centre o f the Universe.” Although Aristotle was aware o f the irregular shape of
1727, 3:5^0, col. 2, par. 105; and Aversa [De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 5], 1627, 225, col. 1. the earth’s surface, he treated the earth as if it were a homogeneous sphere. However,
Christopher Clavius and Melchior Comaeus gave different definitions for center o f grav­ he imagined how it might be otherwise when, later in the same chapter (2972.3 1-33), he
ity. For references and further discussion, see Grant, 1984b, 21 and n. 65. In what follows, declared that “ if, the earth being at the centre and spherical in shape, a weight many
I shall draw heavily on the latter monograph, and shall frequently refer the reader to texts times its own were added to one hemisphere, the centre ot the Universe would no longer
and notes in it. coincide with that o f the earth.”
624 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O S M I C R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H 625
not covered with waters than in the covered part.” '7 From the standpoint small rectilinear motions.23 D ’A illy repudiated Buridan’s underlying thesis
o f its magnitude, then, the earth is not directly in the middle o f the world. that because every part o f the earth moves with a rectilinear motion, there­
Nevertheless, “ we comm only say, however, that it is in the center o f the fore the whole earth must do so.24 B y the sixteenth and seventeenth cen­
universe, because its center o f gravity is the center o f the universe.” '8 In turies, the suggestion that the earth might suffer small rectilinear motions
order to save the earth’s cosmic centrality - and all were agreed that it did was rarely mentioned.
lie at the center o f the world - it was essential that the earth’s center o f Nevertheless, Buridan’s idea o f small rectilinear motions exercised some
gravity be taken as equivalent to the center o f the w o rld .17
19
18 influence, even in the seventeenth century. Thus Raphael Aversa argued
([De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 6], 1627, 232, col. 2-234, col. 2) that the earth
suffered continuous alterations that caused it to increase or decrease in
2. Does the earth m ove with small rectilinear motions?
weight. As a result, the earth’s center o f gravity, which is the earth’s center,
But what a peculiar center was the earth’s center o f gravity. For, as Buridan continually shifts, thereby causing an incessant sequence o f rectilinear mo­
reveals in the very next paragraph, the earth’s center o f gravity is incessantly tions. Although such movements occur continually, Aversa considered
changing. Geologic processes guarantee this. Earthly debris brought down them so minimal as to be imperceptible. Indeed, this “ tenuous motion o f
from the mountains flows into the sea and settles to the bottom. From this the earth, which escapes our senses . . . , must be taken as if it did not exist. ” 25
incessant and inexorable process, the uncovered part o f the earth diminishes, Thus did Aversa have his motion and deny it at the same time, leaving his
while the part covered by waters is increased. Consequently, the center o f anti-Copernican credentials intact. Most scholastic authors, especially those
gravity is continually shifting. With each shift, however, the latest center who wrote after the condemnation o f Copernicus’s De revolutionibus in 1616,
o f gravity seeks to coincide with the geometric center o f the world. The were reluctant to attribute any genuine motion to the earth.26
center o f the earth is thus variable. As a consequence, the earth is mobile, In 1622, Paul Guldin (1577-1643) published a dissertation in which he
because with each shift o f its center o f gravity, the whole earth undergoes also assumed that the earth’s center o f gravity continually sought to coincide
a small rectilinear motion as the new center o f gravity seeks to coincide with the center o f the universe, resulting in small but incessant rectilinear
with the geometric center o f the universe. In order that this process continue
o f gravity were added to one part so that it would be more powerful than the resistance
indefinitely and that earthy debris always be available for transmission via o f the air opposing [the motion], then the earth would be moved.” Among a number of
the rivers to the ocean, Buridan assumed that “ mountains were consumed possible ways for the earth to move, Themon Judaeus suggests that it could be moved
and destroyed sometimes, nay infinite times, if time were eternal.” 20 by rising or falling - presumably rectilinearly - because o f a greater heaviness on one side
than on the other (quod tota terra moveatur ascendendo vel descendendo propter grav-
Buridan’s conception o f an earth undergoing incessant small rectilinear itatem maiorem ex una parte quam alia). Themon Judaeus [Meteorology, bk. 2, qu. 7],
motions found some significant support from Albert o f Saxony and John 1518, 174V, col. 1. Themon, however, does not think this possibility is really germane
Major, who, as a result o f the publication o f their questions on De caelo, to the question (De isto nihil ad propositum quamvis sit possibile). Ibid.
23. D ’Ailly, 14 Questions, qu. 3, 1531, i5or.
were instrumental in transmitting medieval ideas to early modern scholastics 24. In his counterargument, d’Ailly uses an example o f a pillar, or column, composed o f ten
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.2' With somewhat less conviction, stones to show that although each o f the ten stones might move rectilinearly and change
Nicole Oresme and Themon Judaeus also conceded the possibility that the positions, the pillar as a whole would remain in the same position and have the same
center o f gravity. This is achieved by taking the first stone at the top o f the column and
earth could be moved locally,22 while Pierre d’A illy rejected the idea o f placing it below the lowest stone; then the second stone is taken and also placed below
the lowest, or bottommost, stone; and then the third stone is taken and placed below the
17. C lagett, 1059. 597, par. 12: Grant, 1974, 502, par. 12. lowest stone o f the column, and so on indefinitely. Although each stone will be in motion,
18. Clagett, ibid.; Grant, ibid. (“ Sic igitur terra secundum suam magnitudinem non est directe the column as a whole will remain at rest in the same place, so that its center ot gravity
in medio mundi; tamen dicimus communiter quod est in medio mundi, quia medium should also remain the same (Verbi gratia: In compositionibus fiat unum pilare compos-
gravitatis eius est medium mundi.”) Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 22, 1942, 231. itum ex 10 lapidibus et capiatur lapis superior et ponatur sub inferiori pellendo inferiorem.
19. For the manner in which the earth’s centrality was reconciled with the assumed eccentricity Iterum capiatur secundus et ponatur sub, et sic continuando semper tunc in illo casu
ot the earth in Ptolemaic astronomy, see Chapter 13, Section III.4. certum est quod quaelibet pars pilans movetur et ascendit continue et tamen totum pilare
20. Clagett, 1959, 598, par. 13; Grant, 1974, 502-503, par. 13. For the means b y w hich this in se quiescit). Ibid. Along with Albert o f Saxony and Major, d’Ailly was another trans­
process was repeated indefinitely, see this chapter, Section IV, on the terraqueous globe. mitter o f significant medieval cosmological ideas to early modem scholastics.
21. Albert of Saxony, De celo. bk. 2, qu. 24, 1518, 117V, col. 1. In a fourth conclusion, Albert 25. Aversa, De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 6, 1627, 234, col. 2. The ellipsis replaces approximately
says “bene verisimile est quod semper quelibet pars terre totalis moveatur motu recto.” fifteen lines o f text.
He then describes how the earth’s center of gravity continually shifts and seeks to coincide 26. Cornaeus seems to have allowed that minute motions - to the extent o f a flea’s leap - o f
with the center of the world. For Major, see Major [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 9], 1526, 23, the earth might occur to bring the earth’s center o f gravity into coincidence with the
col. 2. center o f the world. But these motions were imperceptible and so minute that they caused
22. In the ninth of twelve conclusions included in his questions on whether the earth is no real physical changes. See Cornaeus [De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 12], 1657,
naturally at rest in the center of the universe, Oresme says (De spera, qu. 3, 1966a, 73) 529—530. Comaeus’s position was essentially the same as Aversa’s, and both were probably
that “it is possible for the whole earth to be moved locally, because, if a sufficient amount affected by the climate o f opinion following the aftermath o f the condemnation ot 1616.
626 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O S M I C R E L A T I O N S OF TH E E A R T H 627

motions o f the earth.27 Even so slight an impact as the descent o f a bird spherical - are often used interchangeably, and that he himself w ill use them
onto the earth’s surface was sufficient to cause a change in the earth’s center in the same w a y .32 This dichotomy was reflected in the formulation o f
o f gravity. With the republication o f his treatise in 1635, Guldin’s idea that questions about the earth’s shape. Although most natural philosophers used
even the flight o f a bird could move the earth ran afoul o f the climate o f the term spherical, as in the question “ Whether the earth is spherical,” some
opinion created by the condemnation o f Galileo in 1633. Guldin was com­ used the term round, perhaps because it more accurately depicted the phys­
pelled to say that the weight o f a bird does not cause the earth to move ical earth.33 Nevertheless, the two terms were used interchangeably.
physically but only in a mathematical sense.28 That the earth was not perfectly spherical was patent to all. Its surface
But if few accepted small rectilinear motions for the earth, most accepted, was covered with mountains and valleys. But those mountains and valleys
on almost empirical grounds, the idea that the earth’s surface was in a were relatively small quantities in relation to the whole earth and did not
continual process o f change. H ow did these changes on the earth’s surface alter the earth’s overall spherical appearance.34 The same high mountains
affect scholastic thoughts about the shape o f the earth? Was it round, as could be used as evidence o f the earth’s rotundity. For if the earth was flat,
Aristotle had argued? O r was it some other shape, or perhaps without any high mountains ought to be seen from distances that are much farther away
definite shape at all? If number o f discussants is a measure o f popularity, than the distances from which we actually see them. That they are not seen
then the question “ Whether the whole earth is spherical” was clearly popular in this manner derives from the bulge o f the earth that occurs between those
and very likely important (see qu. 383 in the “ Catalog o f Questions,” mountains and the place from whence we view them .35 At least four ar­
Appendix I). guments were derived from Aristotle directly and were frequently repeated
in the question on the earth’s sphericity or roundness.36 As a heavy body,
every piece o f earth falls naturally toward the center o f the world. But
although the parts o f earth oppose each other as they approach the center,
III. T h e shape o f the earth
they sink tov/ard the center little by little and, in the process, form them­
As we saw in Chapter 6, acceptance o f a spherically shaped world was selves naturally into a spherical shape.37 Again, wherever the earth is devoid
virtually unanimous. If pressed, Aristotelian natural philosophers would o f mountains or valleys, that is, where it is reasonably level, elevated heavy
have described the world as a perfect sphere, by which they would have bodies fall towrard the center o f the world in nonparallel paths that torm
meant geometric sphericity. Just as scholastics asked about the shape o f the equal angles at the earth’s surface.38 This would not happen if the earth
world, so also did they ask about the shape o f the earth. And again following were plane rather than round. In another argument, Buridan, Themon
Aristotle and others, they concluded that the earth was like a sphere but,
unlike the heaven, was not a perfect sphere. In truth, it was not a sphere 32. “ Verumtamen rotundum et sphericum quandoque capiuntur large unum pro alio et ita
at all but was only “ like a sphere,” which made it “ round.” 2'2 Pierre d’Ailly capiuntur in proposito.” D ’Ailly, 14 Questions, qu. 5. I 53 L 1 53v -
33. Although most scholastics used the first mode o f expression, those who used some version
defined both a bit more formally. “ Properly speaking,” he explains, “ that o f the question “ Utrum [or “ an” ] terra sit rotunda,” are Michael Scot [Sphere, lec. 6],
is called spherical which is without any uneveness on its exterior surface 1949, 294-295; Cecco d’Ascoli [Sphere], 1949, 366; and Cornaeus, De coelo, tract. 4, disp.
and from the middle point o f which all straight lines projected to the surface 3, qu. 2, dub. 2, 1657, 516.
34. Johannes Versor declares that “ even mountains and cavities o f the earth are not notable
are equal.” 30 Roundness, however, “ is what tends toward sphericity, al­ quantities in relation to the whole earth. Thus they do not prevent us from calling the
though it is not perfectly spherical; [as] for example, an apple is called round, earth spherical in relation to the heaven” (Etiam montes et concavitates terre non sunt
notabilis quantitatis in ordine ad totam terram. Ideo non impediunt quin terra posset did
but not spherical. But d’A illy adds that the two terms - roundness and
sperica in ordine ad celum). Versor [De celo, bk. 2, qu. ult. (18)], 1493, 32r, col. 2. The
same argument is cited by Cecco d’Ascoli, ibid., 367; Michael Scot, ibid., 296; Buridan,
27. See H. L. L. Busard, “ Guldin, Paul," in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 5:588. The
De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 23, 1942, 234; Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 25, 1518, u8r,
dissertation o f 1622 was republished in 1635 in the first o f four volumes with the title:
Centrobaryca sen cie centro gravitatis trium specierum quantitatis continuae (Vienna, 1635-1641). col. 2; and Pierre d’Ailly, Yntago mutidi (translation in Grant, 1974, 633).
28. See Schofield, 1981, 282-283. 35. See Albert o f Saxony, ibid.
29. Albert o f Saxony, De celo. bk. 2, qu. 25, 1518, u8r, col. 1, offers the external surface 36. For Aristotle, see De caelo 2 .14.297b. 14-298^20. Buridan was among those who repeated
them (Buridan, ibid., 234-235). Themon Judaeus. Tractatus de spera, qu. 12, in Hugonnard-
ot the world as an example ot a perfect exterior sphericity without any unevennesses; as
an example o f an imperfectly round body, Albert cites an apple, which was commonly koche, 1973, 121-126, and Albert o f Saxony, ibid., also cite most o f the arguments.
mentioned in this context. 37. Themon Judaeus, ibid., 124, and Albert o f Saxony, ibid., added to this example when
they assumed that if all the parts o f the earth tended equally toward the center o f the
30. “ Pro primo puncto est advertendum quod sphaencum loquendo proprie dicitur quod in
eius superficie exteriore est sine quacunque asperitate et a cuius puncto medio omnes world and if the earth were fluid like water so that no part supports another, the earth
lineae rectae ad illam supertkicm ductae sunt sibi mvicem aequales.” D ’Aillv, 14 Questions, would shape itself into a perfectly spherical form.
qu. 5. 1531, 153v. 38. That is, every downward rectilinear motion falls perpendicularly to a tangent at the point
where the body impacts. Aristotle’s discussion in De caelo 2 .14.297b. 17-20 forms the
31. Themon Judaeus also uses the apple as illustrative o f roundness. See Themon Judaeus
[Tractatus tie spera, qu. 12] in Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, 121. basis o f this argument.
628 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O S M I C R E L A T I O N S OF TH E E A RT H 629

Judaeus, and Albert o f Saxony, drawing ultimately from Aristotle, invoke Mandeville - the centrality o f Jerusalem, and therefore the assumption o f
lunar eclipses, where the earth’s shadow forms an arc across the face o f the a flat earth, were accepted simultaneously with the concept o f a spherical
Moon, separating the visible from the invisible part, a sure indication that earth.45 Although Mandeville’s w ork was very popular, the flat-earth theory
the earth, interposed between Sun and Moon, is round.39 Finally, they also was dealt a heavy blow by the introduction o f Ptolem y’s Geography into
mention the change o f position o f stars from north to south, and vice versa, the West in 1410 (the first edition was printed in 1475). Indeed, a few years
as seen by travelers. If one travels from north to south, some stars at the before its publication in 1475, the Portuguese had crossed the equator to
south pole that were previously invisible become visible, and the polestar make many new discoveries along the coast of'A frica and reinforce the
becomes less elevated. Similarly, as one moves from south to north, stars concept o f a spherical earth.46
in the north that were previously invisible become visible, and stars that Whatever may be said about the medieval flat-earth theory with Jerusalem
were previously visible to the south become invisible. If the earth were flat, at its center, it played no role in scholastic questions on the sphericity o f
the stars would always remain visible, whether one was m oving to the the earth. In the relevant questions or sections by Cecco d’Ascoli, Buridan,
north or to the south. Such changes could not occur unless the earth were Oresme, Albert o f Saxony, Themon Judaeus, and Johannes de Magistris,
spherical.40 Although Aristotle did not include anything about roundness there is no mention o f a flat earth, even as an alternative to a spherical earth.
involving east and west, scholastics added certain experiences that lent fur­ Occasionally scholastic authors alluded to a flat earth, but they did not
ther plausibility to a round earth. Their source was probably Sacrobosco’s associate it with - or even mention, for that matter - Jerusalem or the Bible.
Sphere. According to Sacrobosco, the stars and the zodiacal signs do not The tenor o f these citations o f a flat earth is illustrated by John Major, who
set at the same time everywhere “ but rise and set sooner for those in the sought to refute the argument that “ the earth appears plane to the sense;
east than for those in the w est,” a good indication that the earth is round.414 2 therefore it is not spherical.” In response, Major explains that the greater
Moreover, certain celestial events occur earlier for Orientals than for West­ the circle, the more a segment o f it will appear plane; and the smaller the
erners: for example, “ one and the same eclipse o f the moon which appears circle, the more that segment will tend to curvedness. “ Thus if you take a
to us in the first hour o f the night appears to orientals about the third hour portion o f a great sphere, it will appear plane; but this will not happen if a
o f the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, portion is taken o f a small circle.47 But a man does not perceive the curvature
o f which setting the bulge o f the earth is the cause.” 44 o f the earth by the sense [alone], but by judgm ent and sense.” 48 Others
Scholastic authors were unanimous in their acceptance o f a round, though introduce a flat earth because Aristotle mentioned and refuted it.49
not perfectly spherical, earth. There was, however, a medieval tradition o f We saw earlier that scholastic natural philosophers equated the earth’s
a flat earth derived from Lactantius (ca. 250-ca. 325), who rejected a spherical center o f gravity with the geometric center o f the world. Given the role
earth since it necessitated the existence o f antipodes, which he judged absurd, that rivers and oceans played in altering the earth’s center o f gravity, how-
because things on the other side o f a spherical earth would fall o ff the earth
45. John Mandeville was an Englishman who wrote in French. He assumed these two irrec­
toward the heaven.43 When pious Christians sometimes placed Jerusalem oncilable concepts in 1366. See Mandeville, 1953, 1:129—130 (English), and 2:332-333
at the center o f the earth, they seemed to imply, if they did not explicitly (French); also Randles, 1980, 17-18.
46. On Ptolemy’s Geography, see Randles, 1980, 21-26.
proclaim, a flat earth.44 In at least one instance — in the Travels o f John
47. This is a different argument from the one Aristotle presents (De caelo 2.13.2938.32-2943.9
[Guthrie], i960) when he explains that while some think the earth is spherical, others
39. For references to Aristotle, Buridan, Themon, and Albert, see note 36. This common consider it “ flat and shaped like a drum. These latter adduce as evidence the fact that the
aigumenr was repeated at least twice by Oresme in Le Livre du del. bk. 2, ch. 31. 1968, sun at its setting and rising shows a straight instead o f a curved line where it is cut off
563, and in his De spera, qu. 5, 1966a, tot. It was also cited by d’Aillv (in his Ymago from view by the horizon, whereas were the earth spherical, the line o f section would
mundi\ see Grant, 1974, 633); Versor, De celo, bk. 2, qu. ult. (18), 1493, 32V, col. 1; and necessarily be curved. They fail to take into consideration either the distance o f the sun
Cornaeus, De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 2, 1657, 317. trom the earth, or the size o f the earth ’s circumference, and the appearance o f straightness
40. The form o f this argument was probably derived from Sacrobosco. Sphere, ch. 1, 1949. which it naturally presents when seen on the surface o f an apparently small circle a great
[21. It was also repeated by Cecco d’Ascoli, Sphere. 1949, 368, and many others. distance away. This phenomenon therefore gives them no cogent ground for disbelieving
41. Sacrobosco, ibid. in the spherical shape o f the earth's mass.”
42. Ibid. Similar arguments appear in Cecco d’ Ascoli, Sphere, 1949, 366; Albert o f Saxony, 48. Major initially concedes the antecedent o f the argument, namely “ the earth appears plane
De celo, bk. 2, qu. 25, 1518, u8r, col. 2; Velcurio, Physics, 1554, 87r; and, in the sev­ to the sense, " and then proceeds: “ Nam semper sphera quanto maior tanto apparet planior
enteenth century, in Cornaeus, De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2. dub. 2, 1657, 517. As quanto circulus est maior tanto magis ad rectitudinem et quanto minor tanto ad curvitatem
further evidence for a round earth, Versor, De celo, bk. 2, qu. ult. (18), 1493, 32V, col. tendit. ut hec tibi manifestentur cape portionem maxime sphere et earn abscindet et
1, mentions a variant on the same theme, namely, that the Sun rises earlier in the east apparebit plana non autem parve. Homo tamen non percipiet sensu terre curvitatem, sed
than in the west. iudicio et sensu.’’ Major, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8, 1526, 22, col. 1.
43. See Randles, 1980, 13. Lactantius proposes a flat earth in his De divittis institutionibus, 3:24- 49. Albertus Magnus is one o f them ([De caelo, bk. 2, tract. 4, ch. 3], 1971, 182, col. 2). For
44. Medieval “ T and O ” maps, which represented a Christian world, often located Jerusalem Aristotle’s arguments against a flat earth, see De caelo 2.13.293 b. 32-2943.9 (for the passage,
at the center o f a circular, flat, earth. See Randles, 1980, 15. see this chapter, n. 47) and 294b. 14-30.
630 THE CELESTIAL REGION COSMIC R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H 631
ever, was their usage o f the term “ earth” here also intended to include water between the spheres o f earth and water. Buridan’s explanation is revealing.
or just the earth alone? The debate that ensued produced the concept o f the Although he was convinced that the spheres o f earth and water were con­
“ terraqueous sphere.” centric with respect to the center o f the world, he also realized that the
sphere o f water did not completely surround the earth, since land existed
above the water. Water was unable to surround the earth completely, be­
cause the latter had deep caverns which the water filled as it flowed naturally
IV. The terraqueous globe
downward. M oreover, parts o f the water evaporated and mixed with the
In his famous Commentary on the “ Sphere” of Sacrobosco, Christopher Clavius air. The quantity o f water was thus insufficient to cover the entire earth,
explained that although Sacrobosco located the earth in the center o f the and so part o f the earth inevitably was left exposed above the water. The
firmament, we should understand “ the earth simultaneously with water. exposed part o f the earth would be rarefied and lightened by the Sun’s heat
For although the author speaks expressly o f the earth alone, the same ar­ and the action o f the air, whereas the submerged part would remain heavy
guments have the same force with respect to the whole aggregate o f earth and dense. It was this unhomogeneous arrangement o f earth and water, as
and water.” 50 Although in fact Sacrobosco did not conceive o f the earth as we saw earlier, that caused the earth’s center o f gravity to differ from its
Clavius says he does, the treatment o f earth and water as a single aggregate center o f magnitude. In this physical arrangement, only the earth’s center
- though not a single sphere — may have begun in the fourteenth century. o f gravity was coincident with the center o f the world.
Without emphasis or elaboration, Aristotle, in the manner presented by Buridan anticipated a serious objection. O ver long periods o f time, geo­
d’A illy earlier in this chapter, had arranged the four elements in a series of logic processes — especially the effect o f water flowing to the seas with
concentric spheres, with the earth at the center o f the universe, surrounded earthy matter brought down from the mountains - would wear down the
by the spheres o f water, air, and fire, in that order (Meteorology 2.2.354b.23- mountains and elevations until the earth was everywhere submerged below
27). Aristotle surely realized that the spheres o f earth and water did not the water. 53 But this failed to occur. Why? According to Buridan’s ingenious
conform fully to his schema, since dry land extended above the waters and explanation, the earthy matter carried down from the mountains and ele­
fire was sometimes visible on the earth’s surface.51 But the relations between vations and continually deposited in the seas and waters makes the sub­
the spheres o f earth and water, on which Aristotle had provided little guid­ merged portions o f the earth heavier, which, in turn, causes the earth’s
ance, posed serious problems in the Middle Ages. In the Sphere, Sacrobosco center o f gravity to shift continually. These minute but incessant rectilinear
described Aristotle’s representation o f the sublunar region as containing shifts o f the earth’s center o f gravity cause previously submerged parts o f
four concentric spheres, one for each element, but noted that in order to the earth to rise above the surface o f the seas and oceans to form new
preserve some dry land tor animate creatures, the sphere o f water did not mountains.54 Because this geologic process is cyclic and continuous, part
completely surround the earth. The relationship between the earth and o f the earth will always remain elevated above the waters. Since the exposed
surrounding waters also had a biblical explanation. After surrounding the part is more rarefied than the submerged part, more than half o f the earth’s
earth with waters on the second day o f creation, God, on the third day, magnitude will always lie above water.
commanded that “ the waters under the heaven be gathered together into But if more than half o f the earth is exposed above the waters, Buridan,
one place” and that “ dry land appear.” 52 As we saw in the preceding section, along with many others, assumed that only one-fourth o f the whole earth
this was the standard assumption, at least in the thirteenth century. was inhabited.55 In yielding only one-quarter o f the earth for habitation,

I. The curious and minimal role o f water in the determination o f 53. Buridan’s analysis is contained in the question “ Whether the whole earth is habitable.”
Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 7, 1942, 154-135. For a translation o f most o f the question,
the earth’s center o f gravity see Grant, 1974, 621-624. For an earlier version o f the text o f this question and a brief
commentary on its contents, see Moody, 1975.
Further explanations were forthcoming in the fourteenth century, when a 54. Buridan, ibid., 159-160; Grant, ibid., 623. Part o f this section is translated into French
number o f suggestions were made to explain more precisely the relationship by Randles, 1980, 43. Albert o f Saxony, De celo, bk. 2, qu. 24, 1518, 117V. col. 1, adopts
a similar interpretation.
50. Clavius [Sphere, ch. 1], 1593, 151; Sacrobosco, Sphere, ch. 1, 1949, 84 (Latin), 122 (En­ 55. Buridan, ibid., 157, reports that some believe all o f the quarters o f the earth are habitable,
glish). In this section on the terraqueous sphere, I draw heavily on Grant, 1984b, 22-32. while others assume that only one-fourth is habitable. In refuting the first opinion (158).
51. In his schematic representation ct Aristotle’s arrangement o f the elements, H. D. P. Lee Buridan declares that “ all the seas which can be crossed and all habitable lands which can
makes this assumption when lie declares that Aristotle's “ stratification is not rigid. Dry be found, are contained in this fourth o f the earth which we inhabit” (Prima est, quia
land rises above water, and fire burns on the earth” (Aristotle. Meteoroloyicu (LeeJ, 24- omnia maria quae ab aliquibus poterunt transiri, et omnes terrae habitabiles quae poterunt
26). inveniri, continentur in ista quarta terrae quam habitamus). Buridan mentions no one
52. Genesis 1.9 and Psalms 103 (Vulgate). who held the first opinion.
632 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O S M I C R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H 633
other factors besides water played a role, mainly the primary qualities of
hotness and coldness as they affected the five zones into which the earth
was usually divided, namely the two frigid zones, which were uninhabit­
able, the two temperate zones, only the northern one o f which was thought
habitable, and the torrid zone at the equator, which was thought uninha­
bitable (see Fig. 11).56
Where Buridan used natural explanations to account for the relationships
between earth and water, Paul o f Burgos (ca. 1350-1435) resorted to su­
pernatural action. O n the third day o f creation, when the waters were
gathered together upon divine command, Paul o f Burgos imagined that
God had lowered the sphere o f water and thereby separated the latter’s
center o f gravity from the earth’s, an act that left all o f the earth’s dry land
in its Northern Hemisphere while its Southern Hemisphere was perpetually
submerged (see Fig. 12). Although they used different arguments, Buridan,
Paul o f Burgos, and others arrived at essentially the same configuration
between water ancbearth and were also in general agreement that only one-
fourth o f the earth was habitable.
When Buridan spoke o f the earth’s center o f gravity, did he also include
the ubiquitous waters? N o clear answer emerges. Water undoubtedly played
a role in determining the earth’s center o f gravity - at the very least because
it moved earth downward from the heights. Nevertheless, because Buridan
considered water as having a separate sphere, he probably assumed chat
water had its own center o f gravity and that the absence or presence of
water probably would not affect the earth’s center o f gravity. 57*
Where Buridan was somewhat ambivalent or unclear, Albert o f Saxony
V n d e 8t paradifus tm c ftris ad o rien t? ofantatg fcrip tu ra C otnetn» . j
explicitly rejected the role o f water in the determination o f the earth’s center rat.Q rien s anterh v e ru s ab eq m n o aiau co P u n trur.Parad ifu m au tg ^j-J***1P
o f gravity. He argued that if all the water were removed from the earth’s no m o d o d ie hom inu habitadone eonueraentc: led locu m am ?nifl? >JJ
m um MagiftCTf<m.b'.2.di.i7»rcftaf .& d iu u s A u g u fb m isd i.i?.d «< i» ^ ’*•
surface and interior, the earth’s center o f gravity would be unaffected. It d d ca.zrdde affiirmac. D IS .H ab itad o n eefleh o m in ib u s couerdm
te fub jg n o ctialid lo u & n o d fau ? q u a lia s lads .pbabiliter arg u ir. P ara
would continue to coincide with the center o f the world. The weight of diG au team arnicas & o lm o d a acris c rjq w ilia s.c x co porfusefiecon/
the waters that rested on the earth and covered its uninhabited parts did s
not push the earth’s center o f gravity away from the center o f the world. Figure n . A late medieval representation o f the habitable and unin­
To justify this strange conclusion, Albert insisted that earth is essentially habitable parts o f the earth, where it is assumed that not only the
northern but also the southern temperate zone is habitable. (Gregor
56. For the arguments, see Buridan, ibid., 155—157. Buridan reports (156) that Avicenna Reisch, M a rg a rita p h ilo s o p h ic a (1504), fol. i6zr. Courtesy Lilly Library.
thought the torrid zone under the equinoctial circle was habitable; indeed, Avicenna Indiana University, Bloomington.)
believed a terrestrial paradise existed there. Opinions on the habitabilty o f the world
varied during the Middle Ages. Some - for example, Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon
- thought that the region along the equator was habitable but that the Southern Hemi­ heavier than water, a fact made obvious by the descent o f a small piece o f
sphere was not (see Wright. 1925, 163-165). Figure 11, a diagram o f the globe, from earth through a large body o f water; or, to put it another way, “ water is
Reisch's Margarita philosophica, shows both the southern and the northern temperate zones
as habitable. By assuming only one-quarter o f the earth as habitable, Buridan and those essentially less heavy than earth.’’ Since water cannot affect the behavior o f
who shared the same opinion adopted the smallest estimate o f the earth’s size enunciated the essentially heavier earth, only the earth’s center o f gravity can occupy
during the Middle Ages. the center o f the world, not that o f the earth and water com bined/15
57. Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, 82-83, associates Oresme with Buridan in the assumption that
the presence or absence o f water has no effect on the earth's center o f gravity. In Mete­
orology, bk. 1, qu. 5, 83, Themon Judaeus assumed that ocean waters would add their 58. Albert o f Saxony. De celo, bk. 2, qu. 23, i i 6 v , col. 2 -ii7 r, col. 1. Themon Judaeus, in
weight to that o f the earth. Meteorology, bk. 1. qu. 5, held a similar opinion (see Hugonnard-Roche. 1973, 84-85).
634 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O S M I C R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H
635
likewise.5 61 But Albert abandoned this opinion in his questions on De caelo,
0
6
9
and Themon, who upheld it in his questions on the Sphere, rejected it in
his questions on the Meteorology in favor o f the traditional opinion.6'
If Albert and Them on were ambivalent, d’A illy was not. Familiar with
the opinions and theories o f his Parisian predecessors, d ’A illy chose to
support the interpretation that assigned a single center o f gravity to the
totality o f earth and water. Unlike Buridan, he denied that either the earth’s
center o f gravity or its center o f magnitude occupied the center o f the
universe. That place was reserved for the center o f gravity o f the aggregate
o f earth and water (centrum gravitatis aggregati ex aqua et terra).63 It is the
natural tendency o f every heavy body - and the composite o f earth and
water is a heavy body - to seek the center o f the world and remain there.
Thus the earth does not lie at the center o f the world per se, but only as
part o f a composite that also includes the waters within it and on its surface.
There is no reason to believe that d’A illy thought o f the spheres o f earth
and water as a single sphere. T o the contrary, it is overwhelm ingly likely
BEFORE AFTER
that he conceived o f them as two separate spheres that, when taken as a
Circle ebdg represents the earth and circle Arc ebd represents the portion of dry land heterogeneous aggregate, yielded a single center o f gravity. Thus d’Ailly
mno the surrounding sphere of water. Point elevated above the sphere of water mno;
a is the common center that coincides with the center of the sphere of water, /, is now retained the traditional opinion that the Southern Hemisphere was covered
the center of the world. separated from the earth's center (and the by water and therefore uninhabited.
center of the universe), a.

Figure 12. Paul o f Burgos’s interpretation o f the gathering o f the waters 3. The terraqueous globe: Earth and water form one sphere,
appears in his Postillae Nicolai de Lyra super totam bibliam cum additiombus with one center o f gravity
Pauli burgensis et replicis Matthiae Doringk (Nuremberg, 1481) and is
The final step in the development o f the concept o f a terraqueous globe
reported by Randles, 1980, 29-30. (M y alteration o f Randles’ figure is
was to abandon the two spheres and to assume instead that water and earth
drawn from Grant, 1984b, 24, n. 74.)
formed a single sphere with a single center o f gravity. This occurred only
after the Portuguese explorations o f the Southern Hemisphere, especially
2. One center o f gravity for the two separate spheres the voyage along the coast o f Brazil in 1501, when Europeans learned o f
o f water and earth the wide distribution o f land in that region. In a letter to Rudolf Agricola
that was published in 1515 and a few times thereafter, Joachim Vadianus
But some time before, when he wrote his questions on Aristotle’s Physics,
(1481-1551) o f Switzerland took cognizance o f the new knowledge to pro­
Albert o f Saxony attributed an entirely different role to water, one that
claim that not only did earth and water form a single globe, but their
g;ave it a new relationship with the earth. '9 What lies at the geometric center
relationship was such that over the entire surface o f that globe earth is partly
o f the world is not the earth’s center o f gravity but rather the center o f “ the
submerged and partly elevated (Randles, 1980, 44-45). Here was perhaps
whole aggregate o f earth and water, which makes one whole heaviness, the
the proper description o f what would be called “ the terraqueous globe,”
center o f gravity o f which is the center o f the w o rld .” 90 Albert was here
or “ the terraqueous sphere,” in the seventeenth century.64
advocating a center o f gravity based upon the idea o f the tw o spheres of
earth and water - that is, based on both o f the heavy elemental bodies - 61. Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, 81-82.
and not o f earth alone. Indeed, his contemporary, Them on Judaeus, did 62. See ibid., 81, where Themon adopts the new theory, and 83, where he abandons it.
Hugonnard-Roche (84) observes that both Themon and Albert hesitated between the two
opinions.
59. For evidence that Albert’s Physics preceded his De celo, see Samowskv, 1989, 51 —5-. 63. D ’A illy’s discussion occurs in his 14 Questions, qu. 5, 1531, I5>r. For the relevant Latin
60. "Sexto dico quod conformiter intelligendum est de toto aggregato ex terra et aqua que passages, drawn from a different edition, see Grant, 1984b, 26, nn. 83-84. Major seems
forte faciunt unam totaleir. gravitatem cuius medium gravitatis est medium mundi. to have adopted the same position in his De celo, bk. 2, qu. 9. 1526, 22. col. 2.
Albert o f Saxony [Physics, bk. 4, qu. 5], 1518, q6r, col. 1. The Latin text with French 64. According to Randles, 1980. 63, the French Jesuit Georges Fournier first used the term
translation is also given by Duhem, Le Systeme, 1913—1959. 9:213. On pages 205-219- “ terraqueous globe" Qlobe terroque) in 1643 in a work called Hydrographie. In 1651, Riccioli
Duhem discusses Albert's concepts o f equilibrium o f land and sea. used the term terraquetim. which he said referred to a composite o f earth and water.
6}6 THE CE L E S T IA L R E G IO N COSMIC R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H 637

The concept was thus formulated outside o f the scholastic tradition.65 It with the earth, Clavius insisted that the inequality or difformity o f the
was adopted by Copernicus, who, in book i, chapter 3, o f On the Revo­ terrestrial globe was negligible when compared to the whole o f it. It was
lutions, explains “ H ow Earth Forms a Single Sphere with Water” and shares therefore justifiably describable as round and spherical. Unlike his medieval
with it the same center o f gravity.66 With Clavius’s Commentary on the Sphere predecessors, however, who argued that the earth’s center o f gravity, or
of Sacrobosco, the terraqueous globe entered scholastic cosm ology in the late the center o f gravity o f the two spheres o f earth and water, was the real
sixteenth century and was widely adopted in the seventeenth. Among its center, the one that coincided with the geometric center o f the universe and
supporters were the Conimbricenses, Aversa, Amicus, Cornaeus, and Mas- which differed from the center o f magnitude. Clavius concluded that the
trius and Bellutus.67 They all assumed that earth and water formed a single three centers were one and the same, a position that the Coim bra Jesuits,
sphere, which Aversa and Mastrius and Bellutus called “ the terrestrial Aversa, and Cornaeus also adopted.71
globe” (terrestris globus).68 Just as, during the Middle Ages, the earth was assumed to lie at the center
Seventeenth-century scholastics repeated most o f the earlier arguments o f the world by means o f its center o f gravity, so also during the late
for a single globe o f water and earth.69 But just like those who earlier had sixteenth and the seventeenth century was the terraqueous globe assumed
assumed that the earth alone was the sphere at the center o f the world, to lie naturally at the center o f the universe. Physically, the compound
supporters o f the terraqueous globe had to solve the problem o f the three terraqueous globe lies at the center o f the universe, because both earth and
centers, that is, they had to determine whether or not the center o f the water, as heavy bodies, move naturally downward to seek the center o f the
universe and the centers o f gravity and magnitude o f the terraqueous sphere universe.72 This and other arguments were largely the same as those pre­
were identical. Fundamental to this determination was the conclusion that sented earlier for the centrality o f the earth.73
the terraqueous globe had a single, convex surface composed o f water and
earth commingled over the whole o f the globe.70 Because o f the earth's
mountains and prominences, the unified terraqueous globe was not con­
V. The earth’s immobility: rejection o f a daily
sidered a perfect geometric sphere. But, as his medieval predecessors did
axial rotation

6$. Buridan, indeed, described an opinion that is very close to the terraqueous globe, only Despite disagreement about relationships among the three centers relevant
to reject it. See Grant, 1984b, 27, n. 88. to the earth, scholastics placed the earth in the middle o f the world. They
66. “ Pouring forth its seas everywhere, then, the ocean envelops the earth and fills its deeper
were equally unanimous about its immobility. Although Buridan, and per­
chasms. Both tend toward the same center because o f their heaviness.” Copernicus,
Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 3 [Rosen], 1978, 9. Surprisingly, Copernicus went a step farther haps a few others, were prepared to allow slight rectilinear motions o f the
and insisted that within this single globe the centers o f gravity and magnitude were earth, scholastic authors o f the Middle Ages upheld the traditional opinions
identical, a conclusion that committed him to a terraqueous sphere that is not only
ot Aristotle and Ptolemy, and all o f their lesser supporters, that the earth
homogeneous in composition but “ is perfectly round, as the philosophers held.” For only
if our sphere were “ perfectly round” could the two centers be identical, although, in the lay immobile at the center o f the w orld.74 Immobility seemed to preclude
heliocentric system, neither could coincide with the center o f the world. For further
discussion on the significance o f Copernicus's departure from Aristotle’s two-sphere 71. Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 14, qu. 3, art. 2, 1598, 382-384; Aversa, ibid., 230,
system o f earth and water, see Thomas Goldstein, 1972. cols. 1-2; Cornaeus, ibid., 519-520. For further details, see Grant, 1984b, 29-30.
67. See Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 14, qu. 3, art. 2, 1598, 382-384; Aversa, De 72. Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 1, 1727, 3:559, col. 1, par. 97; Amicus,
caelo, qu. 36, sec. 5, 1627, 227, col. 2-228, col. 1; Amicus [De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4. dubit. De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 1, art. 4, 1626, 581, cols. 1-2; Cornaeus, ibid., dub. 15,
2], 1626, 582. col. 2-585, col. 1, dubit. 6, 598, col. 1; Cornaeus, De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 534 -
3, qu. 2, dub. 5-6, 1657, 518-520; and Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 3, 73 - For some o f them, see Grant, 1984b, 31-32.
art. 2, 1727, 3:560, col. 1-561, col. 2, pars. 105-111. 74 - In a question “ Whether the motion o f the earth is possible, ” Themon Judaeus, Meteorology,
68. Aversa used the expression frequently, as, for example, in De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 5, 1627, bk. 2, qu. 7, 1518, 174V, cols. 1-2, distinguishes a number o f ways in which the earth
224, cols. 1-2; 226, col. 1; 227, col. 1; sec. 6, 231, col. 1; and 232, cols. 1-2. For instances can be imagined to move. One is by a rectilinear motion caused by the rising and falling
of its use by Mastrius and Bellutus, see their De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 3, art. 3, 1727, 3:5^2- ot the earth’s center o f gravity, but he says that this has nothing to do with what he
col. 1, par. 113, and 564, col. 1, par. 122. We should revise the claim by Randles, 1980, wishes to discuss. A second way involves the earth’s axial rotation around a resting center,
63, that the term “ terraqueous globe” was not replaced by the term “ terrestrial globe an idea that he regards as false and contrary to what Aristotle says in book 2 o f De caelo.
until the eighteenth century. The Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 14, qu. 3, art. 2, The remaining ways, which are more appropriate to a work on meteorology, involve
1598, 384, did not name it but used the expression “ unum globum ex terra et aqua, minor disturbances o f parts o f the earth, such as the motion o f something on the earth’s
which signified a globe that had the same center o f gravity and center o f the universe surface. For example, when water lies above compacted earth and men walk over it,
(see also 382-383). water squirts out from the sides and, presumably, the earth yields. Or after coal has been
69. See Grant, 1984b, 28-29. extracted from the earth, the ground sometimes caves in; or when water makes a huge
70. Clavius, Sphere, ch. 1, 1593, 142-143; Aversa, De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 5, 1627, 228, col. 2- cavity underground, the earth collapses into it. And then there are hot and dry exhalations,
229, col. 1; Amicus, De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 3, art. 3, 1626, 588, col. 1; an^ which vigorously strive to issue forth from the earth’s interior. (It is this motion o f the
Cornaeus, De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 6, 1657, 519. earth, or terremotus, in which Themon is interested in Meteorology, bk. 2, qu. 7.)
63 8 THE CELESTIAL REGION COSMIC R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H 639
a rotation around its own axis. But, according to Ptolemy, there were some
1. The medieval scholastic case for and against
who proposed an alternative opinion in which the heaven was assumed
the earth’s axial rotation
immobile and the earth was assigned a daily axial rotation from west to
east.7' Ptolemy argues against this alternative because it seemed absurd. By the end o f the fourteenth century, however, jean Buridan and Nicole
With the translation o f his Almagest into Latin in the twelfth century, he Oresme had formulated two lengthy and profound analyses in favor o f the
became one o f the major sources for medieval discussions o f possible axial earth’s daily rotation. Although in the end both rejected axial rotation, for
rotation. In 1271, a second significant source was added when William o f different reasons, they presented some compelling arguments in its behalf.79
Moerbeke completed his translation from Greek to Latin o f Simplicius’s In his defense o f axial rotation, Copernicus did not significantly add to the
sixth-century commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo. It is here that Simplicius store o f arguments proposed by his medieval predecessors.
said:

a. Jean Buridan
There have been some, among them Heraclides o f Pontus and Aristarchus, who
thought that the phenomena could be accounted for by supposing the heaven and Buridan, who probably wrote first, believed that the daily motion o f the
stars to be at rest, and the earth to be in morion about the poles o f the equator from stellar sphere and planets could be saved either by an assumption o f a
west [to east] making approximately one complete rotation each d ay.7 767
5 8 stationary heavens and axially rotating earth, or the reverse.''0 O n the first
alternative, however, an additional assumption was essential, namely that
The impact o f Simplicius’s discussion is already evident some tw o or three despite the immobility o f the heavens with respect to the east-to-west daily
years after Moerbeke’s translation when, in his commentary on De caelo, motion, the planetary spheres would continue their respective periodic mo­
Thomas Aquinas declared that tions from west to east against the background o f the immobile sphere o f
the fixed stars. O nly in this way could the planets change their positions
relative to each other and the fixed stars. Thus the earth and planets would
the appearance o f motion is caused either by the motion o f the thing seen or by the
only m ove with west-to-east motions, and the earth would complete its
motion o f the one who sees it. For this reason some people, assuming that the stars
rotation in a natural day, the M oon in a month, the Sun in a year. Mars in
and the whole sky rest, have posited that the earth on which we dwell is moved
two years, and so on. In this way, all daily and periodic astronomical
once daily from west to east around the equinoctial poles. Thus by our motion, it
phenomena can be saved just as readily as on the alternative hypothesis.
seems to us that the stars are moved in a contrary direction, which is what Heraclides
The celestial spheres formerly involved in the production o f the daily motion
o f Pontus and Aristarchus are said to have posited.7"
would now be assumed at rest, while the remainder, whose motions gen­
erate the progressive and retrogressive movements o f the planets along the
With these words, Thomas Aquinas could have become a potential stimulus zodiac, would function as before.
for discussion. Unfortunately, his ow n consideration o f the issue was mud­ Buridan recognized that the problem was essentially one o f relative mo­
dled and unclear and seems to have played little, if any, role in the history tion. Although it appears to us that the earth on which we stand is at rest
o f discussions about axial rotation.7* while the Sun is carried around us on its sphere, the reverse might be
physically true, since the observed celestial phenomena would remain the
75. Foi Ptolemy's statement and rebuttal, see Ptolemy, Almagest, bk. 1, ch. 7 [Toomer],
same. Thus if the earth is moved circularly and the starry heaven rests, the
1984, 44- 45 -
76. Translated by Cohen and Drabkin, 1958, 106—107. Although in De caelo 2.13.293b.30- earth will undergo a daily west-to-east motion that causes night and day.
32, Aristotle seems to attribute to Plato a belief in axial rotation and seems to mention We would be as unaware o f such a terrestrial rotation as a person on a
it again vaguely in De caelo 2 .14.296b. 1—4, Aristotle’s descriptions were too nondescript
to count as genuine discussions. Thomas Aquinas, in his De caelo, was convinced that 79. Albert o f Saxony also considered the possibility in two different places in his De celo,
Plato was a firm believer in an immobile earth. Rather than Plato. Thomas believed that first in book 2, question 6 (“ Whether the motion o f the heaven from east to west is
Aristotle had Heraclides o f Pontus in mind, who, according to Thomas {{De caelo, bk. regular” ), nor, col. 2 and n ov , col. 1, and again in book 2, question 24 (“ Whether the
2, lec. 21, par. 490], 1932, 24$, col. 2), “ assumed that the earth was moved in the center earth always rests or is always moved in the middle [or center] o f the heaven or in the
[of the world] and that the sky rested” (for translation and further discussion, see Grant, middle [or center] o f the world” ), U7r, col. 2 - 1 17V. col. 2. On the whole, Albert’s
1974, 496-497, n. 14). treatment seems derivative and omits the most significant arguments.
77. Thomas Aquinas, ibid., lec. 11, par. 396, 197. The translation is mine, taken from Grant, 80. In this section, I follow my account in Grant. 1971, 64-66. Buridan’s arguments are
1974, 500. Thomas adds little to this statement that is useful for the problem ot axial included in his question “ Whether the earth always is at rest in the center o f the universe.”
rotation. For the Latin text, see Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 22, 1942, 220-232; for the translation
78. The closest Thomas comes to a discussion o f axial rotation appears in ibid., lec. 26, 262- o f much o f it, see Clagett, 1959, 594-599, and for a reprint o f Clagett’s translation, see
205; translation o f much o f this lectio in Grant, 1974, 496—499. Grant, 1974, 500-503.
640 THE CE L E ST IA L REGION
COSMIC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 641
m oving ship that passes another ship at rest. If the observer on the moving
ship imagines himself at rest, the ship at rest would appear to be in motion Another persuasio holds that things require action in inverse proportion to
Similarly, if the Sun were truly at rest and the earth rotated, we would their excellence. The best thing, the outermost sphere, requires no action
perceive the opposite, that is, we would “ see” that the Sun is in motion and should remain at rest; the next-best thing, the sphere o f Saturn, requires
and believe that the earth, from which we view the Sun, is at rest. only a very small degree o f action or motion; and the next sphere, Jupiter,
O n strictly astronomical grounds, Buridan was convinced, as was Pto­ requires more action than Saturn, and so on down to the M oon, which
lemy long before him, that either hypothesis could save the celestial phe­ requires the fastest o f the planetary motions; and finally there is the earth,
nomena.Sl N ot even astronomers could resolve the issue and determine the which, being the least excellent, requires the fastest motion o f all, the daily
physical truth. They were concerned with saving, or explaining, the celes­ motion. A third persuasion is based on the assumption that rest is nobler
tial appearances and could employ whichever alternative seemed most than motion. Therefore the highest, or outermost sphere, ought to be at
convenient. rest, because it is the noblest body. B y inference, the least noble thing, the
earth, ought to be in m otion.86
As further support for the earth’s rotation, Buridan resorted to five “ per­
suasive arguments” (persuasiones), that is, arguments that were not demon­ Despite these strong arguments in favor o f a daily terrestrial motion,
strative but were intended to win over opponents by their reasonableness Buridan opted for the traditional opinion. As part o f his rebuttal o f a rotating
and cumulative impact.8 182 O f these nonastronomical arguments, easily the earth, he rejected each persuasion.87 To cite only his rebuttal o f the first
most significant was the last, in which Buridan emphasized the desirability persuasio that I discussed (the last or fifth in his order o f presentation),
o f saving the phenomena by the easiest means possible. It seemed better to Buridan says that if all things were equal, it would indeed be true that “ it
assume that the relatively small earth turns with the swiftest speed while is easier to m ove a small body than a large [one]. But all things are not
the uppermost and largest spheres remain at rest. T o complete a daily equal, because heavy, terrestrial bodies are unsuited for motion. It would
rotation, the earth would require a much slower speed than the vastly larger be easier to m ove water than earth; and even easier to m ove air; and by
celestial spheres. In this argument, simplicity and credulity were more ad­ ascending in this way, celestial bodies are, by their natures, most easily
equately satisfied by an earth that rotated daily on its axis.83 Oresme, Co­ m oved.” 88 In similar fashion did Buridan dispatch the other persuasions.89
pernicus, and Galileo all found this argument w orthy o f inclusion in their
same argument in Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 33, 1651, 467, cols.
defense o f the earth’s axial rotation. 84 1—2 (10th argument).
The other persuasions emphasized concepts and ideas about the world 86. On the greater or lesser nobility o f rest and motion, see Chapter 15, Section II. 1 (for
Buridan’s arguments) and Section IV (for Amicus’s). The fourth persuasion is quite
that were meaningful to those immersed in Aristotelian modes o f thought.
obscure and depends on Aristotle’s discussion in De caelo, book 2, chapter 2, o f three
The heaven does not need the earth for anything, but the earth needs the pairs o f opposite directions: above and below (or up and down), right and left, and front
heaven for the influences that enable it to operate. It is more reasonable, and back, directions which Aristotle believed were in the spherical heaven because the
latter was a living thing. With respect to the primary motion o f the heaven, namely the
therefore, to assume that that which requires another thing would be moved
daily motion from east to west, Aristotle argued (2.2.285b. 15-2863.1) that the north
to acquire it and that that which does not need another thing would not be celestial pole was down, the south celestial pole up; the right side was in the east, from
so m oved.85 Therefore the earth ought to move, rather than the heaven. whence the stars rise; and the left side was in the west, where they set (in Buridan's
discussion, front and back are ignored). Aristotle considered that those who live in the
upper, or northern, hemisphere o f the earth, as he and the Greeks did, lived in the lower
81. Ptolemy says that there is “ nothing in the celestial phenomena which would count against hemisphere (because their pole, the north pole, was down) and to the left (because the
that hypothesis,” namely the hypothesis that the earth revolves daily on its axis from daily motion begins to the right, in the east, and passes over us on its way to the west,
west to east. See Ptolemy, Almagest, bk. 1, ch. 7 [Toomer], 1984, 4$. or left). But these relationships are reversed with respect to the secondary revolution,
82. For the five, see Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 22, 1942, 228—229. O f these, Albert ot namely the west-to-east periodic motions o f the planets. In relation to these motions,
Saxony repeated three (he also called them persuasiones; see De celo, bk. 2, qu. 24, 1518. however, we (presumably the Greeks) dwell in the upper and righthand part o f the earth.
n yr. col. 2). For Albert’s rebuttal o f them, see 117V, col. 2. In his fourth persuasio, Buridan focuses on the west-to-east motions of the planets and
83. The Latin text o f this important idea reads: “ Ultima persuasio est quia sicut melius est also assumes a west-to-east daily motion of the earth. Therefore, in keeping with Aris­
salvare apparentia per pauciora quam per plura, si hoc sit possibile, ita melius est salvare totle’s assertions, Buridan declares that, with respect to the heavens, we live upward and
per viam faciliorem quam per viam difficiliorem. Modo facilius est movere parvum quam on the right side, just as Aristotle declared. And, he continues, “this seems very reasonable,
magnum; ideo melius est dicere quod terra, quae est valde parva, velocissime moveatur. because right ought to be more noble than left, and up than down. N ow this section of
et sphaera suprema quiescat, quam dicere e contrario.” Buridan, De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 22. the earth which is habitable is nobler than the other inhabitable parts; therefore it is
1942. 228-229. This is a version o f Ockham's razor, or a “ simplicity” argument. (For reasonable that it should be toward the right. Even our pole seems nobler than the opposite
more on simplicity arguments, see Section V.2.b o f this chapter.) pole, because it is surrounded by more and greater stars; therefore it is reasonable that it
84. Oresme, Le Livre Ju del, bk. 2, ch. 25, 1968, 535—537; see also this chapter. Sec. V.i.b. should be up.” De caelo, bk. 2, qu. 22, 1942. 228.
and Grant, 1974, 509; Copernicus, Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 8 [Rosen|, 1978, 15; and Galileo. 87. Buridan not only rebutted each of the five persuasions but also formally repudiated four
Dialogue, Second Day [Drake], 1962, 115. other arguments (or “principal reasons”) in favor of the earth’s axial rotation that he
85. Albert o f Saxony repeated this persuasio in De celo, bk. 2, qu. 24, 1518. H7r, col. -• His presented at the beginning of the question. (For these four arguments, ibid., 226; for the
rejection o f it (117V, col. 2) was the same as Buridan’s. Riccioli presents substantially the rebuttals, 232-233).
88. Ibid., 230. Amicus gives the same argument in De caelo, tract. $, qu. 6. dubic. 1. arc. j.
642 THE CELESTIAL REGION COSMIC R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H 643
T o develop the fundamental argument against a rotating earth, Buridan Under the first subdivision, where he argues that experience cannot dem­
used his own impetus theory and certain observational consequences derived onstrate a daily rotation o f the heavens, Oresme considers the problem from
from it. In his judgment, the earth’s rotation could not explain why an the standpoint o f three experiences (ibid., 521-527): (1) we see the rising
arrow shot vertically upward always falls to the same spot from which it and setting o f the stars and the planets, from which it should follow that
was projected. For if the earth rotates from west to east, it ought to rotate it is the heavenly motion that moves these stars and planets; (2) if the earth
about a league to the east while the arrow is in the air. Consequently, the is moved with a daily circular motion from west to east, we should feel
arrow should fall to the ground about a league to the west. But we fail to the wind coming on strongly from the east and also hear the noise it makes;
observe such a consequence. and (3) if the earth moves rapidly from west to east, then, according to
Buridan realized that a supporter o f the earth’s rotation might have a Ptolemy, “ If someone were in a boat moving rapidly toward the east and
ready reply. The air moves along with the rotating earth and carries the shot an arrow straight upward, it would not fall in the boat but far behind
arrow with it, thus explaining w hy the arrow falls to the same place from it toward the w est,” and “ if someone threw a stone straight upward it
whence it was shot. B y virtue o f the common rotatory motion shared by would not tall back to the place from which it was thrown, but far to the
earth, air, arrow, and observer, the arrow ’s circular motion would go un­ w est.” 91
detected. The response to the first experience involves relativity o f motion. We
Because o f certain consequences that followed from his impetus theory, perceive local motion, says Oresme (523), “ only if we can see that one body
Buridan found this explanation unacceptable. When the arrow is projected, assumes a different position relative to another b od y.” 92 But which body
a sufficient quantity o f impetus is impressed into it to enable the arrow to moves? Like Buridan, Oresme invokes the relative motion o f ships to coun­
resist the lateral motion o f the air as the latter accompanies the earth in ter our impression that the heavens move because in ordinary experience
rotatory motion. In resisting the motion and push o f the air, the arrow we “ see” the planets and stars rise and set. The relativity argument is further
should lag behind earth and air and drop noticeably to the west o f the place reinforced when Oresme observes (523) that if a man were carried around
from which it was launched. Since this is contrary to experience, Buridan by a daily motion o f the heavens and could see the earth in some detail, it
concludes that the earth is at rest. would appear to him that the earth moved with a daily motion just as it
seems to us that the heavens move with such a motion.
b. Nicole Ores me T o the claim that if the earth turned from west to east a great and easily
detectable wind should blow constantly from the east, Oresme counters
In what seems an even more brilliant discussion, Nicole Oresme arrived at that the air rotates with the earth and therefore does not blow toward us
the same conclusion. '" Near the beginning o f his lengthy discussion o f the from the east.93
earth’s possible axial rotation, Oresme declares (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. The third experience, which Oresme attributes to Ptolemy, is similar to
25, 1968, 521): “ it seems to me that it is possible to embrace the argument Buridan’s crucial arrow experience. The issue was this: If an arrow were
and consider with fa v o r. . . that the earth rather than the heavens has a shot upward, or a stone thrown upward, as the earth rotated from west to
diurnal or daily rotation. At the outset, I wish to state that it is impossible east, would the arrow or stone fall to the west o f the place from whence
to demonstrate from experience at all that the contrary is true; second, that it was launched? Since we do not observe such effects, Ptolemy concluded
no argument is conclusive; and third, I shall demonstrate w hy this is so.” that the earth rests. Arguing from his impetus theory, Buridan concurred
with Ptolemy.
1626, 291, col. 2. Oresme [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 13], 1965, 694, explains somewhat differently
why the heavens move and the earth rests. For incorporeal things, rest is nobler than
motion. In bodies, an important distinction must be made. For those bodies that are 91. Oresme, ibid., 521. Ptolemy says something like this in Almagest, bk. 1, ch. 7 [Toomer],
capable o f violent motion but under natural conditions are disposed to rest, it is more 1984, 45, but makes no mention o f boats, arrows, or stones.
noble to rest (as would be the case with terrestrial bodies). But for celestial bodies, where 92. Oresme, ibid., 523, attributes this concept o f local motion to Witelo, who enunciated it
the motion is eternal and without violence, then it is more noble to be moved. Thus it in his Perspectiva (in bk. 4, prop. 110, as cited by Menut). Witelo derived it from the
is nobler for the heaven to be in motion and for the earth to rest. For Buridan’s different Optics o f Alhazen, the great Arabian scientist o f the eleventh century (see Grant, 1974.
rationale for attributing nobility to rest and motion, see this volume, Chapter 15, Section 505, n. 39 )-
II. 1. 93. Albert o f Saxony countered (De celo. bk. 2, qu. 6, 1518, nor. col. 2) that even if the air
S9. For the persuasions he apparently derived from Buridan, Albert o f Saxony also seems to moved along with the rotating earth from west to east, anyone walking toward the west
have borrowed Buridan’s corresponding rebuttals. De celo, bk. 2, qu. 24, 1518, H 7V- ought to feel the wind sweeping toward the east. Indeed, it also ought to be more difficult
col. 2. to throw a stone against the earth’s rotation - that is, toward the west - than with it.
90. For mv summary o f Oresme’s arguments, I rely heavily on Grant, 1971, 66-69. For the But we experience none o f these things and should conclude that the earth does not rotate.
French text and translation, see Oresme, Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 25 [Menut], 1968. Oresme’s reply would have been that the person walking is also moving from west to
5 t S—S39- Most o f Menut’s English translation is reprinted in Grant, 1974, 503-510. east along with the earth and the air.
644 THE CELESTIAL REGION COSMIC R E L A T I O N S OF T H E E A R T H 645
Oresme, however, saw nothing incompatible about the return o f the cronomical reasons in favor o f the earth’s axial rotation, just as Buridan had
arrow or the stone and the rotation o f the earth. Once again, a ship’s motion done. For example, a terrestrial rotation from west to east would contribute
is used to illustrate the key points. The movements within a ship sailing toward a more harmonious universe, since all bodies would move in the
eastward occur precisely as when the ship is at rest. Thus, if a man drew same direction in periods that increased from the earth outward. This al­
his hand vertically downward in line with the ship’s mast, his hand would ternative is more desirable than the other in which contrary simultaneous
appear to m ove with only a vertical motion, despite the fact that his arm motions are ascribed to the heavens, east to west for the daily motion and
actually undergoes tw o simultaneous rectilinear motions, vertical and hor­ west to east for the periodic motions.94 In favor of.the earth’s rotation,
izontal. If we now assume that the earth, the ambient air, and all sublunar Oresme also includes Buridan’s argument about the greater simplicity o f
matter rotate daily from west to east, the arrow ’s return to the place from the earth’s rotation than that o f the heavens. The former would require a
which it was shot can be explained by reference to its tw o simultaneous much slower daily speed than the enormous celestial orbs, whose speeds
component motions, namely vertical and horizontally circular motion would have to be “ far beyond belief and estimation.” Thus would be
(rather than one vertical motion and one horizontally rectilinear motion, as avoided “ the multiplication o f operations so diverse and so outrageously
with the arm’s motion along the mast o f the ship). Since the arrow shares great” that “ it follows that God and nature must have created and arranged
the earth’s circular motion and turns with it at the same speed, the arrow them for naught” (537). Oresme also sought to enlist God on the side o f
when shot upward will rise directly above the place from which it was shot the earth’s axial rotation by recalling the biblical miracle when God inter­
and then fall back t© it. T o an observer, who also participates in the earth’s vened on behalf o f the army o f Joshua (Joshua 10.12-14) by lengthening
circular motion, the arrow will appear to possess only a vertical motion. the day and commanding the Sun to stand still over Gibeon. Since the earth
O n the basis o f this and the preceding arguments, Oresme concluded that is like a mere point in comparison to the heavens, the same effect could
it is impossible to determine by experience that the heavens have a daily have been achieved with a minimum o f disruption by a temporary cessation
motion and the earth does not. o f the earth’s rotation, rather than by bringing to a halt the Sun and all the
In the second subdivision, Oresme moves from experiential evidence to other planets. In view o f the greater economy o f effort, perhaps God per­
rational arguments ($27—531), which can no more demonstrate the supe­ formed the miracle in this way.
riority o f either o f the alternatives than could arguments from experience. At the termination o f an impressive array o f arguments in favor o f the
Am ong seven arguments in this category, only a few can be mentioned. possibility o f a rotating earth, Oresm e’s conclusion comes almost as a non
Oresme counters the traditional Aristotelian argument that circular motion sequitur when he declares (537—539):
is not natural to the earth by arguing that it could be natural to the earth
as a whole, even though its parts possess natural rectilinear upward and everyone maintains, and I think myself, that the heavens do move and not the earth:
downward motions when they are out o f their natural place. Oresme also For God hath established the world which shall not be moved, in spite o f contrary
sought to neutralize Averroes’ argument that “ all local motion is relative reasons because they are clearly not conclusive persuasions. However, after consid­
to some body at rest,” so that “ the earth must be at rest in the center of ering all that has been said, one could then believe that the earth moves and not the
the heavens.” Oresme insists that the circular celestial motions do not re­ heavens, for the opposite is not clearly evident. Nevertheless, at first sight, this
quire an immobile earth at the center o f the world. For if the earth were seems as much against natural reason as, or more against natural reason than, all or
rotating in the opposite direction to the heavens, or, indeed, if the earth many ot the articles o f our faith. What I have said by w ay o f diversion or intellectual
were annihilated, this would have no effect on the celestial motions. The exercise can in this manner serve as a valuable means o f refuting and checking those
earth’s mobility or immobility has no effect on the celestial region. T o those who would like to impugn our faith by argument.
w ho believed that a daily rotation o f the earth would destroy astronomy,
Oresme denies the claim by insisting that “ the astronomical tables o f the In the absence o f demonstrative arguments for the earth’s rotation, Oresme
heavenly motions and all other books wrould remain as true as they are at falls back on the traditional interpretation, which was not only consonant
present, save that, with respect to diurnal motion, one would say that it is with natural reason but also had biblical support. Thus did Oresme choose
apparently in the heavens, but actually in the earth; no other effect would to reject the cumulative impact o f his own good reasons for the earth’s
follow or result from one theory more than from another” (531). possible rotation and opt instead for the traditional opinion.
In the third subdivision, Oresme explains (531-537): “ I want to present In the final analysis, Oresme rejected the earth’s rotation on the basis o f
several opinions or reasons favorable to the theory that the earth moves as a biblical appeal, and therefore ultimately on theological grounds. Indeed,
w e have stated.” T o demonstrate that the earth’s daily rotation might be
more than an equally plausible alternative, Oresme also presents nonas- 94 - For additional arguments, see Grant, 1971, 68.
646 THE CELESTIAL REGION COSMIC RELATIONS OF T HE E A R T H 647

he goes on to explain that his discussion was “ by way ot diversion” (par it was plainly at variance with Scripture. There could be no “ double truth,”
eshatement), or by way o f a game. But, in Oresm e’s judgm ent (539), that where a principle o f nature is deemed true in natural philosophy and science
diversion, or game, could serve as an aid to counter those “ who would like but false in faith, or vice versa.97
to impugn our faith by argument” (qui voudroient nostre foy par raysons In this regard, Augustine’s famous criteria for the relations between sci­
impugner). entific conclusions and scriptural truths (see Ch. 5, Sec. Ill) are relevant.
How could a discussion on the possible axial rotation o f the earth be used Where scientific arguments and claims clashed with traditional theological
in defense o f faith? For a good clue to his intentions, we must turn to or scriptural truths, the former had to be demonstrated beyond doubt or
Oresme’s Quodlibeta, probably composed in 1370. Here Oresme declares declared false and abandoned. Oresme adopted the latter approach because
that although faith assumes miracles, such as the Trinity, penetration of he could not have demonstrated the earth’s rotation, any more than Galileo
bodies, and the Resurrection, “ it seems to m e,” he continues, did. A t best, he could only have shown it to be more plausible or probable,
alternatives which he also rejected. Had Oresme seriously sought to pros­
that m any things equally miraculous are assumed in philosophy and [are even] less elytize for the plausibility or probability o f axial rotation, and even the
demonstrated because they are custom ary [or familiar], as, lor example, what is physical truth o f it, as Galileo had, would something akin to the Galileo
prime matter, and [how] the production o f a new form [occurs] o f w hich at first affair have arisen in the late fourteenth or the early fifteenth century? Would
nothing exists, . . . ; how fire heats [or burns] and what is the nature and quiddity we today speak o f the Trial o f Oresme rather than, or in addition to, the
o f things. . . . Surely, if you consider the matter properly, [you w ill realize that] Trial o f Galileo?
many such natural things are unknow n, more [unknown] than m any articles o f the Both Buridan and Oresme deserve high praise for their extraordinary
faith. A n d therefore, indeed, I k n o w nothing except that I k n o w that I know arguments in behalf o f a rotating earth. Each, however, rejected it for
nothing.'' different reasons, which illustrate how dissimilar their approaches and at­
titudes were. Buridan arrived at his conclusion on the basis o f rational
In this extraordinary passage, Oresme insists that many things about natural argument and the senses, completely ignoring Scripture and faith; Oresme
knowledge, or natural philosophy, are more unknown than are “ many ultimately decided the issue on the basis o f Scripture and faith.98
articles o f the faith.” Seven years later, in his Le Livre du del et du monde,
Oresme argues analogously that knowledge from natural philosophy, 2. The debate over the earth’s immobility after Copernicus
namely the possible axial rotation o f the earth, “ seems as much against
natural reason as, or more against natural reason than, all or many o f the Despite Buridan and Oresm e’s rejection o f a daily rotation for the earth,
articles o f our faith” (bk. 2, ch. 25, 539). Although faith was based on some o f their arguments in favor o f axial rotation turn up in Copernicus’s
revelation and natural philosophy on reason, Oresme strongly suggests that defense o f the heliocentric system, where the earth is assigned both a daily
faith is as intelligible and reliable as natural philosophy, and in many in­ rotation and an annual motion around the Sun.99 Am ong these we find
stances more so. 97. The doctrine ot' the double truth was denounced by the bishop of Paris both in the
However plausible and convincing are one’s reasoned and empirical ar­ prologue to his Condemnation of 1277 and specifically in article 90, concerning the eternity
guments, Oresme suggests that the world may be otherwise than those of the world. See Grant, 1974, 47 (and n. 6) and 48 (for article 90) and Maurer, 1955.
98. I have argued elsewhere (Grant. 1974, 510, n. 61) that in the discussion o f the earth's
arguments indicate. Although the Joshua miracle could be interpreted as
possible axial rotation, Oresme "sought to humble reason and show that physical ar­
favorable to a rotating earth, the literal interpretation o f that scriptural guments could not establish a relatively simple physical problem.” Sylla disagrees (1991.
passage and many others point overwhelm ingly to an immobile earth. Faith 217) but offers no explanation as to why Oresme concluded his lengthy discussion o f the
earth’s axial rotation by invoking Scripture in favor o f the earth’s traxfitional immobility
triumphs over reason. Pronouncements o f Scripture and faith have to be
and why he thought his discussion was useful against those who would "impugn our
assumed true even if arguments for the earth’s rotation seem more plausible. faith.” In light o f my arguments in Grant, 1974, 510, n. 61; Grant, 1978c, and Grant,
Indeed, in connection with the earth’s possible axial rotation, Oresm e may 1988, I continue to believe that my own interpretation agrees tolerably well with Oresme’s
complex approach as a theologian—natural philosopher who possessed an outlook quite
have implicitly assumed the dictum o f Pierre Ceffons that “ nothing prevents
different from that o f Buridan. We might say that Buridan emphasized the positive,
some false propositions from being more probable than some true ones.’ l><> always seeking to determine what we can know with reasonable or sufficient certainty.
The earth’s rotation may have seemed more probable and plausible than By contrast, although Oresme was also interested in what we could know with reasonable
or sufficient certainty, he also tended, as a theologian, to emphasize the limits o f human
the traditional alternative, but it was nevertheless false, presumably because9*
5
knowledge and the unreliability o f our senses. Twice, at least, he professed Socratic
ignorance about natural knowledge (see Grant, 1978c, 111, and 121, n. 32).
95. Translated from the Latin quoted by Thorndike, 1923-1958, 3:469, n. 128. 99. In this section, I draw heavily on Grant, 1984b, often incorporating lengthy sections
90. Cited by Sylla, 1991. 214 from Weinberg, 1948, 116—117. verbatim.
648 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 649
relativity o f motion, as illustrated by the movement o f ships; that it is better rotation and the immobility o f the planets and stars,10' and the De placitis
for the earth to complete a daily rotation with a very much slower velocity philosophorum (bk. 3, ch. 13), falsely ascribed to Plutarch, where Philolaus
than would be required for the vast heavens; that the air shares the daily the Pythagorean is said to have ascribed an orbital motion to the earth and
rotation o f the earth; that the motion ot bodies rising and falling with respect Heraclides o f Pontus and Ecphantus the Pythagorean assigned to it a west-
to a rotating earth results from a motion compounded o f rectilinear and to-east axial rotation.102 In his treatise Concerning the Face which Appears in
circular elements; and, finally, that since a state o f rest is more noble than the Orb o f the Moon (De facie quae in orbe lunae apparet), Plutarch also found
motion, it is more appropriate for the ignoble earth to rotate than it is for occasion to mention the earth’s axial and orbital motions when he reported
the nobler heavens. a charge o f impiety brought by Cleanthes against Aristarchus o f Samos,
Did Copernicus derive some, or all, o f these arguments from Oresme who was “ disturbing the hearth o f the universe because he sought to save
and/or Buridan, especially the latter, whose works were known in eastern [the] phenomena by assuming that the heaven is at rest while the earth is
Europe and were perhaps even studied at the University o f K rakow in the revolving along the ecliptic and at the same tim e. . . rotating about its own
late fifteenth century, when Copernicus was a student there? Other than a axis.
if 101

striking similarity o f arguments, there is as yet no evidence that Copernicus Supporters o f the traditional Aristotelian cosm ology were as knowl­
knew these treatises or derived his arguments from medieval sources. edgeable about these new references to possible terrestrial motion as were
Prior to the impact o f the Copernican theory, the problem o f the earth’s their opponents, and they were also reasonably knowledgeable about the
possible axial rotation - usually considered within the fram ework o f a ques­ arguments o f such opponents as Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and others,
tion as to whether the earth lies at rest in the center o f the world — did little who espoused the cause o f axial rotation. The new sources were frequently
more than offer an opportunity for some critical and sophisticated argu­ mentioned in Aristotelian commentaries o f the sixteenth and seventeenth
mentation before one acquiesced in the traditional opinion. The advent o f centuries, especially those on De caelo. The scope o f traditional medieval
the Copernican theory changed all that. B y the end o f the sixteenth century, commentaries was thus considerably expanded. Even had they never heard
scholastic natural philosophers were confronted with contemporary advo­ o f the Copernican theory, Aristotelians would have been obliged to take
cates o f the new heliocentric theory, within which the daily axial rotation cognizance o f these claims. All available evidence indicates, however, that
o f the earth was a vital element. The kinds o f arguments that Buridan and it was Copernicus’s arguments, rather than the brief, unsupported, frag­
Oresme had given for the axial rotation o f the earth in the fourteenth century mentary statements from the sources just mentioned, that eventually posed
were now repeated, along with others, within a broader fram ework that the real challenge to Aristotelian cosmology. With a few exceptions, o f
removed the earth from the center o f the universe and made o f it just another whom Christopher Clavius was one, Aristotelians and the Catholic Church
planet revolving around the Sun, which now became the new center o f the were slow to arouse themselves against the arguments in favor o f the
world. earth’s motions in the first book o f On the Revolutions.10* As Koyre
It was not just Copernicus who had brought the earth’s daily rotation to explains, “ O nly at a much later date, when it became evident that this
the forefront. Indeed, if Copernicus had written nothing, his contemporaries w ork o f Copernicus was not intended for mathematicians alone; when it
and successors would nevertheless have considered the possibility o f the became clear that the blow to the geocentric and anthropocentric Universe
earth’s axial rotation, and quite possibly its orbital motion as well. For not was deadly; when certain o f its metaphysical and religious implications
only were all the sources available that had been known in the Middle Ages were developed in the writings o f Giordano Bruno, only then did the
- foi example, passages in Aristotle’s De caelo, where both possible terrestrial old world react.’’ It did so by attempting to suppress the new ideas o f
motions are mentioned; Ptolem y’s Almagest: Seneca's Natural Questions; and
Simplicius’s Commentary on the De caelo - but so were some o f the arguments 101. In Rosen’s translation, Hicetas is said to have believed “ that the sky, sun, moon, stars,
devised by Buridan and Oresme (though admittedly not the best ones), in short, all the heavenly bodies stand still, and that nothing in the universe moves
since Albert o f Saxony had incorporated them into his questions on De except the earth.” See Copernicus, Revolutions [Rosen], 1978, 341.
102. The Coimbra Jesuits mention Philolaus, Heraclides, and Ecphantus and die De placitis
caelo, which was printed in at least six editions between 1481 and 1 $20.100 as their source. Conimbricenses, De coelo, bk. 2. ch. 14, qu. 5, art. 1, 1598', 389.
O f the sources that became available in the sixteenth century, Copernicus 103. For references to all o f these works and additional information, see Grant, 1984b. 2, nn.
himself cited two (in the preface to the De revolutionibus, or On the Revo­ 7- 9 -
104. Sometime between 1545 and 1547, very shortly after the publication o f De revolutionibus
lutions), namely Cicero’s Academica (2.39.123), where, according to Theo­ in 1 543 and long before Clavius, Giovanni Maria Tolosani (1470/1 —1349), the tiominican
phrastus, the Syracusan Hicetas is said to have assumed the earth’s axial theologian-astronomer, apparently obtained a copy o f Copernicus’s work. In a treatise
which he perhaps hoped to publish, Tolosani severely criticized the work and even spoke
o f plans to condemn it. His treatise, however, remained unpublished and caused no
100. For references, see ibui., 1—2. public reaction. See Westman, 1986, 87-89.
650 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 651
the universe by “ the condemnation o f Copernicus in 1616 and o f Galileo they are carried around by the earth. O nly “ when they are separated from
in i632.” lo,i Amicus reveals the impact o f Copernicus when he declares their whole and forsake its unity” do they move rectilinearly (ibid., 17).
that “ In our age Copernicus has raised this opinion [of the earth’s daily Even then, however, despite their detachment from the earth, watery and
axial rotation], which had been buried with the dead, in a w ork De earthy things in the air, and the air itself, also share in the earth’s rotational
revolutionibus orbium caelestium, where he says that the heavens are immobile motion.
and the earth is m oved.” Copernicus raised this old, but not quite dead, N o one defended the earth’s axial rotation better than Galileo, whose
issue by the assumption o f an “ immobile firmament, with the Sun fixed arguments were designed to refute the so-called absurdities that Aristotelians
in the center o f the universe, and finally the earth, in the third heaven, and anti-Copernicans had alleged to follow from the daily rotation. The
which is moved by a triple motion, by [means of] which he attempts to thrust o f those arguments was nicely described by Mastrius and Bellutus,
save all the appearances.” 10
106 The three terrestrial motions to which Amicus
5 who vigorously opposed Galileo. Galileo denied these absurdities, they
alludes are (1) a daily axial rotation; (2) an annual west-to-east motion explain,
around the Sun; and (3) what may best be described as “ other m otions,”
which could be a rectilinear movement; a trepidational, or axial, motion; b e c a u s e n o t o n l y is t h e e a r t h m o v e d i n n a t e l y [ab instrinseco] a r o u n d th e c e n t e r w i t h
and even earthquakes, depending on the author.'07 a c i r c u l a r m o t i o n , b u t a ls o all b o d i e s , w h e t h e r a n i m a t e o r i n a n i m a t e , w h e t h e r u n i t e d
O f the three motions, the daily rotation attracted the most attention. to th e e arth o r sep arate, t h a t e x i s t in this e l e m e n t a l u n i v e r s e h a v e th is m o t i o n
With an occasional exception such as Riccioli, most scholastics considered p e r p e t u a lly [and] in n a te ly so that t h e y m o v e s i m u lt a n e o u s ly w i t h th e earth a r o u n d
the daily and annual rotation together, although they concentrated on the t h e c e n t e r o f th is e l e m e n t a l w o r l d . A n d b e c a u s e th is m o t i o n is c o m m o n t o all, it is
daily rotation, as we shall do. n o t p e r c e p t i b l e t o u s e x c e p t in r e l a t i o n t o th e f i x e d star s t o w h i c h it d o e s n o t a p p l y .
([D e coelo, d i s p . 4, q u . 4, art. 3], 1 7 2 7 , 3 :5 62, c o l . 1, p a r . 1 1 4 )

a. Physical arguments based on' the common motion Scholastic arguments against the Copernicans have a familiar Ptolemaic ring.
None o f the physical consequences derived from acceptance o f the earth’s There were those, like Raphael Aversa, who argued against the earth’s
axial rotation was more pervasive and perplexing than that o f the common rotation as if no one had ever proposed the common motion argument.
motion, which assumed that all bodies on and above the earth’s surface The earth’s immobility, Aversa insisted, could be demonstrated from a
shared in the earth’s rotational motion. Ptolemy had already used the con­ variety o f experiences. If the earth really turned from west to east daily,
cept o f a common motion to subvert belief in the earth’s daily rotation, the clouds would appear “ to be carried constantly from east to west and in
while Nicole Oresme, as we saw, defended it as plausible.108 During the no way to remain over the same place o f the earth.” When anyone projects
seventeenth century, however, it was Copernicus’s version o f the common a stone upward with great force, it ought to fall to the earth considerably
motion argument that became the focal point o f scholastic reaction. In On to the west, “ because the motion o f the earth has, in the interim, continued
the Revolutions, Copernicus declares (bk. 1, ch. 8 [Rosen], 1978, 16) that from west to east.” This fails to happen. Aversa presents another familiar
“ the motion o f falling and rising bodies in the framework o f the universe argument that emerged from the medieval tradition when he asserts that if
is twofold, being in every case a compound o f straight and circular. ” Oresme the earth rotates swiftly from west to east, we should be aware o f a strong
had earlier analyzed rectilinear motion on a rotating earth in precisely the wind from east to west. But no such effect is perceived. For all these reasons,
same way. Copernicus, however, went much farther: he abandoned the Aversa concludes that “ it is surely not the earth that is revolved constantly
Aristotelian idea that rectilinear motion was natural for the elements. As with a daily m otion.” 109
long as earth and fire are on the earth, their natural motion is circular, for Although such arguments were frequently repeated, Some scholastics
were aware that Copernicans had attempted to meet them by assigning the
105. Koyre. 1973, 17. The condemnation o f Galileo, however, was in 1633, not 1632.
earth’s rotational motion to all things in the air that were above the earth’s
106. “ Hanc opinionem sepultam a mortuis excitavit nostra aetate Copernicus opus de revol. surface. Indeed, as we saw, Nicole Oresme had done this in the fourteenth
orb. cael., ubi ait caelos esse immobiles et terram moveri sed ponit firmamentum im­ century. He appears to have believed that arguments in favor o f the earth’s
mobile, turn Solem fixum in centro universi; denique est terra in tertio caelo, quae triplici
motu movetur, per quos conatur salvare omnes apparentias.” Amicus, De caelo, tract.
daily rotation based on the common motion concept were sound. N ot many
5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 1, 1629. 289, col. 1.
107. For examples, see Grant. 1984b, 34, n. 122. 109. The arguments in this paragraph appear in Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 5, 1627, 142,
108. Ptolemy had argued that even if the air was carried around with the earth, objects in col. 2. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6. dubit. 1, art. 1, 1626, 289, col. 2. mentions the
the air would always seem to be left behind by the motion o f earth and air. See Ptolemy, same argument but omits the Copemican rebuttal. Galileo mentions it in the Second
Almagest, bk. 1, ch. 7 [Toomer], 1984, 45. Day ot his Dialogue ([Drake], 1962, 131-132).
652 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH
653
scholastics would argue that boldly in the seventeenth century, especially Riccioli himself furnished a number o f arguments in favor o f the earth’s
after the condemnation o f the Copernican theory in 1616 and the condem­ immobility and against its rotation in which he ignored Copernicus and
nation o f Galileo in 1633. appealed strongly to sense experience. Riccioli emphasized that heavy bodies
Riccioli was an interesting exception. His treatment o f the question of “ descend naturally by a straight line perpendicular to the earth” and that if
the earth’s immobility or mobility in the New Almagest o f 1651 was projected upward “ they would return over the same path to the same place. ”
probably the lengthiest, most penetrating, and authoritative analysis made So obvious was this experience that it “ could not be shown to be false by
by any author o f the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. M ost, if not any more certain sensational, nor by any necessary a priori arguments, nor
all, o f the known arguments for and against the earth’s imm obility are from things revealed by G o d .” O nly two alternatives are possible: either
probably included within the approximately 126 arguments that he inserted heavy bodies descend in a path that is a straight line, or they descend by
into his famous treatise.1,0 And, as had become the custom in scholastic means o f a nonrectilinear line that only appears rectilinear. Those who argue
questions on Aristotelian natural philosophy by the late sixteenth century, against the senses and experience insist that the senses are false and mis­
he meticulously and scrupulously cites the arguments o f earlier and con­ leading. Indeed, they hold that such a judgm ent must not be made on the
temporary authors, which marked a dramatic departure from medieval basis o f the senses. For Riccioli, however, who speaks here for all Aristo­
practice, where citation o f names and treatises in Aristotelian questiones telian geocentrists, the physical evidence is not merely that o f a few sen­
was far from cusromary. But what is most remarkable about Riccioli’s sations and experiences “ but [arises] from the sensation o f all [and has been]
New Almagest is the spirit in which the arguments are presented. Although, repeated nearly an infinite number o f times and which maintains its force
as a Catholic and a Jesuit, he was committed to a rejection o f the earth’s as long as the contrary does not prevail.” Surely, Riccioli concludes, “ if it
daily axial rotation and annual revolution as described in the Copernican is not evident to the sense that heavy bodies descend through a straight
system, he presented the physical and metaphysical arguments for and line, nothing will be evident to it and the whole o f physical science will be
against the earth’s motions in an unusually evenhanded manner. In Ric­ destroyed.” " 2
cioli’s ultimate acceptance o f the immobility o f the earth, biblical and T o reinforce the case for terrestrial immobility, Riccioli also appeals to
theological arguments proved decisive. intuition, when he argues, as would most Aristotelians, that “ the nature
He repeated the arguments that I have cited earlier and similar ones. In o f heavy and light bodies demands that they be returned to their places
each case, however, Riccioli concludes with the Copernican response based and united to their whole by means o f the shortest path.” " 3 O n the
on the common motion. For example, he describes the claim that if the assumption o f the earth’s rotation, however, the paths o f heavy and light
earth rotates from west to east we should have greater difficulty moving bodies would be curvilinear and longer, rather than perpendicular and
toward the west because o f the air’s resistance as the earth sweeps past. shorter. With a seeming sense o f contempt, Riccioli accuses the Coper­
Riccioli then adds that the Copemicans deny that such a resistance would nicans o f saving their hypothesis at any cost, even ignoring the nature
develop, because “ there is a common motion toward the east for bodies o f heavy bodies.
similar to the earth, just as with the air near the earth.” 1" In these particular Some scholastics fastened onto Copernicus’s claim that sublunar bodies
instances, though not in many others, Riccioli apparently chose not to possess an innate tendency to move around the center o f the earth. B y this
resolve the argument in favor o f the earth’s immobility. Indeed, he appears inherent property, the earth rotates around its own center just as do watery,
to have deliberately avoided a resolution o f the issue. Neverthless. the airy, and fiery bodies. Mastrius and Bellutus challenged this claim on tra­
tendency in scholastic responses to the common motion argument, which ditional grounds (\De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3], 1727, 3:562, col. 2, par.
represented the core o f the Copernican defense o f axial rotation, was to 115). Each o f these four types o f sublunar body differed in species and genus
subvert it by whatever means possible. from the others and would not all possess the same tendency to rotate with
the earth."4 Were Mastrius and Bellutus inconsistent here? The same ar­
no. The arguments appear in section 4 o f book 9, which is titled: “ On the System o f a
Moved Earth” (De systemate terrae motae). gument would seem applicable to rectilinear motion. If the four elemental
h i . See Riccioli. Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 34, 1651, 474, col. 1 (13d1
argument). In his twenty-eighth argument, he also concludes with the Copernican ar­ 112. Ibid., 473, col. 1 (6th argument).
gument. There he not only mentions a perpetual wind toward the west, which was 113. Ibid., col. 2 (7th argument).
commonly mentioned, but adds that we should also perceive “ sounds and hissing from 114. Further absurdities would follow from the fact that each o f the four elements should
the air striking against trees, mountains, towers, etc.” Since we do not perceive such have a determinate velocity and yet their speeds would have to vary with their latitude.
things, the earth must rest. But in the conclusion o f his argument, Riccioli seems to Thus one and the same stone would rotate fastest at the equator and slowest at the pole
defer to the Copernicans by observing that they deny such effects by their insistence (see Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3, 1727, 3:562, col. 2, par. 115;
that the air near the earth, which is filled with exhalations and vapors, would move and Grant, 1984b, 38). They also present here arguments denying the alleged capability
with the common motion o f the earth. Ibid., 475, col. 1. o f the earth to communicate its rotatory property to every one o f its parts.
THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIO N S OF THE EARTH
654 655
bodies differed in species and genus, w hy should they all possess a common subverts his ow n proposition about the birds in the air. B y his seeming
tendency for rectilinear motion?11'' approval o f Galileo’s argument, Riccioli had, in effect, conceded that even
if birds do not appear to move toward the west when flying eastward, we
i. Ships and the common motion. Despite O resm e’s astute analysis o f motion cannot properly infer from this that the earth is at rest. The birds may
aboard a moving ship (see Sec. V .i.b o f this chapter), arguments about the appear to move eastward rather than westward either because the earth is
relationship between a moving ship and objects dropped from its mast or really at rest or because the birds share the eastward motion o f a rotating
hurled upward from its deck or carried within its cabins did not form part earth, as Galileo and the Copernicans believed. And yet, in the proposition
o f the traditional medieval core o f arguments about a rotating earth and the cited earlier, Riccioli did indeed infer the immobility o f the earth from the
objects that moved upward and downward with regard to its surface. Such eastward flight o f the birds. Rather than uphold Riccioli’s argument for the
arguments did not become a regular feature o f the controversy over ter­ imm obility o f the earth, the Galilean argument demonstrated its inconclu­
restrial motion until after Copernicus utilized them in defense o f his own siveness, a situation o f which Riccioli seems to have been unaware.
position.115
116 Galileo mentioned the various motions o f animate and inanimate As part o f his use o f shipboard experiences to defend the earth’s rotational
things located within the confines o f a cabin below the decks o f a ship. He motion, Galileo, according to Mastrius and Bellutus, had argued that a
insisted that in such a cabin the observed motions o f flies, men, fish, and stone projected upward in a cabin would fall at the projector’s feet, because
water dripping from one vessel to another would be the same, whether the both projector and stone are moved with the ship. However, the stone does
ship was at rest or in motion, provided only that the ship’s motion was not fall with a perpendicular motion but follows the path o f a slanting line
uniform and without fluctuation."7 With some embellishments and addi­ (linea transversalis), which results from the perpendicular motion o f the stone
tions, Mastrius and Bellutus described Galileo’s argument but did not offer and the horizontal motion o f the sh ip ."9 Mastrius and Bellutus declare
a direct refutation."8 further that Galileo used the common motion o f the rotating earth to explain
Riccioli also cited it but used it in favor o f the earth’s imm obility. He w hy an arrow projected upward would fall at the foot o f the projector.
introduced it following a discussion o f the following proposition (Alma- Indeed, they inform us that Galileo declared that "he himself had experi­
gestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 21, 1651, 423, col. 2): enced many times that a stone projected from the top o f a mast always fell
to the foot o f the mast, never into the sea, whether the ship was at rest or
I f t h e e a r t h w e r e m o v e d w i t h a d a i l y r o t a t i o n , o r e v e n an a n n u a l t r a n s l a t i o n , th e
was moved very quickly.” 120 T o retute Galileo, Mastrius and Bellutus ap­
c l o u d s h a n g i n g in th e air, th e s m o k e t h a t rise s, a n d th e b i r d s t h a t a re s u s p e n d e d [in
pealed to Johannes Cottunius (1577-1658), a professor o f philosophy and
t h e air] o r f l y i n g t o w a r d th e e as t w o u l d a l w a y s s e e m t o b e c a r r i e d t o w a r d t h e w e s t .
theology, who, in a commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology (bk. 1, lec. 16)
B u t th is is c o n t r a r y to m a n i f e s t e x p e r i e n c e . T h e r e f o r e t h e e a r t h is n o t m o v e d w i t h
claimed that he had witnessed the fall o f stones from the mast o f a ship and
a d a i l y r o t a t i o n , a n d m u c h less w i t h a n a n n u a l t r a n s l a t i o n .
not once did any o f them fall to the foot o f the mast; rather they dropped
into the water o ff the stern o f the ship.121 Thus did they counteract, or
Following a brief consideration o f this claim, Riccioli invokes Galileo’s 119. Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3, 1727, 3:562, cols. 1-2, par. 114.
argument about objects in an enclosed cabin and does so with apparent Although Galileo did not describe the path o f a descending body in the cabin o f a moving
approval (424, col. 1). For if the motions o f the animate and inanimate ship as “ slanting,” he earlier declared that the path o f a stone falling toward a rotating
earth would be slanting (Galileo, Dialogue, Second Day [Drake], 1962, 173). Tycho
objects in the enclosed cabin are precisely the same whether the ship moves Brahe rejected the common motion argument and insisted that a body projected upward
or rests, a consequence that follows from the fact that the rest and motion would fall quite differently when the ship is at rest than when it is in motion. The greater
o f the ship are common to all, one may not infer the rest or motion o f the the ship’s velocity, the greater the distance that would separate a falling body from the
place to which it fell when the ship was at rest from that to which it fell when the ship
ship from the motion o f the objects in the cabin. But Riccioli’s argument was in motion. See Overmann, 1974, 14, where the passage from Tycho’s Epistolarum
astrotiomicarum liber primus is translated from Tychonis Brahe Darti Opera omnia, ed. J. L.
115. Perhaps they m ight have argued that these rectilinear motions differ, one m ovin g up. E. Dreyer (Copenhagen, 1919), 6:220, lines 16-21.
the other down. 120. In the Second Day o f his Dialogue ([Drake], 1962, 126), Galileo describes the typical
116. See Copernicus, Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 8 [Rosen], 1978. 16. Aristotelian interpretation o f the ship experiment; on 180, Galileo has Salviati, his spokes­
117. See Galileo, Dialogue, Second D a y [Drake], 1962, 180-187. Som e 250 years earlier, man, declare that the anti-Copemicans have never dropped a body from the mast o f a
Oresm e, Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 25, 1968, 525, had made the same argument when moving ship. However, elsewhere in the same Second Day o f the Dialogue, Salviati first
he declared that “ Inside the boat m oved rapidly eastward, there can be all kinds ot implies that he had performed the experiment (“ For anyone who does [perform this
m ovem ents - horizontal, criss-cross, upward, downw ard, in all directions - and they experiment] will find that the experiment shows exactly the opposite o f what is written,”
seem to be exactly the same as those when the ship is at rest.’’ Th e passage is included 144) but then, a few paragraphs later, appears to admit that he had not performed it
in Grant, I9'74, 505. ( 14-5)-
118. For the embellishments and additions, see Grant, 1984b, 37—39. 121. Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3, 1727, 3:563, col. 1, par. 116.
656 THE CELESTIAL REGION
C O S M IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 657
neutralize, Galileo’s claim. While admitting that they themselves had never bodies that fell with a variety o f rectilinear speeds move with the same
observed such a demonstration, Mastrius and Bellutus were nevertheless rotational speed as the earth? Even if one conceded that a body detached
convinced that reason (ratio) would yield the same result as Cottunius re­ from the earth’s surface could somehow move with tw o such simultaneous
ported. If the earth rotated from west to east, they assumed that tw o east­ motions and thus follow the earth’s rotation, a third and violent motion,
ward motions should be distinguishable in a ship m oving eastward: (1) the which would render the rotational hypothesis untenable, also had to be
common west-to-east motion o f the earth, and (2) an eastward motion considered. Tycho imagined that first a lead, iron, or stone ball was fired
caused by the force o f the w in d.122 In their analysis, however, they assume toward the east, after which, from the same location, another ball o f equal
that as the stone falls, it is influenced only by the earth’s rotation and not size and weight was fired toward the west. Each cannonball would be moved
by the ship’s own eastward, or proper, motion. They were therefore led by three simultaneous motions: (1) a natural motion toward the earth’s
to conclude that the stone will not fall at the foot o f the mast. N or would center; (2) a natural rotational motion following the earth; and (3) a violent
the stone fall to the foot o f the mast if the ship’s direction were westward, motion, caused by the powder exploding in the cannon. Convinced, as
instead o f eastward: it would fall in the water o ff the ship’s stern.123 most Aristotelians would have been, that the natural, downward motion
Like Mastrius and Bellutus, Amicus, who substitutes an arrow (sagitta) o f a projectile hurled upward cannot commence until the violent upward
for a stone, assumed that an arrow’s path was independent o f the ship’s motion is destroyed, Tycho applied this reasoning to the cannonballs. If
motion, from which he concluded that the greater the velocity o f the ship, they possessed a natural rotational motion transmitted to them by a really
the farther behind it would the arrow fall.124 From such arguments many rotating earth, that natural, circular motion would be impeded by the violent
scholastics convinced themselves that the earth did not rotate. Unfortu­ motion caused by the powder exploding in the cannon. Consequently, the
nately, we cannot properly evaluate the role played by the condemnation ball fired eastward should advance hardly any distance from the cannon,
o f the Copernican theory in 1616. Did it compel scholastics to argue against because the latter would be carried swiftly eastward with the rotating earth
a rotating earth by whatever means possible, so that the basic common whereas the cannonball would move only with its violent eastward motion.
motion argument had to be ignored? Whatever the reason, some two The tw o eastward motions would prevent much o f a separation.126
hundred fifty years earlier medieval scholastics such as Buridan and Oresme By contrast, the cannonball shot westward should be far removed from
had embraced the common motion argument as essentially correct and thus the cannon, because the latter would be carried eastward by the rotating
were able to argue more cogently than their scholastic successors. Their earth whereas the cannonball would move westward by virtue o f its violent
rejection o f the earth’s rotation was on other grounds. motion, which would also negate its circular motion. Experience reveals
no such discrepancies but shows rather that the cannonballs would travel
ii. Cannonballs to east and west. During the Middle Ages, the manner in equal distances.
which a rotating earth might affect cannonballs fired either to east or west Because o f T y ch o ’s great prestige, his argument might have served the
was not a problem that surfaced in discussions about the possible rotation cause o f traditionalists.127 But scholastic natural philosophers did not cite it
o f the earth. Cannons were already in use during the fourteenth century,125 often, perhaps because it was more complicated than many others that could
but no one linked them with a possible rotating earth. One o f the first to also be invoked. Mastrius and Bellutus, however, furnished a variant o f the
do so, if not the first, was Tycho Brahe. In letters written to Christoph argument when they declared that a cannonball shot toward the west should
Rothmann (d. ca. 1608) between 1586 and 1590, Tycho denied the C o­ have a greater impact than one shot toward the east. The earth’s easterly
pernican claim that a heavy body falls simultaneously with rectilinear and rotation would cause the greater and lesser impacts. Thus if the cannonball
circular motions. Because the two motions would be natural, Tycho con­ fired westward struck a house, the latter, carried eastward by the earth’s
cluded that they would interfere with each other. Moreover, how could swift rotation, would meet the cannonball head-on and, as Mastrius and
Bellutus put it, “ the impetus toward the west would be as if doubled.” 128
Cottunius was a Greek who studied at the Greek College in Rome and even founded a The circumstances are radically different toward the east, where the force
college for indigent Greeks at Padua in 1653. In addition to philosophy and theology,
he also earned a doctorate in medicine at Padua. His commentary on the Meteorology 126. We observe that in this argument, the first o f the three motions - a natural motion
was apparently unpublished (see Lohr, 1988, 10$). toward the earth's center - plays no role because the violent motion is operative. The
122. Presumably, this is the ship's own eastward motion. same is true when the cannonball is shot westward.
123. For more details, see Grant, 1984b, 41—42. 127. Galileo attempted to meet T ycho’s argument in a number ot places. See Galileo, Dialogue,
124. Amicus believed (De caelo. tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 1, 1626, 289, col. 2) that an Second Day [Drake], 1962, 126-127, where north-south shots are also considered, and
arrow shot upward from the deck o f a moving ship would not return to the place trom 168, 171, 174, and 180.
whence it was launched. 128. “ Quia versus occasum veluti duplicaretur impetus.” Mastrius and Bellutus, De coelo,
12$. See Hall, 1954-1984, 2:726-727. disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3, 1727, 3:562, col. 1, par. 113.
658 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 659
o f impact is diminished because the house is moving away from the on­ forces that were impressed obliquely.129 With his assumption that impetus
coming cannonbail. was imparted to a cannonball by both the powder that was exploded in the
Riccioli found arguments about cannonballs fired toward the cardinal cannon and the earth’s eastward rotation, Riccioli was committed to a w holly
points o f considerable interest. Indeed, he also used the concept o f impetus different analysis from that o f the Copernicans. The consequences he derived
to express his results. Thus Riccioli declares (Almagestum novum, pars post., from the application o f these ideas were contrary to experience. He thus
bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 21, 1651, 427, col. 2) that “ if the earth were moved with felt justified in rejecting the earth’s daily rotation.130
a daily motion, or even an annual motion, the same ball that is thrust forward Because he was an astronomer with mathematical and technical compe­
by the same force for the same distance once to an eastern target and then tence, Riccioli was rare among scholastics. Indeed, he not only accepted and
to a western target would strike the eastern target with a stronger impact understood Galileo’s distance-and-time formulation for falling bodies (that is
than the western target.” These results were the opposite o f those arrived s<*tz, where 5 is distance and f is time), but had himself experimentally verified
at by Mastrius and Bcllutus. it.131 He was one o f the few who could cope with arguments that utilized the
Much o f Riccioli’s reasoning about cannon shots in the different cardinal assumption that bodies fell with uniformly accelerated motion. Thus did he
directions was based on his conviction that if the earth rotated on its axis offer a series o f unusual arguments to show that uniformly accelerated fall
from west to east, that rotation must confer an impetus on all bodies rotating was incompatible with a rotating earth. Bodies could not really accelerate in
with the earth. A body moved in a direction opposed to the daily rotation descending toward the earth if the earth rotated on its axis.'32 Although his
had an impetus that conflicted with the impetus it received from the daily arguments were based on misunderstandings, Riccioli’s attempt to use the
rotation. Thus, in Riccioli’s view, and that o f Tycho as well, the final latest scientific concepts in defense o f terrestrial immobility is noteworthy.
location of a cannonball on a rotating earth would be determined by the
mutual interaction o f the motive forces within the cannonball. For example, iii. Other physical arguments. Many other physical arguments with seem­
a ball projected eastward would be aided by the earth’s eastward motion, ingly endless variations could be cited. O nly a few will be mentioned. One
which would add to the impetus imparted by the cannon or projector. By that was widely discussed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is
contrast, a ball hurled or projected westward would be affected by two traceable to Copernicus, who mistakenly ascribed to Ptolemy the opinion
oppositely directed impetuses: the impetus driving the ball westward would that if the earth rotated, “ living creatures and any other loose weights would
be retarded by the impulse o f the ball to follow the earth’s rotation eastward; by no means remain unshaken.” 113 As in many instances, it was Clavius
similarly, the impetus that would normally carry the ball eastward with the who had installed this argument in the scholastic repertoire against a rotating
earth’s rotation would be diminished, or interfered with, by the contrary earth. T o those who countered - as did Galileo some years later (Dialogue,
impetus impelling the ball westward. In brief, for westward cannon shots, Second Day [Drake], 1962, 189-190) - that the earth’s rotation would no
the two impetuses resist and interfere with each other; for eastward shots, more cause buildings to collapse than would the swift revolution o f a vessel
they reinforce each other. Because such disparate effects were not observed filled with water cause the water to be expelled, Clavius devised a response.
in the behavior o f cannonballs, Riccioli concluded that the earth does not “ The whole impetus o f the water.” he explained ([Sphere, ch. 1], 1593,
rotate. 213), “ is impressed toward the lower parts ot the vessel, not toward its
Despite its oblique path, Copernicans insisted that a cannonball had its orifice. But the impetus impressed on the buildings is toward the farthest
own proper motion and struck a target directly because target, cannon, and parts o f the earth.” In these somewhat cryptic words, Clavius seems to say
cannonball equally possess the comm on circular motion o f the earth's daily that the water remains in the vessel because the impetus, or force, impressed
rotation. Copernicans were committed to an interpretation that demanded
they analyze every terrestrial motion as if it were compounded o f two 129. “ Certi enim sumus,” Riccioli insists, “ ex plurimis experimentis motum semel impressum
ac motivum versus unam partem debilitari ac minui ab impetu non tantum in contrariam
motions, its own proper motion and the common motion that it shared sed etiam in alienam partem, seu in transversum movente.” Riccioli, Almagestum novum,
with the earth and all other objects. The tw o component motions did not, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 21, 1651. 427, col. 2.
however, interfere with each other, an interpretation that Riccioli could not 130. For some o f Riccioli’s other arguments on cannonballs, see Grant, 1984b, 45-50.
131. See Koyre, 1953, 229-232 and 1955, 349-
accept because o f his conviction that each motion o f a body supplied a 132. For details and references, see Grant. 1984b, 51-54.
quantity o f impetus to it. If two or more distinct motions were involved 133. Copernicus, Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 7 [Rosen], 1978, 15. On the falsity o f the attribution
in the production o f an observable motion, the impressed forces associated to Ptolemy, see Rosen's note to page 15. line 17, on p. 351 and also Galileo, Dialogue
[Drake], 1962, 481-482 (note to p. 188). Galileo who also attributed the same argument
with those motions must necessarily interfere with each other. Such mutual to Ptolemy, embellished it by adding (188) that “ if the earth turned upon itself with
interference was not confined to contrary forces but also occurred with great speed, rocks and animals would necessarily be thrown toward the stars.”
66o THE CELESTIAL REGION CO SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 661

on the water is totally concentrated at the bottom o f the vessel so that the
water tends toward the bottom o f the vessel and cannot depart. The earth’s b. Metaphysical arguments: simplicity, order, and nobility
rotation, by contrast, causes the impetus to concentrate at its surface and, The strongest links between medieval and seventeenth-century scholastic
perhaps like an earthquake, to crumble the foundations o f the buildings on arguments about the earth’s rotation lie in the area o f metaphysical appeals
it.'34 based on simplicity, order, and nobility. The Copernican system was itself
Amicus took this argument a step farther, arguing that even if the build­ a powerful statement for simplicity and order. Scholastic natural philoso­
ings could stand for a time on a rotating earth, they must eventually collapse phers frequently recognized this when they presented arguments in favor
as a consequence o f that rotation. A few years later, Galileo countered that o f a rotating earth, arguments which they subsequently had to refute. The
those who believed that buildings would collapse on a rotating earth could principle o f Ockham ’s razor was the essential statement in behalf o f the
not also believe that the earth had always rotated, for otherwise how could simplicity argument. Scholastics often invoked some version o f it, as when
the buildings ever have been constructed? Those who upheld such an ar­ Amicus declared that “ it is vain to do with many [things] what can be done
gument had to assume that the earth was initially at rest when the buildings equally well with few er.” ‘3X In light o f the principle o f simplicity, would
were constructed. With the commencement o f rotation, however, the build­ it not be “ easier and o f less cost [or effort],” queried Riccioli, “ to move
ings would quickly collapse.13 135
4 the small [pusillum] globe o f the earth than the immense machine o f the
Mastrius and Beilutus ([De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3], 1727, 3:563, col. heavens? Therefore God and Nature, which do what is easier, move the
2, par. 119) report yet another argument in which impetus was involved. earth, rather than the heavens, with a daily m otion.” 139 Such arguments
Because fire and air are moved circularly, so also ought the globe o f earth were also applicable to speed as well as weight. If the stars and planets
be moved circularly, presumably by an impetus transmitted from heaven turned daily, instead o f the earth, they would move with incredible speeds
to earth via the spheres o f fire and air. They denied the physical feasibility despite their enormously greater heaviness than the earth.140
o f this claim, because a fluid body like air could not push a solid body like Like Buridan before him, Riccioli was not impressed with simplicity
earth. The latter is not only too heavy to be rotated by the air but too arguments.141 The great velocities o f the celestial spheres are o f no conse-
distant from the heaven to be affected by any impetus transmitted by the
heaven to fire or air.
center would come immediately to rest had already been rejected in the fourteenth century
Scholastics did not rely only on arguments that rejected the earth’s ro­ by Albert o f Saxony and Oresme. who argued that the residual, uncorrupted impetus
tation but offered positive reasons in defense o f the earth’s immobility. in the falling stone would cause it to proceed past the center and ascend toward the
heavens. And. as Albert put it, “ in so ascending, when the impetus would be spent, it
Amicus {[De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 6, art. 3], 1626, 601, col. 1) agreed
would conversely descend. And in such a descent it would again acquire unto itself a
with Aristotle that the earth’s heaviness caused it to rest in the center, which certain small impetus by which it would be moved again beyond the center. When this
is the lowest place in the universe. O r, as Mastrius and Beilutus ([De coelo, impetus was spent, it would descend again. And so it would be moved, oscillating
[titubando] around the center until there no longer would be any such impetus in it, and
disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3], 1727, 3:564, col. 2, par. 121) put it, the earth rests
then it would come to rest. ’’ For the translations, see Clagett, 1959, 566; for Oresme’s
in the middle o f the universe “ because it is in the lowest place.” The earth version, ibid., 570 and 533. Clagett’s translation o f Albert’s question is from bk. 2, qu.
remains motionless in the center o f the world because any movement away 4 (“ Whether every natural movement is swifter in the end than in the beginning”), o f
the Venice, 1492 edition o f Albert’s De celo. That question is not included in the 1318
from the center would be an ascent, which is repugnant to the earth’s
edition o f Albert’s De celo used in this study.
heaviness.136 That heavy things always rest at the w orld’s center was obvious r 38. “ Quia frustra fit per plura, quod potest aeque bene fieri per pauciora.” Amicus, De caelo,
to Amicus, who was convinced that if a stone were dropped through a hole tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 1, 1626, 288, col. 2. For equivalent statements, see Comaeus,
De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 14, 1657, 532, and Mastrius and Beilutus, De coelo,
imagined to extend from one side o f the earth’s diameter to the other, “ it
disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3, 3:563, col. 2, par. 119. Galileo also expressed and used the principle
would not be moved except to the middle, and there it would naturally o f simplicity at least twice in his Dialogue, Second Day [Drake], 1962, 117, 123, giving
rest and not proceed beyond except by force.” 137 the Latin text in the second reference (“ frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pau­
ciora” ).
139. Riccioli, Almagestum nooum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 33, 1651, 466, col. 2 (5th
134. By a parity o f reasoning, the impetus impressed on the water at the bottom o f the vessel argument). See also Amicus, ibid.; Comaeus. De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 14,
ought to cause the bottom to collapse. Amicus repeated the argument and added qual­ 1657, 532, and dub. 16, 537; and Mastrius and Beilutus, De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3,
ifications. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 1, 1626, 289, col. 2. 563, col. 2, par. 119. See Section V .i.a o f this chapter for Buridan’s almost identical
135. Galileo, Dialogue, Second Day [Drake], 1962, 189, posed this argument against Ptolemy’s argument (and also Grant, 1974, 501), and Grant, 1974, 509, for Oresme’s version.
alleged claim that buildings on a rotating earth would collapse. We have already seen 140. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 33, 1651, 467, col. 2 (n th
that this was not Ptolemy's argument. argument). As will be obvious from the next paragraph, few, if any, scholastics would
136. Amicus, De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 6, art. 3, 1626, 601, col. 2. Aversa expressed have taken this argument seriously.
the same opinion (De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 6, 1627, 231, col. 2). 141. For Buridan’s presentation o f a simplicity argument and his rebuttal, see Section V .i.a
137. Amicus, ibid. Amicus's conclusion that a stone dropped into a hole through the earth’s and note 83 (for the text o f the argument) o f this chapter.
662 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 663
quence as long as the spheres themselves can endure them (Almagestum more perfect than rest. The circular celestial motions, which operate for
novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 33, 1651, 467, col. 2). Because the great the good o f the universe and do not come to rest, belong in this category.
planetary speeds are regulated by intelligences, they do not adversely affect The argument from nobility had been employed by Copernicans to argue
our senses or cause ill effects. The greater mass o f the celestial spheres would for the Sun’s, rather than the earth’s, centrality. Riccioli, who reported
pose serious problems only if the motive forces that continually moved numerous Copernican arguments favoring the Sun’s centrality,144 attacked
them met more resistance than they could cope with. Even if such resistances that Copernican argument which assumed that the center o f the world is
existed, they could cause no difficulty for God or the intelligences. Although the most noble place and from that inferred that the Sun, which was usually
it might be easier for God to m ove the smaller earth than the larger heavenly deemed nobler than the earth, must occupy it. Riccioli conceded that in the
spheres, Riccioli alludes to valid arguments (though he cites none) as to natural order the center is the most noble place, but not in the supernatural
“ w hy God and Nature do not wish to do that which seems, at first glance, order, where the most noble place is the empyrean sphere, the highest place,
easier, just as in many other matters what seems easier, or o f less cost, is whereas the lowest place (that is, the center), is the place o f the damned.
not followed” (ibid., 466, col. 2). Despite the earth’s considerably smaller But even in the natural order, the Sun is not in the center, because “ the
size than the heavens, which might suggest a greater inclination for motion, earth with its living things, especially rational animals, is nobler than the
Amicus {[De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 3], 1626, 291, col. 2) insisted, Sun.” '45 T o save the earth’s centrality, Riccioli was prepared to abandon
in what is essentially a repeat o f Buridan’s much earlier argument (see Sec. the traditional opinion that the Sun is nobler than the earth. Moreover, he
V .i.a o f this chapter) that the earth’s heaviness made it more unsuited for also denied that the Sun was the efficient cause o f celestial motions, as
motion than water, which was less suited for motion than air, which in Kepler had argued, or that it could be the cause o f the elements and o f new
turn was less suited for motion than fire, from which he inferred that phenomena. Rather it is the earth that is the ultimate cause o f all these
superior celestial bodies are far better adapted for motion in their places motions and changes, because “ the earth, with its human beings, is the final
than is the earth in its place. cause and objective o f the motion o f the stars [or planets].” '46
The traditional scholastic conviction that rest is nobler than motion was The sphericity o f the earth had also served the Copernicans, many o f
used by Copernicans in defense o f a rotating earth. If rest is nobler than whom argued that the earth’s spherical shape was more suited for circular
motion, w hy should the imperfect earth rest while the more perfect and motion than for rest.147 For just as the spherically shaped celestial bodies
noble heavens rotate? Scholastics responded in a variety o f ways and reveal move with circular motion, so also should the spherically shaped earth.148
once again their indebtedness to medieval arguments and interpretations. Under the Copernican threat, some scholastics denied any necessary con­
Amicus {[De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 7], 1626, 604, cols. 1—2), for nection between sphericity and circular motion. Amicus, for example {[De
example, concedes that rest is generally more perfect because it is the goal caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 3], 1626, 291, col. 2—292, col. 1) insisted
or end o f motion. Under certain circumstances, however, the reverse is that the earth’s sphericity was more appropriate for rest “ because, by reason
true, namely, when motion produces more noble effects than rest.142 Nature o f heaviness, parts o f the earth tend to the center equally; [therefore] it [the
assigned motion to the heavens because the latter act as an agent to produce earth] ought necessarily to have, as much as it can, a spherical figure, so
such terrestrial effects as the seasons, the variation o f day and night, and that all parts o f its circumference are equally distant from the center.”
the distribution o f influences. Since the motion o f the earth alone could not Although Mastrius and Bellutus conceded that circular motion was indeed
produce the various astronomical aspects and conjunctions necessary to
144. See Riccioli’s “ 29 arguments in favor o f the Sun's position in the center o f the universe
generate these causes, nature assigned rest to the earth.143 Mastrius and and [in favor] o f the annual motion around the center o f the universe simultaneously
Bellutus {[De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3], 1727, 3:563, col. 2, par. 119) with the daily motion, and their solutions.” Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec.
adopted a similar approach. Natural rest - that is, rest that terminates motion 4, ch. 33, 1651, 469, col. 1. The twenty-nine arguments extend over pages 469-472
(arguments 21-49). Except for the first argument, which is cited here, the arguments
to a natural place — is more perfect than motion toward that natural place. are overwhelmingly astronomical rather than physical or metaphysical.
But motion that does not move toward a natural place in order to come to 145. “ Tellus enim cum viventibus et animalibus praesertim rationalibus est nobilior Sole.”
rest there but seeks rather to communicate its power to inferior things is Ibid., 1st argument.
146. Ibid., 4th argument.
147. See Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. r, 1626, 288, col. 2; Mastrius and
142. We saw earlier (Ch. 15, Sec. II. 1.) that tor Buridan circumstances dictated the greater Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3, 1727, 3:563, col. 2, par. 119.
nobility o f rest or motion. Under certain circumstances, rest was nobler; under other 148. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 33, 1651. 466, col. 1 (1st
conditions, motion was nobler. Amicus’s conditions are similar to Buridan’s. argument) had a different version o f this Copernican argument. The daily motion should
143. In an earlier part o f his De caelo, Amicus had presented much the same argument. Amicus, be assigned to the spherical earth rather than to the heaven o f the fixed stars because the
De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 3, 1626, 292, col. 1. sphericity o f the latter was uncertain.
664 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 665

appropriate to the spherical earth, they denied that the earth had such a played a subsidiary role. B y the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century,
motion and offered supporting reasons ([De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3], however, numerous biblical passages were invoked, especially after the
1727, 3:563, col. 2, par. 119). Rather than the earth, it was the primum condemnation o f the Copernican theory in 1616. The theological arguments
mobile, or first movable sphere, that rotated with a daily motion. True, the were largely based on biblical texts. By the seventeenth century, biblical
primum mobile required an enormously greater velocity to complete its daily passages were regularly invoked in support o f traditional geocentric cos­
rotation than did the far smaller earth. But that greater velocity was a direct m ology. Clavius, whose influence on seventeenth-c.entury scholastic cos­
reflection o f G od’s omnipotence and therefore produced no disastrous con­ m ology was enormous, was an immediate source for at least three o f these:
sequences. Indeed, so admirably does the primum mobile illustrate G od’s Psalms I0 3.5,'5' Ecclesiastes 1 .4 -5 ,152 and Psalms 18 .6 -7 .153
power that we ought not to reject its tremendous speed in favor o f the Other biblical passages were also cited in behalf o f a geocentric w orld .154
earth’s more imaginable daily rotational velocity. M oreover, if the earth T o confirm the claim that the earth continually supports itself in the center
rotated, as Copemicans argued, every stone projected upward would require o f the world, Aversa appealed not only to Psalm 103 but also to Job 26.7,
tw o external forces: one to move it up, the other to move it along with where God is said to have suspended the world over nothing, and Isaiah
the earth’s rotation. The daily motion is, therefore, better placed in the 40.12, where God is said to have “ poised with three fingers the bulk o f the
heavens. earth, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance.” ' 55
Scholastic natural philosophers also rejected the popular Copem ican ar­ As evidence o f the earth’s immobility, Aversa cited 1 Chronicles 16.30,
gument that circular motion is more natural to the elements, and therefore where God is said to have made the orb im m obile,156 and Psalm 92, which
to the earth, than is rectilinear m otion.14915
*In Riccioli’s account o f this ar­
0 declares that God fixed the orb o f the earth so that it does not m ove.157
gument ([Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 33], 1651, 466, Amicus ([De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, art. 2], 1626, 290, col. 2-291, col. 1) and
cols. 1-2), circular motion is said to be more appropriate to things that are others found support for the earth’s immobility in 2 Kings 20.9—11, where,
in their natural places, as when earth, water, air, and fire are in their natural as a sign to Hezekiah, the Lord made the shadow retreat 10 degrees. Had
places. O nly when a part o f an element leaves its natural place does it follow this been done by turning the earth 10 degrees, the suddenness would have
a rectilinear path. But such rectilinear motions represent disorder and dis­ been apparent to the senses. Thus did Amicus tacitly assume that God
organization, because those elemental bodies have departed from their nat­ achieved his purpose by causing the Sun to retreat.'58
ural places by violent motion. In his reply, Riccioli denies that circular
1 $1. “ Who hast founded the earth on its own bases; it shall not be moved for ever and ever.”
motion is an inherent (ab intrinseco) property o f the elements. Circular mo­ This and all subsequent biblical quotations in English are drawn from the Douai Version.
tion is imposed on the elements externally (ab extrinseco) and cannot, there­ The passage was also cited by Amicus, De caelo, tract. $, qu. 6, dubh. 1, art. 2, 1626,
fore, be characterized as “ natural.” Were the elements arranged absolutely 290, col. 2; Aversa, De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 6, 1627, 232, col. 2; Cornaeus, De coelo, tract.
4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 15, 1657, 535; and Riccioli, ibid., ch. 36. 480, col. 2.
in their natural places, they would be immobile rather than tend toward 152. 4. “ One generation passeth away and another generation cometh; but the earth standeth
circular motion, as the Copemicans assume. But when the elements are not for ever.” 5. “ The sun riseth, and goeth down, and retumeth to his place; and there
in that arrangement, heavy and light bodies are moved with a natural, finite rising again. . . . ” See also Amicus, ibid.; Aversa, De caelo. qu. 31, sec. 2, 1627, 5, col.
2, qu. 34, sec. 5, 142, col. 1, qu. 36, sec. 6, 232, col. 2; Cornaeus. ibid., 536; and Riccioli.
rectilinear motion along a “ perpendicular line [that is] always accelerated ibid., cols. 1-2. In his discussion o f the earth’s axial rotation, Oresme cites the same
uniformly difformly toward a goal.” These rectilinear motions ot bodies passage (Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 25, 1968, 527); also Grant, 1974, 506.
our o f their natural places agree with observed phenomena. “ For these and 153. 6. “ He hath set his tabernacle in the sun: and he, as a bridegroom coming out o f his
bride chamber. Hath rejoiced as a giant to run the w ay.” 7. "His going out is from the
other reasons [or causes],” declared Riccioli, “ we have taught that the Per­ end o f heaven. And his circuit even to the end thereof: and there is no one that can hide
ipatetic doctrine is far more solid in this than the Copernican or Galilean himself from his heat.” See also Amicus, ibid., and Aversa, ibid.. 142, col. 1.
[doctrine].” ' 50 154. See also Schofield, 1981, 271-272.
155. Aversa, De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 6, 1627, 23 r, col. 2. Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post.,
bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 36, 1651, 480, col. 2, also cited Job 26.7.
156. Aversa, ibid., 232, col. 2. For this line from the Vulgate, Aversa, who uses the title 1
c. Theological arguments Paralipomenon instead o f 1 Chronicles, has: “ Deus fundavit orbem immobilem” where
the Latin Vulgate has “ ipse enim fundavit orbem immobilem. ” Riccioli’s citation o f this
Although a few theological arguments were employed during the Middle text agrees with the Vulgate (Riccioli, ibid.).
Ages in scholastic discussions concerning the earth’s imm obility, they 157. Aversa, ibid., has “ Firmavit orbem terrae qui non commovebitur,” which agrees with
the Vulgate. Although Riccioli starts with “ Etenim,” his citation o f Psalm 92 also agrees
149. Copernicus advances this argument in Revolutions, bk. 1, ch. 8 [Rosen], 1978, 16-17. with the Vulgate (Riccioli, ibid.). In his discussion o f the possibility o f the earth’s axial
150. “ Ob quas et alias causas docuimus multo solidiorem esse in hoc doctrinam Peripateticam rotation, Oresme, Le Livre du del, bk. 2, ch. 25, 1968, 527, also found occasion to quote
quam Copernicanam aut Galilaeisticam.” Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9 - this line; see also Grant, 1974, 506.
sec. 4, ch. 33, 1651. 466, col. 2. 158. In Isaiah 38.8, where the same event is described, the Sun’s motion is made explicit in
666 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 667

The most significant biblical passage introduced in the debate over axial safety o f the faith, the opposite opinion” - that the earth does not rest at
rotation was Joshua io. 12-14, where Joshua commanded the Sun to stop the center o f the universe - “ cannot be tolerated.” 163 “Justly and rightly,”
in midheaven for nearly a day. Because it was the Sun, not the earth, that he continues, “ did the Roman Congregation o f the Index order the doctrine
was halted by Joshua’s command, Aversa, Amicus, and Cornaeus saw this o f Copernicus to be corrected and prohibited the book o f Johannes Kepler,
as powerful evidence in favor o f the earth’s im m obility.1'9 Nicole Oresme titled Epitome Astronomiae Copertiicanae, and all books containing the same
and Galileo had earlier exercised their exegetical talents on this famous doctrine, which, in the edict issued in 1616, it rightly calls false and abso­
passage. Aware that Joshua had commanded the Sun, not the earth, to stand lutely repugnant to divine Scripture.” 164
still, Oresme nevertheless argued that the same effect could have been The numerous passages in favor o f the traditional cosm ology now took
achieved by causing the earth’s rotation to cease, and he even suggested on an even more formidable aspect. N o such passage could be defended by
that the latter hypothesis was the more attractive.160 But how could one any explanation that required abandonment o f the literal meaning o f the
ignore the plain intent o f the text, which speaks o f the Sun (and Moon) text. The more relaxed liberal and allegorical interpretations o f the Middle
being stopped, but not the earth? An obvious solution was to avoid a literal Ages were no longer tolerated. Scripture, with its many passages favorable
interpretation, which is the advice Oresme proposes. The Joshua passage, to an immobile and central earth, became the most potent weapon in defense
he declared, “ conforms to the customary usage o f popular speech just as it o f the traditional geocentric cosmology. For, as Koyre explained in his
[i.e., the Bible] does in many other places, for instance, in those where it analysis o f Riccioli’s arguments (1955, 395), no one “ has been able to dem­
is written that God repented, and He became angry and became pacified, onstrate that the earth is at rest. Indeed it is impossible to do so as in both
and other such expressions which are not to be taken literally.” ,6‘ In a cases — whether the earth moved or not — all the phenomena available to
similar manner, Galileo insisted that “ to attribute motion to the sun and us, all the phenomena observable by us would be exactly the same.”
rest to the earth was therefore necessary lest the common people should
become confused, obstinate, and contumacious in yielding assent to the d. Scholastic acceptance of nontraditional systems
principal articles that are absolutely matters o f faith.’” 62
With the condemnation o f the earth’s motion in 1616, the argument that During the seventeenth century, scholastic natural philosophers had at
Scripture deliberately concealed physical and other truths in order to facil­ least three primary world systems from which to choose: the traditional
itate the understanding o f the common people became untenable. Scriptural Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system; the Copernican; and the Tychonic, which
passages that spoke o f the earth at rest in the center o f the world, or the was devised by Tycho Brahe toward the end o f the sixteenth century. Thus
Sun moving around it, were therealter to be taken literally. T o say that far we have only concerned ourselves with scholastics who vigorously de­
“ Scripture speaks according to the sense o f the common man and not fended the traditional system. They were clearly the overwhelming ma­
according to the truth” was, in Aversa’sjudgment, nothing less than “ abom­ jority. But there were scholastic Aristotelians who were persuaded that
inable,” as indeed it was to most o f his scholastic contemporaries who contemporary astronomy demanded certain compromises concerning the
offered public opinions. Without hesitation, Aversa concluded that “ for the traditional arrangement and order o f the planets, as well as the behavior o f
the earth itself. If the condemnation o f the Copernican system had never
occurred, it seems reasonable to assume that some, and perhaps many or
the following lines: "I will bring again the shadow of the lines, by which it is now gone
down in the sun dial o f Achaz with the sun, ten lines backward. And the sun returned
ten lines by the degrees by which it was gone down.” It was this passage that Aversa 163. Aversa, De caelo, qu. 31, sec. 2. 1627, 5, col. 2. Cornaeus, De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3.
cited (Decaelo, qu. 34, sec. 5, 1627, 142, col. 1). Riccioli cited both passages (Almagestum qu. 2, dub. 15, 1657, 536, makes a similar declaration. Copernicans, he explains, say
novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 36, 1651, 480, col. 1). that Scripture should be accommodated to our manner o f speaking and feeling, so the
159. Aversa, ibid.; Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit. 1, art. 2, 1626, 290, col. 2; earth is only apparently at rest. Cornaeus, however, insists that we follow Saint Au­
Cornaeus, De coelo. tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2. dub. 15, 1657, $36. Riccioli also cited it gustine and always interpret the Bible literally, unless “ manifest reason and necessity”
(Riccioli, ibid.). dictate otherwise. Authoritative appeals were also made to the Church Fathers, though
160. Oresme, Le Livre du del. bk. 2, ch. 25, 1968, $31, 537; Grant, 1974, 507-508, 509. to a lesser extent. For a few such references, see Amicus, De caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, dubit.
Oresme applied the same reasoning to Isaiah 38.8, explaining that although it appeared 1, art. 2, 1626, 291, col. 1.
that Joshua stopped the Sun and that the Sun returned in the time o f Hezekiah, “ in tact, 164. Here is Aversa’s complete statement: “ Et alibi etiam passim Scriptura supponit terram
it was the earth which stopped moving in Joshua's time and which later in Hezekiah’s quiescere in medio et solem circa terram moveri. Nefas autem erit dicere Scripturam
time advanced or speeded up its movement; whichever occurrence we prefer to believe, loqui iuxta sensum vulgarium hominum et non iuxta veritatem. Opposita ergo sententia
the effect would be the same. The latter opinion seems more reasonable than the former, non potest tuta fide tolerari. Unde iuste et prudenter Romana Congregatio Indicis corrigi
as we shall make clear later.” Oresme, ibid., 531; Grant, 1974, 508. iussit doctrinam Copernici et prohibuit librum loannis Kepleri, inscriptum Epitome As-
161. Oresme, ibid., 531. tronomiae Copemicanae, et omnes libros eandem doctrinam continentes, quam merito
162. “ Letter to M'.dame Christina ot Lorraine Grand Duchess o f Tuscany, ” in Drake, 1957- vocat falsam et divinae Scriptura penitus repugnantem, Edicto edito anno 1616.” Aversa,
200. ibid.
668 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O S M IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 669
most, scholastic natural philosophers and natural philosopher-theologians pernicanism attractive. Tycho, who published a description o f his system
might have adopted it. Thus any scholar who seeks to assess seventeenth- in 1588, assumed an immobile earth at the center o f the world, with the
century scholastic arguments in favor o f the earth’s centrality and imm o­ planets circling the Sun while the Sun, in turn, moved around the earth.
bility confronts a dilemma. Did the condemnation o f Copernicus, Diego Tycho also rejected the earth’s daily rotation and thus retained a 24-hour
de Zuniga, and Paolo Foscarini in 1616 by the Congregation o f Cardinals, revolution o f the fixed stars. Jesuits who found the old system flawed -
and o f Galileo in 1633, compel the falsification o f arguments by those indeed, many o f them had initially been favorably disposed to Galileo’s
scholastic theologians who may have been dubious about the traditional new astronomical discoveries - became supporter-s o f the Tychonic sys­
Aristotelian position and open-minded about, and even receptive to, C op­ tem, 167 including Christopher Scheiner,,6X Libert Froidm ont,169 Giorgio Po-
ernicus’s claims about the earth’s mobility? This is a definite possibility, lacco, Riccioli, and Melchior Cornaeus.'70 Indeed, even the Jesuit Clavius,
because, in the aftermath o f the condemnation o f Galileo in 1633, the Church who is sometimes called “ the last o f their number to advocate the old
pressured some Jesuit scientists “ to reinforce the Decree o f 1633 by pub­ geocentric system o f Ptolemy, ” seems to have abandoned the old cosmology
lishing books on the controversy themselves emphasizing the religious as­ just before his death in 1612 and recommended that his fellow astronomers
pect.” “ There w as,” consequently, “ a spate o f such books by Jesuit writers devise a new system.
in which ostentatious reference to the decision o f the Church was made” B y adopting T y ch o ’s system, with its elimination o f celestial orbs, Jesuits
(Schofield, 1981, 281). Riccioli and Cornaeus, both o f w hom wrote after and other supporters could also accept the celestial origin o f new stars and
1633, cited the concfemnation o f 1633, and Riccioli even included the text comets, and therefore accept the corruptibility o f the celestial region. It also
o f it in his Almagestum novum.'*"' enabled them to retain Aristotelian terrestrial physics until N ew ton made
Was the sincerity o f those who had to defend the imm obility and centrality it untenable.
o f the earth, but who may have been sympathetic to the Copernican inter­
pretation, affected? Riccioli, o f whom Delambre would say “ without his //. The Copernican system. In view o f the status o f Copernicanism in sev­
robe he w ould be Copernican,” may have labored under this double pres­ enteenth-century astronomy and cosmology, support for the Tychonic sys­
sure. Although he argued vigorously against the Copernican system, and tem raised few eyebrows. Although Aristotelians who sought refuge in the
even characterized as unanswerable some o f his ow n arguments for terres­ Tychonic system had to accept drastic changes from the traditional cos-
trial immobility, Riccioli also rebutted some arguments favoring terrestrial m ology, they did not have to abandon the inviolate principle o f the earth’s
immobility by invoking counterarguments from “ the Copernicans, ” which centrality and immobility. T y ch o ’s system had the additional virtue o f
seemingly left the earth’s immobility in doubt.16 166
5 immunity from theological censure. Under these circumstances, we would
Even if Riccoli was a secret Copernican - and there is no substantial be justifiably surprised if any Aristotelians publicly supported Copernican
evidence that he was - and subtly attempted to undermine the anti- ideas, especially any rotational motion o f the earth. And yet at least two
Copernican position whenever feasible, the arguments he presented, many instances o f such support occurred, one long before the condemnation o f
o f which were traditional and well known, must nevertheless be evaluated 1616, the other somewhat after the condemnation o f Galileo in 1633.
at face value. While the motives and innermost convictions o f authors like In his Five Books o f Peripatetic Questions, where no mention o f Copernicus
Riccioli are important where they can be discerned, we are rarely able to can be found, Andrea Cesalpino (1519-1603), a physician and natural phi­
determine them and must therefore accept the arguments as we find them. losopher, declared that the earth itself had only one natural motion, which,
as Aristotle had argued, was rectilinear and directed toward the center o f
i. The Tychonic system. Whether they were frustrated Copernicans or not, the world. But it was possible for the earth to move with a circular motion
numerous Catholic natural philosophers, theologians, and astronomers
found Tycho Brahe’s attempt to reconcile traditional cosm ology with Co- 167. Schofield, 1981, 277. Schofield’s book is important; see especially “ Seventeenth-century
debate over the w orld-system : III. Religious aspects o f the con troversy,” 264-308.
165. For Riccioli, see Almagestum novum, pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, ch. 40, 1651, 497-499- 168. In a letter to Mersenne, Descartes was o f the opinion that Scheiner was a Copernican
at heart (Schofield, 1981, 283-284).
Riccioli also included the text o f Galileo’s abjuration (499-500). A translation ot Galileo s
sentence and abjuration appears in Santillana, 1955, 306-310, 312-313. See also Cornaeus, 169. Froidm ont had been quite sym pathetic to Copernicanism before the condemnation o f
De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 15, 1657, 536—537. Mastrius and Bellutus, De Galileo. A ccording to Schofield, 1981, 270. “ T h e Italian Jesuit, Bonaventura Cavalieri
coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3, 1727, 3:562, col. 1, par. 112, mention only that the opinion (1598—1647). w rote to Gaileo in M ay 163 r that Froidmont has expounded the Copernican
opposed to the earth’s centrality and immobility “ was damned by the Sacred Congre­ arguments so skilfully, and refuted them with so little force, that he seems to believe
in them him self.”
gation o f Cardinals and assigned to the index o f books” (hinc opposita opinio damnatur
a Sacra card. Congreg. ad indicem librorum deputata). 170. O n Jesuit support for the T y ch o n ic system , see Schofield, 1981, 277-289. O n ly Cornaeus
is not mentioned b y Schofield.
166. For two instances o f this, see Grant, 1984b, 14-15. n. 45.
670 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 671
if that motion was imposed on it by an external force.'71 What could be N ot many Aristotelians went beyond Cesalpino. But if Thomas White
the source o f such a force? The surrounding air and ultimately the heaven. ( i 593 - l 6 7 6)’ an English Catholic and sometime professor o f philosophy
As the heaven, which Cesalpino envisioned as a single continuum, moved and theology, is included among them - and he seems to have proclaimed
from east to west, its force also caused the elemental spheres o f fire and air membership in the company o f Aristotelians - tnen it is possible to think
to move in the same direction, but at a much slower rate. The rotating the unthinkable: the most basic elements o f the Copernican theory, namelv
sphere o f air, in turn, would incessantly impact on the uneven and contin­ the earth’s daily rotation and its annual motion around a stationary Sun, are
ually changing earth’s surface and push or carry it in the same east-to-west somehow reconcilable with Aristotelianism. The reconciliation appears in
direction. W hite’s Peripateticall Institutions, where, in a section called “ The Authours
Cesalpino was impressed by the motive force o f air, which could move D esign,” he offers the following explanation o f the w ork’s title: “ W hy I
massive ships by merely pressing on their sails. If small parts o f air could have stiled them Institutions, the shortnesse and concise connection o f the
move large ships, the whole mass o f air m oving from east to west ought works sufficiently discover. I call them Peripateticall because, throughout
to be capable o f pushing the entire earth with a circular motion in the same they [i.e., the “ Institutions,” or foundations] subsist upon Aristotle’s prin­
direction,'72 an east-to-west motion that would be the slowest in the uni­ ciples; though the conclusions sometimes dissent.” '76 In the concluding
verse, since the earth was farthest removed from the eighth sphere o f the sentence, British understatement may have had its finest hour, since White’s
fixed stars. But if air possessed sufficient force to cause the earth to move “ dissent” led him to the assumption o f the truth o f the Copernican theory.
with the slowest circular motion in the universe, it lacked the power to In a manner reminiscent o f Cesalpino, White, in lessons 14 and 15, ex­
cause that same earth to move rectilinearly away from the center o f the plains the earth’s daily axial rotation by an east-to-west sweep o f the wind,
universe.'73 The earth’s circular motion, or rotation, occurred while it was which causes the upper part o f the sea to begin a process that enables the
forever stationary at the center o f the world. Thus did Cesalpino reconcile lowest level o f the sea, in direct contact with the seabed or earth, to produce
the earth’s circular motion with the basic Aristotelian requirement that it a west-to-east motion o f the earth. The earth’s daily circular motion is
lie immobile at the center o f the world. possible in this manner because it is not contrary to the earth’s natural
By this means, moreover, Cesalpino sought to account for the precession gravity and therefore offers no resistance to the west-to-east force o f the
and trepidation o f the equinoxes, conceiving these celestial motions as mere sea at the points o f contact.177
appearances derived from the earth’s circular motion. The earth’s slow east- But, as White elaborates further, “ because ’tis almost impossible this
to-west motion gives to the sphere o f the fixed stars the appearance o f a impulse should be equall on all sides, and cause a pure rotation about the
slow west-to-east motion, which would correspond to the motion o f preces­ Centre; there will, o f necessity, a Progressive motion be mixt with it.” This
sion falsely ascribed to the sphere o f the fixed stars. Because o f the earth’s motion, which represents the earth’s annual orbit, must, however, be “ in
uneven and continually changing surface, however, its east-to-west rotatory one line,” because “ all the motions which Astronomers assign the Earth
motion is irregular and unpredictable, thus producing an apparent trepi­ must, o f necessity, compose one line; and, if the lashing or impulse o f the
dation in the stars.'74 underwater advance the Earth in that line, ’twill be an adequate cause o f
In this extraordinary manner Andrea Cesalpino assigned a circular motion the motion o f the Earth.” '78 Like Cesalpino, then, White refused, as an
to the earth, explained certain astronomical phenomena by that motion, Aristotelian, to confer natural circular or orbital motions on the earth. H ow-
and yet remained faithful to the traditional Aristotelian conception ot an
earth located in the center o f the universe but unable to move itself circularly judgment, Cesalpino “ shamefully erred” (Cesalpinus in hoc turpiter lapsus fuit) when
by naturally inherent properties.'7'’ he proclaimed this opinion. Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34. sec. $, 1627, 141, cols. 1-2, for
the description o f Cesalpino’s ideas, and 143, col. 1, for the criticism. Mastrius and
171. Cesalpino, bk. 3, qu. 4, 1571, 53r~59v, for the com plete discussion. Bellutus, De coelo, disp. 4, qu. 4, art. 3, 1727, 3:563, col. 1, par. 116, also denied
172. Indeed, if the earth were not moved with, and by, the air, “ the peaks o f the highest Cesalpino's claim. Not only did Scripture assign all circular motions to the heavens and
mountains would be worn away by the continuous rotation o f the air,” a consequence rest to the earth, but the earth has no internal capacity to move circularly, nor is there
that is not observed (Signum praeterea est m oved terram cum aere: nam si aeris cursum any external force that could cause its continual rotation. None o f the other elements,
non consequeretur, altissimorum montium cacumina continua aeris rotatione atterer- including air, has the power to move it.
entur). Ibid., 59r. 176. White, 1656, sig. a4v-a5r. The work was originally published in Latin at Lyons in 1646.
173. “ Ex centro enim dimoveri impossibile est ne minimum quidem, non enim aer huiusmodi According to Phillip Drennon’s article on him (Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 14:301 —
impulsum praebet.” Ibid., 58V. 302), White, an English Catholic, was “ a devoted follower o f Aristotle,” although his
174. For more on Cesalpino's ideas o f trepidation and precession, see Grant, 1984b, 7, n. 22. “ scientific treatises contain modifications and revisions o f Aristotle’s thought. ”
175. For his unusual opinion, Cesalpino was severely criticized by Aversa, who insisted that 177. White, ibid., lesson 14, pp. 174-175, pars. 1-3.
these motions were only appropriate to the heavens and not the earth. In Aversa s 178. Ibid., 175, pars. 4-5. It is noteworthy that nowhere is the name o f Copernicus mentioned.
672 THE CELESTIAL REGION C O SM IC RELATIONS OF THE EARTH 673

ever, because he was convinced o f the truth o f heliocentric astronomy and arguments in favor o f an immobile earth at the center o f the universe
that the earth really moved as the Copernican theory required, he derived continued to command widespread support through much o f the seven­
its motions by appeal to an external force.17"' teenth century.
The explanations o f Cesalpino and White represented a basic model for Scholastic Aristotelians o f the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century
those few Aristotelians who sought an accommodation with the new geo- were a diverse group about whom no easy generalizations are warranted.
kinetic astronomy. While retaining the Aristotelian principle that the ele­ They range from staunch supporters o f the status quo to the likes o f Ces­
ment earth could possess only one simple, natural motion, which was alpino and White. The condemnation o f both the Copernican theory and
downward and rectilinear, they were yet prepared to allow that external its most dramatic supporter, Galileo, undoubtedly deterred some scholastics
forces could cause the earth to m ove with one or more circular motions. from abandoning geocentrism, but it cannot alone explain continued sup­
Even those Aristotelians who disagreed with this approach could see its port for the old cosmology. Aristotelian geocentrism was the system they
attractions. Aversa {[De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 5], 1627, 141, col. 2-142, col. 1) knew best and with which they were most comfortable. Until the N ew ­
conceded that changes observed in the celestial region might well be saved tonian theory o f gravitation took hold in the late seventeenth century and
by the assumption o f a terrestrial motion, especially an axial rotation o f the provided at long last a sound physical basis for the heliocentric system,
earth every twenty-four hours which could properly account for the same most scholastics found little reason to abandon a whole complex o f tradi­
motions that many attribute to the heaven itself. But Aversa rejects this tional interpretations that had served reasonably well for almost five cen­
approach because “ every apparent local change around the celestial bodies turies in order to embrace what had yet to be conclusively demonstrated.
really and truly happens to those bodies by a real and true motion; but no With the publication o f N ew ton’s Mathematical Principles o f Natural Philos­
such change and motion occurs to the earth. This is the common sense o f ophy in 1687, the situation changed radically. After that famous date, scho­
both wise and ordinary men.” 17 18018A ny observed motions that alter the re­
9 lastic authors who continued to uphold the old cosm ology did so not on
lations between celestial bodies must be assumed to occur in the heaven scientific merit but to comply with theological decrees. B y then, geocen­
itself. Mobility is proper to the heaven and immobility to the earth, which trism and terrestrial immobility had lost all credibility and gradually faded
lies in the center o f the world. O n the principle that “ to one simple body, away.
[only] one motion is appropriate,” the “ appropriate” motion for the earth
is downward and rectilinear. But Aversa concedes that this constraint would
prove no obstacle “ if circular motion were attributed to the earth from
another extrinsic cause, or even from another motive p ow er.” ,H|

3. Scholastic attitudes toward the heliocentric system

Until its triumph near the end o f the seventeenth century, the heliocentric
system was contested more on physical and cosmological grounds than on
its astronomical merits. Before N ew to n ’s theory o f gravitation made phys­
ical sense o f heliocentrism, no arguments presented in its favor were suf­
ficiently overriding to render traditional geocentrism completely untenable.
Because the case for a rotating and orbiting earth had not yet developed to
the point where it completely subverted the alternative position, scholastic

179. White's opinions and explanations o f the earth’s motions were presented earlier in his
better-known De mundo dialogi tres (Paris, 1642). Thom as H obbes severely criticized
White's book (for more detail, see Grant, 1984b, 9, n. 26).
180. “ Denique de facto omnis apparens mutatio localis circa corpora caelestia vere et realiter
convenit ipsis corporibus caelestibus per verum et realem motum nullaque huiusmodi
mutatio aut motus terrae convenit. Hie est communis tarn sapientum quam vulgarium
hominum sensus.” Aversa, De caelo, qu. 34, sec. 5, 1627, 141, col. 2-142, col. 1.
181. “ Uni autem corpori simplici unus motus competere debet. Sed hoc non obstaret, si
motus circularis tribueretur terrae ab alia causa extrinseca sive etiam ab alia distincta
virtute motiva.” Ibid., 142, col. 1.
CO N CLU SIO N

Five centuries o f
scholastic cosmology

I. Tradition

During the late Middle Ages, Aristotelian cosm ology was unrivaled and
essentially unchallenged. By the time rival interpretations o f any conse­
quence appeared in the sixteenth century - for example, Platonism, ato­
mism, Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism,1 and Copernicanism —
Aristotelian cosmology, despite its multiplicity o f opinions on most major
issues, was entrenched in the educational system and culture o f Europe,
where it enjoyed a status comparable to Euclidean geometry in mathematics.
B y the seventeenth century, however, the cumulative impact o f its new
rivals, the most significant o f which was, o f course, the Copernican system,
had placed Aristotelian cosm ology under the most severe stress o f its long
history in western Europe.
Tradition and intellectual inertia at the medieval universities, which were
the strongholds o f Aristotelian natural philosophy, proved powerful ingre­
dients in the prolongation o f medieval cosmology. That tradition continued
to manifest itself even when Copernicanism posed the first serious challenge
in the sixteenth century.
A glance at the “ Catalog o f Questions” in Appendix I provides an in­
dication o f how tradition shaped and perpetuated medieval cosmology.
Examination o f the 400 questions reveals that approximately 75 were dis­
cussed from the thirteenth or fourteenth century to the seventeenth.2 The

1. The humanism that had generated a new interest in Greek antiquity, and the influx (be­
ginning in the fifteenth century) o f Byzantine Greeks into the Latin West, touched o ff a
new wave o f translations, now directly from Greek manuscripts. Old works were retrans­
lated, and new ones not previously known to the Latins were translated into Latin. It was
from this new wave o f translation, the likes o f which had not been seen in Europe since
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that the rival philosophies and cosmologies emerged.
2. Here are the questions included in my count: 1, 12, 62,68, 69, 74, 79,85, 91, 94, 97, i n ,
112, 122, 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 141, 154, 15$, 159, 163, 169, 173, 177, 180, 183, 184,
190, 192, 195, 196, 209, 211, 216, 220, 222, 228, 230, 231, 237, 242, 253, 256, 261, 262,
270, 275. 276, 277, 2S3, 289, 300, 301, 308, 321, 325, 33 i. 334 , 335 , 339 , 347 , 34 «, 374 ,
378, 383, 384, 387, 388, 389, 393, 396. In a few questions, the Conimbncenses have been
taken as representing the seventeenth century.
Whether an investigation o f the ratio o f the number of medieval discussants to early
modern or Renaissance discussants would yield anything o f sign* :cance is not clear. If we
take 1500 as the arbitrary date that divides the Middle Ages from early modern scholas-

675
676 CONCL US I ON FIVE CENTURIES OF COSMOLOGY 677

substance o f many other questions, perhaps the majority o f them, was issues arose in areas relevant to cosmology but which did not directly
discussed throughout the centuries, although they may appear in the “ Cat­ threaten the foundations o f traditional Aristotelian cosmology, scholastic
alog o f Questions” in only one period. The number o f questions that linked authors were not reluctant to adopt and absorb new ideas and theories, as
medieval scholastic cosm ology with the seventeenth century is thus quite we find with the concept o f the terraqueous sphere. Indeed, some were
large. The responses to most o f those questions in the seventeenth century even prepared to accept new ideas that conflicted with basic Aristotelian
were to a considerable extent similar to the responses formulated during views, as happened with the acceptance o f a corruptible celestial region and
the late Middle Ages. Had the fourteenth-century scholastic authorjean Buri- the abandonment o f hard orbs in favor o f a fluid celestial medium.
dan reappeared in the seventeenth century, he would have had little diffi­ In the history o f medieval Aristotelian cosm ology from the thirteenth
culty understanding his scholastic successors. Conversely, had seventeenth- and into the seventeenth century, at least tw o kinds o f change are distin­
century scholastics such as Bartholomew Amicus and Raphael Aversa guishable: departures from the cosmological ideas o f Aristotle himself and
stepped into the fourteenth century, they would have found the cosmolog­ changes that occurred within scholastic cosm ology itself. In reality, the first
ical arguments and theories familiar and intelligible. kind may be perceived as a subset o f the second. The thirteenth and four­
teenth centuries witnessed significant departures from Aristotle in the shift
from Aristotle’s system o f purely concentric orbs to one in which Ptolem y’s
eccentric orbs were incorporated within Aristotle’s concentrics. Numerous
* II, Innovation new problems emerged from this transformation: Did eccentrics imply
rectilinear motions for planets? Would heavy bodies fall to the center o f the
Although the same substantive questions and themes were frequently dis­
cussed from the thirteenth to the late seventeenth century, and although earth or to the geometric center o f an eccentric orb? Would vacua occur
between successive eccentric orbs that were o f unequal thickness? And so
the responses were frequently similar, scholastic natural philosophers, con­
on. A significant consequence o f the doctrine o f eccentric orbs, contrary to
trary to popular misconceptions, did not rigidly adhere to the same cos­
the position o f Aristotle, was that planets could rotate around a geometric
mological opinions.3 Innovative tendencies were also operative. If natural
philosophers were agreed on the centrality and immobility o f the earth (this point as well as around a physical body (the earth). During the fourteenth
century, other dramatic departures from Aristotle occurred when scholastic
is overwhelmingly true, despite the unusual opinions expressed by Andrea
Cesalpino and Thomas White, described in Chapter 20), they responded to natural philosophers demonstrated that an infinite extracosmic void space
a host o f common problems with a variety o f arguments for each problem might lie beyond the world itself; that motion in a hypothetical vacuum
was feasible; that the existence o f other worlds was possible; and that the
or question. Although a comparison o f any two sets o f responses usually
daily axial rotation o f the earth was an intelligible, astronomical concept,
reveals some overlap, we often find divergent presentations, as illustrated
even though it was ultimately rejected.
by the numerous adoptions and adaptations o f Tycho Brahe’s geoheliocen-
The changes that occurred in scholastic Aristotelian cosmology during
tric astronomy and by Giovanni Baptista Riccioli’s generous treatment o f
certain arguments favorable to heliocentrism. M oreover, where scientific the seventeenth century as a consequence o f Copernicus’s heliocentric sys­
tem and the new discoveries made by Tycho (the new star o f 1572 and the
comet o f 1577) and Galileo (the satellites ofjupiter; sunspots; and numerous
ticism, what significance attaches, for example, to question 12, where 4. medieval scholastics
discussed the question and 11 early modem scholastics; or to question 122, where 10 stars never seen before) were overwhelming, as we have seen in the course
medieval scholastics discussed the question as against only 3 in the early modern period? o f this study. The doctrine o f celestial incorruptibility gradually yielded to
And what o f those questions where we have only medieval authors as discussants, as in the doctrine o f corruptibility and change, thus causing the abandonment o f
question 123 with 5 discussants; or those questions where we only have discussants for
the early modem period, as in question 15 with 4 discussants? There may be little signif­ a fundamental Aristotelian principle. Aristotle’s celestial ether and the belief
icance in such divisions, since we may not infer from the absence of, say, medieval authors, in hard celestial orbs were also abandoned by numerous scholastics in favor
from a particular question that the substance o f that question was not discussed by some o f a fluid medium composed o f one or more o f the four elements. Scholastics
o f them in another context. At best, a division into medieval and early modern may reveal
that a question ceased to be enunciated as a question after 1500, or that it only began to who substituted a fluid medium for hard orbs had now to explain the manner
be enunciated as a question after 1500. For example, question $5 (“ What are imaginary in which planets that were no longer carried by physical orbs could move
spaces?” ) has 9 early modern discussants and none from the Middle Ages. We know, of at all. Were they self-moved or moved by something else?
course, that Thomas Bradwardine, Jean de Ripa, and Nicole Oresme discussed the issue,
but not in the form o f a question. Hence we may infer that the issue became sufficiently M any scholastics, especially among the Jesuits, chose to adopt the system
important in the late sixteenth and the seventeenth century to lead at least 9 scholastics to o f Tycho and thus, while locating the stationary earth in the center o f a
devote special questions to it. spherical universe, also assumed that at least two, and perhaps all, o f the
3. Much of what is said here is drawn from Grant, 1978b; Grant, 1985a; Grant, 198yd; and
Grant, 1989. other planets moved around the Sun as their center o f motion, with the
678 C ONCLUSI ON FIVE CENTURIES OF COSMOLOGY 679
Sun, in turn, orbiting the earth. And one scholastic - Riccioli - even assumed neither helpful nor harmful: they were simply variations. Whether an A r­
that the earth was more perfect than the Sun, an idea that signified rejection istotelian developed a variation himself or drew it from an outside source,
o f the fundamental Aristotelian principle that the celestial region is more the variant idea simply formed part o f that scholar’s Aristotelianism. If
perfect than the terrestrial. N or should we omit mention o f scholastic ac­ others found that particular idea useful or better than what was available,
ceptance o f the terraqueous sphere, which assumed that earth and water they could make it part o f their own respective versions o f Aristotelian
formed a single, unified sphere and thus signaled the abandonment o f Ar­ cosm ology or part o f a larger conception o f Aristotelianism. But this process
istotle’s concept o f tw o separate spheres o f earth and water, which had been did nothing more than increase the number o f ideas in Aristotelianism. O ld
a standard feature o f medieval cosm ology. and new ideas simply subsisted together. Whether the old or new idea
From any standpoint, these are dramatic departures from Aristotelian improved Aristotelian cosm ology was a question that rarely, if ever, arose.
cosmology and yet they were made by Aristotelian natural philosophers. During the seventeenth century, many compromises were made. Bits
H ow could this have happened? H ow could Aristotelian cosm ology have and pieces o f Aristotelian cosm ology were replaced by bits and pieces o f
remained Aristotelian in the face o f such radical alterations? This was in no the new cosm ology. Strange cosmological mosaics developed, none o f
small measure a consequence o f the nature o f Aristotelianism. Opinions which could win much support. The seventeenth century became a period
and theories in Aristotelian natural philosophy were easily multiplied, be­ o f transition: one system was passing away, another coming into being.
cause “ Aristotle’s was the most capacious o f philosophies,” which “ in prin­ T o comprehend the momentous changes that occurred in the seventeenth
ciple . ..explained everything.” 4 Because Aristotelian cosm ology was, at century, it is essential to study the fate o f the old cosmology as well as the
the macro level, a tightly integrated system, departures from it, whether new. O nly then can we have a comprehensive picture o f the cosmos as it
by design or inadvertence, produced glaring inconsistencies. Scholastic cos- was understood in the seventeenth century. Perhaps this study will con­
mologists developed ideas whose consequences were subversive o f part or tribute toward that end, so that we may learn, among many other things,
all o f Aristotle’s concepts o f the physical cosmos. Such consequences, how­ w hy Aristotelian cosm ology coexisted with its Copernican rival for at least
ever, either went undetected or were ignored, and in the rare instances 144 years (1543 to 1687) before it finally succumbed.
where cognizance was taken o f them they were made compatible with the
capacious system. N o systematic efforts were made to purge these incon­
sistencies, which simply remained as part o f the total world view. From
the thirteenth and into the seventeenth century, Aristotelians seemed capable
o f living with serious anomalies that should have focused attention on
inconsistencies within the system as a whole.
Because traditional medieval Aristotelian cosm ology had been inherently
capacious, early modern scholastic natural philosophers sought to adjust to
the new cosmology o f the seventeenth century. T hey did so by rejection
and absorption. The absorption process indicates quite clearly that Aris­
totelian cosmology was far from a static and congealed body o f medieval
doctrine. In truth, it was a body o f varied opinion in which some genuine
effort was made to incorporate aspects o f the new cosm ology into the old.
Far from taking a monolithic view, scholastic Aristotelians ranged from
steadfast defenders o f the status quo to those who came to reject important
elements o f the system itself, replacing them with new ideas and obser­
vations derived from their opponents.
Aristotelian scholastic cosmology was never reformed from within. Al­
though numerous Aristotelians adopted some o f the new ideas that came
into vogue in the seventeenth century, they did not, any more than their
medieval predecessors, use those new variations to strengthen Aristotelian
cosmology as a whole. In the end, the variations and new ideas proved

4. Gillispie, 1969, 11.


APPENDIX I

Catalog of Questions on
Medieval Cosmology,
1200-1687

A lt h o u g h b its an d p ie ces o f c o s m o lo g ic a l in fo r m a tio n ap p e ar in o th e r k in d s o f

treatises, o u r k n o w l e d g e o f th e str u c tu r e and o p e r a tio n o f th e m e d ie v a l c o s m o s is


o v e r w h e lm i n g ly d e p e n d e n t o n th e ty p e s o f litera tu re d e s cr ib e d in C h a p t e r 2 and on
the g r e a t v a r ie t y o f q u e stio n s (questiones ) that fo r m e d th eir basic c o n te n t. A s y e t,
n o o n e , to m y k n o w le d g e , has c o lle c te d an d a n a ly z e d th e sorts o f q u e stio n s that

s c h o la stic a u th o r s p o s e d a b o u t the c re atio n , stru ctu re , and o p e ra tio n o f th e w o r ld .


A s a c o n tr ib u tio n t o w a r d this g o a l, I h a v e c o m p ile d a list o f 400 q u e stio n s. T h e
p u r p o se o f this “ C a t a lo g o f Q u e s t i o n s ” is to c o n v e y a sense o f the n u m b e r and

ra n g e o f q u e stio n s th at w e r e p o s e d o v e r th e a c tiv e life tim e o f m e d ie v a l A risto te lia n


c o s m o lo g y , w h ic h stretc h e d fr o m the late M id d le A g e s t h r o u g h the R en aissan ce,
th at is, fr o m th e th irte e n th an d in to th e se v e n te e n th c e n tu r y . T h e ration ale fo r the
se le c tio n o f q u e stio n s , a list o f th e 52 au th o rs fr o m w h o s e w o r k s th e y w e r e selected ,
an d an e x p lic a tio n o f the c a ta lo g are p r o v id e d in A p p e n d ix II.
U n d e r e ach q u e s tio n , th e n a m e s o f a u th o rs are a rra n ged c h r o n o lo g ic a lly , f o l lo w ­
in g th e c h r o n o lo g y in the list o f au th o rs g iv e n at th e b e g in n in g o f A p p e n d ix II.

C it a t io n s in th e c a ta lo g f o l lo w the s a m e p attern as in the te x tu a l cita tio n s and the


n o tes. A s in th e fo o tn o te s , b r a c k e te d c ita tio n fo r m s are u sed to in d ic a te the ge n re
t y p e o f w o r k s . D e caelo (or D e coelo, o r D e celo, d e p e n d in g o n th e la n g u a g e used);
S p h e r e ; P h y sics ; S en ten ces , etc. F o r the actu al title o f e ach w o r k c o n s u lt the B ib li­
o g r a p h y . T h e n u m b e r s a sso cia te d w it h v a rio u s s u b d iv is io n s an d parts th at ap p ear
w it h in m a n y treatises - fo r e x a m p le , b o o k , d is tin c tio n , q u e stio n , s e c tio n , article,

dubium, a n d o th er s th at ap p ear a m o n g the a b b r e v ia tio n s liste d at the b e g in n in g o f


the b o o k - are re p e ated here. A star after an a u th o r ’ s n a m e sig n ifie s th at his fo r m
o f th e L a tin t e x t fo r th at q u e stio n w a s c h o se n to re p resen t all the o th e r v e rsio n s

( e .g ., in q u . 1 G a l ile o ’s L a tin t e x t fu n c tio n s as s u r r o g a te fo r all 15 a u th o rs, as d oes


B u r id a n ’s in q u . 54). D iv e r g e n c e s fr o m th e c h o se n v e r s io n are s o m e tim e s g iv e n in
th e n o te s . F o r m o r e o n th e va ria n ts o f q u e stio n s , see A p p e n d ix II, S e c tio n I V . 2.

W h e r e o n ly o n e a u th o r c o n trib u te s a q u e stio n , n o star is used . F o r c o m p le te titles,

see th e B i b l i o g r a p h y . '

1. See Chapter 1, note 7, for the relationship between the fourfold division o f the “ Catalog
o f Questions” and the twofold division o f Chapters 4 through 20 o f this study.
682 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF QUESTIONS 683
2. Hurtado de Mendoza [ P h y s ic s , disp. 18, sec. 2], 1615, 359, col. 1-361, col.
P A R T I. T H E W O R L D AS A W H O LE
2 11
3. Aversa [ D e ca e lo , qu. 31, secs. 7-8], 1627, 26, col. 1-30, col. 2, and 30, col.
I. On the eternity of the world and the corruptibility or 2-35, col. i . ‘*
incorruptibility of the celestial region 4. O viedo [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, contro. 19, punc. 3], 1640, 448, col. 1-451, col. 2.
5. Cornaeus [ D e co e lo , tract. 4, disp. 1, qu. 1, sec. 1, dub. 1-2], 1657, 472-475.''
1. W h e th e r th e u n iv e r s e co u ld h a v e e x is t e d from e te r n ity .
6. O ddus* [ P h y s ic s , bks. 5-8, disp. 1, art. 13 (ult.)], 1667, 769, col. 2-774, col.
1. M ic h a e l S c o t [S p h e r e , lec. i] , 1949, 250 —252."
2. B a c o n [ P h y s ic s , b k . 8], O p e r a , t'asc. 13, 19 35 , 3 9 0 -3 9 2 .
2.
3. B o n a v e n tu r e [Sentences, b k . 2, d ist. 1, pt. 1, art. i, qu. 2], O p e r a , 1885, 2 : 1 9 - j. W h e th e r or n o t a ll th in g s w ith o u t e x c e p tio n co u ld h a v e e x is t e d J fo m e te rn ity .
25- 1. Conimbricenses [ P h y s ic s , pt. 2, bk. 8 , ch. 2, qu. 7], 1602, cols. 449-458.
4. G o d fr e y o f F on ta in es, Q u o d li b e t I I , q u . 3, 1904, 6 8 -8 0 .
5. M a rsiliu s o f l n g h e n [ P h y s ic s , b k . 8, q u . 1], 1 5 18 , j i j r , c o l. 2 - 8 o r , c o l. 2 .' 4. W h e th e r th e u n iv e r s e is e te rn a l.
6. D u lla e rt [ P h y s ic s , b k . 8, q u . r], 1506, s ig . o i i i , v - o v i i , r . 1. Pseudo-Siger o f Brabant [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 5], 1941, 197-202.14
7. M a jo r [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8], 1526, 54V, c o l. 1 — 5 5r, c o l. 1. 2. Bacon*[P/iysiC5, bk. 8], O p e r a , fasc. 13, 1935- 370- 377-
8. T o le t u s [ P h y s ic s , b k . 8, q u . 2], 1580, 2 1 5r, c o l. 2 - 2 ; q v , c o l. 2. 3. Thom as Aquinas [ S e n te n c e s , bk. 2, dist. 1, qu. 1, art. 5], 1929-1947, 2:27-41.
9. G a lile o * [ D e :a elo, qu. 4 (F )], 1 9 7 7 , 4 9 - 5 7 . 3
4
2 4. Marsilius o fln gh e n [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 2], 1518, 8or, col. l - 8 o v , col. 2 ."
10. C o n im b r ic e n s e s [ P h y s ic s , pt. 2, b k . 8, ch. 2, qu. 3], 1602, c o ls. 4 2 7 -4 3 4 . 5. Hurtado de Mendoza [ P h y s ic s , disp. 16, sec. 1], 1615, 354, col. 2-355, col.
1 1. A m ic u s [ D e ca e lo , tract. 2, q u . 2, d u b it. 3], 1626, 30, c o l. 2 - 4 0 , c o l. 2 . 56 2 .,ft
12. P o n ciu s [ D e co e lo , d isp. 2 1 , q u . 3], 1 6 7 2 , 602, c o l. 1 - 6 0 3 , c o l- i . ft
13. O v i e d o [ P h y s ic s , b k . 8, c o n tr o . 19, p u n c . 1], 1640, 445, c o l. 1 - 4 4 7 , c o l. 1.
5. W h e th e r th e re is e tern a l m o tio n .
1. John o f jandun [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 3], 1519, I22v, col. I-I2 5r, col. 1.
14. C o m p t o n - C a r le t o n [P h y s ic s , d isp. 39, s e c s 1. 1 - 2 ] , 1649, 362, c o l. 1 - 3 6 3 , c o l. 1.
2. Buridan [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 3], 1509, iio v , col. 2 - 1 12v, col. 1.
15. S erb e llo n u s [ D e ca elo, d isp. r, q u . i , arts. 4 - 6 ] , 1 6 6 1 , 2:8, c o l. 2 - r 8 , c o l. r .78
*
10
9
3. Marsilius o fln gh e n [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 2], 1518, 8or, col. 1—8ov, col. 2.
16. O d d u s [D e co elo , d isp. 1, d u b . 6], 1 6 7 2 , 10, c o l. 2 - 1 3 , c o l. i / an d [P h y s ic s ,
d isp. 17], 16 67, 763, c o l. 1 - 7 6 9 , c o l. 1."
4. Benedictus Hesse* [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 4], 1984, 697-701.

6. W h e t h e r e te rn a l m o tio n d ep en d s on a m o v er j u s t as [ i j th a t m o v e r w e r e ] an a g en t or
2. W h e th e r th in g s , or th e w o rld , co u ld e x is t from e te r n ity w ith resp ect to s u c c e s s iv e bein g s.
1. Jo h a n n es C a n o n ic u s [P h y s ic s , b k . 8, q u . 1], 1520, 6qr, c o l. 1 - 6 5 V , c o l. 2 . '0 efficient [cause],
1. John o f Jandun* [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 5], 1519, I26r, col. 2-127V, col. 1.
2. Javelli [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 5], 1568, 1:600, col. 1-601, col. 1.
2. Although Michael Scot’s treatise is a commentary on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco, many
specific questions are posed throughout. Those that appear relevant are included in this 7. W h e t h e r g e n e r a tio n s co u ld h a v e p r o cee d ed from ete rn ity w ith o u t a f i r s t g e n e r a tio n .
catalog, as are questions from the commentaries o f Robertus Anglicus and Cecco d’Ascoli.
3. Marsilius asks “ Whether motion and the world have existed from eternity.” 1. Hurtado de Mendoza [ P h y s ic s , disp. 18, sec. 1], 1615, 356, col. 1- 359. col. 1.
4. Galileo’s questions on De caelo consists o f two introductory questions and two separate 2. O viedo [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, contro. 19, punc. 2], 1640, 447, col. 1-448, col. 1.
works, each bearing the title Treatise on the Heavens. All told, they contain twelve ques­ 3. Cornaeus* [De c o elo , tract. 4, disp. 1, qu. 1, sec. 1, dub. 7], 1657, 480-483.
tions, although the questions in each o f the three brief works are numbered separately.
Because they are obviously questions on De caelo and belong together, Wallace has assigned
the questions letters from A to L, which I shall also employ. The twelve questions occupy 11. Hurtado considers “ Whether a successive being could exist from eternity” (disp. 18) and
pages ? s-is8. For convenience, I shall subsume the three treatises under the title De caelo. argues that “ No successive motion could exist from eternity" (sec. 2).
5. Amicus also discussed other aspects o f the eternity o f world. See tract. 2, qu. 3, dubits. 12. Aversa considered the possible existence from eternity o f both successive and permanent
1-7, pp. 41 - 79 . entities.
6. Poncius asks “ Whether the world was in fact produced from eternity.” In qu. 4 (603, 13. Like Aversa, Cornaeus also considers the possibility that the world could have existed
col. 1-609, col. 1), he asks the related question “ Whether the world could exist from from eternity with respect to both permanent and successive entities.
eternity.” Poncius’s De coelo forms disputations 21 and 22 o f his Philosophiae ad mentem 14. The question about the eternity o f the wo rid could take a number o f forms. Pseudo-
Scoti cursus integer (1672). Siger chose to ask “ Whether motion is eternal.” Delhaye’s attribution o f these questions
7. In these articles, Serbellonus specifies the following questions: “ Whether the creation of to Siger o f Brabant has been rejected. Albert Zimmermann, 1968, xxxviii and n. 60, has
the heavens could have been from eternity” ; “ Whether the motion o f the heavens could suggested Peter o f Auvergne as their author. Lohr (1972, 345 ) lists this treatise in the
have been from eternity” ; “ Whether generations could have been from eternity.” doubtful category, under “ Petrus de Aherma (de Crocq),” or Peter o f Auvergne. For
8. Although Oddus considers whether the world could have existed from eternity, he titles convenience, 1 cite the author as “ Pseudo-Siger o f Brabant.”
his question “ On the beginning o f the world. ” 15. The question reads: “ Whether the world is eternal and some motion, like the motion ot
9. Here Oddus asks “ Whether, in duration, any creature could exist without beginning and the heaven, is eternal.”
end or whether the world could exist from eternitv.” 16. Hurtado asks “ Whether, if the world were eternal, it would be [eternal] with respect to
10. Canonicus asks “ Whether it is formally repugnant that any creatable or producible per­ permanent parts” (disp. 16) and subsequently argues (sec. 1) that “ the world could not
manent or successive thing should have existed from eternitv.” be eternal.”
684 APPENDI X I CATALOG OF QUESTIONS 685

8. W h e th e r th e w o rld h a d a b e g in n in g w ith m o tio n a n d tim e. 9. P o n c iu s [ D e co elo , d isp. 22, q u . 4], 16 7 2 , 6 16 , c o l. 2—620, c o l. 1.

1. Toletus [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 1], 1580, 2io v, col. 2-2151-, col. 2. 10. O v i e d o [ D e ca e lo , c o n tr o . 1, p u n c . 1], 1640, 4^3* col- 2, par. 14—464, col.

2, par. 2 1 .
9. W h e th e r th e w o rld w ill e n d at so m e tim e. 11. C o m p t o n - C a r le t o n [ D e c o elo , d isp . 1, sec. 2], 1649, 3 9 7, c o l. 2—398, c o l.
1. Michael Scot* f S p h e r e , lec. 1], 1949. 254—255. 2.
2. Bacon [P h y s ic s , bk. 8], O p e r a , fasc. 13, 1935, 382-383. 12. R ic c io li, A lm a g e s tu m n o v u m , 30 pars p o s t., b k . 9, sec. 1, ch. 6, 1 6 5 1 , 23 7,
3. Aversa [ D e ca elo, qu. 31, sec. 10], 1627, 35, col. 1-40, col. 2 .17 c o l. 1 - 2 3 8 , c o l. 2.
4. Poncius [ D e co elo , disp. 21, qu. ult. (qu. 5)], 1672, 609, col. 1-610, col. 2.'" 13. B o n a e S p ei [c o m m e n t. 3, D e co e lo , d isp. 3, d u b . 4], 16 52 , 10, c o l. 1 — 1 1,
5. Cornaeus [ D e co elo , tract. 4, disp. 1, qu. 2, dub. 4], 1657, 488.,,J c o l. 1 . 31
14. C o r n a e u s [D e c o elo , tract. 4, d isp . 2, q u . 1, d u b . 3], 1 6 5 7 , 489-
to . W h e th e r th e w o rld co u ld en d u re p e r p e t u a lly u n d e r th e g e n e r a l co n co u rse [ o r c o n tr o l] o f
15 . S e r b e llo n u s [ D e ca e lo , d isp. 1, q u . 2, art. 3], 1663, 2:22, c o l. 1—25, c o l. 1.
G o d a lo n e .

r. Conimbricenscs* [ D e co elo , bk. 1, ch. 12, qu. 1], 1598, 154-158/° 13. W h e th e r th e h e a v e n is co rr u p tib le w ith respect to su b sta n ce.
2. Cornaeus [ D e co elo , tract. 4, disp. 1, qu. 2, dub. 3], 1657, 487. 1. A m ic u s [De caelo, tract. 5, q u . 1, d u b it. 1], 16 26, 230, c o l. 1—24 7, c o l. 1.
3. Bonae Spei [comment. 3, D e c o elo , disp. 2, dub. 4], 1652, 7, cols. 1-2.
14 . W h e th e r it [ th a t is, th e h e a v e n ] is co rr u p tib le w ith respect to a ccid en ts.
11. W h e th e r th e w o rld is g e n e r a b le a n d co rr u p tib le or u n g en e ra b le a n d in c o r r u p tib le / ' 1. A m ic u s [D e ca e lo , tract. 5, q u . 1, d u b it. 2], 1626, 2 4 7, c o l. 2—249, c o l. 1.
1. Albert o f Saxony* [ D e ce lo , bk. 1, qu. 12], 1518, 95V, col. i~98r, col. 2.
2. Paul o f Venice, L ib e r ce li, 1476, 20, col. 2-22, col. i . 22 15. W h e t h e r th e w o rld co u ld a ctu a lly be corru pted .
1. C o n im b r ic e n s e s [D e co elo , b k . 1, ch. 3, q u . 1], 1598, 6 2 - 7 1 .
3. Versor [ D e celo , bk. 1, qu. 14], 1493, i2r, col. 2 - 1 2v, col. 2.23
2. H u r ta d o de M e n d o z a [D e c o elo , d isp. 3, sec. 7], 1 6 1 5 , 388, co ls. 1—2.
4. Amicus [ D e ca elo, tract. 3, qu. 4, dubit. 2], 1626, 123, col. 1-12 5, col. 2.
3. A m i c u s * [D e ca e lo , tract. 3, q u . 4 (a ctu a lly q u . 3), d u b it. 5], 1626, 128, col.
12 . W h e th e r th e s k y [o r h e a v e n ] is g e n e r a b le a n d co r r u p tib le , a u g m e n ta b le a n d d im in is h a b le , 1 - 1 3 0 , c o l. 1.
a n d a lter a b le .
4. O d d u s [D e c o elo , d isp. 1, d u b . 7], 1672, 13, c o l. 1 - 1 5 , c o l. i . 34
1. John ot Jandun [ D e co elo , bk. 1, qus. 14, 16-17], 1552, i o r , col. 2 - n r , col.
1; I 2 r , cols. [-2; and I 2 r , col. 2-12V, col. 2.24 16 . W h e th e r G o d co u ld create a m o tio n a n e w before w h ich there w as n e ith e r a m o tio n nor

2. Buridan* [ D e ca elo, bk. r, qu. 10], 1942, 44-49. a m u ta tio n .

3. Oresme [ D e celo , bk. 1. qu. 10], 1965, 143—157. 1. J o h n o f J a n d u n [P h y s ic s , b k . 8, qu. 4], 1519-. 125G col- 1 — I2 6r, c o l. 2 . 3

4. Versor [ D e celo , bk. 1, qu. 6], 1493, 4V, col. i~5r, col. 2.23 2. B u r id a n * [Phy sics, b k . 8, qu. 2], 1509- 109V, c o l. 2 - 1 i o v , c o l. 2.

5. Galileo [ D e ca elo , qu. 4 (J)], 1977, 93-10 2.20 17. W h e t h e r s o m e th in g created a n e w co u ld be p e rp etu a te d ; a n d w h e th e r so m e th in g etern a l
6. Conimbricenses [ D e co elo , bk. 1, ch. 3, qu. 1], 1598, 6 2 -7 1 .27 c o u ld be co rru p ted .
7. Hurtado de Mendoza [ D e c o elo , disp. 1, sec. 5], 1615, 366, col. 2-367, col. 1. A lb e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e c e lo , b k . 1, qu. 15], 1 5 1 8 , io o r , c o l. 1 — io o v , c o l. 2.
2.
2. O r e s m e [D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 24], 1965, 409—4 2 8 / '’
8. Aversa [ D e ca elo, qu. 33, sec. 2], 1627, 80, col. 2-83, col. 2/* 3. B r ic o t [D e c e lo , b k . 1], i4 8 6 , 13V, cols. 1—2 /
4. Marsilius ot Inghen [ P h y s ic s , bk. 8, qu. 3], 1518, 8ov, col. 2—8iv, col. 1.
[7. Aversa asks “ Whether the world will last into eternity or will end at some time.”
18. Poncius asks “ Whether, from its very nature, the world would last into eternity.”
19. Cornaeus puts the question in the contrary way, namely “ Whether the world could endure 29. Poncius asks only “ Whether the heaven is corruptible.”
through eternity.” 30. Although the title page indicates a three-volume work, only one volume appeared, which
was divided into two parts (pars prior and pars posterior) that were separately paginated.
20. For the Coimbra Jesuit editions o f both the De caelo and Physics, see Lohr. 1988, 98-99.
31. Where Galileo asked whether the heavens are incorruptible, Bonae Spei asks “ Whether
21. For a related but nonetheless different question, see question 12 o f this catalog.
22. Neither folio numbers nor question numbers are included. Not even the signatures are the heavens are corruptible.”
o f much use. 1 have arbitrarily paginated from the first page o f the text o f the Liber celi 32. Cornaeus asks “ Whether the heavens are essentially incorruptible.”
et mundi, which follows Paul’s Liber physicorum. Where it is helpful, I also include the 33. Serbellonus asks only “ Whether the heaven is incorruptible.”
signature. 34. Oddus discusses the problem under the heading ot On the end o f the world.
35. Jandun asks “ Whether an eternal, unchangeable mover, which moves by the intellect and
23. Versor asks only “ Whether the whole world is generated and corruptible.” In Versor's
will, could immediately create a new motion with no preceding transmutation.”
volume, the De celo et mundo is separately foliated and follows his questions on De anima.
In this edition o f Versor's De celo, questions on the third book are lacking. 36. Oresme’s question is cited again in question 190 ot this catalog.
24. Jandun used three questions to encompass the whole o f question 12. 37. Bricot asks only whether something newly created could be perpetuated and ignores the
second part o f the question. Although George o f Brussels (Bruxellensis) wrote most ot
25. Versor asks only “ Whether the heaven is ungenerable and incorruptible.”
26. Galileo simply asks, “ Are the heavens incorruptible?” the questions, Thomas Bricot revised them and added some o f his own. For convenience,
I cite Bricot as the author o f the treatise. The De caelo is separately paginated. What
27. Since this question is relevant to question 15 in this catalog, it is also cited there.
should have been folio 10 recto was mistakenly numbered 9 recto. Although this mistake
28. Aversa’s version inquires “ Whether celestial bodies are hostile to generation and corrup­
effected the remainder o f the De caelo part o f the volume. I shall, for convenience, use
tion, or rather [whether they are] naturally ungenerable and incorruptible.”
686 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF QUESTIONS 687
rtf. W hether every generable thing is corruptible and conversely. 24. W heth er creation could be know n by the light o f nature and w hether A risto tle knew it.
1. Johannes de Magistris [ D e celo, bk. i , qu. 6, dub. 2], 1490, 15, cols. 1 - 2 . 1. Conimbricenses [P hy sics, pt. 2, bk. 8, ch. 2, qu. 2], 1602, cols. 424-427.
2. Versor \ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 17], 1493, 14V, col. i- i$ r , col. 1 . 40
3. Major* \ D e celo, bk. 1, qu. $], 1526. 6, col. 1-7, col. 2.41 25. W heth er the w orld had existen ce from its e lf or fro m G od.**

4. Amicus [ D e caelo, tract. 3, qu. 4, dubit. 3], 1626, 126, col. 1. 1. John o f Jandun [ D e coelo, bk. 1, qu. 29], 1552, I9r, col. 2-20r, col. I.45
2. Toletus [Physics, bk. 8, qu. 6], 1580, 234r, col. 2-235r, col. i . 4ft
19. W hether, on the assum ption o f eternity, it could be demonstrated that every uncreated 3. Bonae Spei [comment. 3, D e coelo, disp. 2, dub. 2], 1652, 5, col. 2-6, col.
thing is incorruptible and that every incorruptible thing is ungenerated. 2.
1. Versor [ D e celo, bk. 1, qu. 16], 1493, I4r, cols. 1-2. 4. O ddus* [ D e coelo, disp. 1, dub. 5], 1672, 8, col. 2-10, col. 2.
20. W hether every corruptible thing is necessarily corrupted. 26. W hether the w orld was truly made and created fro m nothing by G o d .
1. Versor [ D e celo, bk. 1, qu. 18], 1493, is v , cols. 1—2. 1. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 31, sec. 6], 1627, 18, col. 1-21, col. 2.

27. W hether it is necessary that those w ho say that the world was made in time assume that
a vacuum preceded the generation o j the world.

II. On the creation of the world and the meaning 1. Javelli [P hy sics, bk. 4, qu. 4], 1568, 1:551, cols. 1-2.
of the term “ world” (mundus) 28. W hether G o d created the w orld fro m a necessity o f nature.
1. Toletus [P hy sics, b k . 8, qu. 3 ] , 1 5 8 0 , 2 1 9 V , col. 2 - 2 2 2 r , col. 2.
2 1. What is the w orld, insofar as it is a totality o f organized bodies?
2. Conimbricenses* [P hy sics, pt. 2, bk. 8, ch. 2, qu. 5], 1602, cols. 440-445.
1. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 31, sec. 1], 1627, 2, col. 1-4, col. 1.
3. Ona [P hy sics, bk. 8, qu. 1, art. 3], 1598, 36ir, col. 1-363V, col. 1.
22. W hat is creation?
29. W heth er som ething could have been created from eternity by G o d .
1. Conimbricenses [Physics, pt. 2, bk. 8, ch. 2, qu. 1], 1602, cols. 417-4 24 .44
1. Conimbricenses* [P hy sics, pt. 2, bk. 8, ch. 2, qu. 6], 1602, cols. 445-449.
2. Serbellonus* [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 1, art. 1], 1663, 2:1, col. 1-3, col. 2.
2. Ona [P hy sics bk. 8, qu. 1, art. 6], 1598, 37OV, col. 1—375v, col. 2.47
23. W hether creation is possible.
jo . W hether the w orld was produced [or created] w hole all at once, or w hether [it was
1. Javelli [P h y sics, bk. 8, qu. 3], 1568, 1:598, col. 2.41
created] in s ix days.
2. Com pton-Carleton* [Physics, disp. 41, sec. 1], 1649, 371, col. 1-372, col.
1. Hurtado de Mendoza [ D e coelo, disp. 3, sec. 1], 1615, 376, col. 2-378, col.
1.
2.

the foliation as given. Since the questions are unnumbered, only book, folio, and column 31. T ow ard w hat end was the w orld created?
numbers will be given. 1. Amicus [ D e caelo, tract. 2, qu. 4, dubit. 1], 1626, 79, col. 2-81, col. 1.
38. Marsilius frames the question as “ Whether some new action could arise from an eternal
and immutable mover.” 32. O n the tim e o f the creation o f the world.
39. The 1490 edition is unfoliated. The pagination is my own with the count beginning from 1. Am icus* [ D e caelo, tract. 2, qu. 4, dubit. 2], 1626, 81, col. r—83, col. 2.
the first page o f D e celo. Since the D e celo is separately distinguished in de Magistris’s
2. Cornaeus [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 1, qu. 1, sec. 2, dub. 1], 1657, 484.
volume, I shall hereafter cite it as D e celo.
40. Versor expands the question to read: “ Whether generated and corruptible things are 3j. O n the method by w hich the world was created.
convertible and similarly whether ungenerated and incorruptible [things are convertible] ”
1. Amicus [ D e caelo, tract. 2, qu. 4, dubit. 3], 1626, 83, col. 2-91, col. 1.
41. Although Major’s questions on the Physics and Metaphysics are listed on the title page his
D e celo is not. Indeed, the latter is also omitted from the list o f Major's works in Lohr. 34. H o w the universe comes fo rth fro m the first [cause] and the kinds o f things that were
1988, 237—239 (Lohr spells his name as “ Maior” ). The D e celo begins immediately after
made by him or effected in another way.
the conclusion of the Physics. Unfortunately, not only is the volume unfoliated and with
tew signatures, but the questions are not consistently numbered. With regard to the 1. William o f Auvergne* D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, chs. 17-21, O p era , 1674,
Physics, I have used folio numbers that appear to have been written in by a former owner. 1:611, col. 2-617, col. 2.
No similar numbers were inserted in the section devoted to D e celo. I have therefore 2. Cornaeus [D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 1, qu. 1, sec. 2, dub. 4], 1657, 485.
counted pages from the first page o f D e celo. Also included in this volume are questions
on Aristotle’s Degeneratione et corruptione, Meteorology, D e anima, and Parva naturalia, none 44. Although this question is clearly related to questions about the eternity o f the world (see
o f which are mentioned in Lohr’s catalog. Because these works occur in a volume at­ qus. 1 and 4 in this catalog), I place it separately here because it has a somewhat different
tributed solely to Major, I have thought it reasonable to assign all o f them, including D e emphasis and approaches the problem from the standpoint o f a specific act o f creation.
celo, to Major. But even if D e celo is not by Major, it is an independent questiones on D e 45. Jandun’s version reads: “ Whether the world was generated [or created].”
caelo. and its questions are therefore legitimately a part o f this appendix and o f this studv. 46. Toletus asks “ Whether God is the efficient cause o f the world and [whether this was]
42. The Conimbricenses ask more broadly, “ What is creation, and in what manner is it also [the opinion] o f Aristotle.”
distinguished from preservation?” 47. Ofia’s version reads: “ Whether God could have produced creatures from eternity.” In
43. Javelli links the question directly to Aristotle when he asks “ Whether, according to book 8 (qu. 1, art. 4, 363V, col. 2-368r, col. 2), Ona asks "Whether God produced all
Aristotle, creation is possible.” creatures, or the universe, from eternity."
688 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF QUESTI ONS 689
1. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novum , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 1, qu. 4, 1651, 200,
III. On the order in which God created things col. 2-201, col. 2.
35- W hether angels were created at the beginning o f the w orld or before the creation o f 43. W heth er a ll the elem ents were created at the beginning w ith the em pyrean heaven.
the w o rld .4" 1. Am icus [ D e caelo, tract. 2, qu. 5, dubit. 5], 1626, 96, col. 1-98, col. 1.
i. Amicus [ D e caelo, tract. 2, qu. 5, dubit. 1], 1626, 91, cols. 1-2.
46. H o w m any and w hich heavens were created by G o d on the fir s t day?
3 6. W hether the creation o f any definite body on the fir s t day was sign ified by these words: 1. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novum , pars post., bk. 9, sec.-i, ch. 3, 1651, 224—225.
“ In the beginning G o d created heaven and earth and the earth was em pty and void. ”
1. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m n o vu m , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 1, qu. 1, 1651, 193, 47. W hether light was created on the fir st day.
col. 2-194, col. 1. i. Aureoli [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 13, qu. 1, art. 1], 1596-1605, 2:180, col. 1 -
185, col. 2.
37. W hat is C h a o s amongst the poets, p h ilo so p h ers, and theologians?
1. Riccioli, A lm agestum n ovum , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 1, qu. 5, 1651, 201 48. W hat was the light made by G o d on the fir st day o f the world?
col. 2-204, col. 2. 1. Bonaventure [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, art. 1, qu. 1], O p era , 1885, 2:311 —'

38. O n the conception o f the names “ heaven ” /caeli/ and ‘ fir m a m e n t” /firmamenti ] among
313•s'
2. Riccioli,* A lm ag estu m novum , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 1, qu. 7, 1651,
the L a tin s and H ebrew s.
194, col. r-200, col. 2.
1. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novum , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 1, qu. 2, 1651, 194,
cols. 1-2. 49. W heth er the light that was created on the fir st day causes day and night by local circulation.
1. Richard o f Middleton [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, art. 1, qu. 1], 1591, 2:156,
3 9. B y the names o f “ h e a v e n ” and “ ea r th ,” w hat did M oses signify was created by G o d
in the first instant o f the ivorld?
cols. 1-2.
1. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novu m , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 1, qu. 3, 1651, 194, 30. H o w that light [m ade on the fir s t d ay] made day and night.
col. 1-200, col. 2. 1. Bonaventure* [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, art. 1, qu. 2], O p era , 1885, 2:314—
316.
40. W hether the heavens and the elem ents were sim ultan eously and instantaneously created
2. M ajor [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 13, qu. 1], 15 19 b, 66v, col. 2 - 6 7 V , col. 1.
or w hether they came into being by succession and generation.
1. William o f Auvergne, D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, ch. 29, O p era , 1674, 1:624, 3 1. W heth er som e heaven was made on the second day o f the world fro m water condensed
col. 2-625, col. 1. in the m anner o f ice or a crystal.

41. W hether prim e matter was produced at the inchoate beginning before the creation o f all
1. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m n ovum , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 2, qu. 1, 1651, 216,
the sim ple and m ix ed bodies. col. 2-218, col. 2.
1. Amicus [ D e caelo, tract. 2, qu. 5, dubit. 2], 1626, 91, col. 2-94, col. 2. 32. W h eth er the elem ents made on the third day were made by the p o w er o f the heavens
42. W hether an em pyrean heaven shou ld be assigned, and w hen was it made and w hat kind from the matter created on the fir s t day.
o f a thing is it? 1. Richard o f Middleton [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 5] 1591, 2:181,
1. Amicus [ D e caelo, tract. 2, qu. 5, dubit. 3], 1626, 94, col. 2-95, col. i . 4
89 cols. :-2 .
2. Riccioli,* A lm ag estu m novu m , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 1, qu. 6, 1651,
33. W h y the production o j the stars was left fo the Jourth day.
204, col. 2-209, col. 2.
1. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m n ovum , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 4, qu. 1, 1651,
43. W hether the ethereal heavens were created on the fir s t day. 225-226.
1. William o f Auvergne, D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, ch. 31, O p era , 1674, 1:625,
col. 2-627, col. 1.50
2. Am icus* [ D e caelo, tract. 2, qu. 5, dubit. 4], 1626, 95, col. 1-96, col. 1.
IV. Does anything exist beyond our world?
44. H o w many and w hich elem ents did the ancients - and especially the Fathers - become
acquainted w ith fro m M oses?
A. God, void spaces, time, place, or animated beings?

48. In commentaries on the Sentences, many authors took up the works o f the six days in 34. W heth er there is som ething [that is, body, void, imaginary space, or anim ate creatures]
succession, treating a variety o f topics under each day. Because such a subdivision would
beyond the sk y [or hea ven s].
be uninformative, I have focused on specific questions or themes that fall within the first
four days, the days primarily concerned with cosmogony and cosmology.
49. Amicus takes up one aspect o f the question when he asks “ Whether the empyrean heaven
was created at the beginning.” 51. Bonaventure made the question more specific when he asked “ Whether the light made
50. William asks “ Whether the first created heaven was the empyrean, or another. ” on the first day was corporeal or spiritual.
690 A PPE N D IX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 691

1. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 3, ch . 3, O p e r a , f a s c. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 3 7 7 - 8 4 ; “ a n d [Physics, 2. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [Physics, d is p . 14, se c. 3], 1 6 1 5 , 323, c o l . 2 - 3 2 4 , c o l.


b k . 4], O p e r a , fasc. 13, 1 9 3 5 , 2 2 3 - 2 2 4 . “
2.
2. J o h n o f j a n d u n [D e coelo, b k . 1, q u . 26], 15 5 2 , i8 r, c o l. i- c o l. 2 .“ 3. A r r i a g a [Physics, d is p . 14, se c. 4], 1632, 431, c o l . 2—434, c ° l - 2 -
3. B u r i d a n * [ D e caclo, b k . 1, q u . 20], 1 9 4 2 , 9 1 —95. 4. O v i e d o[Physics, b k . 4, c o n t r o . 15 , p u n c . 3], 16 4 0 , 37 2, c o l. 1 - 3 7 3 , c o l. 2.'”
4. O r e s m e [D e celo, b k . 1, qu. 19], 19 6 5 , 2 7 9 - 2 9 5 . [Physics, d is p . 33, se c. 4], 1 649 , 337 .
5. C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n
5. T h e m o n J u d a e u s [ D e spera, q u . 8], in H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , 1 9 7 3 , 9 9 — 1 0 5 . “ 6. B o n a e S p e i [ c o m m e n t . 2, Physics, d is p . 5 (“ D e s p a tii s i m a g i n a r i i s ” ), d u b .
6. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 4, d u b . 1], 14 90 , 1 1 , c o l. i . 5ft 2], 1 6 5 2 , 1 7 7 , c o l . 1 - 1 7 8 , c o l . 2 . 64
7. C a s e [Physics, b k . 8, c h . 10], 1 5 9 9 , 8 5 8 - 8 6 3 . 57
6
5
4
3
2 7. Cornaeus [Physics, b k . 4, d is p . 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), q u . 1, se c. 2, d u b .
55. IVhat are imaginary spaces? 9], 1 6 5 7 , 3 6 9 - 3 7 0 .

1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [P hy sics, pt. 2, b k . 8, c h . 10, q u . 2], 16 0 2 , c o l s . 5 8 0 - 5 8 6 . 589


5
8. O d d u s * [Physics, b k . 4, d i s p . 14, art. 9], 1 6 6 7 , 640 , c o l. 1 - 6 4 5 , c o l . 1.
2. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [Physics, d is p . 14, s e c . 2], 1 6 1 5 , 3 2 1 , c o l. 2 - 3 2 3 , c ol. 59. Whether, according to Aristotle, God is everywhere.
2. yf 1. T o l e t u s [Physics, b k . 8, q u . 7], 1580, 242V, c o l . 1 -24 3V , c o l. 1.
3. A m i c u s [P h y sics, tr act. 2 1 , q u . 5, d u b i t . 1], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2 : 7 5 9 , c o l. 1-764,
c o l. 1 . 60
60. Whether beings beyond the sky [or heavens] are unchangeable.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [De coelo, b k . 1, q u . 28], 1 5 5 2 , i 8 v , c ol. 2 - i 9 r , c o l . 2.
4. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, q u . 3 1 , se c. 4], 1 6 2 7 , 10, c o l . 2.
5. A r r i a g a [Physics, d is p . 14, sec. 3], 1 6 3 2 , 4 3 1 , c o ls . 1 - 2 . 61. Whether beings that might exist outside the heaven [or sky] are corporeal.
6. O v i e d o [Physics, b k . 4, c o n t r o . 15 , p u n c . 2], 164 0, 37 0 , c o l. 2 - 3 7 1 , c o l. 2. 1. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [De celo, b k . 1, q u . 4, d u b . 2], 1490, 1 1 , c o ls . 1—2.
7. C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n [Phy sics, d is p . 32, se c s. 1 - 3 ] , 1 649 , 3 3 5 - 3 3 7 .
8. B o n a e S p e i * [ c o m m e n t . 2, P hy sics, d i s p . 5 (“ D e s p a d i s i m a g i n a r i i s ” ), d u b .
1], 1 6 5 2 , 1 7 7 , c o l. 1.
9. S e r b e l l o n u s [Physics, d is p . 5, art. 1], 1 6 5 7 , 1: 79 8 , c o l . 1 - 8 0 3 , c o l . 2 . 61 B. Other worlds?

62. W heth er there are, or could be, more worlds.


56. W hether imaginary space exists by means o f the operation o f the intellect, or w hether
indeed it really exists. 1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, le c. 1], 1949, 2 5 2 - 2 5 4 .
2. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e universe, pt. 1 o t pt. 1, ch s. 11 — 16, O p era , 16 7 4 ,
1. A m ic u s [Physics, tract. 2 1 , qu. 5, d u b it. 2], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2 :76 4 , c o l. 2 - 7 6 6 ,
col. 2. 1:60 4-611.
3. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 3, c h . 2, O p era , f asc. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 373—377-
57. W hether place [ u b i] rejers essentially to im aginary space. 4. J o h n o f J a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 1, q u . 24], 1 5 5 2 , i 6 v , c o l. 1 — 1 7 r , c o l. 1.
1. C o r n a e u s [Physics, b k . 4, d is p . 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), q u . 1, se c. 2, d u b . 5. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . I, q u . 19], 1 942 , 8 7 —90.
7 ], 1657, 365-368. 6. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 1 1 ] , 1 5 1 8 , 95 r, c o l. 1 - 9 5 V , c o l . 1.
7. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 18], 1 9 6 5 , 2 6 5 - 2 7 9 .
58. W hether G o d is in imaginary spaces beyond the heavens.
8. P a u l o f V e n i c e , L ib e r cell, 1 4 7 6 , 7, c o l. 1 - 9 , c o l . 1 [sigs . f v - f 3 r ] .
1. M a j o r [Sentences, b k . 1, d is t. 3 7, q u . 1], 1 5 1 9 a , 9 3 r , c o l. 1 - 9 3 V , c o l . 1 . 62*
9. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 4], 14 90 , 9, c o l. 2 — i i , c o l. 2.
10. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 13], 1493, n r , c o l. 2 - 1 i v , c o l. 2 .'”
52. Bacon’s discussion centers on the claim “that a body cannot exist outside the world.”
11. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 1], i4 8 6 , 9V, c o l. 2 - i o r , c o l . 1.
53. Bacon asks “Whether there is a vacuum beyond the heaven.”
54. Jandun's version of this question took the form “Whether a vacuum exists outside the 12. G a l i l e o [ D e caelo, q u . 3 ( E ) ] , 1977, 43~ 45-
sky [or heaven].” 13. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 1, c h . 8, q u . 1], 15 98 . 1 0 2 - 1 0 7 .
55. Although the question reads “Whether something should be assumed bevond the ninth 14. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, t r a c t. 3, q u . 1], 162 6, 1 0 1 , c o l. 1 - 1 0 9 , c o l. 2.
sphere,” Themon also considers whether there is anything beyond the world. This latter 15 . A v e r s a [ D e caelo, q u . 3 1 , se c. 3], 1 6 2 7 , 7, c o l. 1—9, c o l. 2.
question is also relevant to the existence of an immobile sphere or, more particularly, an
16. B o n a e S p e i [ c o m m e n t . 3, D e coelo, d is p . 1, d u b . 1], 16 5 2 , 1, c o l. 1 - 2 , c o l.
empyrean sphere (see qu. 107 in this catalog).
56. De Magistns’s version asks “Whether a place could exist outside the heaven [or sky].” 1.
57. Case asks “Whether there is an imaginary space beyond the heaven and whether, according 17. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, t r a c t. 4, d is p . 1, q u . 1, se c . 2, d u b . 3], 1 6 5 7 , 4 8 4 - 4 8 5 .
to Aristotle, God and the blessed spirits are in it.” 18. O d d u s [ D e coelo, d is p . 1, d u b . 3], 1 6 7 2 , 5, c o l. 2 - 7 , c o l. 2 . 67
58. The Coimbra Jesuits actually ask “Whether or not God is beyond [or outside] the heaven.”
The third article ot this question considers “What is imaginary space and in what manner 63. Oviedo’s question is somewhat broader, since he asks “ Whether God is in imaginary
does God exist in it?” space, and also beyond the heaven; and what about other entities?”
59. Here Hurtado asks, “What is it to be somewhere, and what is imaginary space?” 64. Bonae Spei simply asks “ Whether God is actually in imaginary spaces."
60. Amicus asks “Whether imaginary space exists and what it is.” 65. Versor asks “ Whether it is possible [possibile] that more worlds exist.”
61. Serbellonus discusses imaginary spaces under the question “What is place?” 66. Cornaeus asks “ Whether only one world was made.”
62. Major expresses the question as “Whether God is everywhere and in an infinite, imaginary 67. Oddus discusses the plurality o f worlds in a section titled “ On the Unity o f the World”
place beyond the heaven.” (D e imitate mundi).
CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 693
APPENDIX I
6g. W hether the w orld could be made more perfect.
63. W hether or not other worlds could ex ist by d iv in e pow er.
1. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, c h . 23, O p er a , 1 6 7 4 , 1 : 6 1 7 ,
1. C o n im b r ic e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 1, c h . 9, q u . 1], 15 98 , 1 1 2 - 1 1 $ .
c o l . 2 - 6 1 8 , c o l. 2 . 71
2. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tr act. 3, q u . 2], 16 2 6 , n o , c o l. i - m , c o l . 2.
2. B o n a v e n t u r e [Sentences, b k . 1, dis t. 44 , art. 1, q u s . 1 - 3 ] , O p era , 188 2, 1 : 7 8 1 ,
3. C o m a e u s [ D e coelo, t r a c t. 4, d is p . 1, q u . 1, sec. i, d u b . 8], 1 6 5 7 , 4 8 3 - 4 8 4
c o l . 1 - 7 8 7 , c o l. 2.
64. W hether G o d could m ake other worlds more and m ore perfect into in fin ity . 3. T h o m a s A q u i n a s [S en ten ces, b k . 1, dis t. 44 , q u . 1, art. 2], 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 4 7 , 1 : 1 0 1 8 -
r. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 1, c h . 9, q u . 3], 1 5 9 8 , 1 2 0 - 1 2 3 . 1021.
4. R i c h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [Sen ten ces, b k . 1, dis t. 44 , art. 1, q u . 1], 1 5 9 1 , 1:389,
65. W hether beyond this world, G o d could m ake another earth o f the same species as this
c o l . 2 - 3 9 1 , c o l . 1.
world.
5. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 1, ch . 9, q u . 2], 1 5 9 8 , 1 1 5 - 1 2 0 .
I. G o d f r e y o f F o n t a in e s , Q u o d lib et I V , q u . 6, 1904, 3 3 1 - 3 3 2 . 6. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, t r a c t. 3, q u . 2, d u b i t . 2], 1 6 2 6 , 1 1 5 , c o l . 1 - 1 2 0 , c o l . 2.
7. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, q u . 3 1 , sec. 5], 1 6 2 7 , 15 , c o l. 1 - 1 8 , c o l. 1.
66. I f there were several worlds, w hether the earth o f one w ould be m oved naturally to the
8. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, t r a c t. 4, d is p . 1, q u . 2, d u b . 2], 1 6 5 7 , 48 6—487.
m iddle [or center] o f another.
1. B u r id a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 1, q u . 18], 1 942 , 8 3 - 8 7 / '* 70. W hether the w orld is a fin ite or infinite magnitude.
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 10], 1 5 r 8, 9 4 r , c o l. r - 9 $ r , c o l. 1. 1. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 3, c h . 1, O p era , tasc. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 3b 9_ 373-72
3. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 1 7] , 19 6 $, 2 4 3 - 2 6 3 . 2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 9], 1 5 1 8 , 9 3 T c o l . 2—9 4 r , c o l. 1.
4. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 12], 14 9 3 , i o r , c o l . i - io v , c o l. 2. 3. P a u l o f V e n i c e , * L ib er celi, 1 4 7 6 , 10, c o l . 2— 12, c o l . 1.
5. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 1], i4 8 6 , cols. 1 - 2 .
6. G a l i l e o [ D e caelo, q u . 3 (E)J, 1 9 7 7 , 4 4 —4$. 7 1. W hether a body that is m oved circularly could be actually infinite.
1. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 1, q u . 15], 194 2, 6 7 —73.
67. W hether the world is one. 2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 7], 1 5 1 8 , 9 i r , c o l. i - 9 2 r , c o l . 1.
1. P o n c i u s * [ D e coelo, d is p . 2 1 , q u . 1], 1 6 7 2 , 596, c o l . 2 - 5 9 7 , c o l. 1. 3. V e r s o r * [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 8], 1493, 6r, c o l. 2 - 6 v , c o l. 2.
2. O d d u s [ D e coelo, d is p . 1, d u b . 4], 1 6 7 2 . 7, c o l . 2 - 8 , c o l. 1 . 70
9
6
8
72. W hether it is p o ssible that a body m oved rectilinearly could be infinite.
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 1, q u . 16], 1 9 4 2 , 73~ 77-
2. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 9], 1493, 7r , c o l. 2—jv , c o l. 2.

V. On the perfection and finitude of the world 73. W heth er it is p o ssible that som e sensible body be actually infinite.
1 J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 1, q u . 2 2 ] , 1 5 5 2 , 1 4 c c o l. 2 - 1 4 V , c o l. 2.
68. W hether the world is perfect.
2. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 1, q u . 17] , 194 2, 7 7 - 8 2 a n d [Physics, b k . 3, q u . 14I,
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 1, q u . 6], 1 5 5 2 , $r, c o l . i - $ v , c o l . 2.
1509, 55V, c o l. 2 - 5 7 r , c o l . 2.
2. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 1, q u . 12 ], 1 9 4 2 , 5 4 - 5 7 .
3. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 6], 1 5 1 8 , 90 v , c o l. 1—9 i r , c o l . i . 73
3. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 5], 1 5 1 8 , 9 o r , c o l. 1 - 9 0 V , c o l. 1.
4. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 16], 196 5, 2 2 5 - 2 4 3 .
4. Oresme [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 3], 1 9 6 5 , 3 7 - 5 1 .
5. M a r s i l i u s o f I n g h e n [P h y sics, b k . 3, q u . 10], 15 18 , 44V, c o l . 2—45V, c o l . 2.
5. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 2], 14 9 3 , i v , c o l . 2 - 2 r , c o l. 2. 6. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 3], 149 0, 6, c o l . 1 - 9 , c o l. 2.
6. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 1], i4 8 6 , 5r. c o ls . 1 - 2 .
7. V e r s o r * [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 10], 1493 , 8 v , c o l. I —9V , c o l . 1.
7. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 4], 1 5 2 6 , 5, c o l . 1 - 6 , c o l. 2.
8. G a l i l e o [ D e caelo, q u . 3 ( E )[ , 1 9 7 7 , 4 6 —4 7 .
9. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo. b k . 1, c h . 1, q u . 1], 15 98 , 8 - 1 9 .
10. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tr act. 3, q u . 2, d u b i t . 1], 162 6, i n , c o l. 2 - 1 1 5 , c o l. 1. VI. On the simple bodies of the world
n. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, q u . 3 1 , sec. 5], 1 6 2 7 , 14, c o l . 2 - 1 8 , c o l . 1.
12. Poncius [ D e coelo, disp. 21, qu. 2], 1 6 7 2 , 5 9 7 , col. 2-602, col. 1. 74. W hether there are f i v e distinct sim p le bodies in the world that differ in species, nam ely

13. B o n a e S p e i [ c o m m e n t . 3, D e coelo, d i s p . 1, d u b . 2], 16 5 2 , 2, c o l . 1 - 3 , col. the Jour elem ents and the heavens or fifth essence.
1. 1. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 2], 1 5 18 , 86 v, c o l . 2 —87V, c o l . 1.

14. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, t r a c t. 4, d is p . 1, se c. 2, q u . 2, d u b . 1], 1 6 5 7 , 4 8 5 - 4 8 6 . 2. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 1, d u b . 2], 149 0, 3, c o l . 2—4, c o l .


2, a n d q u . 2, d u b . 1, 5, c o l . 2 - 6 , c ol. 1.

68. The translation is from Grant, 1974. 204. I have added the words in brackets. 71. William expressed essentially the same question somewhat differently when he asked
69. In the edition, folio “ 9” (actually “ ix” ) is repeated. The second “ 9” should be 10. The “Whether the Creator could have created things better than he did.
reference here is to the second folio 9, which also has signature “ B i ” at the bottom of 72. Bacon expressed the problem as “O n the finitude ot the world.
the page.
73. Albert’s version reads: “Whether there can be an infinite, immobile body.”
70. Oddus is more specific when he asks “ Whether the world is one per se or by accident.”
694 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 695
3- Vcrsor [ D e celo , bk. 1, qu. 4], 1493, 31-, col. 2-41-, col. 2. 9. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 33, sec. 5], 1627, 100, col. 1-105, col. 2.7ft
4. Cornaeus [ D e coelo , tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 1, dub. 4), 1657, 490-491.74*5
7 10. Mastrius and Bellutus [ D e coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 1], 1727, 3:490, col. 2.
5. Oddus [De coelo, disp. 1, dub. 2], 1672. 3, col. 2-$, col. 2. par. 40-492, col. 2, par. 55-77
11. Com pton-Carleton [ D e coelo, disp. 3], 1649, 404, col. 1-407, col. 2.
75. A r e the heavens one o f the sim ple bodies or com posed o f them ? 12. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novu m , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 5, qu. 1, 1651,
1. Galileo* [ D e caelo, qu. 3 (I)], 1977, 81-92. 232, col. 2-233, col. 2 and qu. 2, 233, col. 2-235, col. 1.
2. Poncius [De coelo, disp. 22, qu. 2], 1672, 613, col. 1-61$, col. 2.7' 13. Cornaeus [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 1, dub. 1], 1657, 488-489.
3. Bonae Spei [comment. 3, D e coelo , disp. 3, dub. 2], 1652, 8, col. 2-9, col. 14. Serbellonus [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 2, art. 2], 1663, 2:20, col. 1—22, col. 1.
2. 15. De Rhodes [ D e coelo, bk. 2, disp. 8, qu. 1, sec. 1, art. 1], 1671, 276, cols.
1-2.
76. W hether a s ix th elem ent shou ld be assum ed besides the four elem ents and the heaven.
16. Oddus [ D e coelo, disp. 1, dub. 8], 1672, 15, col. 1-22, col. 1.
1. Bacon, De celestibus, pt. 1, ch. 4, O p er a , tasc. 4, 1913, 331-332.
2. Albert of Saxony* [De celo, bk. 1, qu. 3], 1518, 87r, col. i-88v, col. 1. 80. W hat is the form o f celestial bodies?: w hether it is a sou l.
1. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 33, sec. 7], 1627, 109, col. 1-114 , col. 2.
77. W hether the w hole world that is aggregated fro m the aforem entioned f i v e sim p le bodies
is one continuous being. 81. W hether celestial bodies differ am ong them selves not only in fo r m but also in matter.
1. Albert of Saxony [De celo, bk. 1, qu. 4], 1518, 88v, col. 1 - 89V , col. 2. 1. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 33, sec. 9], 1627, 119, col. 1-123, col. 2.

82. W hether the heaven is a m ixed body.


1. Serbellonus [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 2, art. 1], 1663, 2:18, col. 1-19, col. 2.

PART II. THE CELESTIAL REGION 8 j. From w hat matter are the stars [or p la n ets] produced?
1. Am icus* [ D e caelo, tract. 5, qu. 7, dubit. 7], 1626, 347, col. 2-348, col. 1.
2. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novum , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 4, qu. 4, 1651, 230—
VII. On celestial matter and form
231.78
78. W hether the sk y [or hea v en ] has matter.
84. W hether the nature o f the stars [or p la n ets] differs f o m that o f the sublunary [w orld]
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 1, q u . 1 1 ] , 1 9 4 2 , 49—54.
and is the same as their [respective] orbs.
2. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 1 1 ] , 1 9 6 5 , 1 5 9 - 1 7 3 .
1. Conimbricenses [ D e coelo, bk. 2, ch. 7, qu. 1], 1598, 292-296. 9
3. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 5, d u b . 2], 1 4 9 3 , 5r, c o l . 1.
4. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 1], i4 8 6 , 4V, c o l s . 1 - 2 . 85. W hether celestial and elem entary matter are o j the same species.
5. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 3], 1 5 2 6 , 4, c o l . 1 - 5 , c o l . 1. 1. Bonaventure [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 12, art. 2. qu. 1], O p era , 1885, 2:302-

79. W hether the heaven is composed o f m atter and fo rm .


303-
2. Thomas Aquinas [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1, art. 2], 1929-1947, 2:349-
1. A u r e o l i [Sentences, b k . 2, dis t. 14 , q u . 1, arts. 1 - 2 ] , 1 5 9 6 - 1 6 0 5 , 2 : 1 8 6 , c o l.
1 - 1 9 1 , c o l. 2.
351 •80
3. Major [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 12, qu. 3], 1519b, 65r, col. 2-66v, col. 1.
2. John ofjandun* [De coelo, b k . 1, qu. 23], 1552, 14V, col. 2 - i 6v , col. 1.
4. Conimbricenses [De coelo, bk. 1, ch. 2. qus. 5—6], 1598. 41-47, 47-57.
3. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u . 2], 14 90 , 4, c o l. 2 - 6 , c o l . 1.
4. M a j o r [Sentences, b k . 2, dis t. 12 , q u . 3], 1 5 1 9 b , 6 5 c, c o l . 2 - 6 6 v , c o l . 1.
76. Replacing “heaven” with “celestial bodies.” Aversa asks "Whether celestial bodies are
5. G a l i l e o [ D e caelo, q u . 5 ( K ) ], 1 9 7 7 , 1 0 3 - 1 4 7 .
composed of matter and form” (Utrum corpora caelestia sint ex materia et forma com-
6. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 1, c h . 2, q u . 4], 1 5 9 8 , 3 7 - 4 1 .
posita).
7. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, d i s p . 1, se c . 1], 1 6 1 5 , 362 , c o l . 2 - 3 6 4 , c o l. 77. The De coelo, along with the De generation and Meteors, was first published in 1640. These
1. disputations, along with many others on philosophy and natural philosophy, were sub­
sequently published as a cursus philosophies in 1678, with other editions in 1688, 1708,
8. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tr act. 4, q u . 2, d u b i t . 2], 1 6 2 6 , 1 3 7 , c o l . 1 - 1 4 3 , c o l . 2.
and 1727. See Crowley, 1948, 144, 146-147.
78. Riccioli asks, “From what matter are the luminaries and the other planets [made]?”
74. The question Cornaeus asks is “ Whether the starry heaven is a fifth simple essence distinct 79. This question is also relevant to question 94 in this catalog.
from the elements.” Later Cornaeus asks, “ What is an element?” (tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 80. By asking “Whether the firmament has the nature of inferior bodies” (Utrum firma-
1, dub. 1) and “ How many [terrestrial] elements are there?” (tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 1, dub. mentum sit de natura inferiorum corporum), Thomas couches his question in narrow
2)- and specific terms. Weisheipl explains (1974, 35*8) that “strictly speaking, this is not a
75. Poncius asks “ Whether the heaven is a simple body in the same way as the elements are ‘commentary’ on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, but rather ‘writings’ (scripta), or elaborations
simple bodies, or indeed is it something mixed?” In the preceding question (disp. 22, qu. of the text in the form of questions and discussions of relevant themes arising from the
1), Poncius inquired “ Whether the heaven is a simple body” (611, col. 1-613, col. 1). text.” Most commentaries on the Sentences were similar, being comprised largely of
For a closely related question, see question 82 in this catalog. questions.
696 A PPEN D IX I
CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 697
5. Hurtado de Mendoza [ D e coelo, disp. 1, sec. 2], 1615, 364, col. 1-365, col
5. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s * [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u . 4], 149 0, 23, c o l . 1 - 2 5 , c o l . 1.
2.
6. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u . 5], 19, c o l. 2 - 2 0 , c o l . 1.
6. Am icus* [ D e caelo, tract. 4, qu. 3, dubit. 1], 1626, 144, col. 1-155, col. 2
7. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, c h . 5, q u . 3 ( m i s t a k e n l y n u m b e r e d 1)],
7. Aversa [ D e caelo , qu. 33, sec. 1], 1627, 76, col. 1-80, col. 2, and [sec. 6],
15 98 , 2 5 6 - 2 6 0 .
105, col. 2-109, col. 1.
8. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, d is p . 1, se c. 3], 1 6 1 5 , 365 , c o l . 2 - 3 6 6 , c o l.
8. Mastrius and Bellutus [ D e coelo, disp. 2, qu. 2, art. 2], 1727, 3:492, col. 2
1.
par. 56-495, col. 1, par. 73.
9. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tr act. 4, q u . 3, d u b i t . 2], 1 62 6, 1-55, c o l. 1 - 1 5 8 , c o l. 1.
9. O viedo [ D e caelo, contro. 1, punc. 1], 1640, 462, col. 1-464, col. 2.
10. P o n c i u s [ D e coelo, d is p . 22, q u . 7] , 1 6 7 2 , 6 24 , c o l . 2 - 6 2 5 , c o l. 1.
10. Com pton-Carleton [ D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 1], 1649, 401, col. 1-402, col.
1. 92. W hether a ll the [celestia l] orbs are distinguished fro m each other in species.
11. Riccioli, A lm agestum novu m , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 5, qu. 2, 1651, 1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p here, lec. 4], 1 9 4 9 , 284.
233, col. 2-235, col. 1. 2. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 4, c h . 4, O p era , fa sc. 4, 1 9 1 3 . 39 3 ~ 3 9 5 -
12. Bonae Spei [comment. 3, D e coelo, disp. 3, dub. 3], 1652, 9, col. 2-10, col. 3. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 2], i4 8 6 , 2 i v , c o l. 2 - 2 2 r , c o l . 1.
1. 4. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tr act. 4, q u . 7, d u b i t . 1], 1 62 6, 20 2, c o l. 1 - 2 0 5 , c o l . 2 .*3
13. Cornaeus [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 1, dub. 2], 1657, 489.*'
93. O n the distinction am ong the parts o f one orb that surrounds [or circum scribes] the w hole
14. Oddus [ D e coelo, disp. 1, dub. 9], 1672, 22, col. 2-25, col. 2.
heaven .
86. W hether celestial quantity is distinct in species Jrom sublunar [q u a n tity ]. 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tr act. 4, q u . 7, d u b i t . 2], 16 2 6, 20 5, c o l. 1 - 2 0 6 , c o l. 1.
1. Com pton-Carleton [ D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 2], 1649, 402, cols. 1-2. 94. W hether the stars [ i.e ., p la n e ts / differ in species from their orbs.
87. W hether celestial matter is more perfect than elem entary matter. 1. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 4, c h . 7, O p era , fa sc. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 4 0 1 - 4 0 3 .

1. Amicus [ D e caelo, tract. 4, qu. 3, dubit. 3], 1626, 158, col. 1-160, col. 2. 2. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, c h . 7, q u . 1], 15 9 8 , 2 9 2 - 2 9 6 . 1,4
3. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tr act. 4, q u . 7, d u b i t . 3], 16 2 6, 206, c o l. 2 - 2 0 8 , c o l. 2.
88. O f w hich elem ent, or elem ents, do the heaven s consist?
4. O d d u s [ D e coelo, d is p . 1, d u b . 10], 16 7 2 , 2 5, c o l. 2 - 2 9 , c o l. i.M
<
1. Riccioli,* A lm agestum n ovum , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 1, ch. 5, qu. 3, 1651,
235, col. 1-236, col. 2. 95. W hether a ll the planets [or stars; astra / are distinguished fro m each other in species.
1. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 6, O pera , fas c. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 3 9 7 - 4 0 1 .
2. De Rhodes [ D e coelo, bk. 2, disp. 8, qu. 1, sec. 1, art. 2], 1671, 276, col. 2 -
277, col. 1. 2. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tr act. 4, q u . 7, d u b i t . 4], 1 62 6, 208, c o l . 2 - 2 1 3 , c o l . 1.

8g. W hether, w ith respect to its substance, the heaven s depend on G o d as an efficient cause
/causa agente/.
1. Buridan [M etaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 7], 1518, 69V, col. 2-7O V , col. 1. IX. On the creation, number, order, nobility, and hierarchical
structure of the heavens, planets, and stars
96. In w hat order and position are the p rincipa l parts o j the w orld arranged?
1. Aversa [De caelo, qu. 31, sec. 2], 1627, 4, col. 1—6, col. 2.
Vffl. On orbs and planets and their relations
97. O n the num ber o f spheres, w hether there are eight or n in e, or more or less.
go. W hether there are several and distinct heaven s and orbs in w hich pla nets /ascraj exist:
1. Thomas Aquinas [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1. art. 4], 1929-1947, 2:354-
H o w m any are there, and how ought they to be distinguished?
356.
1. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 32, sec. 5], 1627, 58, col. 1-64, col. 2. 2. Bacon, De celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 2, O p era , tasc. 4, 1913, 387-393.
g i. W hether a ll celestial spheres and a ll stars, both w andering [that is, the p la n ets] and 3. Albert o f Saxony* [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 6], 1518, i05r, col. i- io 6 r [mistakenly
/speciei specialissime/.
f ix e d , are o f the same ultim ate species foliated I07r], col. 2.
1. John ofjandun [ D e coelo, bk. 2, qu. 14], 1552, 30V, col. 2 - 3 iv , col. 1. 4. Them on Judaeus [ D e spera, qu. 3], in Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, 69—75.86
2. Buridan [ D e caelo, bk. 2, qu. 14], 1942, 184, 192.
83. This is the first of four consecutive questions, or doubts (for the other three, see the next
3. Oresme [ D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 10], 1965, 603-638. three questions), that Amicus raises concerning distinctions among the celestial orbs
4. Albert o f Saxony [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 19], 1518 , I i 3 r , col. 2 - 1 1 4 V , col. 1.8
12 themselves, among the parts of a single orb, between the orbs and stars, and among the
planets themselves.
81. Comaeus’s version asks “Whether they [that is, the heavens] consist of sublunary matter. ’ 84. This question is also relevant to question 84 in this catalog.
82. Buridan asked whether “ail celestial spheres and all stars [or planets] are of the same 85. Oddus’s discussion is presented under the title “On the differences ot the heavens among
ultimate species [speciei specialissimae].” The translation is from Grant, 1974, 204; I have themselves.”
added the words in brackets. Albert of Saxony phrased the question in similar terms (see 86. Themon’s treatise consists of a series of questions on the Sphere ot Sacrobosco. Parts of
discussant 4 of this question), even using the same Latin phrase. the Latin text of the questions arc published in Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, with accom­
panying summaries and analyses.
698 A PPEN D IX I
CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 699

5. D ’Ailly, 14 Q u e s tio n s , qu. 2, 1531, 148V—149V.*7 to o . O n the generation o f the heavens.


1. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, c h . 42, O p er a , 1 6 7 4 , 1:6 39 ,
6. Bricot [ D e celo, bk. 2], i486, 2ir, col. i- 2 i v , col. 1.
7. Major [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1], 1519b, 71V, col. 1-72V, col. 1. c o l . 1 - 6 4 4 , c o l. 2 -

8. Galileo [ D e caelo , qus. 1-2 (G -H )], 1977, 59-70, 71-80. 10 1. O n the perfection o f the heavens among them selves and w ith respect to sublunar things.
9. Conimbricenses [ D e coelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 1], 1598, 246-252. 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, t r a c t. 5, q u . 4, d u b i t . 2], 1 6 2 6 , 264 , c o l . 1 - 2 6 5 , c o l . i . 92
10. Hurtado de Mendoza [ D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 1], 1615, 367, col. 2—370, col. 2. O d d u s * [ D e coelo, d is p . 1, d u b . 13], 1 6 7 2 , 35, c o l. 2 - 3 8 , c o l . i . 93
1.
11. Amicus [ D e caelo, tract. 4, qu. 6, dubit. 4], 1626, 192, col. 1-193, col. 2. 102. W heth er the arrangem ent o f the celestial orbs in si t u is [a lso ] their order w ith respect
12. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 32, sec. 2], 1627, 44, col. 2-45, col. 2. to p erfectio n .94
13. Arriaga [ D e caelo, disp. 1, sec. 4], 1632, 504, col. 1-505, col. 2. 1. B u r i d a n * [M etaphy sics, b k . 12 , q u . 12), 1 5 1 8 , 7 4 r , c o l. 2 - 7 5 r , c o l . 1.
14. Poncius [ D e coelo, disp. 22, qu. 6], 1672, 621, col. 2-624', col- 2, and 2. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch . 5, q u . 2], 1 5 9 8 , 2 5 2 - 2 5 6 . ''
[ScHfcMces, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 2], 1639, 6, pt. 2:725-731.™
10 }. W heth er the heavens surpass any sublunar body in the dignity o f their nature.
15. O viedo [ D e caelo, contro. 1, punc. 4], 1640, 469, col. 1-472, col. 2.
1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch . 1, q u . 2], 15 98 , 1 7 1 - 1 7 7 .
16. Mastrius and Bellutus [ D e coelo, disp. 2, art. 2], 1727, 488, col. 1, par. 16-
2. O d d u s [ D e coelo, d is p . 1, d u b . 13], 1 6 7 2 , 35, c o l. 2 - 3 8 , c o l. 1.
490, col. 1, par. 35.
17. Com pton-Carleton [ D e coelo, disp. 4, sec. 1], 1649, 408, col. 1-409, col. 104. W heth er it is necessary to assum e a ninth sphere.
1. 1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, le c. 2], 1949, 2 5 9 - 2 6 0 .
18. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novu m , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 3, ch. 1, 1651, 271, col. 2. R o b e r t u s A n g l i c u s , [S p here, le c. 1], 1 949 , 146, 148 ( L a tin ); 202—203 ( E n ­
1-276, col. i.*9 glish).
19. Bonae Spei [comment. 3, D e coelo, disp. 3, dub. 8J, 1652, 14, col. 1—15, 3. O r e s m e * [ D e spera, q u . 12], 1966a, 2 6 4 —2 8 1 .
col. 2.
10 5. H o w m any f i x e d stars are there?
20. Cornaeus [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 1], 1657, 492-493.8 90
8
7
1. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, q u . 32, sec. 2], 1 6 2 7 , 42, c o l. 2 - 4 4 , c o l. 2.
21. Serbellonus [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 2, art. 5], 1663, 2:28, col. 1-32, col. 2.
2. P o n c i u s [ D e coelo, d is p . 22, q u . 6], 1 6 7 2 , 6 2 1 , c o l . 2 - 6 2 4 , col- 2 . 99
22. Oddus [ D e coelo, disp. 1, dub. 14], 1672, 38, col. 1-42, col. 2.
3. C o r n a e u s * [ D e coelo, tr act. 4, d is p . 2, q u . 4, d u b . 7], 1 6 5 7 , 5 0 9 - 5 1 0 .
98. W hether there are other superior heavens besides the sidereal heaven in w hich the planets
/astra/ are.
1. Aversa [De caelo, qu. 32, sec. 4], 1627, 52, col. 1-57, col. 2.
X. The theological heavens
gg. O n the order o f the heavens.
1. Major [S en ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1], 1519b, 71V, col. 1-72V, col. 1. 106. W heth er there is an em pyrean [or im m obile] sphere beyond the m obile heavens.

2. Am icus* [ D e caelo, tract. 5, qu. 4, dubit. 2], 1626, 264, col. 1-265, col. 1. 1. Alexander of Hales, Sum m a theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 1, memb.
3. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 32, sec. 3], 1627, 47, col. 1-52, col. 1. 1, ch. 1, art. 1, 1928, 327-328.
4. Cornaeus [ D e coelo. tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 9], 1657, 525-529.91 2. Buridan [ D e caelo, bk. 2, qu. 6], 1942, 149-153.
3. Albert of Saxony [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8], 1 5 18 , I07r, col. 1 - 1 0 7 V , col. i.97

87. Part of d’Ailly’s question is also cited under question 106 in this catalog.
92. Amicus treats part o f this question in a section titled “ On the order o f the heavens [by
88. Although, in his Sentences, Poncius discusses the number of heavens, the question by
Scotus to which he is responding simply inquires (p. 725) “Whether there is any mobile nobility and perfection]."
93. Oddus’s question is also relevant to question 103 in this catalog.
heaven besides the starry heaven” (Utrum aliquod caelum mobile aliud a caelo stellato?).
The same question from Poncius's De coelo is also relevant to question 105 in this catalog. 94. See also question 197 in this catalog.
95. The Coimbra Jesuits expressed the same sentiment by asking “ Whether the celestial globes
89. As he often did, Riccioli presents a thorough history of the problem, titling his chapter
“On the total number of heavens" (De numero caelorum totalium). that are higher are o f a nobler nature.”
96. The number o f fixed stars is discussed specifically on page 624, column 1. The same
90. Later (disp. 2, qu. 4, dub. 6), Cornaeus asks, “How many stars are planetary?” For
question by Poncius is included in question 97 ot this catalog.
Cornaeus these two questions are quite distinct. During the Middle Ages and into the
seventeenth century, a celestial sphere and a heaven were often treated as synonymous. 97. Albert, Buridan. and Themon Judaeus do not mention the empyrean sphere, although
all intend it. Buridan asks “ Whether beyond the heavens that are moved, there should
But there was a tradition which spoke of a sidereal heaven (as did Thomas Aquinas)
be assumed a heaven that is resting or unmoved” ; Themon asks “ Whether something
which included the sphere ot the fixed stars and the seven planetary spheres. Cornaeus.
who did not believe in the existence of material celestial spheres, followed this tradition should be assumed [to exist] beyond the ninth sphere” ; while Albert inquires “ Whether
every heaven is mobile, or whether we must assume some heaven that is at rest. ” Only
and distinguished between heavens and planets. He assumed the existence o f only three
the empyrean heaven was regularly assumed to be at rest. As masters o f arts without
heavens (see p. 493), one ot which, the sidereal, embraced the seven planets and all the
theological degrees or credentials. Buridan, Themon, and Albert may have deliberately
fixed stars.
omitted the term “ empyrean” to avoid possible theological entanglements.
91. Cornaeus asks “How the system of this world is organized.”
700 APPENDIX I
C A TA L O G OF Q U E ST IO N S 701
4- T h e m o n Ju d a e u s [ D e spera, q u. 8], in H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , 1 9 73 , 9 9 - 1 0 5 .
n j. W hat is the u tility o f the waters above the firm am ent?
5. D ’ A i l l y , 14 Q u estio n s, q u. 2, 1 5 3 1 , I4 9 v.w
1. W illiam o f A u v e rg n e , De universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, ch. 38, Opera, 16 74 , 1:632,
6. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 4, qu . 6, d u b i t. 5], 1626, 193, c ol . 2 - 1 9 7 , col. 2
c ol . 2 - 6 3 3 , col. 2.
107. W hether the em pyrean heaven is a body.
114. W heth er the superior waters are collected in the manner [or sha pe] o j an orb.
1. A l e x a n d e r o f H al e s , S u m m a theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 1, m e m b
1. A l e x a n d e r o f H al e s, Summa theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 2, ch. 2,
1, ch. 1, art. 2, 1928, 3 2 8 - 3 2 9 .
1928, 339.
108. W hether the matter o f the em pyrean heaven is sim ilar to the matters o f other bodies. 11 s. W heth er these waters are m oved w ith an orbicular m otion.
1. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e u niverso, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, ch. 36, O p er a , 1674, i ; 1. A l e x a n d e r o f H al e s , S u m m a theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 2, ch. 3,
6 3 1 , c ol . 2 - 6 3 2 , col. 1. 1928, 340.

tog. W hether the em pyrean heaven is m oved. 116. B y w hat necessity are these waters f i x e d above the firm am ent?
1. A l e x a n d e r o f H a l e s , * S u m m a theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 1, m e m b . 1. A l e x a n d e r o f H al e s , Su m m a theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 2, ch. 4,
1, ch. 1, art. 3, 1928, 3 2 9 - 3 3 0 . 1928, 3 4 0 - 3 4 1 .
2. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, chs. 3 2 - 3 3 , O p era , 1674,
117. W heth er the crystalline heaven has the nature o f water.
1:6 27, col- 1 - 6 2 8 , col. 2. '° °
1. A l e x a n d e r o f H a le s , Summa theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 2, ch. 5,
no. W hether the em pyrean shou ld be called a heaven. 1928, 3 4 1 . 103
1. A l e x a n d e r o f H a le s , S u m m a theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 1, m e m b . 2. Bonaventure* [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, pt. 1, art. 1, qu. 1], Opera, 1885,
1, ch. 1, art. 4, 1928, 3 3 0 - 3 3 1 . 2 :3 3 5 - 3 3 8 .
3. Richard o f M id d leto n [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, art. 1, qu. 1], 1 5 9 1 , 2: 1 6 7 ,
1 1 1 . O n a comparison o f the em pyrean heaven to other heavens.
col. 1 - 1 6 8 , col. 2.
1. A l e x a n d e r o f H a l e s , * S u m m a theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 1, m e m b .
4. Durandus [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, qu. 1], 1 5 7 1 , I 55 v > col. 2 - i 5 6 r , col.
1, ch. 1, art. 5, 1928, 33 1.
2. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, ch. 34, O p era , 16 74 , 1.028,
5. M a j o r [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, qu. 5], 76V, col. I - 7 7 C col. 2 . ,on
col. 2 - 6 3 0 , col. 1 . ' 0'
3. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu . 1, d u b . 5], 1657 , 4 9 1 . 9
8
10
IOi10
2 118. W hether the crystalline heaven is m oved.
1. Richard o f M id d leto n [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, art. 1, qu. 2], 1 5 9 1 , 2:168,
112 . W hether waters are above the heavens. c ol . 2 - 1 6 9 , col. 1.
1. A l e x a n d e r o f Hal es , Sum m a theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, qu. 2, tit. 2, ch. 1,
lig . W hat is the firm am ent?
1928, 336-339-
1. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, disp. 3, sec. 3], 1 6 1 5 , 380, col. 2 - 3 8 1 , col.
2. T h o m a s A q u i n a s * [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1, art. 1], 1929-1947,
2.
2:346-349.
3. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, dis p. 3, sec. 3], 1 6 1 5 , 381, col. 2 - 3 8 2 , col. 120. W heth er the firm am ent has the nature o j fir e .
1 .103 1. R ichard o f M id d le t o n [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, art. 1, qu. 3], 1 5 9 1 , 2:16 9,
4. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu . 2, d u b . 8], 1657 , 5 2 4 - 5 2 5 . 104 col. 1 - 1 7 0 , col. 2.

121. W heth er the firm am ent has a spherical shape.


98. The same question by Themon is cited above, in question 54 o f this catalog.
1. R i c h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, art. 1, qu. 4], 15 9 1 , 2:1 70 ,
99. D ’Ailly did not make this a separate question but included it as part o f his discussion
on the possible number o f spheres (see qu. 97 o f this catalog). c ol . 2 - 1 7 1 , col. 1.
100. William approaches the problem from the standpoint o f rest, titling his chapter 32 “The
stability o f the tenth sphere, which is called the empyrean, and its stability and rest.’’
Similarly, he titles his chapter 33: “ That the extreme, or supreme, heaven is necessarily
at rest.” Indeed, he returns to this theme in chapter 43 (644, col. 2-648. col. 1) when XI. On directionality in the heavens
he discusses “ The stability o f the empyrean heaven and other parts o f the corporeal
universe.” 122. Whether in the heavens there are up and down; in fo n t of and behind; [and] right
101. William’s chapter title speaks o f “ The order, or position o f the empyrean heaven [in and left.
relation] to other bodies.”
1. B a c o n [Physics, b k . 4], Opera, f a s c. 13, 1 9 3 5> I 7 5 - I 7 6 '°7
102. Cornaeus effectively poses the same question when he asks “ Whether the empyrean
heaven has the same nature as the sidereal heaven."
105. Alexander’s version asks “ Why these waters are called the ‘crystalline’ heaven.”
103. Hurtado specifies “ elemental” water, when he asks “ Whether there is elemental water
106. Major asks simply “ Whether there is a watery heaven.”
above the sidereal heaven.”
107. The questions are unnumbered. In fascicule 8 (1928), Delorme published a version o f
104. Cornaeus asks “ Whether above the sidereal heavens there are true elemental waters.
Bacon’s questions on the P h y s i c s that contained only the first four books.
APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 703
702

2. B o n a v e n t u r e [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, pt. 1, art. 2, q u. 2], O p er a , 1885,


toX
XII. On the properties of celestial spheres and bodies
2:342-345-
3. R ic h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [S en ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 14, art. 1, q u. 5], 1 5 9 1 , 2 : 1 7 1 , 125. W heth er there is on ly one sidereal heaven in w hich all the planets /astra/ ex ist and
col. 1 - 1 7 2 , col. 1 .'“' it is truly solid.
4. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 2, q u. 3], 1552, 24V, c ol . 1—25r, col. i . MO I. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, q u. 32, sec. 6], 1627, 64, col. 2 - 6 9 , col. 1.
5. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 2, q u. 2], 1942, 133 — 137.
126. W hether the heaven is spherical in shape.
6. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 1], 1 5 1 8 , i0 2r , c ol . i - i 0 3 r , col. 1.
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, lec. 2, 5], 1949, 2 5 7 - 2 5 9 an d 29 1. " 7
7. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 3], 19 65 , 4 6 1 - 4 7 7 .
2. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 2, ch. 1, O p era , fasc. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 3 4 2 - 3 4 9 .
8. Pa ul o f V e n i c e , L ib er celi, 14 76 , 24, col. 1 - 2 6 , col. 2 [sigs. g 2 - g 3 ] ,
3. B o n a v e n t u r e [Sen ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 14, pt. 1, art. 2, qu. 1], O p era , 1885,
9. Jo h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 1, d u b . 1], 1490, 17 , col. i . " '
2:34 1-34 2.
10. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 3], 1493 , i8r , col. i - i 8 v , col. 1."*
4. C e c c o d ’ A s c o l i [S p h ere, ch. 1], 1949, 3 6 4 - 3 6 6 .
11. M a j o r [ D e celo, bk . 1, qu . 6], 15 26 , 12, col. 1 - 1 3 , col. 1.
5. D u r a n d u s [Sen ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 14, qu. 4], 15 71 , I5 7r ( m i s t a k e n l y fol iated
12. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 4, q u. 9], 1626, 2 2 1 , col. 1 - 2 3 0 , c ol . 1.
as 175), col. 1 - 1 5 7 V , col. 1.
13. S e r b e ll o n u s [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu . 3, art. 4], 1663 , 2: 37 , c ol . 2 - 3 8 , col.
6. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 5], 1 5 1 8 , 104V, col. i - i 0 5 r , col. 1.
1,3
7. T h e m o n J u d a e u s [ D e spera, qu. 1 1 ], in H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , 1973, 119—

123. W hether in the heavens the antarctic p o le may be up and the arctic p o le dow n and 121.

w hether east is to the right and w est to the lejt and the meridian in fr o n t and the opposite 8. D ’ A i l l y , 14 Q u estio n s, qu. 5, 1 5 3 1 , 1 5 3 r— 1 5 6 r . ""

p o in t, that is the observer’s nadir, may be in back. 9. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, bk . 2, qu. 2, d u b . 2], 1490, 19, col. 2 - 2 0 ,

1. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 2, q u. 4], 1942, 1 4 2 - 1 4 4 . " 4 col. 1 (sigs. k 4 v - k 5 r ) .

2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u . 3], 15 18 , 103V, col. i-i0 4 r , col. 10. V e r s o r [ D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 6], 1493, 20V, col. i - 2 i r , col. 1.

1 ."5 II. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 5], 1526, 19, col. 2.

3. O r e s m e * [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 4], 1 9 65 , 4 7 7 - 4 9 3 . 12. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 4, qu. 1], 1598, 2 3 8 - 2 4 1 .

4. Jo h a n n e s de M agistris [ D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 1, dub. 2], 1490, 17, col. 13. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 2], 1 6 1 5 , 3 7 1 , col. 1.

i . ,,ft 14. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 31 , sec. 4], 16 27 , 9, col. 2 - 1 4 , col. 2, an d [qu. 34,

5. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 4], 1493 , i 8 v , col. 2 - i 9 r , col. 2. sec. 2], 128, col. 1 - 1 2 9 , col. 1.
15. C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n [ D e coelo, disp. 4, sec. 3], 1649, 410 , col. 2.
124. W hether the said differences o f po sitio n are fo u n d in the heavens because o f their very 16. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 2, d u b . 2], 1 6 57 , 4 9 3 - 4 9 4 .
nature, or only in relation to us.
1. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 2, qu . 5], 19 42, 1 4 4 - 1 4 8 . i2 j. H 7tether the p la n ets /astra/ are spherical in shape.
2. A l b e r t o f Saxony* [D e celo, bk. 2, q u. 4], 1518, i04r, col. 1-104V , 1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, lec. 15], 1949- 330 - 3 3 i-

col. 1. 2. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 10, O p era , tasc. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 4 1 2 - 4 1 3 .

3. B r i c o t [ D e celo, bk. 2], i48 6, 15V, c ol . 2 - i 6 v , col. 2. 3. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 4, d u b . 2], 1490, 24, cols. 1-2

4. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu . 6], 1526, 12, col. 1 — 13, col. 1. (sig. k7r ).

5. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 2, qu. 1], 1598, 1 8 2 - 1 8 5 . 4. V e r s o r * [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 15], 1493, 27V, col. 2 - 2 8 r , col. 2.
5. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 4, d u b . 10], 1 6 57 , 5 1 2 - 5 13.

108. Bonaventure asks only about two directions, right and left. 128. W hether the heavens are anim ated.
109. As Bonaventure did, Richard asks only about right and left. 1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, lec. 5], 1949, 289.
no. Jandun expresses the question as “ Whether there are only six differences o f position.”
2. R i c h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [Sentences, bk . 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 4], 1 5 9 1 , 2:186 .
h i. De Magistris’s version o f the question is virtually the same as John ofjandun’s.
112. Versor asks “ Whether in every celestial body six differences o f position are found distinct col. 2 - 1 8 8 , col. 1.
from the thing itself.” In the preceding question (bk. 2, qu. 2), Versor posed the same 3. A u r e o l i [Sen ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 14, qu. 3], 1 5 9 6 - 1 6 0 5 , 2:200, col. 1-20 1,
question but omitted the word “ celestial.” col. 2.
113. Serbellonus asks “ Whether in the heavens there are differences o f positions.” 4. J o h n o f j a n d u n [De coelo, bk . 2, qu. 4], 1 5 5 2 . 25r, col. 1—25V, col. 2.
114. Both Buridan and Albert o f Saxony (discussant 2 in this question) confine their questions
to the arctic and antarctic poles. 5. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [Physics, b k . 8, qu. 17], 1984, 735~ 737-
115. Albert asks specifically “ Whether the arctic pole, namely the pole apparent to us, is
down; and the other, namely the antarctic [pole], is up.” In the preceding question (bk.
2, qu. 2, I03r, col. 1-103V, col. 1), Albert asked “ Whether in the heavens, up and down 117. On pages 257-259, Michael asks what the shape o f the world (m u n d u s ) is; on page 259.
ought to be understood with respect to the poles, so that one o f the poles is up, the he asks “ Whether the heaven (c e lu m ) is round.”
other down.” 118. In the same question, d’Ailly also asks whether the four elements are spherical (see
116. De Magistris asks only “ Whether the pole that appears above us is up or down.” below, qu. 335, n. 265 in this catalog).
704 APPENDIX I
CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 705
6. J o h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s * [ D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 1, d u b . 3], 1490, 17 , col. 2
5. R i c h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 1], 1 5 9 1 , 2:183 ,
(k3 v). col. 2 - 1 8 4 , col. 2.
7. Ja ve ll i [M etaphysics, bk . 12, qu . 16], 1568, 1:888, col. 1—889, col. 2.
6. C e c c o d ’ A s c o l i * [S p h ere, ch. 1], 1949, 3 5 2 - 3 5 3 .
8. G a l i l e o [ D e caelo, qu . 6 (L) ], 1 9 7 7 , 1 4 8 - 1 5 8 .
7. S i m o n de T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) [M eteorology , bk . 1, qu. 3, art. 1],
9. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, q u . 1], 1598, 1 6 2 - 1 7 1 .
1639, 3:6, col. 2 - 7 , c ol . 1 . ' 24
10. H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, dis p. 1, sec. 4], 1 6 1 5 , 366, col. 2.
8. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu. 4], 1 5 1 8 , 88v, col. 1 - 8 9 V , col. 2 . ' 1S
11. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 4, qu . 4, d u b i t . 2], 1626, 168, c ol . 1 - 1 7 3 , col. 2.
9. P a u l o f V e n i c e , L ib e r celi, 14 76 , 5, col. 1 - 7 , col. I . ' 2'’
12. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 33, sec. 7], 1 6 2 7, 109, c ol . 1 - 1 1 2 , c ol . 2.
10. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 4, q u. 5, dubi t. 1], 1626, '182, col. 1 - 1 8 4 , col. 2.
13. A r r i a g a [ D e caelo, disp. 1, sec. 2], 16 32, 498.. cols . 1 - 2 .
1 1. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 3], 1627, 138, col. 2 . 127
14. P o n c i u s [ D e coelo, disp. 22, qu . 3], 1 6 72 , 6 1 5 , col. 2 - 6 1 6 , c ol . 2.
12. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 14], 1672 , 40, col. 2 - 4 1 , col. 2 . ' 2S
15. O v i e d o [ D e caelo, c o n t r o . 1, p u n c . 1], 1640, 460, col. 1—462, col. 1.
16. C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n [ D e coelo, dis p. 1, sec. 1], 1649, 39 7, cols . 1 - 2 .
133. W hether a ll celestial spheres are contiguous or water is interposed betw een them.
1. C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n [ D e coelo, disp. 4, sec. 2], 1649, 409, cols. 1-2.
17. R ic c io l i, A lm ag estu m novu m , pars p o s t . , bk . 9, sec. 1, ch. 8, 1 6 5 1 , 244, col.
1 - 2 4 6 , col. 2. 134. O n the d epth, or thickness, o f the heavens.
18. B o n a e Spei [ c o m m e n t . 3, D e coelo, dis p. 3, d u b . 5], 16 52, 1 1 , col. 1 - 1 2 , I. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, ch. 45, O p era , 16 74, 1:
col. 2. 654, cols. 1 - 2 .
19. O d d u s [ D e cpelo, disp. 1, d u b . 11 ], 1 6 72 , 29, col. 1 - 3 4 , col. 2.
133. W hether the heavens are f lu id or so lid . 129
1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 5, qu. 5], 1626, 270, col. 1 - 2 8 8 , col. 1.
129. W hether the celestial substance is m obile pe r se.
2. A r r i a g a [ D e caelo, dis p. 1, sec. 3], 1632, 499, col. 1 - 5 0 4 , col. 1.
1. G o d f r e y o f Fo n ta in es, Q u o d lib et V , q u. 7, 1 9 14 , 2 5 - 2 8 .
3. P o n c i u s [ D e coelo, dis p. 22, qu. 5], 1672, 620, col. 1 - 6 2 1 , col. 2.
130. W hether the sky [or hea v en ] is hea vy or light. 4. O v i e d o [ D e caelo, c o n t r o . 1, p u n c . 3], 1640, 464, col. 2 - 4 6 9 , col. 1.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 1, q u. 13], 15 5 2, io r, cols. 1-2. 5. C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n [ D e coelo, disp. 1, sec. 3], 1649, 398, col. 2 - 4 0 1 , col.
2. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 1, qu . 9], 1 942 , 4 0 - 4 4 . 2.
3. V e r s o r * [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu . 5], 1493 , 4r, col. 2 - 4 V , col. i . ' " ' 6. R ic c io l i, A lm ag estu m n ovu m , pars p os t., b k . 9, sec. 1, ch. 7, 1 6 5 1 , 238, col.
4. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 5, qu . 3], 1626, 260, c ol . 1 - 2 6 2 , col. 2. 2 - 2 4 4 , col. 1.
5. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 4], 138, col. 1 — 139, col. i . ' * ° 7. B o n a e S p e i * [ c o m m e n t . 3, D e coelo, disp. 3, d u b . 7], 1652, 13, col. 2 - 1 4 ,
6. S e r b e ll o n u s [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu . 3, art. 3], 1663, 2:36, col. 1 - 3 7 , col. 2. col. 1.
8. C o m a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 2, d u b . 3], 16 57 , 494 —500.
131. W hether rarity and density exist in the heaven s.
9. S e r b e ll o n u s [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 2, art. 4], 1663, 2:25, col. 1 - 2 8 , col. 1.
1. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu . 34, sec. 2], 1 6 2 7 , 128, col. 1— 13 3, col. i . ' 21
10. D e R h o d e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, disp. 8, sec. 2, art. 2], 1 6 7 1 , 280, col. 1 - 2 8 1 ,
2. S e r b e l l o n u s * [ D e caelo, disp. 1, q u. 3, art. 2], 1663, 2:34, col. 1 - 3 6 , col. 1.
col. 1.
132. W hether the w hole heaven fro m the co n v e x ity o f the suprem e [or outerm ost] sphere to II. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 12], 1672 , 34, col. 2 - 3 5 , col. 2 . 130

the concavity o f the lunar orb is continuous or w hether the orbs are distinct from each
124. Although published by Luke Wadding in the Opera o f Duns Scotus, the work is definitely
o th e r .'1*
not by Scotus. In his introduction to the treatise. Wadding suggests Simon de Tunstede
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p here, lec. 4], 1949. 2 8 1 - 2 8 4 . (d. 1369) as the author. For convenience, I have adopted Wadding’s suggestion.
2. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 1, O p e r a , fasc. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 3 8 5 - 3 8 7 . 125. Albert’s version extends the question to the whole world (“ Whether the whole world
3. B o n a v e n l u r e [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, pt. 2, art. 1, q u. 1], O p era , 1885, that is aggregated from the aforementioned five simple bodies is one continuous being").
126. In this section, Paul considers, among other things, whether the orbs are continuous or
2 : 3 5 I— 3 5 - - ' 23 contiguous.
4. R o b e r t u s A n g l i c u s [S p here, lec. 1], 1949, 1 4 6 - 1 4 8 (Latin); 2 0 1 - 2 0 3 (En­ 127. The continuity—contiguity problem forms a small part o f a larger consideration “ On the
glish). 19
2
0
3
* place and local positions o f celestial bodies” (138, col. 1-140, col. 2).
128. Although dubium 14 is titled “ On the number o f the heavens, ” part o f it is devoted to
the problem o f the continuity and contiguity o f the spheres.
119. Since Versor’s Latin enunciation o f the question is identical to Buridan’s (“ Utrum celum
129. No such question was distinguished in the Middle Ages. Following Aristotle, however,
[or “ caelum” ] sit grave aut leve” ), I have also placed an asterisk beside his name.
scholastics did consider whether the stars and planets in the heavens were fixed to their
120. This discussion forms part o f a larger treatment titled “ On the place and local positions
spheres or moved independently, like fish in water (see, for example, William o f Au­
o f celestial bodies,” 138, col. 1-140, col. 2.
vergne, De universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, ch. 44, Opera, 1674, 1:650, col. 1). Johannes Versor's
121. The full title o f the section in which Aversa considers rarity and density is “ On the
question as to whether the planets have the nature o f fire (see qu. 140 in this catalog) is
shape o f celestial bodies, their density and rarity, opacity and transparency.”
confined to the planets themselves and does not encompass the entire medium o f the
122. In effect, “ Are the celestial orbs continuous or contiguous?” .
heavens in which the planets are embedded or immersed. Flence it is not really about
123. Bonaventure’s version asks “ Whether all the [celestial] luminaries [that is, all the planets
the solidity or fluidity o f the celestial region.
and stars] are located in one continuous body.”
130. Oddus has “ Whether the heavens are solid or fluid.”
706 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 707

136. W hether the non-starry part o f the heaven is v isib le to us. 146. O n the quantity and m agnitude o f celestial bodies.
1. R ic h a r d o t ' M i d d l e t o n [SeHtemri, bk . 2, dist. 14, art. 3. q u. 6], 1 5 9 1 , 2:189, 1. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 2}, 1 6 1 5 , 3 7 ° , col. 1 —3 7 1 , col.

col. 2 - 1 9 2 , col. 2. 1.
2. A v e r s a * [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 1], 162 7, 123, col. 1 — 128, col. 1.
1 57. [W h a t are the planets in the opinions o j the C h u r ch Fathers and Peripatetics?J
1. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, dis p. 2, q u . 3, d u b . 1 - 3 ] , 1 6 5 7 , 5 0 1 - 5 0 4 . 131 147. W hether celestial bodies possess qualities.
1. M i c h a e l S c o t * [S p h ere, lec. 1 1], 1949, 3 1 9 - 3 2 0 . 1,4
138. W hether, and in w hat w ay, celestial bodies differ am onq them selves in substance. 2. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 3], 1627, 135, col. 2 - 1 3 7 , col. 2 . 133
1. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu . 33, sec. 8], 1 6 2 7 , 1 1 4, col. 2 - 1 1 9 , col. 1. 3. Oddus [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 22], 16 72 , 65, c ol . 2 - 6 7 , col. 2.

i3g . W hether celestial bodies affect each other and w hat [th ey do to each other]. 148. W heth er celestial accidents are o f the same kin d as sublunary [accidents].
1. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu . 35, sec. r], 1 6 2 7, 165, col. 1 - 1 6 7 , col. 1. 1. S e r b e l l o n u s * [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 3, art. 1], 1663, 2:32, col. 2 - 3 4 , col. 1.
2. Oddus [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 22], 16 72 , 65, c ol . 2 - 6 9 , col.
130. IVhether the planets [or stars] /astra/ ha ve the nature o f fir e .
1. S i m o n de T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) [M eteo ro lo g y , bk . 1, qu. 4], 1639, 3:8, 149. W heth er in celestial bodies any chance or fo rtuito u s things happen.
col. 2 - 1 0 , col. 2. 1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [P hy sics, b k . 2, qu. 10], 1 5 1 9 , 4 1 V , col. 2 - 4 2 V , col. 1.
2. T h e m o n Ju da eu s [M eteo ro lo g y , b k . 1, qu . 3], 1 5 1 8 , I 5 7 r, col. 2 - 1 58r, col.
130. W heth er on occasion som e new stars are observed and generated in the heavens and in
1.
w hat m anner this could occur w ithout a substantial m utation.
3. V e r s o r * [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 10], 1493 , 23r, col. 2 - 2 3 V , col. 1.
1. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 33, sec. 3], 1627, 83, col. 2 - 9 1 , col. 1.
141. W hether the spots appearing in the M o o n arise firom differences in parts o f the M oon
1 3 1. A g a in s t those w ho say that the planets are evil.
or from som ething external.
1. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e universo, pt. 1 ot pt. 1, ch. 46, O p era , 16 74, 1:654,
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 2, qu . 19], 1942, 2 1 2 - 2 1 7 .
col. 2 - 6 6 7 , col. 2.
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 22], 1 5 1 8 , u 6 r , col. 2 - 1 i 6 v , col. 1.
3. O r e s m e [ D e celo, bk. 2, q u. 12], 1 965 , 6 5 3 - 6 6 5 .
4. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 6, q u. 5, d u b i t . 3], 1626, 363, col. 1 - 3 6 8 , col. r.
5. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 8], 1 6 2 7, 1 5 1 , col. 2 - 1 5 4 , col. 2.
6. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 15], 1 6 7 2 , 42, col. 2 - 4 5 , col. 2 ."‘
XIII. On celestial motions and their causes
152. IVhether, [based] on A r is to tle ’s opin io n , the prim e m over is one.
142. O n the S u n ’s spots.
1. Oha [P h y sics, bk. 8, qu. 1, art. 8], 1598, 376V, col. 1-377, col. 2.
1. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu . 34, sec. 9], 16 27 , 154, col. 2 - 1 6 0 , col. 2.
2. Am icus* [P hy sics, bk. 8, qu. 6, dubit. 1], 1626—1629, 1:1049, col. 2-1050,
147. W hether the M oo n is the lesser lum inary. col. 1.
1. M a j o r [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, qu . 10], 1 5 1 9 b , 82r, col. 2-83V, col. 1.
133. T o demonstrate that the fir s t m over is a separated substance.
144. W hy som e planets /astra/ tw in k le , and som e very little; and w hy one [tw in k le s] more 1. Oha [P hy sics, b k . 8, qu. 1, art. 1], 159S, 3 5 5 r, col. 1 - 3 5 6 V , col. 2.
than another.
134. W hether the perpetuity o f m otion is necessary to understand the existence o j the first
1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 5, q u. 7, d u b i t . 3], 1626, 343, col. 2 - 3 4 5 , col. 2 . 133
p rin cip le.
2. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 3], 1 6 2 7 , 133, col. 1 - 1 3 5 , col. 2.
1. John ofja n d u n * [Phy sics, b k . 8, qu. 2], 15 19 , i2 iv , col. 1 - 1 2 2 V , col. 1.
3. O d d u s * [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 21 ] , 1 6 7 2 . 63, col. 1 - 6 4 , col. 1.
2. Javelli [P hy sics, bk. 8, qu. 2], 1568, 1:598, cols. 1-2.
143. W hether [celestial] lum inaries [that is, the pla nets and stars] have differences oj 3. Oddus [P hy sics, bks. 5-8, disp. 17, art. 9], 1667, 752, col. 1-754, col. i . M~
perfection.
1. B o n a v e n t u r e [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, pt. 2, art. 2, qu. 1], O p er a , 1885, 134. The Latin text declares: “ Utrum corpora celestia sint complexionata. ” Michael’s question
is clearly related to Serbellonus’s version o f question 148 in this catalog.
2 :3 5 7 , 3 5 9 -
135. Aversa’s discussion occurs in a general section titled “ On the qualities ot celestial bodies"
(133, col. 1-138, col. 1).
r 3 1. 1 have formulated this composite question which is based on three doubts (dubia) raised 136. Oddus asks (65, col. 2) in general “ about certain other celestial accidents and whether
by Cornaeus: (1) “ What are the planets [stellae] as conceived in the minds o f the ancient they differ from sublunar things in species." Beginning with page 68, column 1, however,
Fathers? (Quid sint stellae ex mente antiquorum Patrum); (2) “ What are the planets he turns particularly “ to the other point on the specific distinction or identity o f common
brc/Ziie] in the opinion o f the Peripatetics?” (Quid sint stellae ex opinione Penpatetico- celestial accidents with sublunary accidents, such as quantity, light, density, opacity,
rum); and (3) “ What should be understood about this?” (Quid in hac re sentiendum). and diaphaneity.”
132. Oddus’s dubium also embraces the Milky Way and the spots on the Sun. 137. Oddus’s question is related but somewhat different: "Whether from force o f motion,
133. Amicus asks “ Whether a twinkling [or sparkling] motion is proper to the planets.” the existence o f the prime mover could be demonstrated."
A PPEN D IX I C A T A L O G OF QUESTIONS 709

133. W hether the prim e m over, w hich is gloriou s G o d , is o f in fin ite strength. 163. W hether there are several prim e m overs.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [P hy sics, b k . 8, q u. 22), 1 5 1 9 , H 5 r , col. 1 -1 4 7 1 - , col. 1. 1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [P hy sics, b k . 8, q u. 23], 1 5 1 9 , I47 r, col. 1 - 1 4 7 V , col. i . ' 43
2. B u r i d a n [Physics, b k . 8, q u. 11 ), 1509, 1191-, col. i - i 2 o r , col. 1. 2. M a r s i li u s o f I n g h e n * [P hy sics, b k . 8, qu. 9], 1 5 1 8 , 85r, col. 2 - 8 6 r , col. 2.
3. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e * [P hy sics, b k . 8, q u. 25], 1984, 7 5 7 - 7 6 2 . 3. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [Phy sics, b k . 8, qu. 27], 1984, 7 6 7 - 7 6 9 . ,44
4. J a ve lli [Physics, b k . 8, qu . i 6 j , an d [M eta p hy sics, b k . 12, q u. 20], 1568, 1:612, 4. J a v e ll i [P hy sics, b k . 8, qu. 17], 1568, 1:6 12, col. 2.
col. 2, and 894, c ol . 1 - 8 9 7 , c ol . 1.
166. W hether a fin ite m over could m ove [som ething] through an in fin ite tim e.
5. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [Phy sics, pt. 2, b k . 8, ch. 10, qu. 3], 1602, cols. 5 8 6 - 5 9 0 . 13813
9
4
0
2
*
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n * [P hy sics, b k . 8, qu. 19], 1 5 1 9 , 14OV, col. 1 - 1 4 1 V , col. 2.
156. W hether the prim e m over is actual or p o ten tia l. 2. Ja ve ll i [P hy sics, b k . 8, qu. 14], 1568, 1:6 10, col. 1 - 6 1 1 , col. 1.
1. B u r i d a n [M etaphysics, b k . 12, qu . 3], 1 5 1 8 , 66r, col. i - 6 6 v , col. 2.
167. W heth er som e body [m u st] alw ays be m oved [w h ile ] som e [other] body alw ays rests.
157. W hether the prim e m over is absolutely sim ple. 1. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [P hy sics, b k . 8, qu. 11 ], 1984, 7 1 3 - 7 1 5 .
1. B u r i d a n [M etaphysics, b k . 12, q u. 4], 1 5 1 8 , 6 6 v , col. i - 6 7 r , col. 1.
168. W hether there are three sim ple m otions and no more, nam ely upw ard m otion, downw ard
158. W hether the prim e m over is w ithout fa tig u e . m otion, and circular m otion.
1. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [P hy sics, b k . 8, q u. 28], 1984, 7 6 9 - 7 7 2 .
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 1, qu. 6], 1942, 2 7 - 3 1 .

759. W hether the prim e m over is absolutely im m obile. 2. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu. 6], 1965, 8 1 - 9 7 .

1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [P h y sics, b k . 8, qu. 21] , 19 41 , 2 2 4 - 2 2 5 . ' 3y 3. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu. 1, d u b . 1], 1490, 3, col. 2.

2. J o h n o f j a n d u n [P hy sics, b k . 8, q u. 13], 1 5 1 9 , I36r, col. 2 - i 3 7 r , col. i . ‘4° 4. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu. 3], 1493, 2v , col. 1 —3 r, col. 2.

3. B u r i d a n [Physics, b k . 8, qu . 6], 1509, 114V, col. 2 - 1 1 5 r, col. 2.


t6g. W heth er o n ly one sim ple m otion inheres naturally in any sim ple body.
4. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [Physics, b k . 8, q u . 8], 1 5 18 , 8 i r , cols. 1-2.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 1, qu. 10], 15 5 2, 8v, col. 1—9r, col. 1.
5. M ar s i li u s o f I n g h e n [P hy sics, b k . 8, q u . 8], 15 18 , 84V, c ol . i - 8 5 r , col. 2.
2. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 1, qu. 6], 1942, 2 7 - 3 1 .
6. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e * [Physics, b k . 8, q u. 16], 1984, 7 3 0 - 7 3 5 .
3. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, bk . 1, qu. 1], 1 5 18 , 84r, col. i - 8 6 v , col. 2.
7. M a j o r [Physics, b k . 8], 1526, 55r, cols . 1 - 2 .
4. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu. 7], 1965, 9 7 - 1 n .
8. T o l e t u s [Physics, b k . 8, qu. 5], 1580, 233r, col. i - 2 3 4 r , col. 2.
5. P a u l o f V e n i c e , L ib er celi, 1476 , 3, col. 1 - 5 , col. 1.
9. O h a [Physics, bk. 8, qu. 1, art. 9], 1598, 377V, col. 2 - 3 7 9 V , col. 1. 6. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 1], i48 6, 3V, col. i~ 4 r, col. i . ' 4S

160. W hether the prim e m over is absolutely uniform . 7. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu. 1], 15 26, 1, col. 1 - 2 , col. 2.

1. B e n e d i c t u s H es se [Physics, b k . 8, q u. 29], 1984, 7 7 1 - 7 7 2 . 8. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 1, ch. 2, qu. 2], 1598, 2 9 - 3 1 .


9. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 4, qu. 1, d ub it. 1], 1626, 130, col. 1 — 13 5, col. 2.
161. W hether the prim e m over that m oves the heaven is a fo rm o f the heaven or a soul.
1. B a c o n [Physics, b k . 8], O p era , fasc. 13, 19 35, 4 2 7 - 4 2 8 . 170. W hether the heavens are m oved.
1. C e c c o d ’ A s c o l i * [S p h ere, ch. 1], 1949, 363.
162. W hether the prim e m over m oves the heaven as an end [or g o a l] that is loved.
2. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 5], 162 7, 140, col. 2 - 1 4 3 , col. 1.
1. Ja ve ll i [M etaphysics, b k . 12, qu . 15], 1 5 68 , 1:884, col. 2 - 8 8 8 , col. 1.
3. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 2, d u b . 4], 1 6 5 7 , 500.
163. W hether the prim e m over is in d iv isib le and has no magnitude.
171. W hether this is true according to the P h ilo so p h er ’s [that is, A r isto tle 's] intention: “ time
1. B u r i d a n * [Physics, b k . 8, q u. 13], 1509. I 2 i r , col. 2 - 1 2 1 V , col. 2.
is the m otion o f the h e a v e n .’ ’
2. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [Physics, b k . 8, q us . 3 1 - 3 2 ] , 1984, 7 7 4 - 7 7 8 an d 7 7 8 - 7 S 0 . ' 41
1. O c k h a m [P hy sics, qu. 40], O p era philosophica, 1984, 6 :5 02 —504.
3. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [Physics, pt. 2, b k . 8, ch. 6, qu. 1], 1602, cols. 5 i 4 - 5 2 0 . ,4i
172. W heth er according to the intention o j the P hilo so p her [that is, A r isto tle ], anyone w ho
164. W hether the prim e m over is in the circle and circum ference o f the last sphere, or in the
p erceives tim e perceives the m otion o f the heavens.
east.
1. O c k h a m [Physics, qu. 45], O p era philosophica, 1984, 6 : 5 1 7 - 5 2 0 .
1. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e * [Physics, b k . 8, q u. 30], 1984, 7 7 2 - 7 7 4 .
173. W heth er celestial m otion is natural.
138. The Conimbricenses ask “ Whether, according to the doctrine o f Aristotle, the prime
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p here, lec. 5], 1949, 2 8 8 - 2 8 9 . 146
mover operates with infinite power.”
139. Pseudo-Siger asks “ Whether in movers and in things that are moved it is necessary to
arrive at an immobile prime mover.” 143. In his version, John ofjandun asks “ Whether there is only one first principle o f motion.”
140. In his version, John ofjandun asks “ Whether there is an absolutely immobile mover. 144. Benedictus treats essentially the same question by asking “ Whether there is only one
141. Benedictus puts into two questions what Buridan encompassed with one. Thus question prime mover.”
31 asks “ Whether the prime mover is indivisible” and question 32 “ Whether the prime 145. The questions are unnumbered, but this is the first. Bricot was both a master o f arts
mover has magnitude.” and a doctor o f theology. For information on his works and life, see Lohr, 1973, 173—
142. Specifically, the Conimbricenses ask “ Whether, according to Aristotle, the prime mover 174; for the edition cited here, 177—178.
is free o f all mutation and magnitude.” 146. Michael Scot adds “ or violent.”
A PPEN DIX I C A T A L O G OF Q UESTIONS 711
7io

8. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 8], 1493, 22r, col. 1- 2 2 V , col. 1 .'”


2. D u r a n d u s * [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, qu . 2], 1 5 7 1 , 156V, cols . 1 - 2 .
9. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 2], i48 6, i8r, cols. 1-2.
3. J o h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu . 1, d u b . 3], 1490, 4, c ol . 2.
10. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 6, qu. 2], 1598, 2 8 7 - 2 9 1 . ' ”
4. C a s e [Physics, bk . 8, ch. 7], 1599, 8 2 5 - 8 3 4 . 147
1 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 5, q u. 6, d u bi t. 6], 1626, 31 4, col. 1 - 3 1 7 , col. 1.
5. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 4], 1 6 1 5 , 3 73 , co ls . 1 - 2 .
12. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 4, d u b . 3], 1 657 , 5 0 4 . ' ”
6. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 18], 1 6 72 , 49, col. 2 - 5 4 , col. 2.

174. W hether circular m otion is natural to the heavens. 181. W heth er this consequence is sound: T h e heaven is alw ays m oved, therefore it is necessary

1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 1, ch. 2, qu . 3], 1598, 3 1 - 3 7 . '4*


that it be m oved w ith several m otions.
1. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 11 ], 15 18 , i o 8 v , col. 2 - i 0 9 r , col. 2.
2. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 5, qu. 6, d u b i t . 7], 1626, 3 1 7 , c ol . 1 - 3 2 0 , col. 1.
2. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 6[, 1965, 5 0 7 - 5 2 3 .
3. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 16], 16 72 , 45, c ol . 2 . 14915
0
3. P a u l o f V e n i c e , L ib er celi, 14 76, 27, col. 2.
175. W hether circular m otion is more perfect than rectilinear m otion.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, bk . 1, q u. 11 ], 15 5 2, 9r, cols. 1 - 2 . 182. H o w m any local morions o f celestial bodies are there, and w hich oties are they?
1. M a j o r [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 4], 15 19 b, 75V, col. 1- 7 6 V , col. 1. ”
1/6. W hether circular motion is perpetual. 2. A v e r s a * [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 6], 162 7, 143, col. 1 - 1 4 7 , col. 1.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [Physics, b k . 8, qu . 18], 1519 , 139V, col. 2 - i 4 0 r , col. 2 . ” 0
2. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e * [P hy sics, bk . 8, q u. 19], 1984, 7 4 2 - 7 4 3 . 183. W heth er all the celestial spheres below the p r i m u m m o b i l e are revolved sim ultaneously

3. Jave lli [Phy sics, bk . 8, qu . 13], 1568, 1:609, col. 2 - 6 1 0 , c ol . 1. from east to west and fro m west to east.
1. B a c o n [P hy sics, b k . 8], O p era , fasc. 13, 19 35, 4 2 0 - 4 2 1 .
277. W hether the circular motion o f the heavens has a contrary. 2. M a j o r [Sen ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 14, qus. 2 - 3 ] , 1 5 1 9 b , 72V , col. 1 - 7 4 V , col. 1,
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 1, q u. 18], 1552, I2v, col. 2 - i3 v ,,c o l. 1. an d 74V, col. 2 - 7 5 V , col. 1.
2. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 1, qu . 8], 1942, 3 6 - 4 0 . 3. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 5, qu. 4], 1598, 2 6 2 - 2 6 4 .
3. O r e s m e [ D e celo, bk . 1, qu . 12], 19 65 , 1 7 3 - 1 8 9 . 4. H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 3], 1 6 1 5 , 3 7 1 , col. 2 - 3 7 5 , col.
4. Jo ha n ne s de M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu . 2, d u b . 2], 1490, 6, col. 1.
1.
5. V e r s o r [ D e celo, bk . 1, q u. 7], 1493 , 5r, col. 2 - 5 V , col. 2. 5. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 17], 1672 , 46, col. 1 - 4 9 , col. 2.
6. B r i c o t * [ D e celo, b k . 1], i48 6, 4V, col. 2~5r , col. 1.
7. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [D e coelo, bk . 1, ch. 4, q u. 1], 1598, 7 2 - 7 5 . 184. W heth er any celestial sphere could be m oved with several morions, just as the sphere
o f the S u n is assum ed to be m oved w ith a daily and a proper m otion.
178. I f the heaven exists, it is necessary that it he m oved.
1. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 5, ch. 1 1 , O p era , fasc. 4, 19 13 , 4 2 9 - 4 3 3 .
1. Pa ul o f V e n i c e , L ib er celi, 1476, 27, col. 1 ( co nc lu s. 1).
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u . 14], 1 5 1 8 , i i o v , col. 2 - 1 i i r , col. 2.
279. W hether there is any cessation or turning back in celestial m otion. 3. O r e s m e * [ D e spera, qu. 11], 1966a, 2 4 2 - 2 6 3 . ' “ '

1. C a s e [P hy sics, bk . 8, ch. 8], 1599, 8 3 5 - 8 4 2 . 4. T h e m o n J u d a e u s [D e sp e r a , q u. 10], in H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , 19 73 , 1 1 3 - 1 1 9 . ' ' '


5. D ’A i l l y , 14 Q u estio n s, qu. 4, 1 5 3 1 , I 5 i v - i 5 3 r .
180. W hether the sk y / c a e l u m / is alw ays m oved regularly [ i.e ., u n ifo rm ly ].
6. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 2], i48 6, 2 i v , col. 2.
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S phere, lec. 5], 1949, 2 9 0 - 2 9 1 .
7. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 1], 1526, 14, col. 2 - 1 6 , col. i . ' sH
2. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, bk . 2, q u. 7], 15 5 2, 2 j r , col. i - 2 8 r , col. 1.
8. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 4, d u b . 4 - 5 ] , 1 657 , 5 0 4 - 5 0 6 , 5 0 6 -
3. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 2, qu . 1 1 ], 1942 , 1 7 2 - 1 7 5 .
5 0 9 . ' “'
4. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 13], 15 18 , n o r , col. i- iio v , col. 2.
5. O r e s m e [ D e celo, bk . 2, qu . 8], 1965, 5 75 —5 9 1 . 1s1 152. Versor asks specifically whether the eighth sphere moves uniformly and regularlv.
6. D’Aillv, 14 Q u estio n s, q u. 3, 1 5 3 1 , 1 4 9 V - 1 5 1 V . 153. The Coimbra Jesuits inquired “ Whether or not the motion ot the heavens and stars is
7. J o h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 3], 1490, 20, c ol . 2—22, col. 2 equable [i.e., uniform) and orderly.”
(sigs. k 5 r - k 6 r ) .
154. Cornaeus asks “ Whether they [the planets] are moved with one-simple and equal [or
uniform] motion.”
147. Case offers the following version o f this question: “ Whether the motion by which God 155. Major asks “ Whether one [motion] to one planet is sufficient.”
moves the first celestial sphere is natural.” 156. I have slightly altered Droppers’ translation on page 243.
148. For “ circular motion,” Conimbricenses use the term conversio rather than motus circularis, 157. Themon asks simply “ Whether the inferior spheres are moved simultaneously and at
once with several motions.”
as Amicus has it.
149. At first glance, it appears that questions 173 and 174 should be conflated into a single 158. Major asks “ Whether all the inferior heavens [or celestial spheres] within the primum
question. But this has been avoided, because Oddus has treated them as distinct questions. mobile are moved with several motions.”
150. John ofjandun asks “ Whether circular motion could be infinite and perpetual.” 159. In Jubium 4, Cornaeus asks “ Whether it is repugnant to the planets [s7e//us] that they be
151. By asking “ Whether the stars [that is, stars and planets] are moved regularly and with moved simultaneously with a contrary motion, for example, from east to west and
conversely" and in dubium 5 he inquires “ Whether the planets are in fact moved with a
the motion o f their own spheres,” Oresme incorporated two questions that have been
distinguished here (see also qu. 211 in this catalog, where Oresme's question is cited contrary motion from east to west and conversely.” Because Cornaeus did not believe
in the existence o f material spheres, he speaks only o f planets, rather than spheres.
again). Although 1 have added the bracketed qualification. Droppers is the translator.
712 A PPE N D IX I C A T A L O G OF Q UESTIONS 713

185. W hether the heaven m ust be m oved tow ard on e d efin ite side, nam ely tow ard the anterior 192. primum mobile is m oved directly by G o d .
W hether the
[or forw ard side] and [m ust be m oved ] fr o m one definite side, nam ely fr o m the right 1. John ofJandun [P hy sics, bk. 8, qu. 21], 1519, 143V, col. 1-145T col. i . ‘°’
1. V e r s o r [ D e celo, bk . 2, qu . 7], 1493, 2 i r , col. 2 - 2 i v , col. 1. 2. Buridan [M etaphy sics, bk. 12, qu. 6], 15 18 , 67V, col. 1 - 6 9 V , col. 2.164
3. Conimbricenses* [ D e coelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 6|, 1598, 271-273.
186. W hether the superior orbs, and those nearer the suprem e [or outerm ost] heaven, are
m oved with a quicker daily m otion the more distant they are but w ith a slower proper
193. W heth er G o d could m ove the last [or outerm ost] sphere w ith a rectilinear m otion.
m otion.
1. Richard of Middleton [S en ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 3], 1591, 2:186,
1. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 14], 1493 , 26r, col. 2 - 2 j r , col. 1.
cols. 1-2.
187. W hether the motions o f the celestial orbs ought to increase in proportion to the distance
o f any orb to the outermost hea ven , so that j u s t as the fir st heaven is m oved w ith one 194. B y w hat are the celestial bodies m oved?
m otion, and the second w ith tw o, and the third w ith three, and the fo u r th w ith fo u r 1. Poncius [ D e coelo, disp. 22, qu. 9 ]> 625, col. 2—630, col. 1.
[m o tio n s], the increase o f m otions ought to occur p roportiona lly in relation to the distance 2. Oviedo [ D e caelo, contro. 1, punc. 1], 1640, 461, col. 2. par. 9-462, col.
[ o f an orb] with respect to the fir s t [o r outerm ost] heaven [or sp here], so that the fifth 1, par. 11.
heaven w ould be m oved w ith f i v e m otions, the s ix th w ith s ix , and so on. 3. Serbellonus* [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 4, art. 2], 1663, 2:40, col. 2-43, col. 1.
1. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 16], 1493, 28r, col. 2 - 2 9 r , col. 2.
195. W heth er the heavens or pla nets /sidera/ are m oved by intelligences or intrinsically by
188. W hether one heaven [or sphere] could be m oved w ith a m otion contrary to that o f a proper fo rm or nature.
another [sphere]. * 1. Bonaventure [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, pt- 1, art. 3* qu- 4], O p era , 1885,
1. M ichael Scot [S p here, lec. 8], 1949, 3 0 6 - 3 0 7 .
2:347-3 50.'66
2. Thomas Aquinas [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 1, art. 3], 1929-1947,
189. W hether the low er spheres o f the pla nets sh o u ld be m oved more q u ickly in their proper
motions than the superior spheres. 2:351- 354-
3. R ic h a r d o f Middleton [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 1, qu. 6], 1591 , 2:172 ,
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 2, qu . 20], 1 942 , 2 1 8 —223.
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 16], 1518 , m v , col. 2 - 1 i2 r, col. 2
col. 1 - 1 7 4 , col. 2 . 107
4. Aureoli [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 2, arts. 1 and 2], 1596-1605, 2:191,
190. W hether the precise measures o f celestial m otions are based on rational ratios [or, in col. 1-195, col. 2, and 195, col. 2-199, col. 2.,ftK
other words, w hether the celestial m otions are com m ensurable or incom m ensurable]. 5. Conimbricenses [ D e coelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 5], 1598, 264-270.
1. Oresme [ D e celo, bk . 1, q u. 24], 19 65 , 4 0 9 - 4 2 8 . 160 6. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 7], 1627, 147, col. 1-151, col. 1.
2. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 5, qu . 6, d u b i t . 10], 162 6, 332, col. 1 - 3 3 5 , col. 7. Compton-Carleton* [De coelo, disp. 4, sec. 2], 1649, 409, col. 1.
1 . ,f" 8. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m n ovu m , pars post., bk. 9, sec. 2, ch. 1, 1651, 247, col.
3. Riccioli, A lm agestum novum , pars p o s t . , b k . 9, sec. 2, ch. 6, 1 6 5 1 , 269, col. 1-251, col. 2.
I - 2 7 0 , col. 2 . ' 61 9. Bonae Spei [comment. 3, D e coelo, disp. 3, dub. 6], 1652, 12, col. 2-13,
col. 2.
19 1. W hether the heaven is m oved directly by G o d .
10. Cornaeus [De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 4, dub. 2], 1657, 504•' °
1. Bonaventure [Sentences, bk . 2, dist. 14, pt. 1, art. 3, qu. 1], O p era , 1885,
2 :3 4 5 - 3 4 6 .
163. John o f Jandun’s version reads: “ Whether the prime mover moves the primum mobile
directly.”
i6c. The question from De celo is also cited above in question 17 o f this catalog. Oresme 164. Buridan asks “ Whether it was the intention o f Aristotle and the Commentator that God
devotes only a small part o f the question (“ Whether something created de novo could be moves the primum mobile actively or only in the manner ot a final cause.
perpetuated and also whether something that existed trom eternitv could be corrupted” ) 165. For the enunciation o f question 9, Poncius ignores the question format and simply has
to the problem o f the commensurability or incommensurability o f the celestial motions “ De motu coelorum.”
(see Oresme [De celo, bk. 1, qu. 24], 1965, 422—424). Despite an almost total absence 166. Bonaventure expresses the question as “ Whether the motion o f the heaven is [caused]
ot discussion o f celestial incommensurability in his questiones, Oresme devoted entire by a proper form or by an intelligence.”
treatises (at least two: the Ad pauca respicientes and De commensurabilitate) and parts o f 167. Like Bonaventure, Richard asks whether the heaven is moved by an intelligence or a
treatises (especially his De proportionibus proportionum) to this unusual topic and appears [natural] form.
to have been the only scholastic author to do so. For references and discussion, see this 168. In the two relevant questions Aureoli asks first “ Whether a heaven is moved by an
volume, Chapter 18, Section 1.3.a. For additional references, see Oresme, Le Livre du intelligence” and then “ Whether an intelligence that moves a heaven is united to it as a
del, bk. 1, ch. 29, 1968, 197—203 and bk. 1, ch. 3°, 209—215; also Oresme, De comtnen- mover onlv, or in some [other] way, [say] as a form.”
surabilitate, 1971, 412—413 (under Le Livre du del). 169. The Coimbra Jesuits asked only “ Whether or not the celestial orbs are moved by in­
161. In this question. Amicus considers whether the celestial motions are mutually com­ telligences. "
mensurable or incommensurable. 170. Cornaeus asks “ Whether the planets are moved by their intrinsic forms." Because he
162. Riccioli asks “ Whether the periods o f celestial motions are mutually commensurable and rejected the existence o f celestial orbs, Cornaeus once again speaks only o f the motion
consist ot rational ratios, or whether indeed they consist o f irrational ratios.” o f planets.
7*4 APPEN DIX I
CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 7*5
11. Serbellonus [ D e caelo, disp. i, qu. 4, art. 3), 1663, 2:43, col. 1-44, col.
307. W heth er this consequence or conditional [statem ent] is true: I f the motor [or m over] o f
2 .17117
3
2
the heaven were in a m agnitude, it w ould m ove [that is, it w ould cause the m agnitude
12. Oddus [ D e coelo, disp. 1, dub. 19], 1672, 54, col. 2-57, col. 2 .177
to m o v e] in an in sta n t.'77
196. W hether the celestial spheres are m oved by one or by several intelligences. 1. O resm e [D e spera, qu. 9], 1966a, 174-217.
1. Michael Scot [S p here, lec. 4], 1949, 284-2X5.171
308. W heth er the eighth sphere is m oved by itself.
2. Cecco d’Ascoli [S p h e r e , ch. i j , 1949, 349-350.17417
*
5
1. O ckham [P hy sics, qu. 80], O p era philo so p hica, 1984, 6:614-616.
3. Conimbricenses* [ D e coelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 8], 1598, 276-279.
309. W heth er the heaven is m oved by i t s e lf or by another.
197. I f there is an order of n o bility in in telligen ces according to the arrangem ent o f their 1. Bacon [P hy sics, bk. 8], O p era , fasc. 13, 1935, 410-411.
m obiles w ith respect to p o s itio n .,7'
2. Pseudo—Siger o f Brabant [P/iys/cy, bk. 8, qu. 23], 1941, 226—2 2 8 . ,7H
1. Javelli [M etaphy sics, bk. 12, qu. 22], 1568, 1:898, col. 1-900, col. 1. 3. Hurtado de Mendoza [ D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 4], 1615, 373, col. 2-374, col.
198. I f the Philosopher thought that all intelligences are o f infinite strength. 1 .17"
1. Javelli [M etaphy sics, bk. 12, qu. 21], 1568, 1:897, col. 1-898, col. 1. 4. Serbellonus* [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 4, art. 1], 1663, 2:39, col. 1-40, col. 2.

199. I f an intelligence that m oves a heaven can be a true fo rm that g iv es being to that heaven. 310. W heth er nature is the p rin cip le of celestial m otion.
1. O ckham [P hy sics, qu. 123], O pera p hilo so p hica , 1984, 6:729-731.
1. Javelli [M etaphy sics, bk. 12, qu. 17], 1568, 1:889, col. 2-890, col. 2.

300. W hether the same intelligence m oves the same m obile as an efficient cause /causa 31 1. W heth er the stars are self-m oved or are m oved on ly by the motions o f their orbs.
agens/ and as a final cause /causa finalis/. 1. Bacon, D e celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 9, O p era , fasc. 4, 1913, 403-408.
2. Bonaventure [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, pt. 2, art. 1, qu. 2], O p era , 1885,
1. Buridan [.V/eftip/iysus, bk. 12, qu. 5), 151X, 67r, col. 1—67V, col. 1.
2:3 5 3 -3 54 -1X0
301. O n the num ber o f movers o f the orbs. 3. Richard o f Middleton [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 2], 1591, 2:184,
1. Cecco d’Ascoli [S p here, ch. 1], 1949, 350 -351.'''’ col. 2-186, col. 1.""
2. O ddus* [ D e coelo, disp. 1. dub. 20], 1672, 57, col. 1-60, col. 2. 4. Durandus [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 3], 1571, 156V, col. 2—1 5yr (mis­
takenly foliated as 175). col. 1.
303. W hether there are as many celestial m otions as there are intelligences; and conversely, 5. John o f Jandun (De coelo, bk. 2, qu. 13], 1552, 30V, cols. 1 - 2 .
nam ely, that there are no more celestial m otions than intelligences, nor more intelligences 6. Buridan [ D e caelo. bk. 2, qu. 18], 1942. 209-212.
than there arc celestial m otions.
7. Albert o f Saxony* [ D e celo, bk. 2. qu. 18], 1518, 112V, col. 2 - ii3 r , col.
1. Buridan [ M eta p h y sics, bk. 12, qu. 9], 1518, 71V, col. 1—73r, col. 1.

303. W hether the m over of a heaven [or sp h ere] is m oved. 8. Oresm e [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 8], 1965, 575—591.IM 2
9. Versor [ D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 12], 1493, 24V, col. 1-25V, col. 1."”
1. Michael Scot* [S p here, lec. 12], 1949, 324-325.
10. Bricot [De celo, bk. 2], i486, 21 v, col. 1.
2. Pseudo-Siger o f Brabant [Physics, bk. 8, qu. 27], 1941, 233-234.
11. Amicus [De caelo. tract. 5, qu. 7, dubit. 2], 1626, 338, col. 1-343, col. 2.
204. W hether the m overs o f celestial bodies m ove [that is, cause m otion] per accidens.
W heth er a heaven is m oved more qu ickly than [ the body of] a star [ i .e ., p la n e t],
1. John ofJandun [P h y sics . bk. 8, qu. 14], 1519, I 3 7 r , col. 1-137V, col. 2.
1. Michael Scot [S p h ere. !ec. 5], 1949- 290.
205. W hether the m overs o f the planetary orbs are [th em selves] m oved per accidens.
31J. W heth er or not the stars [that is, pla nets] are m oved, w ith the heaven [rem aining]
1. Javelli [P hy sics, bk. 8, qu. 10], 1568, 1:607, col. 1—608. col. 1.
unm oved.
306. Whether the faculty by which the intelligences move the celestial sphere differs from 1. Conimbricenses [De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 8, qu. 1], 1598. 324—327.
their understanding and will.
1. Conimbricenses [ D e coelo, bk. 2, ch. 5, qu. 7], 1598. 273-276. 177. The bracketed words are my additions to Droppers' translation.
178. Pseudo-Siger asks "Whether the mover o f a heaven is an immobile mover.”
171. Serbellonus asks only. “ How can an intelligence move celestial bodies?" 179. Hurtado asks “ Whether the heavens are moved by some intrinsic principle or by an
172. Oddus: “ Whether the heaven is moved by itself or by an intelligence.” external mover."
173. Michael Scot speaks o f movers generally rather than intelligences specifically. 180 Bonaventure asks “ Whether the luminaries [that is, planets] are moved in their orbs
with a proper motion. "
174. Cecco’s question, like Michael Scot’s, is broader, since he asks “ Whether the spheres
are moved by one mover or by several.” Although Cecco’s work is a commentary, not 18 I Richard’s question took the form “ Whether, except for the motion o f the spheres, any
celestial bodies [laminaria] are moved with a proper motion."
a questioues. he often framed responses in question form.
175. See also question 102 in this catalog. 182 This same question is also cited in question 180 o f this catalog.
170. Cecco asks, “ How many movers are there, and o f what kind are they?” 183 Versor: "Whether the planets are moved with a proper motion [that is] distinct from
the motion o f their orbs."
716 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 717

214 . W hether any orb that lacks a star [or p la n e t] can be m oved. 8. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 9], 1 4 93 . 22V, col. i - 2 3 r , col. 1.

1. B o n a v e n t u r e [Sentences, bk . 2, dist. 14, pt. 2, art. 1, qu. 3], O p er a , 1885 9. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 2], i4 8 6 , 2 i v , col. 2, an d 29r, cols. 1 - 2 .

2:354- 357- 10. Ja ve ll i [M eta p hy sics, bk . 12, q u. 23], 1568, 1:900, c ol . 1—9 01 , col. 1.
11. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 3], 1526, 16, col. 1 - 1 8 , col. 1.
2 15 . W hether any hea ven ly body is m oved circularly [w ith a proper m o tio n ], 12. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 5. cju. 5. d u b i t. 3]. 1626, 265, col. 1—270, col. 2.
1. O r e s m e * [ D e spera, q u. 13], 1966a, 2 8 2 - 3 0 3 .
13. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 32, sec. 7], 16 27 , 69, col. 1—76, col. 2.
2. M a j o r [ D e celo, bk. 2, q u. 3], 15 26 , 18, col. 2 - 1 9 , col. 1. 14. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, q u. 2, d u b . 3], 1 657 , 4 9 4 - 4 9 8 - ,,,s

2 16. W hether the heaven is m oved w ith exertion and fa tig u e .


221. M a n y th in k that, ju s t as in inferior bodies, heat and sound ex ist in celestial bodies by
1. J o h n o f J a n d u n * [ D e coelo, b k . 2, q u. 2], 15 5 2, 23V, col. 2 - 2 q r , col. 2.
reason o f m otion and light.
2. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 2, qu . 1], 1942 , 1 2 9 - 1 3 3 .
1. Pa u l o f V e n i c e , L ib er celi, 14 76 , 33, col. 2 - 3 5 , col. 1.
3. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 9], 1518 , 107V, col. i - i o 8 r , col. 2.
4. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 2], 1965, 4 4 5 - 4 6 1 . 222. W heth er celestial bodies cause sound by their m otions.
5. Pau l o f V e n ic e , L ib er celi, 14 76 , 32, c ol . 1 - 3 3 , col. 2. 1. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 4, ch. 9, O p era , fasc. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 4 0 8 - 4 1 0 .

6. Jo h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 1], 1490, 15, col. 2 - 1 7 , col. 2 2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 15], 1 5 1 8 , m r , col. 2 - 1 iiv , col. 2.
(sigs. k 2 v - k 3 v ) . 3. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 9], 1965* 5 9 I _ 603.
7. V e r s o r [ D e celo, bk . 2, qu. 1], 1493, i6r, col. 2 - i 6v , col. 2.""* 4. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 13], 1493- 25V, col. 2 - 2 6 r , col. i . ,"w

8. B r i c o t [ D e cel&, bk. 2], i48 6, i 6 v , col. 2 — r j r , col. 1. 5. B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 2], i4 8 6, 20r, col. 1 - 2 O V , c ol . 1.

9. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 5, qu . 6, d u b i t . 5 ( m i s t a k e n l y n u m b e r e d 7)], 1626, 6. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 4], 1526, 19, cols . 1—2.
3 1 1 , col. 1 - 3 14, col. 2. 7. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 9, qu. 1], 1598, 33 ° 335-
8. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 5, q u. 6, du bi t. n ] , 1626, 335, col. 1- 3 3 7 , col. 1.
2 17 . W hether violence or contrariety is the cause o f fa tig u e.
9. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 34, sec. 3], 162 7, 13 7, col. 1 — 138, col. 1.
1. O r e s m e [ D e celo, bk . 2, qu . 1], 1 9 65 , 4 2 7 - 4 4 5 .
223. W heth er the ethereal region is m oved around the elem ental.
218. W hether by its m otion the sphere o f the S u n m akes inferior [that is, su blu na r] things
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p here, lec. 4], 1949 , 279-280.
hotter than [th e m otions] o j other spheres.
1. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, bk . 2, qu. 17], 1942, 2 0 5 - 2 0 8 . ,8s 224. W hether the earth is necessary f o r the motion o j the heavens.
1. J o h n o f J a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 2, qu. 6], 1 5 5 2 , 2 6 v , cols. 1 - 2 .
2 19. W hether the S u n and M o o n ought to be m oved w ith fe w e r m otions than other planets.
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 2, qu . 21 ], 1942, 2 2 3 —225. 22s. W heth er the fo llo w in g consequence is valid: I f the heaven is m oved, therefore the earth
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, bk . 2, q u. 17], 1 5 1 8 , H 2 r , col. 2 - 1 1 2 v , col. 2. is necessarily at rest.
1. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2 , q u . 10], 1 5 1 8 , io 8r , col. 2 - i o 8 v , col. 2.
220. W hether f o r saving the celestial motions o f the p la n ets it is necessary to assum e eccentrics
and e p ic y c le s.'M
2. Oresme* [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 5], 1965, 493_5° 7 -
3. P a u l o f V e n i c e , L ib er celi, 1 4 76 , 27, col. 1 ( co nc lu s. 2).
1. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 5, ch. 13, O p er a , fasc. 4, 1913, 433-445.
2. B u r i d a n [M etaphy sics, b k . 12, q us . 10 -11], 1 5 1 8 , 73r , col. 1 - 7 3 v , col. r,
an d ” 3v , col. i - 7 4 r , col. i . ' * 7

3- A l b e r t ot S a x o n y * [ D e celo, bk . 2, q u. 7]> 1 5 1 8 , io 6r , col. 2— I07r, col. 1.


XIV. Celestial light
4. T h e m o n J u da eu s [ D e spera, qu . 23], in H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , 1 9 73 , 1 44 — 145.
5. D ’ A i l l v , 14 Q u estio n s, qu . 13, 1 5 3 1 , r6 3v-i6 4 v. 226. W hat lig ht was meant when it was said, " L e t there be lig h t” [Fiat lu x/ .
6. Paul o f V e n i c e , L ib er celi, 1476, 30, col. 1 - 3 2 , c ol . 1. 1. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e , D e universo, pt. 1 o f pt. 1, ch. 4 1 , O p era , 1674, 1:635,
7. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 3, d u b . 1-3], 1490, 2r , col. 2 - col. 2 - 6 3 9 , col. 1.
22, col. 2 (sigs. k 5 v - k 6 r ) . 18
4
5
*7
227. H o w light exists in the heaven.
1. S e r b e l l o n u s [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu. 5, <*rt. i]> 1663, 2:46, col. 1—48, col. 1.
184. Versor’s question differs from most because he asks "Whether the heaven is eternal,
immortal, moved eternally, and without fatigue.”
185. I have slightly revised and expanded my earlier translation o f this question in Grant, 188. Cornaeus includes a discussion o f eccentncs and epicycles within the framework ot a
1974, 205. question on whether the heavens are hard and solid.
[86. Cecco d’Ascoli considers this question in his De eccentricis et epicyclis, which is not in 189. More specifically, Versor inquires whether the motions o f celestial bodies and their orbs
question form (see Cecco d’Ascoli, De eccentricis [Boffito], 1906, 161-167). produce “ harmonic sounds” (sonos armonicos).
187. Buridan devotes one question (10) to epicycles (“ Whether epicycles must be assumed in 190. Aversa’s discussion o f sound forms part of a larger consideration o f qualities m celestial
celestial bodies ) and the other (11) to eccentrics (“ Whether eccentric orbs must be bodies.
assumed in the heavens” ). 191. Oresme’s enunciation o f the question is almost identical to Albert ot Saxony s.
71# A PPEN DIX I C A T A L O G OF QUESTIONS 719

228. O n corporeal light diffused in the em pyrean heaven.


PART III. QUESTIONS RELEVANT T O THE CELESTIAL AND
1. A l e x a n d e r o f H a l e s , * S unin ia theologica, inq. 3, tract. 2, q u. 2, tit. 1, m e m b .
TERRESTRIAL REGIONS
1, eh. 1, arts. 1 - 5 , 192,S, 3 2 7 - 3 3 1 .
2. H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a \ D e coelo, dis p. 2, see. 5], 1 6 1 5 , 374, c ol . 2 - 3 7 5 , col.
1. XV. On the influence of the celestial region on the terrestrial

235 ■ Whether it is necessary that this injerior world be continuous with the superior morions
229. W hether or nor the light / l u x / 0) the stars is a substantial jo rn t or even a body.
so that the total power [o f the inferior world] could be governed from there [that is,
1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, eh. 7, qu . aj, 1598, 2 9 6 - 2 9 9 .
from the celestial region].
2]0 . W hether or not the light of all the stars, and a ll light taisen as a w h o le, are of the same 1. Simon de Tunstede (Pseudo-Scotus) [Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 3], 1639, 3:6,
species.
col. 1-8, col. 1.
1. R ic h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 13, art. 1, q u. 4], 1 5 9 1 , 2: 15 8, 2. Them on Judaeus [Meteorology, bk. 1, qu. 1], 1518, 155V, col. 1—156r, col.
col. 2 - 1 5 9 , col. 2.
2. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, bk. 2. ch. 7, qu. 3], 1598, 2 9 9 - 3 0 3 . 3. Johannes de Magistris* [A'/etenro/utjy, bk. 1, qu. 2], 1490, 5, col. 1—9, col.
2 31. W hether all the planers /astra/, except the S u n , receive their light from the S u n or 1. "'7
Jrom them selves. Whether celestial bodies are the causes o f these inferior getierable and corruptible things.
236.
I A l b e r t ot S a x o n y * [ D e celo, bk. 2. qu. 20], 1 5 1 8 , 1 i q v , col. 1— 1 5V, col. 1. John ofjand un [De coelo, bk. 1, qu. 1], 1552, 2r, col. i-2 v , col. 2.
J
237. Whether or not celestial bodies act on the sublunar world.
O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 11 ], 1965, 6 3 7 - f>53
1. Thomas Aquinas [Sentences', bk. 2, dist. 15, qu. 1, art. 2], 1929-1947,
3 Paul o f V e n ic e , L ib er celi, 1476, 35, col. 2.
4 V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 11], 1493- 23V, 'ol. 2 - 2 4 r , col. 1.
2:370- 373-
2. Durandus [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 15, qu. 1], 1571, 157V, col. 1.
5 B r i c o t [ D e celo, b k . 2], i486, 22 r, col. ■ 1.
3. Javelli [Metaphysics, bk. 12, qu. 13], 1568, 1:878, col. 1-881, col. 1.
6 M a j o r [ D e celo. bk. 2, qu. 7], is 26, 20, col. 1 - 2 1 , col. 1.
7
4. Conimbricenses* [De coelo, bk. 2, ch. 3, qu. 1], 1598, 188-193.
C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo. bk . 2 ch. 7, qu. 4 ], (59>5, 3 0 3 - 3 0 7 .
8
5. Hurtado de Mendoza [De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 6], 1615, 375, col. 2-376, col.
A v e r s a [ D e caelo. qu. 35, sec. 2 , 162 7. 167 , col. 1 - 1 7 1 . col. 2 and sec.
3], 1 7 1 , col. 2 - 1 7 4 , sol. i . " 1'
1.
6. Amicus [De caelo, tract. 6, qu. 1], 1626, 348, col. 1-351, col. 2.
9 Po n c iu s [ D e coelo. disp. 22, qu. 8], 1672 , 62 5, cols. 1—2 . I>4
7. Aversa [De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 4], 1627, 174, col. 1-176, col. 2.
10 C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n [ D e coelo, di sp. 2, sec. 3 ], 1649, 402, col. 2-
-404- col.
8. Poncius [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 3], 1639, 6, pt. 2:734-738, 742-744,
and [De coelo, disp. 22, qu. ult. (qu. 10)], 1672, 630, col. 1-634, col. 2 ."“’
II C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2. qu . 4, d u b . 9], 1 6 57 , 5 1 2 .
9. Com pton-Carleton [De coelo, disp. 2, sec. 4], 1649, 404, cols. 1-2.
Wh ether all the heavens [that is, spheres / and planets /astra/ have lig h t, or [w h eth er] 10. Cornaeus [De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2, qu. 2, dub. 5], 1657, 500.
only the planets [do]; and o f the planets , w hether all o j them ha ve light. 11. Serbellonus [De caelo, disp. 1, qu. 5, art. 2], 1663, 2:48, col. 1-49, col. 2.
1. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d ub . 21 [, 1672 , 61, c ol . 2 - 6 3 , col. I. 12. Oddus [De coelo, disp. 1, dub. 23], 1672, 69, col. 1—71, col. 2.

233. W hether the light / l u m e n / received in the heavens produces colors in the heavens. 238. Whether the influence o f the heavens and the stars [or planers] rather than the power
1. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu. 5, d u b i t . 4], 1626, 368, col. 1 - 3 6 9 , col. 2. o f the mover effects the manifold changes of inferior things.
2. A v e r s a [ D e caelo. qu. 34, sec. 3], 1 6 2 7, 136, col. 2 - 1 3 7 , col. 2 . " '' 1. Case [Physics, bk. 8, ch. 6], 1599, 824-825.

234. W hether, by means of light, all planets /astra/ generate heat in interior th in g s ." ’" 239. Which celestial bodies affect inferior things?
1. B u n d a n [ D e caelo. bk . 2, qu. 15], 1942, 192-199. 1. Aversa [De caelo, qu. 35, sec. 5], 1627, 176, col. 2-181, col. 2.
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, bk . 2. q u. 21], 1518, 115V , col. 1 — n 6 r , col. 1.19
2
3
4
5
6 Whether the governance o f inferior things depends on the prim um m obile, or on the
230.
eighth sphere, or on the other seven spheres.
192. Although the topic under consideration in section 5 is "O n the light ot' the heavens."
Hurtado de Mendoza devotes most o f his discussion to the light o f the empyrean sphere. 1. Cecco d’ Ascoli [Sphere, ch. 1], 1949- 353- 354-
193. In the first o f these two questions. Aversa asks "Whether the Sun truly illuminates the
Moon, so that the whole Moon receives light from the Sun” and in the second "Whether causes heat.” (See John o f Jandun [De coelo, bk. 2, qu. 10], 1552. 2pr. col. 1-29V, col.
the Sun contributes light equally to the other planets.” 1, and Conimbricenses [De coelo, bk. 2, ch. -, qu. 5], 1598, 307-312.)
194. Poncius asks simply "Whether the stars [i.e., planets and perhaps stars] have light from 197. Since the volume is unpaginated, I have numerated each page sequentially from the
themselves.” beginning o f the Meteorology. De Magistris's De celo is also in this volume.
195. Aversa considers the colors ot celestial bodies as part o f a general section "O n the qualities 198. Thomas’s question takes the form "Whether celestial bodies have any effect on inferior
ot celestial bodies.” bodies.” In the Latin text, Unum is inadvertently substituted for L'trum.
196. Some scholastics considered this topic tangentially under the question "Whether light 199 - The same question from Poncius’s De coelo is cited in question 250 o f this catalog.
720 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 721

2 4 1. W hether or not the em pyrean heaven influences bodies subjected to it. 248. W hether the orb o f the sun could be called the cause o f generation and corruption.
1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 3, q u. 2], 1598, 1 9 3 - 1 9 6 . 1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p here, lec. 9], 1949. 3 13*
2. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 24], 1 6 72 , 7 1 , col. 2 - 7 4 , col. 1.
249. W hether celestial bodies have [that is, produce] natural effects that differ in species with
242. W hether the stars influence sublunar things by m otion, lig h t, and occult qualities. respect to corruptible bodies.
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p here, lec. 9], 1949, 3 1 4 —3 1 5 . 1. R i c h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [Sen ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 14, art. 3, q u. 5], 1 5 9 1 , 2:1 88,
2. D u r a n d u s [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 15, qu . 3], 1 5 7 1 , 1581-, col. 2 - 1 5 8 V , col. col. 1 - 1 8 9 , col. 2.
2 .200
230. W hether liv in g things could be generated by the p o w er o f celestial bodies.
3. M ajor [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 15, qu s. 6 - 7 ] , 1 5 1 9 b , 7 7 V , c ol . i - 7 8 r , col. 2,
1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 3, qu. 6], 1598, 209—21 6.
an d 78r, col. 2 - 7 9 V , col. 1.
2. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 6, q u. 8, d u bi t. 6], 1626, 42 5 , col. 1- 4 3 9 , col. 1 . 204
4. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu . 6, d u bi t. 1 and q u. 7], 162 6, 3 76, col. 1-
3. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, q u. 35, sec. 8], 162 7, 194, col. 1 - 1 9 7 , col. 2 . 203
378, col. 2, and 391 ( g i v e n e r r o n e o u s l y as 381 ), col. 1 - 3 9 8 , c ol . 2 . 2
001
4. P o n c i u s [ D e coelo, disp. 22, qu. ult. (qu. 10)], 1672 , 6 3 1 , col. 2 - 6 3 3 , col.
5. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu . 35, secs. 6 - 7 ] , 1 6 2 7, 1 81 , col. 2 - 1 8 7 , c ol . 1, a n d 187, j 20A
col. 2 - 1 9 2 , col. 2 . 202
6. B o n a e Spei [ c o m m e n t . 3, D e coelo, disp. ult. (4), d u b . 1], 16 52 , 15, col. 1 - 2 31. W hether anim als that are generated by the force o f putrid matter are o f the same species
16, col. 1 . 203 as those that bear the same name but are generated by [m eans o f ] seed.
7. O d d u s * [ D e coejo, disp. 1, d u b . 29], 1 6 72 , 100, col. 2 - 1 0 9 , c ol . 1. 1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 3, qu. 7], 1598, 2 1 6 —2 1 9 .

243. In how many ways is m otion necessary f o r producing effects on inferior things? 232. W hether, besides light and m otion, occult pow ers and qualities in the heavens influence
1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu . 6, d u b i t. i], 1626, 376, c ol . 1 - 3 7 8 , col. 2. things.
1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 3, qu. 3], 1598, 19 6—200.
244. W hether this consequence is sound: I f it is necessary that generations and corruptions
2. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu. 7], 1626, 39 1, col. 2 - 3 9 8 , col. 2.
be here below , it is [therefore] necessary that there be several celestial m otions.
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, bk . 2, qu . 10], 1942, 1 6 8 - 1 7 2 . 233. W hether inferior things depend on the heavens f o r their preservation.
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 12], 1 5 18 , 109V, cols . 1 - 2 . 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu. 8, d ub it. 1], 1626, 398, col. 2 - 4 0 4 , col. 1.
3. Pa ul o f V e n ic e , L ib er celi, 1476, 27, cols. 1 - 2 .
234. W heth er the actions o f inferior agents depend on the motion and influence o f the heavens.
4. Jo h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 2], 1490, 17 , c ol . 2 - 2 0 , col. 2
(sigs. k 3 v - k 5 r ) . 1. C a s e [Phy sics, b k . 8, ch. 7], 1599 , 8 2 8 - 8 3 1 .
2. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu. 8, d u b i t. 2], 1626, 404, col. 1 - 4 1 2 , col. 1.
5. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 5], 1493, 19V, col. i - 2 0 r , col. 1.
6. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 1, qu. 7], 15 26 , 13, col. 1 - 1 4 , col. 2. 233. W heth er celestial bodies conserve inferior things in their being and directly jo in in all

243. W hether the fir s t orb is more the cause o f generation and corruption than the motion o f their operations.
o f the pla nets in the oblique circle [or ecliptic]. 1. H e r v a e u s N a t a l is , D e materia celi, qu. 6 , in Q u o lib eta H er v e i, 1 5 1 3 , 4 5 T col.

1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S phere, lec. 9], 1949, 3 1 1 —3 1 3 . 2 - 4 7 V , col. 1.


2. A v e r s a * [ D e caelo, qu. 35, sec. 9], 16 27 , 197, col. 2 - 2 0 1 , col. 2.
246. O n the effects which are produced by the pla nets /astrisj.
1. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 25], 16 72 , 74, c ol . 1 - 7 8 , col. 1. 236. W hether a ll motions and actions o f inferior bodies w ould cease i f the celestial motions
ceased.
247. W hether different celestial bodies / lu m in a r i a / could ha ve different effects on corporeal
1. R i c h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [Sentences, bk . 2, dist. 14, art. 3, qu. 6], 1 5 9 1 , 2:1 82,
bodies.
col. 1 - 1 8 3 , col. 2 . 207
1. B o n a v e n t u r e [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 14, pt. 2, art. 2, q u. 2], O p er a , 1885,
2. H e r v a e u s N a t a l is , D e materia celi, qu. 7, in Q u o lib e ta H er v e i, 1 5 1 3 , 47 v , col.
2:3 59-3 6i .
i - 4 9 r , col. 1.
3. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 3, qu. 4], 1598, 2 0 1 —205.
200. Michael Scot and Durandus speak only o f the influence o f motion.
201. In question 6, Amicus considers only the effect o f celestial motion (“ Whether local
morion is the instrument o f the heavens for producing inferior effects” ), while in question 204. Although the pages are incorrectly numbered at this point, dubitatio 6 begins on a page
7 he concentrates on occult qualities or influences (“ Whether, besides light and motion numbered 425 and ends on one numbered 439. Amicus’s version asks “ Whether the
in the heavens, virtues and occult qualities are to be admitted as influences” ). heavens can produce perfect or imperfect living things.”
202. In these two questions, Aversa asks respectively “ Whether, and in what manner, celestial 205. The possible production o f living things by the power o f celestial bodies constitutes the
bodies affect inferior things by means o f motion” and “ Whether, and in what manner, most extensive part o f Aversa’s general question “ Which effects do celestial bodies cause
celestial bodies affect [inferior things] not only by light but by other occult powers and on inferior things” (i92> col. 2-197, col. 2).
influences.” 206. The same question is cited above in question 237.
203. Bonae Spei focuses on occult qualities - that is, “ influences” (“ Whether celestial bodies 207. Richard’s version o f this question asks “ Whether the elements could operate if the heavens
act on inferior things by means o f influences [influentias]” ) . exerted no influence on them.”
722 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 723

4. H u r t a d o d c M e n d o z a [D e coelo, disp. 2, sec. 4], 1 6 15 , 3 74, cols . 1-2. 267. W heth er the action o f the heavens extends to all fo u r qualities o f the elem ents.
5. A v e r s a [ D e caclo, qu . 35, sec. 9], 16 27 , 198, col. 2 . '" H 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu. 8, d u b i t. 4], 1626, 4 18 , col. 1 - 4 2 6 , col. 2.
6. P o n c iu s [ D e coelo, disp. 22, qu . 9], 1672, 630, col. i/ '" '
268. W heth er the pla nets /as tra j influence the vegetative and sen sitive sou l.
7. C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n [ D e coelo, dis p. 4, sec. 3], 1649, 4 1 0 ( m i s t a k e n l y g i v e n
1. O d d u s [ D e coelo, dis p. 1, d u b . 26], 1672 , 78, col. 1 - 8 7 , col. 1.
as 3 10), col. 1.
269. W heth er celestial bodies im pose necessity on the e ffects they cause [ev en ] w ith the action
257. W hether all m ixed bodies w ould naturally cease to ex ist i f the celestial m otions ceased.
o f the agent lim ited by fr e e sill.
1. H e r v a e u s N at al is , D e materia celi, q u. 8, in Q u o lib eta H erv ei, 1 5 1 3 , 49r, col.
1. H e r v a e u s N a t a l i s , D e materia celi, qu. 9, in Q u o lib e ta H ervei, 1 5 1 3 , 51 V, col.
1 - 5 i v , col. 1.
1 - 5 3 v , col. 1.
258. E very natural transmutation o f inferior things can be traced to a celestial cause.
270. W hat do celestial bodies especially effect w ith regard to hum ans, and w hat can be
1. H e r v a e u s N a t al is , D e materia celi, q u. 5, in Q u o lib e ta H er v e i, 1 5 1 3 , 43r, col.
predicted from them [that is, celestial bodies] concerning hum an affairs?
2~4$r, col. 2.
1. T h o m a s A q u i n a s [S en ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 15, qu. 1, art. 3], 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 4 7 , 2 : 3 7 4 -
2. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu . 8, d u b i t. 3], 1626, 4 1 2 , col. 1 - 4 1 8 , col. 1.
377-1'2
259. W ith respect to the heaven s, no natural effect occurs by chance. 2. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 3, qu. 8], 1 59B, 2 1 9 - 2 2 1 . ' "
1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 3, qu . $], 1598, 2 0 6 - 2 0 8 . 3. A v e r s a * [ D e caelo, qu. 35, sec. 10], 1627, 201, col. 2 - 2 0 7 , col. 2.
4. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 27], 1672 , 87 col. 1 - 9 2 , col. I . * ’4
260. W hether som e celestial bodies cause coldness in inferior things.
1. J o h n o f J a n d u n [ D e coelo, bk . 2, q u. 12], 155 2, 29V, col. 2—3or, col. 2. 2 7 1. W hether the heaven acts on the hum an intellect and w ill.
1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [Phy sics, b k . 8, qus. 1 3 - 1 4 ] , I 9 4 C 2 1 1 - 2 1 4 / ' '
261. W hether m otion per se produces heat rather than cold.
2. J o h n o f j a n d u n [P h y sics, b k . 8, qu. 6], 1519, 127V, col. i-i2 8 r, col. 2.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 2, q u. 9], 155 2, 28r, col. i - 2 8 v , c ol . 2 . 2,0
3. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e * [P hy sics, b k . 8, qu. 10], 1984, "710—7 1 3 .
2. B u r i d a n [ D c caelo, bk . 2, qu. 16], 1942,' 199—205.
3. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu . 6, d u b i t . 2], 1626, 378, col. 2 - 3 8 1 , col. 2. 272. W heth er by means o f the influences o f the stars an astronomer can predict the future
by the influen ce w hich the heaven exerts on sensitive and intellective pow ers.
262. W hether celestial m otion causes hotness in inferior things.
1. M a j o r [Sen ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 14, qu. 8], 1 5 1 9 b , 7 9 v , col. i - 8 i r , col. 1.
1. T h e m o n J u d a e u s * [M eteorology , b k . 1, qu. 6], 15 18 , i 6 o v , col. i - i 6 i r , col.
1. 273. W heth er astrologers can predict effects that are dependent on observation o j the stars.
2. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu . 6, d u bi t. 4], 1626, 387, col. 2 - 3 9 1 , col. 2 / " 1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 3, qu. 9], 1598, 2 2 2 - 2 3 3 . ' l'>
3. S e r b e ll o n u s [ D e caelo, disp. 1, qu . 4, art. 4], 1663, 2:44, col. 2 - 4 6 . col. 1. 2. A m i c u s * [ D e caelo, tract. 6, qu. 8, d ub it. 9], 1626, 450, col. 2 - 4 7 4 , col. 2.
3.. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 2. qu. 4, d u b . n ] , 16 57 , 5 1 3 - 5 1 4 . 2'7
26j . W hether every lum inous thing causes heat by its light.
4. O d d u s [ D e coelo, disp. 1, d u b . 28], 1672 , 92, col. 1 - 1 0 0 , col. 2 / '*
1. T h e m o n J u da eu s [M eteorology, b k . 1, qu. 8], 15 18 , i6 2r , col. 1 - 1 6 2 V , col.

264. W hether the S u n heats inferior [that is, lo w er] things [or bodies],
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, bk . 2, qu . n ], 155 2, 29V, cols. 1 - 2 . XVI. Place in the celestial and/or terrestrial regions
265. W hether the sphere o j the S u n heats inferior things more by its m otion [than d o] other 274. Whether place exists.
celestial spheres. 1. T o l e t u s * [Physics, b k . 4. qu. 1], 1580, 104V, col. 2 - 1 i2r, col. 2.
1. S i m o n de T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) [M eteorology bk . 1, q u. 12], 1639, 3:28, 2. A m i c u s [Physics, tract. 20, qu. 2], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 . 2:665, cols. 1 - 2 .
col. 1 - 2 9 , col. 2.
212. Thomas asks specifically “ Whether superior bodies exercise causality over the movement
266. W hether we receive heat from the S u n , or from the heaven, or by the m otion o f the
o f the free w ill.”
orb of a pla net /st e lle /. 213. The Coimbra Jesuits expressed the question more narrowly as “ Whether or not celestial
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, lec. 15], 1949, 330. 2
0
8
9
1 bodies influence the human w ill."
214. Oddus’s version asks “ Whether the celestial bodies influence the rational soul and its
208. The theme o f this question forms a small part o f Aversa’s general question “ Whether powers. ”
celestial bodies conserve inferior things in their being and directly join in all o f their 215. In these two questions, Pseudo-Siger asks “ Whether by their motion superior [that is,
operations” (197, col. 2-201, col. 2). celestial] bodies cause the operation ot the intellect” and “ Whether the motion ot the
209. The same question is cited in question 194 o f this catalog. superior [that is, celestial] bodies are per se the cause ot the w ill.”
210. John ofjandun: “ Whether iocal motion causes hotness" (An motus localis habeat cale- 216. The Coimbra Jesuits ask “ Whether astrologers can predict future contingents on the
facere). basis o f observations ot the stars. ”
211. Amicus asks “ How heat is caused in inferior things by the motion o f the heaven.” The 217. Cornaeus asks “ Whether from a conjunction o f stars, future things could be predicted."
text mistakenly numbers page 391 as 381. 218. Oddus’s version: "What could astrologers know from observation o f the stars?”
724 APPENDI X I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 725

273. W e inquire w hat pla ce is: W hether it is matter or fo rm or the space betw een the sides 7. O n a [P hy sics, b k . 4, q u. 1, art. 4], 1598, 2 i 4 r , col. z - z i y r [m istakenly
o f the container. p r i n t e d as 1 1 7 ] , col. 2.
1. B a c o n * [Physics, b k . 4], O p er a , fasc. 13, 1935, 1 7 8 - 1 8 2 . " " ' 8. A m i c u s [Phy sics, tract. 20, qu. 1, d u b i t. 9], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:658, col. 2 - 6 6 4 ,

2. O c k h a m [Physics, qu . 74], O p er a p h ilo so p h ica , 1984, 6 : 6 0 2 - 6 0 4 . c ol . i . 227


3. M a r s i l i u s o f l n g h e n [P hy sics, b k . 4, q u. 2], 15 18 , 46V, col. 1-47 1-, col. i . “ ° 9. C o r n a e u s [P h y sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), q u. 1, sec. 1, d u b .

4. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [Physics, b k . 4, q u. 6], 1984, 4 0 6 - 4 0 7 . 2) , 1 6 5 7 , 359 - 3 6 0 -


5. O h a [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 1, art. 2], 1598, 207V, col. 1 - 2 io r, col. 1. 10. S e r b e ll o n u s [P hy sics, disp. 5, qu. 1, art. 2], 1 6 57 , 1:804, col. 1 - 8 0 5 , col.

6. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [P hy sics, disp. 14, sec. 1], 1 6 1 5 , 3 2 1 , cols . 1 - 2 . “ ' 1.


7. A m i c u s [Physics, tract. 20, q u. 3, d u b i t . 1], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:666, col. 1 - 6 7 2
col. 2 . 212
278. W hat is ubi?
1. Cornaeus [P hy sics, bk. 4, disp. 3 (“ De loco et vacuo”), qu. 1, sec. 2, dub.
8. C o r n a e u s [Physics, b k . 4, dis p. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 1, sec. 1, du b.
1], 1 6 5 7 , 360.
1], 1 6 5 7 , 35 8—3 59 -
9. S e r b e ll o n u s [Physics, disp. 5, q u. 1, art. 1], 1 6 57 , 1:798, col. 2 - 8 0 3 , col. 279. W heth er u b i is som ething absolute.
2. 1. C o r n a e u s [ P h y s i c s , b k . 4, dis p. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), q u. 1, sec. 2, d u b .
10. O d d u s [Physics, bk . 4, disp. 14, art. 1], 1667, 60 1. col. 1 - 6 1 2 , col. 1. 4] , 1657, 36 4 -36 5-

276. W hether pla ce is the^ultimate [surface or term inus] o f the container. 280. W heth er besides extern al pla ce, an internal ubi ought to be adm itted in the located
1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t * [P h y sics, b k . 4, qu. 8], 1 9 4 1 , 1 5 4 — 155 . thing.
2. J o h n o f J a n d u n [Physics, b k . 4, qu . 4], 1519, 58V, col. 1-59V, c ol . 2. 1. O n a [P h y sics, b k . 4, q u. 1, art. 3], 15 98, 2 i o r , col. i - 2 i 4 r , col. 2 . 22S
3. bk. 4, qu . 1], 1520, 39V, col. 1-40V, col. 2.2
J o h a n n e s C a n o n i c u s [P hy sics, 2
10
923 2. A m i c u s [Phy sics, tract. 20, q u. 6], 1 62 6— 1629, 2:708, col. 1—7 1 0 , col. 2.
4. B u r i d a n [Phy sics, bk. 4, qu . 2], 1509, 67V, col. i -6 8 v , col. 2 .224 3. O v i e d o [P hy sics, b k . 4, c o n t r o . 15, p u n c . 4], 1640, 3 7 3 > col. 2—3 7 5 , col. 2.
5. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [Physics, b k . 4, q u. 1], 1518, 42V, col. 2-43V, col. 2. 225 4. C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n [P hy sics, disp. 34, secs. 1—5], 1649, 3 4 1 —3 4 5 . 250
6. M a r s i li u s o f l n g h e n [Physics, b k . 4, qu . 3], 15 18 , 47r, col. i - 4 8 r , col. 1. 5. C o r n a e u s [Phy sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e lo c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 1, sec. 2, du b.
7. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [Physics, b k . 4, q u . 12], 1984, 4 1 6 - 4 2 0 .
3 ] , i 6 5 7 » 3 6 1 — 3 6 4 -i5'
8. T o l e t u s [P hy sics, bk. 4, qu. 3], 1580, I i 6 v , col. i-u q r, col. 1. 6. S e r b e ll o n u s [Phy sics, disp. 5, qu. 1, art. 3], 1 6 57 , 1:805, col. 2 - 8 0 9 , col.
9. A m i c u s [Physics tract. 20, qu . 4, d u b i ts . 2 - 3 ] , 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:680, col. 2 - 6 8 6 1 . 232
col. 2 . 226 7. O d d u s * [Phy sics, b k . 4, disp. 14, art. 4], 1667, 6 2 1 , col. 1 - 6 2 4 , col. 1.

277. W hether pla ce is im m obile. 281. W heth er u b i essentially concerns pla ce and an external body.
1. J o h n o f J a n d u n [Physics, b k . 4, qu . 6], 1 5 1 9 , 61 v [ m i s t a k e n l y fo l ia te d 59V], 1. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e lo c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 1, sec. 2, d u b .
col. 1 - 6 2 V , col. 1.
5] , 1 6 5 7 , 365-"3J
2. O c k h a m [Phy sics, qu . 78], O p era p hilo so p hica , 1984, 6 :6 1 0 —6 1 1 .
3. B u r i d a n * [P hy sics, b k . 4, q u. 3], 1509, 6 8v , col. 2~ 70r , col. 1. 282. W hether, by the absolute p o w er o f G o d , any creature could lack an ub i and be now here.

4. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [Physics, b k . 4, q u. 3], 1 5 1 8 , 44r, c ol . 2~ 4 5 r , c ol . 1. 1. C o r n a e u s [P h y sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 1, sec. 2, d ub .

5. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [Physics, b k . 4, q u. 13], 1984, 4 2 0 - 4 2 2 . 10], 1 6 57 , 3 7 0 - 3 7 1 -


6 . T o l e t u s [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu . 5 ], 1 5 8 0 , I 2 0 r , col. 2 - 1 2 1 , col. 2.
283. W h eth er every being is in a pla ce.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [Physics, b k . 4, qu. 1], 1 5 1 9 , 57r, col. 2—57V, col. 1.
219. Although Bacon considers some forty-five questions on the concept o f place, only a
few are germane to this study. 2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [P hy sics, bk . 4, qu. 7], 1 5 1 8 , 47V, col. i~ 4 8 r, col. 1.
220. The versions ot Ockham and Marsilius are identical and ask only “ Whether place is the 3. M a r s i l i u s o f l n g h e n [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 7], 1 5 1 8 , 5or, col. 1—50V, col. 2.
space between the sides o f a container.” 4. Benedictus Hesse [Phy sics, bk. 4, qu. 2], 1984. 400-402.
221. Hurtado asks, “ What is an external place?”
222. Amicus asks “ Whether place is an interval, or space.”
223. Canonicus asks “ Whether place is some absolute entity, essentially the same as a surface.” 227. In tractatio 20, questio 4, dubitatio 4, Amicus also asks, “ How is immobility included in
224. Later Buridan asks “ Whether the definition o f place which Aristotle assigned is sound the concept o f place?”
in which place is called the terminus o f an immobile container” (Physics, bk. 4, qu. 4. 228. Ona asks “ Whether place is ubi. or quantity ”
70r, col. 1-70V, col. 1). 229. Amicus asks, “ What is ubi, or local presence, and how many [aspects o f it are there]?”
225. Like Buridan, by whom he may have been influenced, Albert o f Saxony also asked 230. Compton-Carleton poses five questions on che various aspects o f ubi.
(Physics, bk. 4, qu. 4, 45r, col. 1-45V, col. 1) “ Whether the definition o f place is sound, 231. Cornaeus asks “ Whether ubi is distinguished more by reason than by the things located
namely that place is the terminus o f the first immobile containing body.” [ubicata]."
226. In dubitatio 2 (680, col. 2—683, col. 1), Amicus asks “ How surface is included in the 232. Serbellonus asks “ Whether a distinct ubi could be assigned.”
concept o f place,” and in the third (683, col. 1-686, col. 2) inquires “ How place includes 233. In the next dubium, no. 6 (p. 365), Cornaeus asks again about ubi: “ Whether ubi essentially
surface in its concept, whether primarily or secondarily.” concerns the thing o f which it is the ubi."
7 26 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 727

5. Amicus [Physics, tract. 20, qu. 5, dubit. 1), 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:6 92 , col. 2 - 6 9 8 , 10. T o l e t u s [P h y sics, b k . 4, qu. 7], 1580, i 2 i v , col. 1 - 1 2 2 V , col. 2.
col. i . 2'4 11. C o n i m b r i c e n s c s [P h y sics, pt. 2, b k . 4, ch. 5, q u. 1], 1602, cols. 4 0 - 4 4 .

6. Com pton-Carleton [P hy sics, disp. 33, see. s|, 1649, 338/'" 12. O n a [P h y sics, b k . 4, q u. 1, art. 6], 1598, 2 2 ir, col. 2 - 2 2 3 v, col. -•

7. Cornaeus [Physics, bk. 4, disp. 3 (“ De loco ct vacuo” ), qu. 2, see. 1, dub. 13. C a s e [P hy sics, b k . 4, ch. 5], 1599, 4 6 3 - 4 7 3 .
14. A m i c u s [P h y sics, tract. 20, q u. 5, d u b i t. 2], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:698, col. 1 - 7 0 2 ,
1 1, 1^57, 3 7 1 -”
col. 1.
284. W hether all spiritual substances are in a pla ce.
15. O d d u s [P h y sics, b k . 4, dis p. 14, art. 6], 16 67, 628, col. 1 - 6 3 1 , col. 1.
1. Amicus [Physics, tract. 20, qu. 5, dubit. 3], 1626-1629, 2:702, col. 1-703,
col. 2. 290. W hether the orbs o f the pla nets have a place per se or per acc ide ns.

2. O ddus* [P hy sics , bk. 4, disp. 14, art. 7], 1667, 631, col. 1-633, col. 2. 1. B a c o n [P hy sics, b k . 4], O p era , tasc. 13, 1935, 2 2 1 —222.

283. W hether the w hole universe has a p la c e / ' 291. W hether the low er spheres are in a place.
1. Bacon [P h y sics , bk. 4], O p era , base. 13, 193s. 221. 1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o b B r a b a n t [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 17], 19 41, 1 6 7 - 1 6 8 .

286. IVhether the heaven has a place. 292. W hether or not each particular elem ent in the w hole w orld assumes a proper place for
1. Bacon [Physics, bk. 4], O p era , base. 13, 1935, 216. itself.
1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [Phy sics, pt. 2, b k . 4, ch. 5, qu. 3], 1602, cols. 4 4 - 5 1 .
287. W hat is the place of the heaven?
1. Bacon [Physics, bk. 4], O p era , base. 13, 1935, 217-220. 293. W hether the concavity o f the lunar orb is the place o f f re.
1. B a c o n [P hy sics, b k . 4], O p era , tasc. 13, 1935, 2 1 2 - 2 1 3 . ' 44
288. W hether, in some w ay, the heaven has a pla ce “ in w h ic h .”
2. P s e u d o -S ig e r ot B ra ba n t* [Physics, bk . 4, qu. 14], I 9 4 1 - 16 2— 163.
1. Bacon [Physics, bk. 4], O p era , base. 13, 1935, 220—221. 3. J o h n o t 'J a n d u n [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 8], 15 19 , 63V, col. 1-64V , col. 1.

289. W hether the last sphere, nam ely the suprem e [s p h e r e ], is in a p la c e .1'" 4. A l b e r t o b S a x o n y [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 6], 1 5 18 , 46V, col. i~ 4 7 r , col. 2.

1. Bacon [Physics, bk. 4], O p era , base. 13, 193s, 2 i6 - 2 i7 .2,y 5. M a r s i l i u s ob I n g h e n [P hy sics, bk. 4, qu. 6], 1 5 1 8 , 49V, col. i - 5 0 r , col. 1.
2. Pseudo-Siger o f Brabant [P/iy.Tc.>\ bk. 4, qu. 18], 1941, 168-170.440 6. M a j o r [P hy sics, b k . 4], 1526, 36V, cols. 1 - 2 . 24'

3. John ot'Jandun [P h y sics , b k . 4, qu. 9], 1519, 64V , col. 1—6 7 V , col. 2.
294. W e inquire w hat the pla ce o f air is, w hether f re or the orb ( o f f re) is the place of air.
4. Ockham [Physics, qu. 79], O p era p hilo so p h ica , 1984, 6:612-614. 2345*78
9
041
1. B a c o n [P hy sics, b k . 4], O p era , base. 13, 1935, 2 1 3 - 2 1 4 .
5. Buridan* [Physics, bk. 4, qu. 6], 1509, 7 2 c , col. 2 —72V , col. 2.
6. Albert ob Saxony [Physics, bk. 4, qu. 7], 1518, 4 7 V , col. i~48r, col. i . 2422*
3
4 -95 ■ W hether the ultim ate [surface, that is, the concave surface] of air is the place of water.
7. Marsilius ob Inghen [P h y sics , bk. 4, qu. 7], 1518, 50r, col. 1-50V, col. 1. 1. B a c o n [P hy sics, b k . 4], O p er a , tasc. 13, 19 35, 21 4.

8. Benedictus Hesse [Phy sics, bk. 4, qus. 2 and 16], 1984, 400-402 and 433 — 2. P s e u d o —S i g e r o f B r a b a n t * [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 13], 19 41, 162.

4 3 7 -^ 296. W heth er the proper p la ce o f the earth is the concave surface o f water.
9. Javelli [Physics, bk. 4, qu. 14], 1568, 1:557, col. 2-559, col. 2. 1. B a c o n [P hy sics, b k . 4], O p era , base. 13, 1935, 2 1 5 - 2 1 6 .
2. P s e u d o - S i g e r o b B r a b a n t [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 11], 1 941 , 1 5 9 - 1 6 0 .

234. Amicus expressed substantially the same question in a radically different way when he 3. J o h n o f J a n d u n [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 7], 1519 , 62V, col. 1 - 6 3 V . col. 1.
asked "Whether some being could exist that exists [i.e.. is located] nowhere.” 4. B u r i d a n [P h y sics, bk. 4, q u. 5], 1509, 70V. col. 1 - 7 - T col. 2.
235. Like Ainicus. Compton-Carleton asked “ Whether a thing could exist and be nowhere.” 5. A l b e r t ob S a x o n y [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 5]. 1518, 45V, col. i - 4 b r , col. 2.
■’ 30. Cornaeus asks “ Whether every body is in some external place.” 6. M a r s i li u s ob I n g h e n [Phy sics, bk . 4, qu. 5], 1518 , 48V, col. 2 - 49V , col. 1.
237. To ask whether the world is in a place is much the same as asking whether che last
7. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e * [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 15], 1984, 4 3 0 - 4 3 3 .
sphere is in a place (see qu. 289 in this catalog). Although questions 285 through 289
might have been conflated into one question, I keep them separate because Roger Bacon
297. W hether water and air are the natural places o j earth.
chose to list them as distinct questions.
1. M a j o r [P hy sics, b k . 4], 15 26 , 36V, cols . 1 - 2 .
238. A question tantamount to asking whether the world, or universe, is in a place (see qu.
285 in this catalog).
239. Bacon asks “ Whether the heaven has a place per se or per accidens.” 298. W hether the pla ce o f water and earth is the same.
1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 12], 1 9 4 1 , 1 6 0 - 1 6 1 .
240. Pseudo-Siger distinguishes the place o f the last sphere as either per se or per accidens.
Thus in question 18, he asks “ Whether the last [or outermost] sphere is in a place per
se” and in question 19 "Whether the last [or outermost] sphere is in a place per accidens.” 299. W hether the place o f the earth is the center [ o f the w orld] itself.
241. Ockham poses much the same question as did Bacon: “ Whether the eighth sphere is in 1. P s e u d o - S i g e r ob B r a b a n t [P hy sics, bk . 4, qu. 10], 19 41. t S 7 ~ 1 5 9 -
place per se or per accidens.”
242. Albert considers the problem under the question “ Whether everv being is in a place”
(Utrum oinne ens sit in loco), as did Marsilius o f Inghen and Benedictus Hesse (dis­ 244. Bacon’s version is somewhat broader, since he asks “ Whether the ultimate [containing
cussants 7 and 8). See also note 243. surface] o f the heaven or the ultimate [surface] o f the Moon [that is, the concave surface
243. In book 4, question 2, Benedictus Hesse considers “ Whether every being is in a place” o f the lunar sphere] is the place ot tire.
and in question 16 asks directly “ Whether the last sphere is in a place." 245. The questions in Major’s Physics are unnumbered.
APPENDI X I C ATALOG OF QUESTIONS 729

300. B y what rationale is place said to attract the located thing? 5. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [Phy sics, b k . 4, q u. 8], 1 5 1 8 , 48r, col. 2- 4 8 V , col. 2.
1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [ D e coelo, b k . 4, qu . 2 ( n u m b e r e d as 19)], 155 2, 2r, c ol . 1 - 6. M a r s i li u s o f I n g h e n [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 13], [ 5 18 , 55r, col. 1 - 5 5 v , col. 2.
2v , col. 2 . 24" 7. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e * [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 17], 1984, 4 3 7 - 4 4 2 .
2. Jave lli [P hy sics, bk . 4, qu . 2], 1568, 1:549, col. 2 - 5 5 0 , col. 2 . 247 8. T o l e t u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 10], 1580, 130V, col. 2 - i 3 3 r , col. 1.
3. A m i c u s * [ P h y sics , tract. 20, qu . 1, d u b i t . 7], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:6 5 7, c ol . 2 - 6 5 8 , 9. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [P hy sics, pt. 2, b k . 4, ch. 9, qu. 1], 1602, cols . 8 9 - 9 6 .
col. 1. 10. O h a [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 2, art. 1], 1598, 2 2 j r , col. 2 - 2 2 8 r , c ol . 1.
11. A m i c u s [Phy sics, tract. 2 1 , q u. 2, d u b i t. 1], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:740, col. 1 - 7 4 3 ,
30 1. W hether a place has the p o w er to preserve the thing located [in itj.
col. 1.
1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t * [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 4], 1 9 4 1 , 1 5 0 - 1 5 1 .
12. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, bk . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 3, d u b . 2],
2. J o h n o f j a n d u n [Phy sics, b k . 4, q u. 2], 1 5 1 9 , 5 7 v , col. 2~58 r, c ol . 1.
1657, 378.
3. B e n e d i c tu s H es se [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu . 4], 1984, 4 0 3 - 4 0 5 .
13. O d d u s [P h y sics, b k . 4, disp. 15, art. 1], 1667, 6 74, col. 2 - 6 7 9 , col. 2.
4. Jave lli [Physics, b k . 4, qu . 2], 1568, 1:549, col. 2—550, col. 2 . 2
4
6
748
5. O h a [Physics, b k . 4, qu . 1, art. 5], 1598, 2 i 7 r [ m i s t a k e n l y p r i n te d 1 1 7 ] , col. 309. W hether, i f a vacuum existed , it w ould be a privation .
2 - 2 2 i r , col. 2. 1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 14], 1 5 1 9 , 73r, col. 1-73V, col. 1.
6. A m i c u s [Physics, tract. 20, qu . 1, d u b i t . 8], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:658, co ls . 1 - 2 .
3 10 . B y w hat are bodies m oved to f i l l a vacuum and w hether such m otion is natural.
302. W hether the difference between proper pla ce and common pla ce is rightly assum ed. 1. A m i c u s [P hy sics, tract. 2 1 , q u. 3, d u b i t. 2], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:74 9, col. 1 - 7 5 2 ,
1. B e n e d i c tu s H es se [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu . 5], 1984, 4 0 5 - 4 0 6 . col. 2 . 249
2. O d d u s * [P hy sics, b k . 4, disp. 15, art. 2], 1667 , 6 79, col. 2 - 6 8 3 , col. 2.
303. W hether up and down are species, that is, w hether they are the extrem ities o f a longest
line. 3 11. W hether it is p o ssible that a vacuum be made by a natural pow er.
1. Jave lli [Physics, b k . 4, q u. 3], 1568, 1:550, col. 2 - 5 5 1 , col. 1. 1. A m i c u s [Phy sics, tract. 2 1 , qu. 2, d u b i t. 2], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:743, col. 1 - 7 4 6 ,
col. 1.

3 1 2 . O n tw o new exp erim en ts o f the Vacuists.


1. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 4], 1 6 57 , 383—
XVn. Vacuum in the celestial and/or terrestrial regions
384-
304. W hat is vacuum and w hether it can be assigned [or e x ist],
3 1 3 . F o r w hat reason is the fir s t exp erim en t [the f a ll o f mercury in a tube closed at the top]
1. C o r n a e u s [Physics, bk. 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 3, d u b . 1], 16 57 ,
made?
378. 1. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e lo c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 4, sec. 1, d ub .
2. S e r b e l l o n u s * [Physics, disp. 5, q u. 2, art. 1], 1 6 57 , 1:822, col. 1 - 8 2 5 , col.
1], 1 6 5 7 , 384.
1.
3 1 4 . H o w the authors o f this exp erim en t p ro ve that a vacuum exists in the upper part oj
303. W hether from its very nature vacuum signifies dim ensions.
the glass tube.
1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [P hy sics, bk . 4, qu. 22], 1 9 4 1 , 1 7 5 - 1 7 6 .
1. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 4, sec. 1, d u b .
306. W hether there can be know ledge about a vacuum . 3] , 1 6 57 , 3 8 7 - 3 8 8 .
1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [P h y sics, b k . 4, qu. 23], 1 9 41 , 1 7 6 — 1 7 7 .
313. W hether in this tube exp erim en t there is a true vacuum .
30/. W hether it is necessary that a vacuum ex ist. 1. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e lo c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 4, sec. 1, d u b .

1. J o h n o f j a n d u n [Physics, b k . 4, qu . 10J, 1 5 1 9 , 67V, col. 2~ 70 r , col. 2. 4] , 1 6 57 , 3 8 8 - 3 8 9 .

308. W hether it is possible that a vacuum can e x is t naturally. 3 1 6 . H o w to respond to the arguments o f the adversaries [ o j the tube e x p er im en t].

1. B a c o n [Physics, bk . 4], O p era , fasc. 13, 19 35, 230. 1. C o r n a e u s [P h y sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 4, sec. 1, d u b .

2. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 24], 1 9 4 1 , 1 7 7 - 1 8 0 . 6], 1 6 5 7 , 392- 394-


3. J o ha n ne s C a n o n i c u s [P hy sics, bk. 4, q u. 4], 1520, 42V, col. 1—43r, col. 2. 3 1 7 . H o w is the [second] exp erim en t [concerning the violen t exh au stion o f air] to be taken?
4. B u r i d a n [Physics, bk. 4, q u. 7], 1509, J 2 v , col. 2—73V, col. 2. 1. C o r n a e u s [P h y sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e lo c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 4, sec. 2, d u b .

1], 1 6 5 7 , 395- 39 6.
246. Jandun’s version asks “ Whether an inanimate body is also moved by the natural power
3 18 . H o w the Vacuists attem pt to pro ve the vacuum from this exp erim en t.
existing in a place. ”
247. Javelli encapsulates two questions in one (this and the next) when he asks “ Whether 1. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 4, sec. 2, d ub .
natural place has the power to draw to itself the located thing and to preserve and perfect 3 ], 1 6 57 , 398- 39 9-
it.”
248. See note 247, on the preceding question.
249. Amicus asks only, “ By what power are bodies moved to fill a vacuum?”
730 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF QUESTIONS 731

3/9. W hether a vacuum is foun d in this [secon d ] exp erim en t [concerning the violen t 9- A m i c u s [P hy sics, tract. 2 1 , qu. 4, d u b i t. 1], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2 :7 5 2, col. 2 - 7 5 4 ,

exh au sion of airJ. col. 2 . 2'4

1. C o r n a e u s [P/iyWa, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ 17c l o c o et v a c u o ” ), q u. 4, see. 2, d ub . 10. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, dis p. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 3. d u b . 5].

4 ]» 1^ 5 7 , 3 9 9 - 4 0 4 - 1657, 379- 3 8 0 / ”
11. S e r b e ll o n u s [Phy sics, dis p. 5, qu. 2, art. 2], 1 6 57 , 1:825, col. 1 - 8 2 9 , col.
320. H o w the arguments of the Vacuists are to he resolved. i . * 5ft
1. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 4, sec. 2, d u b .
12. O d d u s [Phy sics, b k . 4, dis p. 15, art. 3], 16 67, 684, col. 1 - 6 8 8 , col. 2 . 2S'
7], 1 6 5 7 , 4 0 8 - 4 1 0 .
326. W hether, on the assum ption o j a vacuum , a body w ould be m oved in an instant or in
32;. VHiether it is possib le that a vacuum [com e to] exist by means of supernatural fthat tim e.
is, d iv in e] pow er. 1. D u l l a e r t [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 2,], 1506, sig. o i i i , v - o v i i . r .
1. B u r i d a n [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu . 8], 1509, 73V, col. 2 - 7 q r , col. 2 . 2''0 2. Ja v e ll i [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 17], 1568, 1 :5 6 1 , col. 2 - 5 6 4 , col. 1.
2. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e * [Phy sics, b k . 4, q u. 18], 1984, 4 4 2 - 4 4 6 . 3. M a j o r [Phy sics, bk . 4], 1526, 3 8r, col. i~ 3 9 r , col. i.'-<x
3. M a j o r [P hy sics, b k . 4], 1526, 37r, col. 1—3 8r, col. i.2
5
0SI2
5
3
* 4. T o l e t u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, q u. 9], 1580, i29r , col. 2 - i 3 0 r , col. 1.
4. C on im b n cen ses [P h y sics, pt. 2, bk. 4, ch. 9, qu. 2], 1602, cols . 97-98 5. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [P hy sics, pt. 2, b k . 4, ch. 9, qu. 5], 1602, cols. 104 [m is ­
[mistakenly n u m b e re d 87-88]. t a k e n l y n u m b e r e d 9 4 ] - i o 8 [ m i s t a k e n l y n u m b e r e d 98].
5. A m i c u s [P hy sics, tract. 2 1 , qu . 2, d u b i t . 3], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:7 46, col. 1-749, 6. O n a [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu. 2, art. 3], 1598, 228r, col. i - 2 2 9 r , col. 2.
col. 1. 7. A m i c u s [Physics, tract. 2 1 , q u. 4, d u bi t. 2], 1 6 2 6 - 1 6 2 9 , 2:754, col. 2 - 7 5 8 ,
6. C o r n a e u s [P hy sics, b k . 4, dis p. 3 (“ D e l o c o et v a c u o ” ), qu. 3, d u b . 3], 1657 , col. 2 . 2'9
378. 8. O d d u s [Phy sics, b k . 4, disp. 15, art. 3], 1667, 684, col. 1 - 6 8 8 , col. 2.

322. W hether angelic p o w er could produce a vacuum in nature. 327. W heth er a violen t m otion could occur in a vacuum.
1. C o n i m b n c e n s e s [Phy sics, pt. 2, b k . 4, ch. 9, qu. 3], 1602, cols . 98-10 2 1. B a c o n [Physics, b k . 4], O p er a , fasc. 13, 1935, 234.

[mistakenly n u m be re d 88-92]. 328. W hether, on the assum ption of a vacuum in the concavity of the heaven for s k y ], the
2. C o r n a e u s * [Physics, b k . 4, disp. 3 (“ D e lo c o et v a c u o ” ), q u. 3, d u b . 4], sides of the heaven w ould come together.
16 57 , 378- 379- 1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [P hy sics, bk . 4, qu. 26], 1 9 41 , 183-184 .

323. W hether a vacuum can be assum ed below the heavens. 329. W heth er, on the assum ption o f a vacuum in the concavity o f the heaven fo r s k y ] , the
1. B a c o n [Physics, bk . 4], O p er a , fasc. 13, 1935, 2 2 4 - 2 3 0 . heaven could be m oved.
1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [Phy sics, bk . 4, qu. 27], 19 41, 1 8 4 - 1 8 5 .
324. Whether, i f a vacuum existed, up or down could be in it.
33d. W heth er one should assum e a vacuum diffused in bodies [that is, w hether one should
1. B e n e d i c t u s H e s s e [P hy sics, b k . 4, q u. 21 ] , 1984, 447-
assum e interstitial vacua].
325. W hether, if a vacuum existed , a heavy body could be m oved in it. 1. B a c o n [Physics, bk . 4], O p era , fasc. 13, 19 35, 2 3 6 - 2 3 7 .
1. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 25], 1 9 4 1 , 1 8 0 - 1 8 3 . 2’ 2
2. J o h n o t 'J a n d u n [P hy sics, b k . 4, q u. 13], 15 19 , 7 2 v , col. i ~ 7 3 r , col. iC ’
3. B u r i d a n * [Physics, bk . 4, qu . 10], 1509, 76V, col. 2 - 7 7 V . col. 1.
P A R T IV . T H E T E R R E S T R IA L [OR S U B L U N A R ] R E G IO N
4. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [P hy sics, b k . 4, q u . 11 ], 1 5 1 8 , 5or, col. 2 - s o v , col. 2.
5. M ar si liu s o f I n g h e n [P h y sics, b k . 4, q u. 12], 1 3 18 , sqr, col. 2-s_sr, col. 1.
XVIII. Between earth and moon: the elements fire, air, and water
6. B e n e d i c t u s H es se [P hy sics, bk . 4, q u. 26], 1984, 4 5 7 - 4 6 1 .
7. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [P hy sics, pt. 2, b k . 4, ch. 9, qu. 4], 1602, cols . 102-104 j j i . O n the num ber of [sublun ar] elem ents.

[m istakenly n u m bered 9 2 -9 4 ]. 1. M i c h a e l S c o t * [S p h ere, lec. 3], 1949, 2 6 5 - 2 7 0 .

8. O n a [Phy sics, b k . 4, qu . 2, art. 2], 15 98, 228r, col. i - 2 2 9 r , col. 2.


254. Like Pseudo-Siger, Amicus asks only "Whether, if a vacuum were assumed, motion
could occur in it."
250. Although Buridan asks generally “ Whether it is possible for a vacuum to exist by means 255. Cornaeus asks only “ Whether a motion could occur in a vacuum, if one existed."
of some power," his concern is specifically with God’s supernatural power to create a 256. Like many others, Serbellonus asked only "Whether a motion could occur in a vacuum."
vacuum. 257. Oddus incorporates two separate questions in one: “ Whether a body in a vacuum could
251. By asking “ Whether it is possible to assume a vacuum with regard to some power," be moved and whether such a motion would be instantaneous or successive." The first
Major phrases the question in much the same manner as did Buridan. question is relevant here; the second corresponds to the next question (326) in this catalog.
252. Pseudo-Siger omits mention o f bodies and asks only “ Whether a motion could occur 258. Specifically. Major asks "Whether a simple mobile - that is, a heavy or light simple
in a vacuum.” [body] — assumed in a vacuum will be moved in an instant or successively."
253. Jandun replaces “ body" with “ animal” when he asks “ Whether, if a vacuum existed, 259. Like Major. Amicus asks “ Whether a motion that might occur in a vacuum would be
the local motion o f an animal could occur.” successive or instantaneous.”
732 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 733
2. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 3, ch. 5, q u. 1], 1598, 4 2 4 - 4 2 9 . 337. W heth er one elem ent is the natural place o f another elem ent.
3. H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a [ O n G eneration and C o rru p tio n , disp. 6, sec. 1], 16 15 , 1. J o h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [M eteorology, b k . 1, q u. 3], 1490, 10, col. 1 - 1 3 , col.
268
464, co ls . 1 - 2 .
4. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu . 36, sec. 1], 1 6 2 7, 208, col. 1 - 2 1 0 , col. 2. 2. J a v e l l i * [P hy sics, b k . 4, qu. 15], 1568, 1: 55 9, col. 2 - 5 6 0 , col. 2.
5. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, q u. 1, d u b . 2], 1 6 57 , 51 $ .
338. W heth er one elem ent that is located in another, say as air in fir e , suffers fro m it and
332. W hat causes the location o f these elem ents? conversely.
1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 7, qu . 5, d u b i t. 2], 1626, 5 1 4 , col. 1 - 5 1 5 , col. 1. 1. Javelli [Physics, bk. 4, qu. 16], 1568, 1:560, col. 2-561, col. 2.

333. O n the d ign ity o f the elem ents in relation to one another. 339. W heth er the fo u r prim e qualities are substantial fo rm s o f the elem ents.

1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 3, ch. 5, qu . 2], 1598, 4 2 9 - 4 3 4 . 1. A u r e o l i [Sentences, b k . 2, dist. 15, art. 1], 1 5 9 6 — 1605, 2: 20 1, col. 1—204, col-

2. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 7, qu . 5, d u b i t. 3], 1626, 5 1 5 , col. 1—5 1 7 , col. 1. 2.


2. H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a [ O n G eneration and C o rru p tio n , disp. 6, sec. 3], 1 6 1 5 ,
334. O n the m agnitude o f each o f the elem ents.
466, col. 2 - 4 6 7 , col. 2.
1. S i m o n d e T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) [M eteorology , b k . 1, q u. 13], 1639, 3:29, 3. C o r n a e u s * [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 1, d u b . 3], 1 6 5 7 , 5 1 5 .
col. 2 - 3 4 , col. t . 26°
2. T h e m o n Ju dae us [M eteorology , b k . 1, q u. 5], 1 5 1 8 , 158V, col. 2 - i 6 o r , col. 340. H ea v in ess and lightness cannot be substantial fo rm s o f elem ents.

2. 1. P a u l o f V e n i c e , L ib er cell, 1476 , 4 1 , col. 1 ( co nc lu s. 2).

3. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 3, ch. 5, qu . 3], 1598, 4 3 5 - 4 3 9 . 2


6
061 34 1. W heth er the particular elem ents ha ve a f ix e d and proper place in the universe.
4. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 7, q u. 6, d u b i t. 3], 1626, 522, col. 2 - 5 2 5 , col. i . 2622
6
3 1. H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, disp. 3, sec. 5, subs ec. 1], 1 6 1 5 , 383, col.
5. A v e r s a * [ D e caelo, qu . 36, sec. 7], 1 6 2 7, 235, col. 1 - 2 3 9 , col. 2.
1 - 3 8 4 , col. 2.
2. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 7, qu. 5, d ub it. 1], 1626, 509, col. 2—5 1 4 , col. 1 . 269
333. O n the shape o f the elem ents.
3. C o r n a e u s * [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, d u b . 1], 1 6 57 , 516.
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p here, lec. 6], 1949, 2 9 3 - 2 9 4 . ' ' ”
2. T h e m o n Ju dae us [ D e spera, qu . 13], in H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , 1 9 73 , 1 3 0 - 1 3 2 . 2642
6
5 342. W hat is the place o f meteors, and where do they occur?
3. D ’ A i l l y , 14 Q u estio n s, qu . 5, 1 5 3 1 , 1 5 3 r - i 5 6 r . 2'” 1. C o r n a e u s [Tractatus Phy sicu s V I : M eteorology, disp. 1, qu. 1, d u b . 6], 1657 ,
4. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, bk . 3, ch. 8, qu. 1], 1598, 4 5 0 - 4 5 6 . 5- 6 . 270
5. H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a [ D e coelo, disp. 3, sec. 5, s ub sec . 1], 1 6 1 5 , 383, col.
1 - 3 8 4 , col. i . 2W> 3 43. W hat is the fin a l cause o f meteors?
1. C o r n a e u s [Tractatus Physicu s V I : M eteorology, disp. 1, qu. 1, d u b . 7], 1657 ,
6. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 7, q u. 6, d u b i t. 1], 1626, 5 1 7 , col. 1—5 21 , col. 2.
7. A v e r s a * [ D e caelo, qu . 36, sec. 8], 239, col. 2 - 2 4 3 , col. 2. 6— 7.

344. W heth er the matter o f all meteorological impressions is a vapor or an exh a la tio n .
336. W hether the fo u r elem ents determ ine their shapes naturally.
1. T h e m o n Ju da eu s [M eteorology, b k . 1, qu. 9], 1 5 1 8 , 162V, col. 2— 163V, col.
1. B a c o n , D e celestibus, pt. 2, ch. 3, O p era , fasc. 4, 1 9 1 3 , 349 —355.
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, b k . 3, qu . 13], 1 5 1 8 , i 2 6 v , col. 2 - i 2 8 r , col.
1.
2 . 267* 343. W hat is a vapor and exh ala tion ?
3. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 3, qu . 2], 1965 , 7 1 3 - 7 4 3 . 1. C o r n a e u s [Tractatus Phy sicu s V I : M eteorology , disp. 1, qu. 1, d u b . 3], 1657 ,

4-
260. 1 unstcdc (and Themon Judaeus, discussant 2), asked “ Whether the four elements are
continuously proportional.” 346. W hether a vapor and exh ala tion are distinguished in species from the w ater and earth
261. The Coimbra Jesuits asked “ Whether any element exceeds in magnitude the next element fro m w hich they come.
immediately below it.”
262. Amicus asks essentially the same question as did the Coimbra Jesuits: “ Whether the and so on. until arriving at the final question o f the treatise, which he describes as “ lastly”
element that contains another is greater than it. ” (ultimo) but which is really “ seventhly.” Questions 7 through 13 o f book 3 therefore
263. In this question, Michael ignores the heavens and considers only the shape o f the four may be appropriately considered as questions 1 through 7 ot book 4, because there Albert
elements. Compare d’A illy’s version in note 26$. treats o f the motions o f heavy and light bodies, whereas in the first six questions he
264. Themon asks “ Whether fire, water, and air are o f a spherical shape. ” confines himself to the heaviness and lightness o f bodies. This division corresponds to
265. D ’Ailly asks “ Whether the heaven and the four elements are spherical" (see n. 118). books 3 and 4, respectively, o f Aristotle's De caelo. For a full discussion, see Grant,
266. The entire subsection is devoted to “ The location, shape, heaviness, and lightness o f the 1991b, 211-214.
elements.” 268. De Magistris’s version o f this question reads: "Whether any inferior element is naturally
267. Although Albert divided his treatise into three parts or books (see this volume, beginning located in the concave surface ot the superior element.
o f Ch. 20; Ch. 1, n. 7) and the question cited here was numbered the thirteenth o f the 269. Amicus’s version takes the form o f a topical theme: “ On the natural place o f elements.”
third book, he began a new ordinal numeration with question 7, which he begins with 270. With the Meteorology, in Tractatus Physicus VI, the pagination o f Comaeus’s book begins
the term “ firstly." He then begins the succeeding questions with “ secondly,” thirdly,” anew.
734 A PPEN D IX I C A T A L O G OF Q UESTIONS 735
i. C o r n a e u s [ Tractatus P hy sicu s VI : X leteorology, dis p. i, q u. i, d u b . 4], 1657, 2. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, qu. 1, d u bi t. 1], 1626, 552, col. 2—559, col. 1.
4- 5- 3. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 36, sec. 2], 1627, 21 0, col. 2 - 2 1 7 , col. r. -7<

347. W hether a comet is a terrestrial vapor. 334. W hether fire is m oved circularly in the concave orb of the m oon.
1. S i m o n d e T u n s t e d e * ( P s e u d o - S c o t i i s ) [M eteorology , bk . r, q u. i<S], 1639, r. S i m o n de T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) [M eteo ro lo gy , b k . 1, qu. 7], 1639, 3:14,

3:42, col. 1 - 4 4 . col. 1. col. 1 — 16, col. 1.

2. C o r n a e u s [Tractatus Phy sicu s VI : M eteo ro lo gy , disp. 2, qu. 1, d u b . 13], 1657,


355. 1Whether fire is hot and dry.
1 2 . 271
1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, q u. i, d ub it. q|, 1626, 56 1, col. 2.

348. W hether a comet (stella comata] has a celestial nature. 336. W heth er the fo rm constituting fire is light / lu x /.
1. S i m o n d e T u n s t e d e * ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) [M eteorology , bk. 1. q u. 17], 1639, 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, q u. 1, du bi t. 5], 1626, 5 6 1, col. 2 - 5 6 2 , col. 1.
3:40, col. 1 - 4 2 , col. 1.
3?7. W heth er the fire above /that is, in itsnatural place just below the M o o n / is the same
2. T h e m o n J u da eu s [M eteo ro lo gy , b k . 1, qu . 12], 1518, 164V, col. 2 - 1 6 5 V , col.
in species as the fire below [that is, in the regions below its natural place/.
1.
1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, q u. 1, du bi t. 2], 1626, 559, col. 2 - 5 6 1 , col. 1.
3. J o h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [M eteorology , b k . 1, qu. 5], 1490, 16, col. 2 - 2 0 , col.
1. 358. W hether the elem ent o f air truly exists and in w hat m anner it is distributed in several
4. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu . 33, sec. 4], 1 6 2 7, 9 1 , col. 1 - 1 0 0 , col. 1 . 2722
7
3
4
* regions.
5. C o r n a e u s [Tractatus Physicu s VI : M eteo ro lo gy , disp. 2, qu. 1, d u b . 14], 1657, 1. A v e r s a [ D e caelo, qu. 36, sec. 3], 162 7, 2 1 7 , col. 1 - 2 1 8 , col. 2.
12-13.
359. W hether air has a nature distinct fro m other bodies.
349. W hether some comets are not som etim es o f a sublunary matter. 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, qu. 2, d u bi t. 1], 1626, 565, col. 2 - 5 6 6 , col. 2.
1. C o r n a e u s [Tractatus Phy sicu s V I : M eteo ro lo gy , disp. 2, qu. 1, d u b . 15], 1657 ,
360. O n the circular m otion o f air.
13 - 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, qu. 2, d u bi t. 2], 1626, 566, col. 2 - 5 6 3 , col. 1.

350. W hether a comer signifies the death o f rulers. 361. W hether air is naturally hot and hum id.
1. S i m o n de T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) [X leteorolog y, bk. 1, qu. 19], 1639, 3:44, 1. S i m o n de T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) [M eteorology , b k . 1, qu. 8], 1639, 3:16,
col. 1 - 4 6 , col. 2 / ' '
c ol . 1 - 1 7 , col. 2.
2. T h e m o n Ju da eu s [M eteorology , b k . 1, qu . 13], 1 5 18 , i 6 $ v , col. i — i66 r, col.
1 , 2^4 362. IVhether the m iddle region o f air is alw ays cold.

3. M a j o r * [SVntcmes, bk . 2, dist. 14, qu. irj, 1 5 1 9 b , 83V, col. 1 - 8 4 V , col. 1. 1. S im o n de T u n s t e d e * (Pseud o-Scotus) [ M eteo ro lo g y , bk . 1, qu. 9], 1639,
3:1 8, col. 1 - 2 3 , col. 1.
33/. W hether war and pla gu e can be fo r ek n o w n fro m comets and meteors. 2. T h e m o n J u da eu s [X leteorology, bk . 1, qu. 7], 1 5 1 8 , i 6 i r , col. i- i6 2 r , col.
r. C o r n a e u s [Tractatus P hy sicu s VI : M eteorology , disp. r, qu. 1, d u b . 8], 1657, 1.
7- 3. J o h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [X leteorology, b k . 1, qu. 4], 1490, 13. col. 1 - 1 6 , col.

332. W hether the M ilk y Way has a celestial nature.


1. S i m o n de T u n s t e d e * ( P s e u d o - cot us) [M eteorology , b k . 1, q u. 18], 1639, j 6j . W heth er the relatively heavy or light could rest an yw here naturally.
3:46, col. 2 - 4 8 , col. 1. 1. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 4, qu. 3], 1965, 8 2 3 - 8 4 3 .

2. T h e m o n Ju dae us [M eteorology , bk. 1, qu . 14], 1518. i66 r. col. i - i 66v , col. 364. W heth er water is m oved toward the center.
1.
1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, q u. 3, d u b i t. 4], 1626, 573, col. 2.

333. W hether fire exists in the vicinity o f the .M oon. 365. W heth er anything heavy or light can rest naturally in the m iddle o j another elem ent
1. H u r t a d o de M e n d o z a * [ D e a ie / u , disp. 3, sec. 4], 1 6 1 5 , 382, c ol . 1 - 3 8 3 , col. o f another species.
1. 1. O r e s m e [ D e celo, b k . 4, qu. 4], 1965, 8 4 3 - 8 6 5 .

j6 6 . W heth er som ething absolutely light, such as fir e , can be naturally at rest dow n.
271. Cornaeus phrases the question in its most general form: “ What is a comet?”
1. O r e s m e [ D e spera, qu. 6], 1966a. 1 1 4 - 1 3 1 . ' "
272. Aversa asks “ Whether comets are also generated and exist in the heaven.”
273. In asking “ Whether a comet signifies the death o f princes,” Simon uses stella comata.
instead ot cometa, for “ comet” and “ princes” (principum) for “ rulers” (regum). 275. Saying substantially the same thing, Aversa inquired “ Whether directly under the heaven
274. Themon uses both cometa and stella comata for “ c om et ” when he asks “ Whether a comet, and [directly] above the air, the great element o f tire exists.”
or ‘bearded star,’ signifies the death o f princes (principum), dryness, and winds, and other 276. By “ down” Oresme means at the center o f the world, which was usually taken to
bad things.” coincide with the center o f the earth (or the earth's center o f gravity).
736 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 737
3 67. B y w hat principle are the elem ents m oved? 378. W hether or not elem ents ha ve heaviness or lightness in their [natural] places.
1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 7, q u. 7, d u b i t. 1], 1626, 525, col. 2 - 5 3 6 , col. 1. 1. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 4, q u . 7], 1942, 2 6 4 - 2 6 9 . 279
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 3, qu. 3], 1 5 18 , 12 ir, col. 2 - i 2 2 r , col. 1.
368. W hether the elements are m oved w ith a rectilinear or circular m otion.
3. O r e s m e [De celo, b k . 4, qu. 1], 1965, 7 7 3 - 7 8 9 -2*0
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, lec. 6], 1949, 2 9 3 - 2 9 4 .
4. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 4, q u. 1], 15 26 , 25, col. 2 - 2 6 , col. 2.
5. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 4, ch. 6, qu. 2], 1598, 4 8 5 - 4 8 6 .
369. W hether the num ber o f fo u r elem ents could be derived in terms o f [or by arguing fr o m ]
heaviness and lightness.
3 79 . W herever any heavy or light body is placed, it is equally heavy or light.
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 4, qu . 8], 1942, 2 6 9 - 2 7 2 .
1. P a u l o f V e n i c e , L ib e r celi, 14 76, 4 1 , col. 1 ( con cl us. 3).
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 3, q u. 6], 1518 , I23r, col. 1 - 1 2 3 V , col. 1.
3. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 4, qu . 5], 1493, 40V, col. i - 4 i r , col. 1 . 277 380. W heth er any body that is hea vier than another in air is [a lso ] heavier than the same
[b o d y ] in water.
370. W hat causes the disparity o f speed in the m otions o f sublunary bodies? 1. A lb ert o f S a x o n y * [De celo, b k . 3, qu. 2], 1 5 18 , 120V, col. 2 - 1 2 ir, col. 2.
1. C o n i m b n c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 6, qu . 1], 1598, 2 8 2 - 2 8 6 .
2. P a u l o f V e n i c e , L ib e r celi, 14 76 , 4 1 , col. 1 ( con cl us. 4 ) . 281

3 71. W hether every com pound / e l e m e n t a t u m / is m oved in accordance w ith the nature o f 3 8 1. W heth er there is any sim p le elem ent not absolutely heavy or light.
its predom inant elem ent. 1. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 4, qu. 1], 1942, 2 4 4 - 2 4 7 .
1. J o h n o f j a n d u * [ D e coelo, b k . 1, qu . 9], 15 5 2, j v , col. 2 - 8 v , c ol . 1. 2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 3, qu. 1], 1 5 18 , 1 1 9 V [ m i s t a k e n l y g i v e n as
2. M a j o r * [ D e celo, b k . 1, q u. 2], 15 26 , 2, col. 2 - 4 , col. 1. 1 1 7 ] , c ol . 2 - I 2 0 V , c ol . 2.
3. O r e s m e * [ D e celo, b k . 4, q u. 2], 1965, 7 8 9 - 8 2 3 .
3 72 . W hether plenu m and void are the causes o f heaviness and lightness.
1. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 4, qu . 2], 1493 , 38V, col. i ~ 3 9 r , col. 1. 382. W heth er there is any absolu tely hea vy body and absolutely light body; and [w hether
there are] other bodies that are relatively heavy and light.
373. W hether the natural places o f hea vy and light bodies are the causes o f their m otions.
1. V e r s o r * [ D e celo, b k . 4, q u. 1], H 93, 38r, col. 2 - 3 8 V , col. 1.
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 4, qu . 2], 1942, 2 4 8 - 2 5 0 .
2. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 4, ch. 6, qu. 1], 1598, 4 8 2 - 4 8 5 . *82
2. Versor [De celo, b k . 4, qu. 4], 1493 , 40r, cols. 1 - 2 .

374. W hether heavy and light bodies are actively m oved by heaviness and lightness
[resp ectiv ely ].
1. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 4, qu . 4], 1942, 2 5 4 - 2 5 6 . XIX. The earth as a whole and as the center of the cosmos
2. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 4, qu . 3 ( e r r o n e o u s ly g i v e n as bk . 3, qu.
383. W hether the w hole earth is spherical.
9)], 1 5 18 , 124V, col. i - i 2 5 r , col. 1.
1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, lec. 6 ], 1949* 2 9 4 - 2 9 6 .
3. M a j o r [De celo, b k . 4, qu . 3], 15 26 , 27 , cols. 1 - 2 .
2. C e c c o d ’ A s c o l i [S p h ere, ch. 1], 1949, 3 6 7 - 3 6 8 .
4. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 7, qu . 2, d u b i t . 2], 1626, 492, col. 2 - 4 9 8 , col. 2 . 278
3. B u r i d a n [ D e caelo, b k . 2, q u. 23], 1942, 2 3 3 - 2 3 5 .

3 73 . W hether elements gravitate and levitate into [th eir] proper places. 4. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y * [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu. 25], 1518, 117V, col. 2 - i i 8v , col.

1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 7, q u. 7, d u b i t . 3], 1626, 5 37 , col. 2 - 5 4 3 , col. 1. 1.


5. O r e s m e [ D e spera, q u. 5], 1966a, 100— 11 3.
3 76 . W hether the shapes of absolutely hea vy and lig ht bodies are the causes o f their upward 6. T h e m o n Ju d a e u s [ D e spera, qu. 12], in H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , 19 73 , 121-
and dow nw ard motions. 130.
1. V e r s o r [ D e celo, bk . 4, qu. 3], 1493, 39V, col. i - 4 0 r , col. 1. 7. J o h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 5, d u b . 2], 1490, 26, col. 2 (sig.
k8r).
377. W hether part o f any elem ent that is assum ed outside o f its [na tu ral] pla ce could be
8. V e r s o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 18], 14 93 , 32r, col. 2-32V, col. 2.
m oved to its [natural] place.
1. R i c h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n [Sen ten ces, b k . 2, dist. 14, art. 3, q u. 4], 1 5 9 1 , 2 :1 7 9,
279. Buridan’s version is restricted to air when he asks “ Whether in its proper region [or
c ol . 2 - 1 8 1 , col. 1.
place], air is heavy or light; or neither heavy nor light. ’ Translation from Grant, I974 >
205.
277. Instead o f heaviness and lightness, Versor speaks o f “ motive qualities.” This appears to 280. Oresme asks “ Whether any element may be heavy in its own proper place.” I have
be the fifth question o f the fourth book, but is listed as the third. added “ proper” to Kren’s translation (the text has “ in proprio loco ’).
278. Amicus asks “ Whether and how motive qualities arise from active [powers].” Since the 281. Paul concludes that “ If some body is heavier or lighter than another in some element,
motive qualities are heaviness and lightness. Amicus does discuss our question 374- the same body will be heavier or lighter in any other element.”
Indeed, he includes seven questions, or dubitationes, on motive qualities, extending over 282. In their version, the Coimbra Jesuits ask “ Whether [of] two light elements [and of] two
pages 491 to 509. heavy elements, one is the lightest [body], the other the heaviest [body].”
CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S
738 APPENDIX I 739
5. Aversa [ D e caelo, qu. 36, secs. 4-5], 1627, 218, col. 2-224, col. 1, and 224,
9. Major [ D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 8], 1526, 21, col. 1-22, col. 2.
col. 1-231, col. 1 7 ' 1
10. Cornaeus [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 2], 1657, 516-518.2K3
6. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novu m , pars prior, bk. 2, ch. 1, 1651, 47-49.
384. W hether the earth is lik e a p o in t in com parison to the heaven s. 7. Cornaeus [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 1, dub. 6], 1657, 519—5227'''
1. Michael Scot [S p h e r e , lec. 7], 1949, 2987s4 389. W heth er the earth alw ays rests or is alw ays m oved in the m iddle [or center] o f the
2. Them on Judaeus [ D e spera, qu. 6], in Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, 93~94- heavens or world.
3. Conimbricenses* [ D e coelo, bk. 2, ch. 14, qu. 2], 1598, 378—381. 1. Michael Scot [S p here, lec. 7], 1949, 298-2997'''
4. Amicus [De caelo , tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 12], 1626, 607, cols. 1-2. 2. C ecco d’Ascoli [S p here, ch. 1], 1949, 358, 371-3727''4
5. Cornaeus [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. 7], 1657, 522-524. 3. John o f Jandun [ D e coelo, bk. 2, qu. 16], 1552, 31V, col. 2~32r, col. 2.
j8<5. W hether the mass o f the w h o le earth is a quantity or m agnitude that is m uch sm aller
4. Buridan [ D e caelo, bk. 2, qu. 22J, 1942, 226-233.
than certain stars fo r p la n e ts ) .
5. Albert o f Saxony* [ D e celo, bk. 1, qu. 24], 1518, ii7 r, col. 2-117V , col.
2.
1. Themon Judaeus [M eteo ro lo g y , bk. 1, qu. 2], 1518, I56r, col. 2-1 57r, col.
6. O resm e [ D e celo, bk. 2, qu. 13), 1965, 667-695, and [ D e spera, qu. 3],
1966a, 44-81.
386. H o w can the generation o f m ountains be reconciled w ith the spherical figure o f the 7. Them on Judaeus [M eteorology , bk. 2, qu. 7], 1518, 174V, col. 1—175r, col.
earth? 1, and [ D e spera, qus. 4 and 9], in Hugonnard-Roche, 1973, 76—86 and
1. Johannes de M agistris* [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 5, dub. 3], 1490, 27, col. 1 (sig. 10 5 -1 1 3 .^
kSv). 8. Johannes de Magistris [De celo. bk. 2, qu. 5], 1490, 25, col. 1-27, col. 1
2. Amicus [De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 8], 1626, 604, col. 2—605, col. 1. (sigs. k7v-k8v), and [M eteorology , bk. 2, qu. 4], 37, col. 1-40, col. 1.
9. Versor [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 17], 1493, 3ir, col. 2~32r, col. 2.
387. W hether the earth is f i x e d in the m iddle o f the w orld and has the same center o j gravity
10. Bricot [De celo, bk. 2], i486, 23V, col. 2-24r, col. 2.
and magnitude.
11. Major [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 9], 1526, 22, col. 2-24, col. 1.
1. Albert o f Saxony [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 23], 1518, 1 i6v, col. 1-1 iyr, col. 27 s-
12. Conimbricenses [ D e coelo, bk. 2. ch. 14, qu. 5], 1598, 389-391
2. Paul o f Venice. L ib e r celi, 147b, 37. col. 1-38, col. 27 s''
13. Aversa [De caelo, qu. 36, sec. 6], 1627, 231, col. 1-234, c°k -•
3. Bricot [D ec e lo , bk. 2], i486, 24r, col. 2 7 s7
14. Riccioli, A lm ag estu m novum , pars prior, bk. 2, ch. 2, 1651, 49, col. 1—50.
4. Major [Sen ten ces, bk. 2, dist. 14, qu. 12], 1519b, 84V, col. 1-S5V, col. 27 ss
col. 1 (for the earth’s centrality); ibid., ch. 3, 51, col. 1-52, col. 1; ibid.,
5. Conimbricenses* [De coelo, bk. 2, ch. T4, qu. 3], 1598, 381-384.
pars post., bk. 9, sec. 4, 408-479 (for numerous arguments for and against
6. Amicus [De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubits. 1-2), 1626, 578, col. 1—585, col.
the earth’s daily motion).
17 s''
15. Cornaeus [De coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu. 2, dub. io J, 1657, 5297'"'
388. [ T h e terraqueous sp h ere:j W hether w ater and earth m ake one globe.
390. O n the cause o f the ea rth ’s im m o b ility .
1. Albert o f Saxony [P h y sics, bk. 4, qu. 5], 1518, 46r, col. 27"° 1. Am icus [De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 6], 1626, 597, col. 2-604, col. ••
2. D ’Aillv, 14 Q u estio n s, qu. 5, 1531, 153r—156r.
3. Clavius [S p h ere, ch. 1], 1593, 133-151 and O p era , 1611, 3:57-66. 391. S in ce it is more perfect to cease from local motion than to be m oved, w hy should the
more im perfect earth rest?
4. Am icus* [De caelo, tract. 7, qu. 6, dubit. 2], 1626, 521. col. 2—522, col. 1.
1. Am icus [De caelo, tract. 8, qu. 4, dubit. 7], 1626, 604, cols. 1-2.
392. IVhether the earth shakes from the motion o f other things.
2,83. Cornaeus asks “ Whether the earth is round [romnda]."
1. Hurtado de Mendoza* [De inelo, disp. 3. sec. 5, subsec. 2], 1615. 384, col.
284. Michael Scot savs substantially the same thing in somewhat ditterent words than the
Conimbricenses. whose version I have used. 2-386, col. 2.
285. Albert asks “ Whether the earth is in the middle [or center] o f the world, located naturally
like a point with respect to the heavens.” 291. Aversa’s two questions ask respectively “ Whether, and in what manner, earth and water
286. Although Paul does not take up the question in this explicit form, he does discuss the simultaneously exist and form one globe” and "Whether, and in what manner, the
relations between the earth’s center o f gravity and its magnitude. compacted globe o f earth and water is fixed in the middle o f the w orld.”
28-. Bricot’s version reads: “ Whether it was Aristotle's intention that the center o f the earth’s 292. Cornaeus discusses the terraqueous sphere in a question titled “ Whether earth and water
gravity be the center o f the w orld.” have the same center o f gravity and magnitude."
288. Major asks onlv “ Whether the earth's center o f gravity coincides with its center ot 293. Michael only asks "Whether the earth rests naturally around the center.”
magnitude.” 294. Cecco restricts the question to “ Whether the earth is in the middle o f the heaven."
280. Amicus takes two questions, or Jubitationes, to ask the equivalent o f question 387. In 29s. In the Meteorology Themon asks “ Whether the earth's motion [fcrrenieno] is possible” ;
dubitatio 1, he is concerned about “ the place and location o f the earth," where he considers in the De spera, he asks first (qu. 4) “ Whether the earth rests naturally in the middle of
whether the earth is in the center o f the world. The second dubitatio asks “ whether the the world” and later (qu. 9) “ Whether it is more reasonable to assume that the earth is
center o f magnitude o f the earth is the same as its center o! gravity.” moved and the heaven rests than conversely."
290. The question in which Albert discusses the terraqueous sphere is titled “ Whether the 296. Cornaeus’s version asks only "Whether the earth rests in the center o f the world."
earth is in water or in the concave surtace o f this water."
740 APPENDIX I CATALOG OF Q U E S T I O N S 741
2. C o r n a e u s [Tractatus P hy sicu s V I : M eteo ro lo gy , d is p. 2, qu. 4, d u b . 1], 1657, 397. W hy does every part o f the earth not produce all things?
2 9 -3 0 .w 1. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, q u. 4, d ub it. 11 ], 1626, 607, col. 1.

398. W hether or not the earth is more depressed than the sea.
793. W hether the earth is m oved circularly [that is, around its a x is ].
1. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s * [ D e coelo, b k . 2, ch. 14, qu. 4], 1598, 3 8 4 - 3 8 8 .
1. O r e s m e * [ D e spera, q u. 8], 1966a, 1 5 4 - 1 7 3 .
2. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, q u. 4, du bi t. 3], 1626, 585, col. 1 - 5 8 8 , col. 2.
2. J o h a n n e s de M a g i s t r i s [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 5, d u b . 1], 1490, 26, cols. 1 - 2
(sig. k8r). 399. W hat produces the ebb and flo w o f the sea?
3. R ic c io l i, A lm ag estu m n ovu m , pars pri or, b k . 2, ch. 3, 1 6 5 1 , 5 1 , col. 1-52, 1. B o n a e S p e i [ c o m m e n t . 3, D e coelo, disp. ult. (4), .d u b . 2], 1652, 16, cols.
col. 1; ib id ., pars p o s t . , b k . 9, sec. 4, 4 0 8 - 4 7 9 (for n u m e r o u s a r g u m e n t s 1-2 .
fo r an d ag ai ns t the e a r t h ’s d a i l y m o t i o n ) .
400. W heth er man could [p roperly] be called a microcosm [that is, a sm all w orld, m i n o r
4. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, qu . 2, d u b . x i ] , 1 6 57 , 529.
m undusj.
394. W hether the earth is m oved w ith an oscillating m otion even to the ex ten t o f a f le a ’s 1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p here, lec. 8], 1949, 3 0 8 - 3 0 9 .
leap.
1. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, q u. 2, d u b . 12], 1 6 57 , 5 2 9 - 5 3 0 .

395. W hether the earth could be m oved w ith a C o p ern ica n m otion and w hat is a C o p em ica n
m otion fo r the earth-
1. C o r n a e u s [ D e coelo, tract. 4, disp. 3, q u. 2, d u b . 13], 16 57 , 5 3 0 - 5 3 2 .

396. W hether the w h o le earth is habitable.


1. M i c h a e l S c o t [S p h ere, lec. 11 ], 1949, 262, 3 1 7 - 3 I S . 29*
2. C e c c o d ’ A s c o l i [S p h ere, ch. 1], 1949, 3 5 6 - 3 5 7 .
3. B u r i d a n * [ D e caelo, b k . 2, qu . 7], 1942 , 1 5 4 - 1 6 0 .
4. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y [ D e celo, b k . 2, qu . 26], 1518 , i i 8v , col. 1 - 1 1 9 V [for
1 1 7 ] , col. 2.
5. T h e m o n J u d a e u s [ D e spera, qu . 22], in H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , 1 9 73 , 142-

i 4 4 -iW
6. D ’ A i l l y , 14 Q u estio n s, qu . 1 1 , 1 5 3 1 , i 6 2 r — i 6 3 r . 3°°
7. Pa ul o f V e n i c e , L ib er celi, 14 76 , 39, c ol . 1 - 4 0 , col. 1.
8. M a j o r [ D e celo, b k . 2, q u. 10], 15 26 , 24, col. 1 - 2 5 , col. 2.
9. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s [ D e coelo, b k . 2, c h. 14, q u. 1], 1598, 3 7 0 - 3 7 8 . JO'
10. A m i c u s [ D e caelo, tract. 8, q u. 4, d u b i t. 4], 1626, 588, col. 2—594, col. 2.

297. Since he is offering questions on Aristotle’s Meteorology, Cornaeus’s discussion o f the


earth's motions concerns earthquakes and volcanic activity rather than motions relevant
to astronomy, such as, for example, axial rotation or rectilinear motions o f the whole
earth.
298. On page 262, Michael first asks only whether the region under the equator is habitable;
later he asks about the entire earth.
299. In his version, Themon asks “ Whether o f the four quarters [of the earth] only the northern
is habitable.”
300. Folio i62r is mistakenly foliated as i7or. D ’Ailly asks “ Whether only one o f the northern
quarters [ot the earth] is habitable” (utrum solum una quartarum septentrionalium sit
habitabilis), by which he seems to mean whether only one o f the four quarters ot the
earth is habitable. The question is based on Sacrobosco’s division o f the earth into four
equal quarters by a circle following the equatorial circle o f the earth which is intersected
at right angles by another circle on the earth's surface running from east to west and
also passing through the poles o f the world. Sacrobosco declares that only one o f these
quarters is habitable (see Sacrobosco, Sphere, ch. 3, 1949, n o [Latin] and 138-139 [En­
glish]). D ’Ailly seems to inquire whether Sacrobosco is correct.
301. The Coimbra Jesuits enunciated a broader question than most when they inquired, “ What
is the earth’s magnitude, what are the earth’s divisions, and what are its inhabited parts?”
ANATOM Y OF C O S M O L O G Y 743
3. William o f Auvergne (ca. 1180-1249; D S B , 14:388-389)
APPENDIX II D e u ni verso
4. Roger Bacon (ca. 1219-ca. 1292; D S B , 1:377-385)

The anatomy of D e celestibus


Q u estio n s on the E ig h t B o o ks o f the Physics
5. Saint Bonaventure (1221-1274; Gilson, 1955, 685, n. 7)

medieval cosmology — C om m en ta ry on the Sentences


6. Thom as Aquinas (ca. 1224/25-1274; D S B , 1:196-200)

the significance of the C o m m en ta ry on the Sentences


7. Pseudo-Siger o f Brabant (fl. 2nd halt 13th c.; see Ch. 4, n. 14)

<(Catalog of Questions ” Q u estio n s on the P hysics


8. Robertus Anglicus (fl. ca. 1271; Sarton, 1927-1948, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 993~994)
C om m en ta ry on the S p h ere o f Sacrobosco

in Appendix I 9. Richard o f Middleton (fl. 2nd half 13th c.; Gilson, 1955, 695-696, n. 46)
C om m en ta ry on the Sentences
10. G odfrey o f Fontaines (d. 1306; Gilson, 1955, 739, n. 95)
Q u o d lib ets I I, I V , and V

Fourteenth century
Before discussing the scope and significance o f the list o f questions in Appendix I,
I shall describe the basis o f its construction. This is best achieved by first listing the 11. Peter Aureoli (d. 1322; Gilson, 1955, 476-480, 777, n. 91)
authors and works from which the questions were drawn. T o the extent feasible, C om m en ta ry on the Sentences

their names are presented here chronologically, in the order in which their relevant 12. Hervaeus Natalis [Harvey o f Nedellec] (ca. 1260-1323; Gilson. 1955, 747-748,
work(s) were composed or published. Where dates o f composition or publication n. 124)
D e materia celi
o f medieval works are unknown, as is often the case, the birth and death dates o f
13. Cecco d’Ascoli (1269-1327; Sarton. 1927-1948, vol. 3, pt. 1, pp. 643-645)
the authors determine the order. For printed works published between the late
C om m en ta ry on the S p h e re o j Sacrobosco
fifteenth and the seventeenth century, dates o f publication are provided, in paren­
14. Durandus de Sancto Porciano (1270/75-1334; Gilson, 1955, 473-476, 774, n.
theses. immediately following each title. Although little biographical data are avail­ 80)
able for most authors, a source for such data is furnished, follow ing the date tor C om m en ta ry on the Sentences
each author and within the same parentheses. (Am ong the sources, D S B represents 15. John o f Jandun (ca. 1285-1328; Gilson, 1955, 522-524, 797, n. 62)
the Dictionary o f Scien tific B iog rap hy). References to numbered questions in the “ Cat­ Q u estio n s on D e coelo
alog o f Questions" in Appendix I are in the form "qu. n, ” where " q u .” represents Q u estio n s on the P hysics
“ question" and n is any number between i and 4.00. 16. Johannes Canonicus (1st half 14th c.; Lohr, 1970, 183-184)
Q u estio n s on the P hysics
17. William o f Ockham (ca. 1290-1349; D S B , 10:171-175)
Q u estio n s on the P hysics
18. Jean Buridan (ca. 1300-ca. 1358; D S B , 2:603-608)
I. Chronological list of authors and works on which the
Q u estio n s on D e caelo
“ Catalog of Questions” is based
Q u estio n s on the P hysics
Q u estio n s on the M etap hysics
Thirteenth century 19. Simon de Tunstede (Pseudo-Scotus) (d. 1361; Sarton, 1927—1948, vol. 3, pt. 2,
pp. 1568-1569)
1. Michael Scot (d. ca. 1235; D S B , 9:361-365)
Q u estio n s on the M eteorology
Com m entary on the S p h ere o f Sacrohosco
20. Albert o f Saxony (ca. 1316-1390; D S B , i: 93_95)
2. Alexander ot Hales (ca. 1170-1245; Gilson, 1955, 327-329)
Q u estio n s on D e caelo
Snm m a theologica
Q u estio n s on the Physics

742
744 A PPEN D IX II
A N A T O M Y OF C O S M O L O G Y 745
21 . N i c o l e O r e s m e (ca. 1 3 2 0 - 1 3 8 2 ; D S B , 1 0 :2 2 3 - 2 3 0 )
C om m en ta ry on the S p h ere o f Sacrobosco (4th e d. , 1593; O p era 1 6 1 1 , v o l . 3; 1st
Q u estio n s on D e celo
ed., 1570)
Q u estions on the S phere
34. Fr an c is c us T o l e t u s ( 1 5 3 2 - 1 5 9 6 ; L o h r , 1988, 4 5 8 —4 61)
22. T h e m o n Ju da eu s (ca. 1 33 0- d . after 1371; H ugonnard-Roche, 19 73 , 11-23;
Q u estio n s on the Phy sics (1580; 1st ed. 1574)
Sarton, 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 4 8 , vo l . 3, pt. 2, 1 5 3 9 - 1 5 4 0 )
35. G a l i l e o G a l il e i ( 1 5 6 4 — 1642; D S B , 5 : 2 3 7 - 2 4 9 )
Q u estions on the M eteorology
Q u estio n s on D e caelo (ca. 1590)
Q u estions on the S p h ere
36. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s , or C o i m b r a Jesuits (Loh r, 1988, 98—99)
23. Mar silius o f In g h e n (d. 1396; D S B , 9 : 1 3 6 - 1 3 8 )
Q u estio n s on D e coelo (1598; 1st ed. 1592)*
Q u estio n s on the P hy sics'
Q u estio n s on the Phy sics (1602; 1st ed. 1592)
24. Pierre d ’ A i l l y ( 1 3 5 0 - 1 4 2 0 ; D S B , 1:84)
37. Pe te r d e O n a ( 1 5 6 0 - 1 6 2 6 ; L o h r , 1988, 294)
Q u estio n s on the S p h ere o j Sacrohosco
Q u estio n s on the Phy sics (1598)
38. J o h n C a s e (Johannes C a s u s ) (ca. 1 5 4 6 - 1 6 0 0 ; L o h r , 1988, 8 5 - 8 6 )
Q u estio n s on the Phy sics (1599)
Fifteenth century

25. Paul o f V e n i c e ( 1 3 6 9 / 7 2 - 1 4 2 9 ; D S B , 10:419-421)


Q u estio n s on D e celo (L ib er celi et mundi) Seventeenth century
26. B e n e d i c tu s H ess e o f K r a k o w (fl. 1st h a l f 15th c.; L o h r , 19 74, 126 -128)
Q u estio n s on the Physics 39. P e d r o H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a ( 1 5 7 8 — 1 651 ; L o h r , 1988, 19 4— 195)

27. Jo han nes de M a g i s t r is (fl. 2n d h a l f 15 th c.; Lo h r , 1 9 7 1 , 2 5 7 - 2 6 1 ) Q u estio n s on D e coelo (1 6 1 5 )


Q u estio n s on D e celo Q u estio n s on the Phy sics ( 16 1 5 )
Q u estio n s on the M eteorology Q u estio n s on O n G eneration and C orruption ( 1 6 1 5 ; all are in the s a m e p u b li c a ­
28. Joha nne s V e r s o r (d. after 1482; L o h r , 1971, 290-299) tion)

Q u estio n s on D e celo 40. B a r t h o l o m e w A m i c u s ( 1 5 6 2 - 1 6 4 9 ; Lo h r , 1988, 1 3 - 1 4 )

29. T h o m a s B r i c o t (d. 1 5 1 6 ; L o h r , 19 73 , 173-178) Q u estio n s on D e caelo (1626)


Q u estio n s on D e celo (i486 ) Q u estio n s on the Phy sics ( 16 2 6 — 1629)
41. R a p h a e l A v e r s a (ca. 1 5 8 9 - 1 6 5 7 ; L o h r , 1988, 2 4 - 2 5 )
Q u estio n s on D e caelo ( 1 6 2 7 [ v o l . 2])

Sixteenth century 42. R o d e r i g o de A r r i a g a ( 1 5 9 2 - 1 6 6 7 ; L o h r , 1988, 2 1 —22)


Q u estio n s on D e caelo (1632)
30. Jo han nes D u l la e r t (ca. 1 4 7 0 - 1 5 1 3 ; D S B , 4 : 2 3 7 - 2 3 8 ) Q u estio n s on the P hy sics (1632 ; b o t h w o r k s in s a m e p u b li c a ti o n )
Q u estio n s on the Physics (ed. 1506) 43. J o h a n n e s P o n c i u s ( 1 5 9 9 - 1 6 6 1 ; L o h r , 1988, 362)
31 . C h r y s o s t o m u s Jave lli ( 1 4 7 0 / 7 2 - c a . 1538; L o h r , 1988, 2 0 2 - 2 0 4 ) C om m en ta ry on the Sentences (1639)
Q u estio n s on the Phy sics ( c o m p l e t e d 1533; O p era , 1568) Q u e stio n s on D e coelo (1 6 7 2 )
Q u estio n s on the M etap hysics (O p era , 1568) 44. B ar th o lo m ae u s M astrius ( 1 6 0 2 -1 6 7 3 ; Lohr, 1988, 2 4 9 - 2 5 0 ) an d B o n a v e n t u r a
32. J o h n M a j o r ( 1 4 6 7 / 6 8 - 1 5 5 0 ; D S B , 9 :3 2—33, w h e r e the b i r t h d a te is g i v e n as B e l lu t u s ( 1 6 0 0 - 1 6 7 6 ; L o h r , 1988, 3 7 - 3 8 )
1469) Q u estio n s on D e coelo (1640)
Com m entary on the Sentences ( 1 5 1 9 ) 45. F ran cis cu s de O v i e d o ( 16 0 2— 1 6 51 ; Lo h r , 1988, 295)
Q u estio n s on the Physics (1526) Q u estio n s on D e caelo (1640)
Q u estio n s on D e celo (15 26 ; P hysics an d D e celo are in s a m e p u b li c a ti o n ) Q u estio n s on the P hysics (1640; b o t h w o r k s in s a m e p u b li c a ti o n )
33. Christo pher C la v iu s ( 1 5 3 7 - 1 6 1 2 ; D S B , 3 :3 1 1 - 3 1 2 ) 46. T h o m a s C o m p t o n - C a r l e t o n (ca. 1 5 9 1 - 1 6 6 6 ; L o h r , 1988, 9 7 - 9 8 )
Q u estio n s on D e coelo (1649)
1. Despite the attribution o f the printed edition o f Lyon, 1518 (see Bibliography), to Marsilius, Q u estio n s on the P hy sics (1649; b o t h w o r k s in s a m e p u b li c a ti o n )
doubts have been raised about his authorship. (Clagett, 1959, 615, n., says cautiously that 47. G i o v a n n i B a p t is t a R i c c i o l i ( 15 9 8 — 1 6 7 1 ; D S B , 1 1 : 4 1 1 —41 2)
the text is ‘‘believed by some to be by Marsilius o f Inghen” ; Lohr, 1971, 333, includes it A lm ag estu m novum ( 16 5 1 )
in the “ doubtful” category o f Marsilius’s works.) Indeed, the same text was also falsely
attributed to Duns Scotus in the Luke Wadding edition o f Scotus’s Opera omnia (Lyon,
1639), vol. 2. I am grateful to Dr. Hans Thijssen (Katholieke Umversiteit, Nijmegen) for
2. Although the Coimbra Jesuits published their Aristotelian commentaries under the col­
first alerting me to the improbability o f Marsilius’s authorship. For convenience, however,
lective authorship o f the name “ Conimbricenses” between 1592 and 1598, the De caelo
it will be assumed here that the text is by Marsilius and was composed in the fourteenth
commentary was actually the work o f Emmanuel de Goes (1542-1597) and first appeared
century.
in 1592.
746 APPENDIX II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 74-

48. Franciscus Bonae Spei (16 17-16 77)’


Q u estio n s on D e coelo (1652)
Q u estio n s on the P hysics (both works in same publication)
49. Melchior Cornaeus (1598-1665; Som m ervogel, 1890-1911, 2:cols. 1467-1472)
Q uestiotis on D e coelo (1657)
Q u estio n s on the P hy sics ( 1 6 57)
Q u estio n s on the M eteorology (1657; all three treatises or sections in same
publication)
50. Sigismundus Serbellonus (d. ca. 1660)4
Q u estio n s on the P hysics (vol. 1, 1657)
Q u estio n s on D e caelo (vol. 2, 1663)
51. George de Rhodes (1597-1661; Som m ervogel, 1890-1911, 6:cols. 1721-1722)
Q u estio n s on D e coelo (1671)
52. Illuminatus Oddus (d. 1683)’
Q u estio n s on the P hysics (1667)
Q u estio n s on D e caelo (1672)

The 52 authors just listed furnished 400 questions for the “ Catalog o f Ques­
tions” from a total o f 67 treatises, a number that expands to 76 if we count as
independent works the separate sections o f the various single publications devoted
to questions on two or more o f Aristotle's relevant w orks/’ T o determine whether
we have an appropriately representative sampling o f authors, works, and questions

3. According to the Biographic nationale de Belgique, 30 vols. (Brussels, 1866-1959), 3:500,


Franciscus Bonae Spei, or Franchise de Bonne-Esperance. was actually named Crespin.
He was born in Lille and died in Brussels. In 1635, he entered the Carmelite Order, and
taught theology and philosophy at Louvain. He is the author o f numerous works on over the span o f five centuries, it will be helpful to examine each o f these
theology and natural philosophy. I am grateful to Danny Burton for discovering this entry. categories.
4. O f the man Sigismundus Serbellonus, virtually nothing is known other than what can be
gleaned from the title pages and prefatory material o f his twro-volume treatise. There is
an uninformative mention ot him in Zedler, 1732—1750, 37:col. 340, where we read “ Ser­
bellonus (Siegmund) von ihm ist in Druck vorhanden Philosophia, II Tomi Mavland [i.e.,
Milan] 1657 in Fol.” From the title page o f Serbellonus’s two-volume work Philosophia II. Authors
Ticinensis, we learn that he was in the order o f the Regular Barnabite Clerics o f the
Congregation o f Saint Paul (“ ex clericis regularibus Barnabitis Congreg. S. Pauli'/ of From the chronological list just given, we may conclude that the spread o f authors
Ticino (in Switzerland, near the Italian border); indeed, he was a professor o f sacred over the five centuries is reasonably balanced: 10 in the thirteenth; 14 in the four­
theology in the college ot that order in Ticino. In the preface to the second volume in teenth; 5 in the fifteenth; 9 in the sixteenth; and 14 in the seventeenth centurv.
1663, written by the bishop o f Ticino, we are informed o f Serbellonus’s death. Because
the piefatory sections o f the first volume were written by Serbellonus himself, we may Although only 5 authors have been included from the fifteenth century, 4 are well-
conclude that he was probably alive when the first volume was printed in 1657 and that known scholastic names and typical representatives o f scholastic thought. If we use
his death occurred sometime between the publication o f the first and second volumes, the year 1500 as an arbitrary, but not inappropriate, point o f division between the
perhaps around 1660. The work is unmistakably a cursus philosophies (see n. 6 o f this
appendix) in the seventeenth-century mode. medieval and Renaissance periods, 29 o f our authors fall into the former category
5. Iluminatus Oddus was a Sicilian from Collesano who became a member o f the Capucine and 23 into the latter.
order and, for a while, taught philosophy and scholastic theology at Messina. He also As with other physical subjects, medieval opinions on cosmological matters were
preached for his order. It is said that he was nearly deaf and could hear only if a tube was
placed in his ear. See Zedler, 1732—1750, 25.C0I. 445. I am grateful to Professor Charles largely shaped by famous masters, most o f whom were theologians trained in both
Lohr for sending me the reference to Oddus. natural philosophy and theology.7 Their opinions were appropriated, disseminated,
o. For example, Thomas Compton-Carleton, who, in his Philosophia universa, included ques­ and perpetuated by hordes o f lesser, often obscure, teachers. For this reason, the
tions in separate, abbreviated sections on Aristotle’s De caelo and Physics', or Melchior
Cornaeus, who, in his Curriculum philosophiae peripaceticae, included separate sections on list includes many o f the great names in scholastic natural philosophy. Thus for the
the De caelo, Physics, and Meteorology. A book that included questions or commentaries on
a range ot Aristotle s works w'as know'n as a cursus philosophies. Such works were tairly 7. Three notable exceptions are John o f Jandun, Jean Buridan, and Albert o f Saxony, all ot
common in the seventeenth century. whom were masters ot arts.
748 APPENDIX II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 749

F i g u r e 15. Sai nt T h o m a s A q u i n a s . F r o m a f i f t e e n t h - c e n t u r y p a i n ti n g
b y Ju st u s o f G h e n t , w h i c h w a s b a se d o n an earlier c o p y .

C o i m b r a Jes uits ( C o n i m b r i c e n s e s ) , w h o s e c o m m e n t a r i e s an d q u e st io n s o n the w o r k s

o f A r i s t o t l e w e r e p o p u l a r in the s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y . N o t o n l y w e r e these au th or s
w e l l k n o w n in the M i d d l e A g e s a n d R ena iss anc e, b u t m o d e r n sch olars h a v e also

F ig u r e 14. V i n c e n t o f B e a u v a is . “ M in ia tu re f r o m Jea n de V i g n a y ’ s s h o w n a c o n t i n u i n g interest in their ideas.

trans lation o f V i n c e n t d e B e a u v a i s ’ Miroir Historial, V i n c e n t in his s t u d y B y co n tra st , o f the 14 a u th o r s r e p re se n t in g the s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y , o n l y G i o v a n n i


(enlarged); F lem ish , late 1 5 th c. M S . R o y . 1 4 . E - I . (v ol. I), fol. 3r. Trust­ B a p t is t a R ic c io l i, w h o w a s an e m i n e n t a s t r o n o m e r and p h y si c is t, is w e l l k n o w n to
ees o f the British M u s e u m ." ( A s d e s c r i b e d in Jo a n E v a n s , e d . , T h e F lo w ­ m o d e r n his tor ia ns o f sci ence. * T h i s is p a r t ly att ri bu ta bl e t o the fact that the treatise
ering o f the M id d le A g es [ L o n d o n : T h a m e s & H u d s o n , 1966], 192.) o n w h i c h his f a m e rests, the A lm a g estu m novum, is an a s t r o n o m i c a l w o r k , n o t an
A r i s t o t e l i a n c o m m e n t a r y , a l t h o u g h it in c lu d e s n u m e r o u s q ue st io ns in the sc h ol a st ic
th ir te e n th and fo u rt ee n th cent urie s, R o g e r B a c o n , T h o m a s A q u i n a s , J o h n o f j a n d u n , m o d e . T h e o t h e r 13 a u th or s are v i r t u a l l y u n k n o w n t o d a y and w e r e e v e n in their
W i l l i a m o f O c k h a m , Jean B u r i d a n , N i c o l e O r e s m e , A l b e r t o f S a x o n y , a n d Pierre

d ’ A i l l y are in c lu d e d. Ind eed, this is also true fo r the s ix t e e n t h c e n t u r y , w h i c h is treatises in his earlier career. For that reason, and because o f his fame, he is included in
rep re se n te d b y J o h n M a j o r , C h r i s t o p h e r C l a v i u s , G a l i l e o / and the w i d e l y k n o w n our list.
9. A substantial discussion o f Riccioli’s treatment o f the problem o f fall in the latter's A l­
magestum novum appears in Kovre, 195$, 349—334. For Kovre’s earlier paper on Riccioli,
8. Although Galileo is not usually thought o f as a scholastic author, he did write scholastic see Kovre, 1953, 222—237.
ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y
750 APPENDIX II 751

Following Galileo’s assault and the triumph o f Copernicanism over Aristotelian


cosm ology in the second half o f the seventeenth century, scholastic cosmological
treatises were little read; by the twentieth century, they were neither read nor studied.
Historians o f science and natural philosophy know little more about them than the
few arguments that had been refuted by the victors and accidentally preserved." In
the course o f this study, I have sought to show that scholastic Aristotelians ranged
from steadfast defenders o f the status quo to those who actually came to oppose
important elements o f the Aristotelian system, replacing them with new ideas and
observations derived from their opponents. Aristotelian cosm ology in the seven­
teenth century was far from monolithic.
Overall, the authors on whose w orks I have drawn to represent scholastic cos­
m ology constitute a good sampling o f opinions on relevant cosmological problems
for the nearly five centuries during which the medieval cosmos functioned as the
dominant world view in western Europe.

III. Works

In Chapter 2, I briefly described the kinds o f literature that contained relevant


cosmological questions. Contributions from most o f them appear among the 400
questions in Appendix I. From the Aristotelian corpus, questions have been drawn
from questiones on the D e caelo, P h y sics, M eteo ro lo gy , M etap hysics, and even two
questions concerning O n G eneration and C o rru p tio n . Questions have also been ex­
tracted from commentaries on the Sentences o f Peter Lombard and from tw o types
o f treatises with the basic title Q u estio n s on the S p here. The first type follows the
order and content o f Sacrobosco’s O n the Sphere and is therefore called Q u estio n s on
The second type has little in common with Sacrobosco’s
the S p h e re o f Sacrobosco.
treatise other than a similarity o f titles. Although works in this second type may
induce some o f Sacrobosco’s themes, they do not follow the order o f his treatment
Figure 16. Nicole Oresme in his study, w ith an armillary sphere in the and contain numerous questions that have no counterpart in Sacrobosco’s treatise.
foreground. Miniature from O resm e’s French translation o f Aristotle’s Works in this group are referred to simply as Q u estio n s on the S p h e r e .'1 Other types
D e caelo. (Bibliotheque Nationale, M S. fr. 565, fol. ir.) o f questiones, bearing titles such as D e materia celi ( O n C e le stia l M a tte r ),'’ Q u o d lib e t,'*

own time known largely, if not solely, in scholastic circles. The disappearance o f 11. In a relevant and perceptive passage, James R. Moore declares (1979, 114): "In science as
these authors from works o f modern scholarship may be attributed to a lack o f in war, history is written by the victors. Those who first embraced a new science are
interest in Renaissance Aristotelianism, which scholars o f the past tw o centuries styled as precursors o f the latest orthodoxy. Those who stubbornly clung to the old are
featured as historical curiosities. One group is absorbed, the other is absurd.” Seventeenth
have usually portrayed - when they have considered it at all - as a rigid, monolithic century scholastics did not even rise to the status o f “ historical curiosities.” They paid
body o f traditional medieval ideas that in the seventeenth century gained notoriety the ultimate price: banishment from the pages o f history and virtual oblivion. See Grant,
solely for its obstinate opposition to the em erging new science. Few did more to 1984b, 65 and 1985a, 427.
12. For example, by Nicole Oresme and Themon Judaeus. Sacrobosco’s treatise was not in
promote and foster these attitudes than Galileo, w ho, in the D ia lo g u e on the T w o the form o f questions; only some o f the commentaries on it were. For the difference
his major attack on Aristotelian cosm ology, made his character
C h i e f W orld System s, between Oresme's Sphere and Sacrobosco's, see Droppers’ remarks in Oresme [De spent],
Simplicio the stereotype o f the dull-witted, unimaginative, unyielding scholastic 1966a. 304-308.
13. The treatise is by Hervaeus Natalis.
defender o f the indefensible.,J10 14. From Godfrey o f Fontaines. In truth, the De materia celi o f Hervaeus Natalis is a quodlibetal
question, one o f a number, as is evident from the title o f his work Quolibeta Hervei (see
Hervaeus Natalis, 1513).
10. For details, see Grant, :985a. 418-4.19.
752 APPENDIX II
ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 753
and Sum tna th e o lo g ic a l are re p res en ted b y o n e treatise eac h. R e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s h a v e
D e caelo b u t is n o t s o titled, sta nd s as the sole re p re se n t a t iv e fo r the thirt een th
also been e x t ra ct e d f r o m separate treatises tha t are n o t f o r m a l l y in the g e n r e o f
c e n t u r y . A n u m b e r o f the treatises listed u n d er D e caelo fo r the s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y
questiones b u t w h i c h d o c on t ai n q u e st io n s . In this g r o u p are t he treatises D e universo
are n o t f u l l - b l o w n , in d e p e n d e n t questiones b u t briefer, se le c t iv e t r e a t m e n t s in w h i c h
b y W i ll i a m o f A u v e r g n e and R i c c i o l i ’ s A lm a g estu m novum .
a s m a ll e r n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s is d i s c u s s e d . 22
D e s p i t e their im p o r t a n c e , questiones are b y n o m e a n s the e x c l u s i v e s o u r c e for
A l t h o u g h 25 P hy sics treatises are in c l u d e d in o u r s a m p l e - o n e m o r e tha n the total
m e d ie v a l c o s m o l o g y . S t r a i g h t f o r w a r d c o m m e n t a r i e s o n t he w o r k s o f A r i s t o t l e also
o f D e caelo treatises - the latter g r o u p c o n t r i b u t e d 221 q u e s t io n s to o n l y 1 1 6 fo r the
p la y a s ig n if ic an t role. A l t h o u g h c o m m e n t a t o r s f r e q u e n t l y r e m a i n e d c o n t e n t m e r e l y
f o r m e r , f r o m w h i c h w e m a y c o n c l u d e that d u r i n g the late M i d d l e A g e s and R e ­
to e x p la in the m e a n i n g o f A r i s t o t l e ’ s te x t, s o m e in t e g r a t e d ideas f r o m o t h e r s our ce s
nai ssa nc e q u e st io n s o n the P hy sics w e r e s e c o n d in i m p o r t a n c e to q u e s t io n s o n D e
and g e n e r a ll y en r ic h ed the c o m m e n t a r y tra di tio n . The m o s t influ ent ia l w a s the
caelo. O f the 25 P hy sics treatises, 2 w e r e in the th ir tee n th c e n t u r y , 6 in the fo u rt ee n th ,
c o rp u s o f A r is to te lia n com m entaries by t he Arab com m entator Averroes (ibn
1 in the fi fteenth, 7 in the s ix t e e n t h , a n d 9 in the s e v e n te e n t h .
R u s h d ), w h o s e c o m m e n t a r i e s o n all o f the w o r k s r e le v a n t t o c o s m o l o g y ( D e caelo,
T h e t e m p o r a l d is t r i b u t i o n o f b o t h o f the se crucial treatise t y p e s , D e caelo and
Phy sics, M etaphysics, and M eteorology) w e r e t ra ns la te d f r o m A r a b i c t o L a t i n . ,ft A m o n g
P hy sics, a n d the n u m b e r and q u a l i t y o f the au th or s w h o c o m p o s e d t h e m are m o r e
c o m m e n t a r i e s b y Latin au th or s, t w o o f the m o s t i m p o r t a n t w e r e b y A l b e r t u s M a g ­
than a d e q u a t e to g u a r a n te e i n c lu s io n o f the k in d s o f c o s m o l o g i c a l q u e s t io n s that
nus and T h o m a s A q u i n a s . ' 7 O n o c c a s io n , a c o m m e n t a r y c o n t a i n e d m u c h tha t w as
sc h o la st i c natural p h i l o s o p h e r s c o n s i d e r e d i m p o r t a n t e n o u g h to insert in their trea­
or igi nal , as in the case o f N i c o l e O r e s m e ’ s F r e n c h c o m m e n t a r y o n his o w n Fr e nc h
tises o v e r a p e r io d o f s o m e fi v e cent uri es. B e c a u s e o f the s t r o n g l y tr a di tio n al nature
translation o f A r i s t o t l e ’,s D e caelo (see O r e s m e , L e L iv r e du d e l, 1968). M a n y issues
o f questiones, in s p e c t i o n o f a d d it io n a l treatises is n o t l i k e l y to re ve al m a n y m o r e
that w e r e t ake n u p as par ticular q u e s t io n s in t he questiones litera ture w e r e also dis­
s i g n if ic a n t q u e s t io n s b e y o n d t h o s e al re a d y in c o r p o r a te d in the “ C a t a l o g o f Q u e s ­
cuss ed in c o m m e n t a r ie s . P r o b l e m s treated in c o m m e n t a r i e s are t h e re fo r e w e l l rep­
t i o n s . ” T h e n u m b e r o f w o r k s , the ir t e m p o r a l d is tr ibu tio n , a n d the q u a l i t y o f the
resented in the questiones . 18
a u th o r s p r o v i d e as su ra nc e that t he q u e s t io n s sele ct ed f r o m D e caelo an d Physics
O f the 76 treatises e x a m i n e d , 19 11 w e r e w r i t t e n in the t h i r t e e n th c e n t u r y , 20 in
treatises a p p r o p r i a t e l y repre sen t c o s m o l o g y as it w a s t y p i c a l l y d e p i c t e d in those
the fou rte en th, 6 in the fiftee nth , 13 in the s i x t e e n t h , a n d 26 in t he s e v e n te e n t h .
treatises.
M o r e im p o r t a n t , h o w e v e r , is the r a n ge o f re p re se n t a t io n a n d t e m p o r a l d is tr ib u ti o n
O f the r e m a i n i n g t y p e s an d g e n re s, the m o s t s ig n if ic an t are the q u e st io n s f r o m
o f the w o r k s . F or the m o s t i m p o r t a n t c o s m o l o g i c a l treatise, D e caelo, 24 d iff ere n t
c o m m e n t a r i e s o n the Sentences o f P e te r L o m b a r d an d the q u e s t io n s o n the Sphere,
autho rs c o n t r ib u t e d 24 diff ere nt v e rs io n s an d a to tal o f 22 1 q u e s t io n s . T h e s e treatises
e s p e c i a l ly t ho se o n S a c r o b o s c o ’ s S p h ere. T h e n u m b e r o f treatises re p re se n t in g each
are d is tri bu ted o v e r the cen turies as f o l l o w s : 1 in the t h i r t e e n t h ;' 0 4 in the fo u rt ee n th ;
4 in the fifteenth; 3 in the s ixt e en th ; an d 12 in the s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y (for titles
and Caius College, Cambridge) attributed to Thomas de Bungeye (fl. 1275), a Franciscan
and authors, see the list in S e c t io n I o f this a p p e n d i x ) . J u d g i n g f r o m L o h r ’s c a t a l o g ,
friar (see Lohr, 1973, 178—179). Because very few questions are specified or identifiable
n o treatise classifiable as a questiones o n D e caelo has s u r v i v e d f r o m the th ir tee n th in Bernard Parker’s edition o f the first book o f this treatise (see Thomas de Bungeye
c e n t u r y . 2' T h u s R o g e r B a c o n ’s D e celestibus, w h i c h is a k i n t o a q u e s t io n s treatise o n Parker], 1969), it does not seem to qualify as a genuine questiones treatise. In his description
o f the contents o f the first book, Parker regularly characterizes the treatise as a commentary
and so identifies it in the title o f his edition. Roger Bacon’s De celestibus is tar more a
1$. By Alexander o f Hales. questiones treatise than is Bungeye’s work. Parker also mentions (15) another apparent
16. See Averroes. Aristotelis opera, 1562-1574, vols. 4, 5, and 8. thirteenth-century manuscript treatise (MS. 344, also in Gonville and Caius College,
17. Both wrote important commentaries on De caelo, with Albertus providing an unusually Cambridge) that bears the title Questiones super librum De celo et mundo. I have not examined
rich mass o f detail, drawn from a variety o f sources. See Albertus Magnus [De caelo]. this unedited work.
Opera, 1971, vol. 5, pt. 1. and Thomas Aqumas [De caelo], 1952. In the fourteenth century, 22. For example, Sigismundus Serbellonus subdivided his section, or single disputation (“ Dis-
Walter Burley wrote an important commentary on the Physics (1501). Although Aquinas’s putatio umca” ), on De caelo into five major questions, which were then subdivided into
commentaries bear the title Expositio rather than Commentaria, the difference between an twenty-two articles phrased in the form o f questions; Thomas Compton-Carleton pre­
exposition and a commentary was often difficult to determine. Where the commentator sented fifteen questions (each called a sectio) spread over four disputationes on De caelo. In
was content merely to explain the text, the work might be called an “ exposition” (ex­ his section on De caelo, Franciscus de Oviedo offered a controversia unica, which he sub­
position where he offered his own opinions, the text might be more appropriately described divided into four basic questions, or puncta. Under a section titled “ Disputations on
as a commentary. The distinction, however, is only marginally useful, because the terms Incorruptible. Corporeal Substance, or On the Heavens” (“ Disputationes de substantia
expositio and commentaria were often used interchangeably. corporea incorruptibili, sive De caelo” ), Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza included three dis­
18. The encyclopedias mentioned in Chapter 2, Section III.6, are also important sources of putationes. The first two consider the nature, essence, and properties o f the celestial region
cosmological discussion. So too are occasional summary accounts, as for example, that and contain eleven questions, or sectiones. The third disputation, which contains seven
by Johannes Bernardi Velcurio (Veltkirchius) (d. 1534), who provided a clear and concise questions, or sectiones. is on the Creation in six days and bears the heading “ De coelorum
description o f the universe (see Velcurio [Physics], 1554). et mundi productione sive de opere sex dierum.” Because Hurtado chose to place his
19. Where questions on more than one work o f Aristotle’s are included in the same volume, discussion on the Creation within the category o f questions on De caelo (On the Heavens),
each is counted as a separate treatise. I shall also subsume those seven questions under De caelo. What has been said here about
20. Roger Bacon’s De celestibus. De caelo in the seventeenth century applies also to the rest o f Aristotle’s works on natural
21. A Questiones super libros de celo et mundo exists in a single manuscript (MS. 509 in Gonville philosophy.
754 APPENDIX II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 755
type, however, is r e la t iv e ly sma ll , 7 for ea ch . T h e t e m p o r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n is also r e g i o n . T h e d i v i s i o n o f the w o r l d in t o celestial an d terrestrial parts, sep a ra te d b v

irregular. F or the c o m m e n t a r i e s on the Sen ten ces, 3 w e r e c o m p o s e d in t he thirt een th the c o n c a v e s ur fa ce of the luna r sphe re, w h i c h rep re se n te d the i n n e r m o s t , o r l o w e s t ,

c e n t u r y , 2 in the fo u r t e e n th , r in the s ix t e e n t h , a n d i in the s e v e n t e e n t h . T h e fi fteenth part o f the celestial re g i o n , and t he c o n v e x surf ac e o f the s p h e re o f fire, which

c e n t u r y is un re p re se n t ed . A simil ar sit u at io n o b t a in s for q u e s t i o n s o n the Sphere. rep re se n te d the u p p e r m o s t surf ac e o f the terrestrial z o n e , w a s u n d o u b t e d l y the m o s t

T w o w e r e c o m p o s e d in the t h ir te e n th c e n t u r y , 4 in the f o u r t e e n t h ( o f the se, 2 are s i g n if ic a n t p h y s i c a l d is ti n c t io n tha t A r i s t o t l e m ad e . In d ee d , he d i v i d e d the D e caelo

ge n era l c o m m e n t a r i e s , an d 2 are c o m m e n t a r i e s o n S a c r o b o s c o ’ s S p h e r e), a n d 1 in i t s e l f a l o n g these lines, w i t h its first t w o chap ter s d e v o t e d to the celestial r e g i o n and

the s ix t e en t h , l e a v i n g g a p s in the fi fte e nt h a n d s e v e n t e e n t h ce n tu ri e s. B y the s e v ­ the last t w o t o the terrestrial. T h a t A r i s t o t l e e m p h a s i z e d the celestial o v e r the ter­

e n t e en t h c e n t u r y f e w , i f an y , q u e s t io n s o n the S p h e r e w e r e w r i t t e n . ' 3 B u t e v e n w i t h restrial r e g i o n is e v i d e n c e d b y the fact that the f o r m e r part is a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o

these t e m p o r a l ga p s, a s u ffi c ie n t n u m b e r of b o t h k in d s o f treatises are in c l u d e d and an d a h a l f t im e s l o n g e r than the latter. T h i s d is p a r i ty w a s p re s e r v e d , a n d e ve n

a d e q u a t e l y spread o v e r the fi v e cent uri es of this s t u d y , so th a t w e can b e r e a s o n a b ly e x t e n d e d , b y m o s t s ch o la st i c c o m m e n t a t o r s . F o r e x a m p l e , in their q u e s t io n s o n D e

c o n fi d e n t o f a p r o p e r s a m p l i n g o f q u e s t io n s in the “ C a t a l o g o f Q u e s t i o n s . ” A l t h o u g h caelo, J o h n o f j a n d u n c o n s i d e r e d a tot al o f $7 q u e st io n s , 54 o f w h i c h w e r e c o n fin e d-


s o m e o f the q u e s t io n s in the r e m a i n i n g treatises are im p o r t a n t , the w o r k s t h e m s e l v e s to the first t w o b o o k s , thus g e n e r a t i n g a ratio o f 18 to 1; Jean B u r i d a n d e v o t e d 49

p la y e d a m u c h s m a ll er role in m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y , as e v i d e n c e d b y the r e la t iv e ly q u e s t io n s t o the first t w o b o o k s an d o n l y 10 to the third an d fo u rt h , m a i n t a in in g

m o d e s t n u m b e r o f q u e s t io n s w hich they contribute. W ith in this g r o u p are the n ea rl y a 5 to 1 ratio; and, fi na lly , w i t h a 43 t o 13 split, A l b e r t o f S a x o n y represents

questiones o n the A r i s t o t e li a n treatises M eteo ro lo g y , the O n G en era tio n and C o rru p tio n , a s l i g h t l y b e tte r than 3 t o 1 ratio. T h i s d is p a ri ty w a s p r e se rv ed in the R en ais san ce

and the M etaphysics; the Q u o d lib eta , w h i c h also in c lu d e s H e r v a e u s ’s D e materia celi; w h e n the C o i m b r a Jesuits, at the e n d o f the s ix t e e n t h c e n t u r y , in c lu d e d 56 q u e st io n s

and the i n d e p e n d e n t w o r k s by W illiam o f Auvergne, A l e x a n d e r o f H al e s , and o n the first t w o b o o k s an d o n l y 6 o n the last t w o .

G i o v a n n i B a p t is t a R i c c io l i that h a v e be e n m e n t i o n e d . O f the se, R i c c i o l i ’s A lm ag estu m In the c a t a l o g , the la rg e i m b a l a n c e b e t w e e n celestial to terrestrial q u e s t io n s is n ot

novum p r o v i d e s the la rg e s t n u m b e r o f q u e s t io n s , m o s t o f w h i c h are a k in to q u e st io n s as great. T h e m e s V I I to X I V are e x c l u s i v e l y d e v o t e d to the celestial r e g i o n and

on D e caelo. In dee d, n u m e r o u s q u e s t io n s f r o m t he se au th or s are s im il a r to q u e st io n s in c l u d e 1 5 7 q u e st io n s (qus. 7 8 - 2 3 4 , inc lu s iv e ). T h e final t h e m e s , X V I I I an d X I X ,

d r a w n f r o m s o m e o f the m a j o r c at e go ri es o f treatises. F or e x a m p l e , m a n y q u e st io n s are c o n c e r n e d w i t h the terrestrial r e g i o n an d co n t a in 70 q u e s t io n s (qus. 3 3 1 - 4 0 0 ,

in W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e ’ s D e universo are a p p r o p r i a t e to D e caelo, w h i l e t h o s e in in c lu s iv e ) . T h e ratio o f celestial t o terrestrial q u e s t io n s is thu s 2.3 to 1 and w h i l e it

A l e x a n d e r o f H a l e s ’ s Sum m a theologica differ little, i f at all, f r o m t h o s e in the s e c o n d is less tha n tha t f o u n d in the D e caelo q u e st io n s o f B u r i d a n and A l b e r t o f S a x o n y , ' 4

b o o k o f a t y p ic a l c o m m e n t a r y o n the Sentences. it c l o s e l y reflects A r i s t o t l e ’s e m p h a s i s o f the celestial o v e r the terrestrial. A l t h o u g h

Enough has now been said about the works that were consulted. We must now the 2.3 to 1 ratio is c o n s i d e r a b l y less than that f o u n d in q u it e a n u m b e r o f q u e st io n s

see what themes the questions contained, tor only then can w e determine the foun­ o n D e caelo, it n o n et h el es s pre se rv es the m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g i c a l tra dit io n, w i t h its

dations on which this studv has been based. g r ea te r e m p h a s i s o n the celestial r e g i o n than on the terrestrial.
A l t h o u g h the 400 q u e s t io n s a s s e m b l e d here repres en t the s c o p e and d e p t h o f this

s t u d y , t her e is o b v i o u s l y n o c a n o n i c a l n u m b e r ot q u e st io n s that c o m p r i s e s the ra w


data fo r a p r o p e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y . T h e 400 q u e st io n s represent
IV. The questions
t he e n d result o f a s el e c tio n p ro ces s that c o n t in u a l ly requir ed d eci sio ns fo r incl us io n

Fo r c o n v e n i e n c e , the 400 q u e st io n s listed in A p p e n d i x I h a v e b e e n o r g a n i z e d in or e x c l u s i o n . It is n o w t im e to e x p l a i n that process, as w e l l as the ov era ll o r g a n i z a t io n

te rm s o f nin ete en t o p ic s that e n c o m p a s s m o s t , i f n o t all, o f the c h i e f t h e m e s o f o f the q u e st io n s .

m edieval c o s m o l o g y T h e s e to p ics fall in t o t o u r m a j o r s u b d i v i s i o n s w h i c h co rr e ­

s p o n d to Parts I and II o f this s t u d y . ( For an e x p l a n a t i o n , see C h . 1, Sec. II. 1 and


1. Organization o f questions
n. 7.) W i t h the e x c e p t i o n of a f e w q u e s t io n s o n celestial c o r r u p t i b i l i t y o r i n c o r r u p ­
t ib il i ty (qus. 12— 14), the cre atio n o f s pe c ifi c h e a v e n s and stars (qus. 5 1 , 53), an d the A s al r e a d y n o t e d , the q u e st io n s i n c lu d e d in the c a t a l o g are d r a w n f r o m m a n y authors.

c o m p o s i t i o n o f the h e a v e n s (qu. 75), t h e m e s I t h r o u g h V I , c o m p r i s i n g Pa rt I, in c lu d e w h o s e w o r k s sp a n e i g h t d ist in ct c at eg or ies o f schola sti c literature, and f r o m three

7 7 q u e st io n s o f w h i c h 71 (i.e., 7 7 — 6) are o n the w o r l d , o r u n iv e r s e , as a t ot al it y


24. The smaller ratio o f celestial to terrestrial questions in my list is perhaps attributable to
and address q u e s t io n s a b o u t its e te rn it y , c re a t io n , the p o s s i b l e e x i s t e n c e o f t hi ng s
the fact that most seventeenth-century scholastics who wrote questions on De caelo (with
b e y o n d it, i n c l u d i n g o t h e r w o r l d s and v o i d spa c es , its p e r f e c t i o n an d fin it ud e , as the notable exception o f Amicus and perhaps also Aversa) included far fewer questions
w e l l as the k in d s o f b o d i e s that fill its d iff e re n t parts. than their medieval predecessors. In numerous instances, their questions on De caelo
formed but one part o f a work in which questions were also posed about three or four
T h e r e m a i n i n g t op ic s ( V I I - X I X ) c o n c e r n the cel estial r e g i o n a n d / o r t he terrestrial 2
3
other Aristotelian treatises. If an author included a total o f 12 or 13 questions on De caelo,
3 or 4 might be allocated to the terrestrial region, leaving only about 8 or 9 for the celestial
23. The same may be said o f commentaries on the Sentences (see Ch. 2, 11. 34). region. The ratio o f celestial to terrestrial questions thus decreased dramatically.
756 APPENDIX II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 757
treatises that lie ou ts id e t h o se ca t e g o ri e s b u t p l a y a role in this s t u d y . S im i la r and s h o u l d b e a s s u m e d [to exist] b e y o n d the n in t h s p h e r e ” ;27 w h i l e A l b e r t inquires
related q ue st io ns are g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r in the c a t a l o g u n d e r n in e te e n c o n v e n i e n t “ W h e t h e r e v e r y h e a v e n is m o b i l e , or w h e t h e r w e m u s t a s s u m e s o m e h e a v e n that
h e a d i n g s. O f 400 q ue st io ns , 186 w e r e d is c u s s e d b y m o r e than 1 a u th o r . F o r each is at r e s t . ” B e c a u s e o n l y the e m p y r e a n h e a v e n w a s r e g u l a r l y t h o u g h t to b e at rest,
s u c h qu e sti o n, I cite the au th or s w h o d is cu s s ed it, u s in g the r o u g h l y c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n d all 6 au th or s w h o treated the q u e s t io n w e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the p o s s i b le e x i st e n c e
o r d e r in w h i c h t h o se n a m e s ap p e ar in the list o f au th or s p r e s e n t e d in S e c t i o n I o f o f an i m m o b i l e h e a v e n , it s ee m s rea so n a bl e to a s s u m e that d es p it e the a b se n c e o f
this ap p e n d i x . F o r e x a m p l e , 22 au th or s t rea te d q u e s t io n 9 7 (“ O n t he n u m b e r o f the t e r m “ e m p y r e a n , ” t h e y w e r e all t re at in g the s a m e s u b s t a n t i v e q u e s t i o n . 28 T h e
sph eres, w h e t h e r there are e i g h t or nine, or m o r e o r le ss” ) a n d g a v e t w e n t y - t h r e e reader m a y the re fo r e a s s u m e that all au th or s listed un d er a p ar tic ula r q u e s t io n h a v e
res ponses. ( P o n c iu s t o o k up the q u e s t io n in t w o d iff e re n t t y p e s o f treatises). T h e d e v o t e d all or part o f that q u e s t io n t o the s a m e p r o b l e m , a l t h o u g h t h e y m a y h a v e
au th or s ra n ge f r o m T h o m a s A q u i n a s in the 1250s t o I l lu m i n a t u s O d d u s in 1 6 72 , a e x p r e s s e d t he q u e st io n i t s e l f in a v a r i e t y o f w a y s . 29
p e r i o d o f o v e r 400 years. F u r t h e r m o r e , the s a m e q u e s t io n w a s d is c u s s e d in fo u r By co n t ra s t , s o m e q u e st io n s s e e m at first g l a n c e s im il ar in c o n t e n t b u t differ
k in d s o f treatises, n a m e l y c o m m e n t a r i e s o n the S en ten ces , tractates o n the S p h e r e , s u f f i c i e n t l y t o w a rr a n t separate entries. T h i s is e s p e c i a l ly true o f q u e st io n s d ea lin g
q u e st io n s on D e caelo, and R i c c i o l i ’s A lm a g estu m novum . w i t h the first t h e m e , c o n c e r n i n g the e te r n i ty o f the w o r l d an d the c o r r u p t i b i l i t y or
W o r k s are c ite d in es s en tia lly the s a m e s h o r t f o r m u s e d in the n ot es . T h e full i n c o r r u p t i b i l i t y o f the celestial re g i o n . A lth ou gh the first fo u r q u e s t io n s app ear
b i b l io g r a p h ic a l i n f o r m a t i o n fo r an a u t h o r ’ s w o r k appears o n l y in t he B i b l i o g r a p h y . s u b s t a n t i a l ly the sa m e, t h e y h a v e be e n a c c o r d e d sepa rate status b e c au se o f s o m e w h a t
F o r c o n v e n i e n c e o f reference, the q u e st io n s h a v e be e n n u m b e r e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y f r o m d if fe re n t e m p h a s e s.
t he first to the last top ig , rather than s e q u e n t i a l l y w i t h i n each t op ic . It is a p p a r e n t that in c o m p i l i n g this l e n g t h y list o f qu e st io n s , t w o k in d s o f j u d g ­
m e n t s h a d c o n s t a n t l y to be m ad e : w h e t h e r t w o d if fe r e n tl y w o r d e d q u e st io n s w e r e

s u b s t a n t i a l l y the sa m e, and t he re fo r e t o be r e c o r d e d u n d e r the s a m e q u e st io n ; or


w hether they w e r e s u ff ic i e n t ly d iff e re n t to req uire separate entries. Th is was a
2. On similarities and differences among questions
d if f i c u lt task, and s o m e errors o f j u d g m e n t m a y h a v e bee n m ad e .

A m o n g the dis cus san ts o f a g i v e n q u e st io n , the n a m e o f th e a u t h o r w h o s e q u e s t io n


has been sele ct ed to rep resent that q u e s t io n in the c a t a l o g is in d ic a t e d b y an asterisk,
sin ce the fo r m s in w h i c h au th or s fr a m e d their v e rs io n s o f t he q u e s t i o n of t e n d i f f e r . 25 j. Criteria for inclusion and exclusion o f questions
T h u s in q u e s t io n 9 7 the trans lation o f t he m o d e l q u e s t i o n w a s m a d e f r o m A l b e r t
B e f o r e d e c i d i n g similarities and d if fe ren ces a m o n g q u e st io ns , it w a s essential to
o f S a x o n y ’ s v e rs io n , and in q u e s t io n 78 f r o m Jea n B u r i d a n 's . T h e s e d if fe re n c es are
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e a p p r o p r i a t e at all fo r a list o f q u e st io n s o n m e d i e v a l
s o m e t i m e s trivial, as in q u e s t io n 173 w h e r e D u r a n d u s d e S a n c t o P o r c i a n o asks
c o s m o l o g y . H er e, o f cour se, m y o w n c o n c e p t o f m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y is crucial. In
“ W h e t h e r celestial m o t i o n is n a t u r a l, ” w h i l e M i c h a e l S c o t ask s “ W h e t h e r celestial
the b r o a d e s t sense, o n e m i g h t i n c lu d e e v e r y t h i n g tha t h a p p e n s in the c o s m o s . T h e
m o t i o n is nat ural or v i o l e n t ” an d J o h n C a s e in q ui re s “ W h e t h e r t he m o t i o n b y w h i c h
a b s u r d i t y o f s u ch an a p p r o a c h h a r d l y n ee d s e la b o r a t io n . T o p res en t a c o m p r e h e n s i v e
G o d m o v e s the first celestial s phe re is n a t u r a l” ; or in q u e s t i o n 15 9, w h e r e B e n e d i c t u s
an d m a n a g e a b l e a c c o u n t in a s in g le v o l u m e , restr iction s o n the the s c o p e o f the
H e s s e asks “ W h e t h e r the p r i m e m o v e r is a b s o l u t e l y i m m o b i l e , ” w h i l e P s e u d o - S i g e r
s t u d y are essential. A l t h o u g h it is e x t r e m e l y d iff ic ul t, i f n o t v i r t u a l l y im p o s s ib l e ,
exp res ses the s a m e q u e s t io n m o r e fu l l y in the f o r m “ W h e t h e r in m o v e r s an d in
to d e fi n e the precise lim its o f m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y so that a n y g i v e n q u e s t io n c o u l d
t h i n g s that are m o v e d it is nec e ss ar y to ar ri ve at an i m m o b i l e p r i m e m o v e r , ” arid
b e r e a d il y in c lu d e d or e x c l u d e d o n t he basis o f tha t d ef i n it io n , I h a v e b e e n g u i d e d
J o h n o f J a n d u n asks “ W h e t h e r there is an a b s o l u t e l y i m m o b i l e m o v e r , ” o m i t t i n g
b y A l b e r t o f S a x o n y ’s th r ee fo l d d i v i s i o n (see the b e g i n n i n g o f C h a p t e r 20), t a k i n g
the w o r d “ p r i m e . ” 2'1
first t he w o r l d as a w h o l e and th e n the s tru ctu re and o p e r a ti o n o f its t w o ra dic all y
On n u m e r o u s o c c as io n s , however, the dif fe re n c es are m o r e su bst an tia l, as in
d if fe r e n t b u t f u n d a m e n ta l parts, the n o b l e r celestial r e g i o n a n d the less n o b l e s u b ­
q u e s t io n 106: “ W h e t h e r there is an e m p y r e a n [or i m m o b i l e ] s p h e r e b e y o n d the
lunar, o r e le m e n ta l, re gi o n . In all o f the k in d s o f treatises f r o m w h i c h c o s m o l o g i c a l
m o b i l e h e a v e n s . ” In their v e rs io n s o f this q u e s t io n , Jean B u r i d a n , T h e m o n Ju da eu s,

a n d A l b e r t o f S a x o n y m a k e n o m e n t i o n o f t he e m p y r e a n s ph e re , a l t h o u g h all i m p l i e d
it. B u r i d a n asks “ W h e t h e r b e y o n d the h e a v e n s that are m o v e d , t her e s h o u l d be 27. In the course o f his discussion, Themon concludes that “ an immobile tenth sphere should
a s s u m e d a h e a v e n that is res tin g or u n m o v e d ” ; T h e m o n ask s “ W h e t h e r s o m e t h i n g
be assumed beyond the ninth sphere” (pono istam conclusionem probabilem. scilicet
quod ultra nonam speram est ponenda decima spera immobilis). See Hugonnard-Roche,
1973, 99-103.
28. As masters o f arts without theological degrees or credentials, Buridan, Themon, and
25. Because it would be superfluous, no asterisk appears in any o f the 214 questions which Albert may have deliberately omitted the term “ empyrean” to avoid possible theological
have only one discussant. entanglements.
26. Another good illustration appears in question 276. For the variety o f forms, see notes 29. In notes, I have often provided translations o f alternative versions o f the representative
223-226 to that question. question.
758 APPENDIX II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y
759
q u e s t io n s h a v e be e n d r a w n , some, and o ft e n many, questions from each were admit of more and less” ; Albert of Saxony inquired “Whether, if there were several
d e li b e r a t e ly e x c l u d e d as irrelevant. infinites, one infinite could be greater than another, or whether one would be
F o r e x a m p l e , f r o m a total o f 59 q u e s t i o n s in B u r i d a n ’s Q u estio n s on D e caelo, 17, comparable to another”; “Whether every corruptible thing is necessarily corrupted”;
or a p p r o x i m a t e l y 28 pe rcent, w e r e o m i t t e d f r o m the c a t a l o g . A m o n g t h o s e e x c l u d e d and “Whether heavy things seek to descend according to the shortest lines [or
w e r e s u ch q u e s t i o n s as “ W h e t h e r in the s a m e b o d y the d i m e n s i o n s l e n g t h , w i d t h , paths].”37 Finally, Johannes de Magistris asked “Whether an infinite body could be
an d d e p t h are m u t u a l l y d is ti n c t ” (bk. 1, qu . 2);303
12“ W h e t h e r a p o w e r [or fo rc e] o u g h t affected by a finite body”; “Whether an infinite circular body could have a center” ;
to b e d e f i n e d b y its m a x i m u m c a p a b i l i t y ” (bk. 1, qu. 21 ); “ W e in q u i r e w h e t h e r and “Whether the place of a whole and [its] part are the same.” ’”
natural m o t i o n o u g h t to be q u i c k e r at the e n d tha n at the b e g i n n i n g ” (bk . 2, qu. Although some broad questions on the four elements have been included, many
12);’ ' “ W h e t h e r after dep ar tu re f r o m a p r o je c t o r , a s to n e tha t is p r o j e c t e d , o r an were deemed too narrow for inclusion. In this category are numerous questions
a r r o w that is s h o t f r o m a b o w , an d so o n in s im il ar cases, is m o v e d b y an internal posed by Bartholomew Amicus in his seventeenth-century questions and commen­
p ri n ci p le or an e xt er n al p r i n c i p le ” (bk. 3, qu . 2) ;3“ and, fi na lly , “ W h e t h e r h e a v in e s s tary on D e caelo. I have ignored such questions as “Why air that is blown when the
and li g h t n e ss are su bstantial f o r m s o f h e a v y a n d li g h t b o d i e s ” (bk . 4, q u. 5 ) . 33 mouth is compressed appears cold but appears warm when the mouth is open”;
T h e la rg e s t n u m b e r o f q u e st io n s d e li b e r a t e ly o m i t t e d f r o m B u r i d a n ’s Q u estio n s “Whether air is seen when illuminated” ; “Why air, water, glass, and similar things
on D e caelo c o n c e r n s p r o b l e m s o f n atu ra l an d v i o l e n t m o t i o n , as in b o o k 2, q u e s t i o n s are transparent, unlike metals, stones, and wood” ; “ Whether air has the power to
12 an d 13, a n d b o o k 3, q u e s t io n 2, three q u e s t io n s in w h i c h B u r i d a n dis cu s s es his nourish” ; “ Since the place of water is to be above the earth, why is it found within
f a m o u s i m p e t u s t h e o r y o f p ro je cti le m o t i o n ( ev e n t h o u g h i m p e t u s p la y s a s i g n if ic a n t caverns of the earth?”; “Since water naturally rests on [or above] the earth as in its
role in C h a p t e r 18, S e c t io n II o f this b o o k ) . A l s o e li m i n a t e d w e r e q u e s t i o n s 3 t h r o u g h proper place, why do rivers flow?” ; “Why water spread over the earth appears dark,
6 in b o o k 4, w h i c h are c o n c e r n e d w i t h the m o t i o n o f h e a v y and l i g h t b o d i e s . W h i l e but spread over oil appears white”; and “Why rain water is the most excellent of
all o f these q u e s t io n s are ap p r o p ri a t e for p h y s i c s , t h e y are n o t o f d ir e c t r e le v a n c e all.”39
fo r understanding c o s m o l o g y . 34 Other questions were largely of a lo gico - Certain categories of cosmological questions have also been omitted. Although
m a t h e m a t i c a l character, w i t h n o a p p a re n t c o n n e c t i o n to c o s m o l o g y (bk . 1, q us . 2 1 - a number of questions that treat of the eternity of the world in its different mani­
2 2 ) . 35 Q u e s t i o n s a b o u t in d iv is ib le s (such as b k . 3, qu . 1) s e e m e q u a l l y r e m o t e f r o m festations has been included, those that compare eternity with time or the ages have
c o s m o l o g y , as d o q u e st io n s on h y p o t h e t i c a l l y infi nite b o d i e s (bk. 1, q us . 13-14). been ignored.40 Indeed, time has generally been ignored, especially as discussed in
B e c a u s e n o o n e b e l i e v e d in the e x i s t e n c e o f an infi nite b o d y , the q u e s t i o n s and the fourth book of Aristotle’s Phy sics. Purely astronomical questions, some of which
p r o b l e m s are m a i n l y o f a p a r a d o x ic a l k in d tha t o ft e n i n t r i g u e d m e d i e v a l sch ol a st ic s , appear in questions on the S p here, have also been omitted.41 Except for questions
b u t t h e y sh ed n o li g h t w h a t e v e r on the s tr u c tu r e or o p e r a t i o n o f the m e d i e v a l c o s ­ about the celestial light of stars and planets or about the creation of light as described
mos. in Genesis, most questions about the general nature of light in the perspectivist or
V i r t u a l l y e v e r y a u th o r o f a questiones o n a re le v a n t treatise b y A r i s t o t l e i n c l u d e d
37. Fc r the enunciations o f the questions (cited here in the order just given), see Oresme [De
d iff ere n t b u t s im il a r l y in a p p ro p r ia t e q u e s t io n s tha t I h a v e i g n o r e d . J o h n o t J a n d u n
celo, bk. 3, qu. 3], 1965, 743~77i. and Albert o f Saxony. De celo, bk. 1. qu. 3 , 1518. 92r,
a s k ed “ W h e t h e r a p o t e n c y or p o w e r is d e t e r m i n e d b y e x c e l l e n c e ” a n d “ W h e t h e r col. 1—93r, col. 2; qu. 14, 99r, col. 2-ioor, col. 1; and bk. 3, qu. 11, 125V, col. 2-i26r,
the p o w e r o f a finite b o d y o u g h t to b e f i n i t e . ” 36 N i c o l e O r e s m e a s k e d “ W h e t h e r col. 2. In the seventeenth century, Amicus posed the same question ([De caelo, tract. 7,
qu. 7, dubit. 2], 1626, 536, col. 1-537, col. 2).
the su bs tan tia l f o r m s o f the e le m e n t s are in t e n d e d an d r e m it t e d , o r w h e t h e r t h e y
38. For the enunciations o f these three questions (cited here in the order just given), see
Johannes de Magistris [De celo, bk. 1, qu. 3, dub. 1], 1490, 8, col. 2-9, col. 1; ibid., dub.
30. Translations o f the titles of Bundan’s questions are drawn from Grant, 1974, 203-205. 2, 9, col. 1; and ibid., dub. 3, 9, col. 1.
31. A similar question is posed by Nicole Oresme [De celo, bk. 2, qu. 7], 1965, 525-575. 39. For the references to these eight questions in the order in which they are given, see Amicus
32. I have slightly altered the translation in Grant, 1974, 205. Albert o f Saxony asked sub­ [De caelo, tract. 8. qu. 2, dubit. 9], 1626, 568, cols. 1-2: ibid., dubit. 11. 568, col. 2;
stantially the same question ([De celo, bk. 3, qu. 12], 1518, i26r, col. 2 - 1 26V, col. 2) in dubit. 16, 570, col. 1; dubit. 20, 571, cols. 1-2; ibid., qu. 3, dubit. 1, 571, col. 1-573,
the form “ Whether the air is moved naturally in the projection o f a stone or whether [the col. 1; dubit. 2, 573, col. 1; dubit. 7, 574, cols. 1-2; and dubit. 25, 577, cols. 1-2.
stone is moved] by another thing that is projected into it.” 40. For example, “ Whether the eternity o f the world is the same or is distinguished from
33. Albert o f Saxony asks the same question ([De celo, bk. 3, qu. 4], 1518, I22r, col. 1-122V, time,” a question that appears in John ofjandun, De coelo, bk. 1, qu. 27, 1552, i8v, cols.
col. 1). 1-2.
34. Not all questions on sublunar local motion were ignored. In theme XVIII (“ Between 41. O f the questions in Pierre d’A illy’s 14 Questions, only 5 were judged relevant to this
Earth and Moon: The Elements Fire, Air, and Water” ) o f the catalog, questions 366—368, study. Many o f the rest are astronomical in character; for example, the following:
370-371, and 373-377 are concerned with motion but, in my judgment, seem more “ Whether the latitude o f a region could be investigated by means o f the elevation o f the
relevant to cosmology because they concern the nature o f the four elements and their role pole above the horizon” (qu. 8, I59r-i59v); “ Whether the distances o f the poles o f the
in motion and are thus conducive to a better understanding o f the overall workings ot zodiac from the poles o f the world are equal to the greatest declination o f the Sun, namelv,
the sublunar region. in the sense that the distance o f the zodiacal pole from the arctic pole is equal to the
35. For a sense o f the content o f these questions, see Grant, 1974, 360—361, n. 2. greatest northern declination o f the Sun” (qu. 9, i59v-i6or); and “ Whether natural days
36. [De caelo, bk. 1, qu. 31], 1552, 2or, col. 2-20V, col. 1, and bk. 2, qu. is , 31V, cols. 1-2. are mutually unequal” (qu. 11, i6iv-i6 2r).
760 APPENDIX II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 761

op t ic a l tra dition, or a b o u t spiri tu al li g h t per se, h a v e bee n d i s r e g a r d e d : 4* fo r e x a m p l e , t h e m e w a s i g n o r e d in the li terature w h i c h f o r m s the basis o f this s t u d y ? 50

q u e st io n s like “ W h e t h e r l i g h t [lum en] is a su bs ta n tia l or a c c id e nt a l f o r m ” ;4’ “ W h e t h e r A t least t w o explanations seem pla usible. Apart from m e r e re cit at io n o f the

l i g h t is p r o p e r l y fo u n d in spiritual t h i n g s ” ;4
2
4
344
5
6
7
8“ W h e t h e r l i g h t is an a c c i d e n t ” ;4' and dis ta nc e s a n d sizes o f pla net s an d sph eres, a n y q u e s t io n a b o u t c o s m i c d i m e n s i o n s

“ W h e t h e r l i g h t is a b o d y , or the f o r m o f a b o d y . ” 4'’ w o u l d h a v e r e q ui r ed te ch ni ca l k n o w l e d g e o f a s t r o n o m y , w h i c h f e w sc h o la st i c nat ­

It s e e m s app ar en t that a n y a t t e m p t to a c h i e v e total c o v e r a g e w o u l d in e v i t a b l y ural p h i l o s o p h e r s pos se ss e d. S u c h a q u e s t io n w o u l d m o r e than l i k e l y h a v e be e n

result in a c on si de ra bl e inc rea se in the n u m b e r o f qu e st io n s , p e rh ap s b y as m a n y as p e r c e i v e d as a s t r o n o m i c a l rather th a n c o s m o l o g i c a l . M o r e o v e r , A r i s t o t l e d id n o t

o n e o r t w o h u n dr ed , or m o r e . S u c h an unc ri tic al increase w o u l d h a v e o v e r w h e l m e d dis cu s s the size o f the u n iv e r s e ( a l t h o u g h he dis cu s s ed the size o f the earth) b u t o n l y

this s t u d y w i t h a h os t o f m i n o r details w i t h o u t s u b s ta n ti a l ly a d d i n g to o u r u n d e r ­ w h e t h e r it w a s finite or infinite. O n c e he d e c i d e d o n a finite c o s m o s , he d id n o t

s ta n d in g o f the larger c o s m o l o g i c a l picture. i n q u i r e fu r th e r a b o u t its prec ise size. T h u s natural p h i lo s o p h e r s w o u l d h a v e had

In a d d it io n to q u e st io n s tha t w e r e d is cu s s ed b y s ch ol a st ic a u th o r s b u t w h i c h I little o c c a s i o n t o p o s e a n y p ar tic ul ar q u e s t io n a b o u t the size and d i m e n s i o n o f the

h a v e d el i b e ra t el y i g n o r e d , I m u s t m e n t i o n at least o n e p o t e n t ia l c o s m o l o g i c a l subj ect u n iv e r s e a n d t he dis tances an d sizes o f its planets an d spheres.

on w hich the sch olastics m i g h t h a v e a s k e d q u e s t io n s b u t d id not: t he size and D e s p i t e t he ab se n c e o f q u e s t io n s a b o u t c o s m i c d i m e n s i o n s in the questiones lit­

d i m e n s i o n s o f the w o r l d . C o s m i c d i m e n s i o n s - tha t is, the d ia m e t e r s o f t he planets, erature, a f e w sch ol a st ic s f o u n d o c c a s i o n to i n t r o d u c e c o m p a r a t i v e d i m e n s i o n s in to

as w e l l as their v o l u m e s an d d ist an ce s f r o m the earth as m e a s u r e d in earth radii - their c o s m o l o g i c a l dis cu s s io n s . F or this reason, and be c a u s e o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f

re ach ed t h e La tin W e s t f r o m A r a b i c so ur c e s, e s p e c i a l ly in t w o d if fe re n t tra nslations d i m e n s i o n s in a s t u d y o f c o s m o l o g y , I h a v e d e v o t e d S e c t io n III in C h a p t e r 1 7 t o


this s ub je c t .
o f a l - F a r g h a n i ’ s s u m m S r y a c c o u n t o f P t o l e m y ’s A lm a g est.*7 K n o w l e d g e o f t he c o s m i c

d i m e n s i o n s s o o n b e c a m e c o m m o n p l a c e , a p p e a r i n g in a s t r o n o m i c a l treatises, ge neral

p h i lo s o p h ic a l literature (for e x a m p l e , in R o g e r B a c o n ’s O p u s m aius a n d in the P s e u d o - 4. On the adequacy o f the sample o f authors, works, and questions
G r o s s e t e s t e Sum m a p h ilo so p h ia e), and in p o p u l a r li ter at ur e. 4" A l b e r t V a n H e ld e n
I h a v e b y n o w d is c o u r s e d e n o u g h a b o u t q u e st io n s and t h e m e s that h a v e d el i b e r a t e ly
c o n c lu d e s that b e e n i g n o r e d . L e t us retu rn t o the q u e s t io n raised earlier: D o the a u th or s, w o r k s ,
an d q u e s t i o n s i n c lu d e d in the c a t a l o g represent a p r o p e r s a m p l i n g o f ne a rl y fi ve
the c o s m i c d im e n s i o n s that o r ig i n a t e d w i t h P t o l e m y can . . . b e f o u n d o n all levels
cen tu ri e s o f m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y ? O r w o u l d it be m o r e desirable, an d perh aps e v e n
o f s o p h i s t ic a ti o n in m e d i e v a l literature. T h i s s h o u l d n o t surpr ise us, fo r as an a c c e p te d
part o f the q u a d r i v i u m , the reg ul ar m a t h e m a t i c a l s ub je c ts in t he u n d e r g r a d u a t e n e c e ss ar y, t o in c lu d e m o r e , pe rh ap s m a n y m o r e , a u th or s and q ue st io ns ? Ind eed,

c u r r i c u l u m , this s c h e m e o f sizes an d d ist anc es w a s le arned b y v i r t u a l l y all u n i v e r s i t y s h o u l d s o m e o r m a n y o f the o m i t t e d q u e s t io n s h a v e be e n in clu de d?


stu d e nt s. W e m a y a s s u m e tha t it also f r e q u e n t l y f o u n d its w a y , in full o r in part, T h e 52 a u th o r s and 400 q u e s t io n s rep resent a rather la rg e s a m p l e o f au th or s and
in t o the e x p e r i e n c e o f the la y p u b l i c . 49 q u e s t io n s . T o h a v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y in cre as e d the n u m b e r o f au th or s, an d t he re fo r e the

n u m b e r o f q u e s t io n s , o n the basis o f the pri nciples o f se le c t io n and e x c l u s i o n e n u n ­


A n d y e t in all the 400 q u e s t io n s in the c a t a l o g , n o t o n e asks a b o u t t he size and
cia te d earlier, w o u l d h a v e a d d e d o n l y t o the q u a n t i t y o f the s a m p le , n o t t o its
d i m e n s i o n s o f the un iv e rs e . H o w d id it h a p p e n that s u c h a p o p u l a r c o s m o l o g i c a l
q u a l i t y . B y i n c l u d i n g at least 5 a u th o r s f r o m each c e n t u r y c o v e r e d in this s t u d y , I

h a v e a l m o s t c e r ta in ly ar ri ve d at a r e p re se n t at iv e s a m p l i n g o f the q u e s t io n s that w e r e
42. For the kind o f questions included, see the “ Catalog o f Questions,” theme X IV (“ Celestial
raised d u r i n g this p eri od .
Light” ).
43. Bonaventure [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, art. 3, qu. 2], Opera, 1885, 2:327—329. Thomas A l t h o u g h I h a v e s o u g h t t o c o n v e y a re aso n abl e sense o f the m e t h o d o l o g y that
o f Strasbourg [Sentences, bk. 2. dist. 13, qu. 1], 1564, I55r, col. 2-156V, col. 1, asked g u i d e d m y se le c t io n o f au th or s, w o r k s , and q u e st io n s , it w o u l d be rash to c la im
“ Whether light [/imien] is a real form.” Although this general question about light has
that m y c h o ic e s w e r e d e f i n i t i v e or b e y o n d re pro ach . N o t w o s cho la rs are li k e l y to
been excluded, a more specific version relevant to stars has been included (qu. 229:
“ Whether or not the light [/nx] o f the stars is a substantial form or even a body” ). During f o l l o w the s a m e path . T h e results o f m y research, h o w e v e r , led m e t o the rea lization
the Middle Ages, a distinction was sometimes made between lux and lumen, which are tha t questiones o n D e caelo f o r m e d the p ri n ci p al t y p e o f c o s m o l o g i c a l treatise p r o d u c e d
both translated as light. Lux was “ the brightness that one observes in fire or the sun,”
whereas “ lumen might be thought o f as the effect o f lux on the adjacent medium and b y s c h o la s t i c n atu ra l p h i lo s o p h e r s . It the re fo re s e r v e d as a us ef ul m o d e l an d led m e
surrounding objects” (see Lindberg, 1978b, 356). Thus Bonaventure not only asked about to la y m u c h gr ea te r stress o n the celestial r e g i o n tha n the terrestrial. In t u r n i n g to
lumen in the questions cited, but he earlier asked precisely the same question about lux the o t h e r r e l e v a n t treatises, I s o u g h t , as m u c h as w a s feasible, q u e s t io n s that e m ­
(Bonaventure, ibid., art. 2, qu. 2, 2:319-322).
p h a s i z e d t he celestial r e g i o n an d s h e d l i g h t o n its s tr u c tu r e an d op e ra ti o n .
44. Thomas Aquinas [Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, qu. 1, art. 2], 1929—1947, 2:328—330.
45. Ibid., art. 3, 2:331-337. In this question, Thomas discusses the difference between lux
and lumen. 50. Robertus Anglicus. who is included in our study, devotes a single paragraph o f his
46. Bonaventure, Sentences, bk. 2, dist. 13, art. 2, qu. 1, Opera, 1885, 2:317-318. commentary on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco to a mere recital o f the magnitudes o f the planets
47. 1 rely here on Van Helden, 1985, 29, 33. and the distances o f their spheres from the earth’s center. He offers neither a question
nor any discussion o f the subject. See Robertus Anglicus [Sphere, lec. 14], 1949, 195
48. Ibid., 29, 33-40.
(Latin), 243 (English), and Van Helden, 1985, 34.
49. Ibid., 40.
762 APPENDIX II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y
763
W h i l e o n e m a y c h a ll e n g e the c h o i c e o f a u t h o r s and q u e s t io n s , n o on e , I b e li ev e ,

00
7. J o h n o f j a n d u n

80
+ 22)
w i l l d o u b t that the t h e m e s an d details e m b o d i e d in the 400 q u e s t i o n s are far m o r e 8. Oddus +
43 (11 32)
than can b e a c c o m m o d a t e d in a s t u d y o f the p r e s e n t l e n g t h . E v e n i f s p a c e w e r e n o t 9. M ajor 40 (14 + 6 4- 20)
a factor, the q u e s t io n s a s s e m b l e d here are far m o r e than req uir ed. M a n y , i f n o t the

00
10. Oresm e +

O
8)
m a j o r i t y , o f t ho se in the c a t a l o g h a v e p l a y e d little i f a n y role in m y d is c u s s io n . O f 1 1. Versor 38
the rel evant q u e st io n s , t h o s e that w e r e m o s t f r e q u e n t l y tre ated b y the a u th o r s p la y e d 12. Bacon 37 (16 4- 21)
a large r role in m y d is cu s s io n t ha n t h o s e that w e r e treated b y o n l y 1 o r 2 au thor s."' 13. H u rtad o de M e n d o z a 30 (23 + 5 + 2)
Ind eed , q u e s t io n s that w e r e c o n s i d e r e d b y 5 o r m o r e o f the 52 a u th o r s f o r m e d the 14. J o h a n n e s d e M a g i s t r i s 29 (24 + 5)
soli d core o f this s t u d y . T h e c a t a l o g m a d e s e le c t io n o f the m o s t f r e q u e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d 15. M ich ael Scot 28
qu e st io ns e a s y to d e t e r m i n e and p r o v i d e d a r o u g h m e a su re - p e r h a p s the o n l y 16. T h e m o n Ju d a e u s 23 (12 + 11)
m ea su re - for i d e n t i f y i n g q u e st io n s that the a u th o r s t h e m s e l v e s t h o u g h t im p o r t a n t . 17 Ja ve lli 24 (16 + 8)
18. B en edictus Hesse 23
19. R ic c io l i 23
5. What the “ Catalog o f Questions” reveals
20. S e r b e ll o n u s 23 ( 17 + b)
B e f o r e t u r n i n g to the m o s t f r e q u e n t l y d i s c u s s e d q u e s t io n s , h o w e v e r , let us first see 21. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f Brabant 20
w h a t ot her i n f o r m a t i o n can be g l e a n e d f r o m the c a t a l o g and the t w o tables that 22. Pa ul o f V e n i c e 19
f o l l o w at the e n d ot A p p e n d i x II. 23. Bricot 19
T h e 400 q u e s t io n s elici ted a total o f 1 , 1 7 6 r e s p o n se s, "' thus a v e r a g i n g s l i g h t l y 24. C o m p ton -C a rleton 19 (13 + 6)
u n d e r 3 re sp o n se s per q u e s t io n , b u t r a n g i n g f r o m 1 dis cu s s an t p er q u e s t i o n (in 2 1 4 23. P o n c iu s 18 (2 4- 16)
quest ions ) to a h i g h o f 22 d isc us san ts fo r o n e q u e s t i o n (qu. 97). A t the e n d o t this 26. R ichard o f M id d le t o n 18
a p p e n d i x , T a b l e A . 1 p r o v i d e s us ef ul i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f ind i­ 27. Bonaventure 15
v id u a l au tho rs , w h o are o r g a n i z e d in the s a m e c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r as in the list 28. B o n a e Spei +
15 (13 2)
prese nt ed in S e c t io n I o f this a p p e n d i x . T h e n u m b e r s o f the q u e s t io n s d is cu s s e d b y 29. M a r s i li u s o f I n g h e n 14
e ach au th or are cit ed for each w o r k , w h e r e t her e is m o r e than o n e w o r k . T h e total 30. W illiam o f A u v e r g n e 13
n u m b e r o f q u e s t io n s d is cu s s ed in e ach w o r k is the n su p p li e d . B y a r r a n g i n g these 3 1. Pe tru s d e O h a 13
totals in d e s c e n d i n g or der , w e can i d e n t i f y the m a j o r and m i n o r c o n t r i b u t o r s a m o n g 32. S im o n de T u n s te d e 12
all authors. In the list that f o l l o w s , the tot al n u m b e r o f q u e s t io n s f r o m e ach au th o r 33. Toletus 12
is g i v e n first. I f that tot al w a s d r a w n f r o m m o r e than o n e treatise, the n u m b e r o f 34. O vied o 12 (6 + 6)
qu est io ns f r o m each treatise is g i v e n w i t h i n p ar en the ses . F o r e x a m p l e , A m i c u s , the 35. A l e x a n d e r o f H ale s 11
first author, c o n t r i b u t e d 90 q u e s t io n s f r o m his D e caelo an d 11 f r o m his P h y sics , for 36. C e c c o d ’Ascoli 9
a total o f 101. H e r e is w h a t T a b l e A . 1 reveals: 37. Pierre d ’ A i l l y 9
38. G a l il e o 9
1. A m icus 1 o 1 (90 4- it) 39. T h o m a s Aquinas 8
2. Cornaeus 72 (39 + 24 4- 9) 40. W illiam o f O c k h a m 7
3. C o n i m b r i c e n s e s 69 (55 + u) 41. D u r a n d u s d e S a n c t o P o r c ia n o 6
4. B u ri d a n 55 (36 + 11 + 8) 42. Case 6
3. Albert o f S a x o n y 54 (44 + lo) 43. A ureoli 5
6. Aversa 54 44. H ervaeus Natalis 3
43. Arriaga 5 (3 + 2)
46. G o d f r e y o f F on ta in e s 3
31. With at least one exception, namely theme XI, “ On Directionality in the Heavens.’’ 47. J o h a n n e s C a n o n i c u s
Although the 3 questions that fall within this theme (qus. 122-124) had a total ot 23 3
discussants, with qu. 122 receiving the most attention (13 discussants), these questions, 48. M a s t r i u s and B e l lu t u s 3
and the theme as a whole, received relatively little emphasis in this study. 49. G e o r g e de R ho des 3
$2. This total includes three responses in which authors treated the same question in two 30. Robertus A nglicu s 2
different treatises. Thus, Buridan responded to question 73 in both his De caelo and Physics;
Javelli considered question 133 in his Physics and Metaphysics; and Oresme treated question 51. D u l la e r t 2

389 in his De celo and De spera. 32. C lavius I


APPENDIX II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 765
764

O f the 52 au thor s, it is ap p a re n t tha t 3 Je su it au th or s f r o m the late s ix t e e n t h and b e g a u g e d b y the n u m b e r o f dis cus san ts. In the f o l l o w i n g list, all q u e s t io n s that

the se v e n te e n t h c e n t u r y m a d e b y far the la rg e s t c o n t r i b u t i o n s . A m i c u s leads w i t h w e r e d is c u s s e d b y 5 or m o r e dis cus san ts are cit ed, a l o n g w i t h their r e s p e c t iv e t h e m e s
as set fo r t h in the “ C a t a l o g o f Q u e s t i o n s . ”
101 q ue st io ns d r a w n f r o m t w o treatises, f o l l o w e d b y C o r n a e u s w i t h 7 2 d r a w n f r o m
three treatises and the C o n i m b r i c e n s e s , o r C o i m b r a Jes uits , w i t h 69 d r a w n f r o m T h e m e I (qus. 1-20) Qus. 1, 2, 4, 9, 12
t w o treatises. T h e m o s t s ig n if ic a n t m e d i e v a l a u th or s l a g g e d c o n s i d e r a b l y be h in d T h e m e II (qus. 2 1 - 3 4 ) None
their Jesuit successors: Jean B u r i d a n c o n t r i b u t e d 55 q u e s t i o n s f r o m t hr ee treatises; T h e m e III (qus. 3 5 - 5 3 ) None54
A l b e r t o f S a x o n y re s p o n d e d t o 54 q u e s t i o n s f r o m t w o treatises; an d N i c o l e O r e s m e T h e m e I V A (qus. 5 4 - 6 1 ) Q u s . 54, 55, 58
t o 37 q ue st io ns fr o m t w o treatises. T h e r e m a i n i n g a u th o r s are r a n g e d in a gr ad ua l T h e m e I V B (qus. 6 2 - 6 7 ) Q u s . 62, 66
d es ce n t all the w a y to 1 res po n se b y C l a v i u s . T h e m e V (qus. 6 8 - 7 3 ) Q u s . 68, 69, 73
O f the e le v e n genres o f w o r k s f r o m w h i c h q u e s t io n s w e r e e x t r a c t e d , t w o - De T h e m e V I (qus. 7 4 - 7 7 ) Q u . 74
caelo and Physics - p la y a p r e d o m i n a n t role. Q u e s t i o n s o n D e caelo i n c l u d e d 221 o f T h e m e V I I (qus. 7 8 - 8 9 ) Q u s . 78, 79, 85
the 400 q u e st io ns , or a p p r o x i m a t e l y 55 p e rc e n t , w h i l e q u e s t io n s o n t he Physics T h e m e V I I I (qus. 9 0 - 9 5 ) Q u . 91
co n t ai n e d 1 1 6 qu est io ns , or a b o u t 29 p e r c e n t o f the tot al (see T a b l e A . 2, at the e nd T h e m e I X (qus. 9 6 - 1 0 5 ) Q u . 97
o f this ap p e n d i x) . T h e r e m a i n i n g n in e t y p e s la g far b e h in d: 45 q u e s t io n s , o r ap­ T h e m e X (qus. 1 0 6 - 1 2 1 ) Qus. 106, 1 1 7
p r o x i m a t e l y 11 pe rcent, appe ar in S en ten ces c o m m e n t a r i e s ; 41 q u e s t io n s , o r 10 per­ T h e m e X I (qus. 122-124) Qus. 122, 123, 124
cent o f the total, are T o u n d in treatises o n the S p h e re ; 25 q u e s t io n s , o r 6 percent, T h e m e X I I (qus. 1 2 5 - 1 5 1 ) Qus. 126, 127, 128, 130, 132, 135, 141
turn up in q u e st io n s o n the M eteorology; 23, o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 p e rc en t , in R i c c i o l i ’s T h e m e X I I I (qus. 1 5 2 - 2 2 5 ) Q u s . 155, 159, 169, 173, 17 7 , 180, 183, 184, 195,
Alm agestum novum ; 15, or n ea rl y 4 p e rc en t , ap p e a r in q u e s t io n s o n the M etaphysics; 2 1 1 , 21 6. 220, 222
13, or a r o u n d 3 pe rcent, in W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e ’ s D e uttiverso; 11, o r n ea rl y 3 T h e m e X I V (qus. 2 2 6 - 2 3 4 ) Q u . 23 r
percent, in A l e x a n d e r o f H a l e s ’s S u m m a theologica; 8, o r 2 p erc ent , in t he treatises Them e X V (qus. 2 3 5 - 2 7 3 ) Q u s . 237, 242, 244, 256
w i t h q u od li be ta l q ue sti ons ; and, fi n a ll y , 2 q u e st io n s , o r o n e - h a l f o f 1 p e rc en t , in T h e m e X V I (qus. 2 7 4 - 3 0 3 ) Q u s . 27 5 , 276, 2 7 7 , 280, 283, 289, 293, 296, 301
the sole treatise rep re se n tin g q u e s t i o n s o n O n G eneration and C o rru p tio n . T h e n u m b e r s T h e m e X V I I (qus. 3 0 4 -3 3 0 ) Q u s . 308, 32 1 , 325, 326
o f qu est io ns in the d ifferent c a t e g o r i e s s u m to 547, t hus s i g n i f y i n g tha t n u m e r o u s T h e m e X V I I I (qus. 3 3 1 - 3 8 2 ) Q u s . 3 31 , 334, 335, 348, 378
q ue st io ns - 84, to be precise - w e r e d is c u s s e d in t w o o r m o r e ge n re s. In d ee d , one T h e m e X I X (qus. 38 3 - 4 0 0 ) Q u s . 383, 384, 387, 388, 389, 396
q ue st io n - n u m b e r 128 - w a s treated in 6 o f the 1 1 g e n re s d i s t i n g u i s h e d here.

O f the 1 , 1 7 6 res ponses to the 400 q u e s t io n s , 638, or a p p r o x i m a t e l y 54 percent, B e c a u s e t h e y clear ly ind ica te the sp e c if i c q u e st io n s t h o u g h t m o s t w o r t h y o f treat­

w e r e m a d e in treatises o n D e caelo a n d 292 in treatises o n the P h y sics, o r a l m o s t 25 m e n t b y sc h o la st i c au th or s, the 73 q u e s t io n s lu rn ish an e x c e ll e n t o v e r v i e w o f m e ­

percent, w i t h the o t h e r nin e treatises c o n t r i b u t i n g the r e m a i n i n g 246 r e s p o n s e s . 53 dieval c o s m o l o g y . To illustrate this, w e n eed o n l y refer to the m o s t dis cus sed

T h e d o m i n a n c e o f D e caelo treatises in m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y is o b v i o u s . q u e s t i o n s in t h e m e s X I I (“ O n the P r op er ti e s o f C e l e s t ia l S p h e re s an d B o d i e s ” ) and

Perh aps the m o s t useful i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v a b l e f r o m the c a t a l o g c o n c e r n s the X I I I (“ O n C e l e s t ia l M o t i o n s and T h e i r C a u s e s " ) , t w o o f the m o s t i m p o r t a n t co s ­

f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h q u e st io n s w e r e dis cu s s ed . A t the v e r y least, s u c h dat a p r o v i d e m o l o g i c a l t o p ic s d i s t i n g u i s h e d in this s t u d y . A g l a n c e at the 7 q u e s t io n s cit ed in the

a m ea su re fo r the p o p u l a r i t y , an d p e rh ap s i m p o r t a n c e , o f a q u e s t io n as c o m p a r e d list j u s t g i v e n fo r t h e m e X I I and the 13 fo r t h e m e X I I I w i l l re ve al h o w fu n d a m e n t a l

10 ot her q ue st io ns . I f w e ar bit ra ri ly a s s u m e that a q u e s t i o n is p o p u l a r i f it had at w e r e m o s t o f t h o s e q u e st io n s .

least 5 dis cussants, then 32 7 o f the 400 q u e s t io n s , w h i c h w e r e d is c u s s e d b y o n l y 1 T h e c a t a l o g has thus p r o v i d e d a m e a n s ot i d e n t i f y i n g the m o s t s ig n if ic a n t q ue st io ns

t o 4 discussants, f o u n d m o d e r a t e to m i n i m a l app e al a m o n g nat ur al p h i lo s o p h e r s . t o w h i c h a s t u d y o f m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y o u g h t to be add res sed . U nfortu nately,

W e are t her ef or e left w i t h 73 q u e s t i o n s tha t att ra cte d a n y w h e r e f r o m 5 t o 22 dis­ s p a c e c o n s i d e r a t io n s p r e v e n t e d the in c lu s io n o f all o f t h e m . F o r e x a m p l e , n o oc c a s io n

cussants. T h e s e 73 q u e st io n s f o r m the s ig n if ic a n t c or e o f the v a r i o u s t h e m e s o f w a s f o u n d to treat the q u e s t io n c o n c e r n i n g the p r o d u c t i o n o f s o u n d s b y the m o t i o n s

m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y . B y at t ra c ti n g the la rg e s t n u m b e r o f di scu ss an ts, 22, q ue st io n o t celestial b o d i e s (qu. 222), and o n l y a c u r s o r y m e n t i o n has be e n a c c o r d e d to the

9 7 (“ O n the n u m b e r o f spheres, w h e t h e r there are e i g h t or nine, o r m o r e o r less’ ’) q u e s t i o n s a b o u t p o s si b le a b s o lu t e d ir e c ti on s in the w o r l d (qus. 122-124).

w a s pe rhaps the m o s t p o p u l a r q u e s t i o n in m e d i e v a l c o s m o l o g y , i f p o p u l a r i t y m a y E m p h a s i s on the 73 m o s t fr e q u e n t l y c o n s i d e r e d c o s m o l o g i c a l q u e s t io n s s h o u ld


n o t b e ta k e n to i m p l y that o t h e r q u e s t io n s h a v e been i g n o r e d . W i t h i n a particular
53. In descending order, the responses are distributed as follows: Sentences, 69; Sphere, 66:
Meteorology, 38; Almagestum novum (Riccioli), 23; Metaphysics. 16; De universo (William ot
Auvergne), 13; Alexander o f Hales (Summa theologica), 11; quodlibetal questions, 8; and 54. Since themes II and III lack questions that have 5 or more discussants, I have relied on
questions that were less widely discussed.
On Generation and Corruption, 2.
7 6)6 APPENDIX II
ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 7 67
t h e m e , n o t o n l y are m a n y q u e s t io n s w i t h o n l y i or 2 d is cu s s an ts int e rr e la te d and
Table A. 1 Chronological list of authors and the questions they contributed to the
m u t a l l y re in fo r c in g w i t h res pec t to the m o r e p o p u l a r q u e s t i o n s , but numerous
“ Catalog oj Questions”
q u e s t io n s w i t h i n a s in gl e t h e m e , h o w e v e r p o p u l a r , co n t a in v a r y i n g d e g r e e s o f o v e r ­

l a p p i n g d isc us sio n . M a n y s in g l e - d i s c u s s a n t q u e s t io n s (and t her e are 2 1 4 o f the m ) Thirteetith century


p r o v i d e us ef ul a d d iti on a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e le v a n t to the t op ic s tr e at e d in the m o r e
1. M i c h a e l S c o t (d. ca. 1235)
p o p u l a r qu est io ns . N o r s h o u l d w e i g n o r e the fact that s o m e , a n d p e r h a p s m a n y ,
C om m en ta ry on the S p h ere o f Sacrohosco
q u e s t io n s w i t h f e w e r tha n 5 dis cu s s an ts i n c lu d e p o i n t s o f v i e w a n d in s ig h t s that are
1, 62, 92, 104, 126, 12 7, 128, 132, 147, 173 , 180, 188, 196, 203, 2 1 2 , 223,
l a c k i n g in the m o r e p o p u l a r q u e st io n s . T h e q u a l i t y o f an a u t h o r ’s t h o u g h t also p la ys 242, 245, 248, 266, 3 3 1 , 335, 368, 383, 384, 389, 396, 400.
a role. S in g l e q u e st io n s a u th o r e d b y s ch o la st i cs o f the stature o f Jean B u r i d a n and Total = 28
N i c o l e O r e s m e m u s t a l w a y s be c a r e fu ll y s tu d ie d for spec ial o r a d d it io n a l insig ht s
2. A l e x a n d e r o f H a le s (ca. 1 1 7 0 - 1 2 4 5 )
in to m o r e p o p u l a r b u t le la te d q u e st io n s . F o r these and o t h e r rea sons, m y att en tio n
S u m m a theologica
has n o t be e n c o n f i n e d to the 73 m o s t p o p u l a r q u e st io n s .
106, 107, 109, n o . h i , 112, 114, iis , 1 1 6, 1 1 7 , 228.
A l t h o u g h the c at a l o g , w i t h its au th or s and w o r k s , is o b v i o u s l y o f gr ea t i m p o r t a n c e Total = 11
to this s t u d y , it is o n l y a s a m p le , t h o u g h a r e a s o n a b ly la rg e o n e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , j u s t
3. W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e (ca. 1 1 8 0 - 1 2 4 9 )
as m a n y q u e st io n s f r o m the s a m p l e h ad t o b e ig n o r e d , so also is it n e c e s s a r y to
D e universo
stress that i n f o r m a t i o n an d a r g u m e n t s f r o m q u e s t i o n s and c o m m e n t a r i e s e x c l u d e d
34, 40, 43, 62, 69, 100, 108, 109, h i , 1 1 3 , 134, 1 5 1 . 226.
f r o m the c a t a l o g w e r e i n c lu d e d w h e r e it s e e m e d a p p r op ri at e .
Total = 13

4. R o g e r B a c o n (ca. 1 2 1 9 - c a . 1292)
D e celestibus
6. Within the compass o f a single treatise, were some questions 54, 62, 70, 76, 92, 94, 95, 97, 126, 127, 132, 184, 2 1 1 , 220, 222, 336.
judged more important than others? Total = 16

Q u estio n s on the E ig h t B o o k s o f the Physics


If, b y a statistical c o u n t , I h a v e be e n able t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h q u e s t i o n s a p p e ar to
1, 4, 122, 161, 183, 209, 27 5 , 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290. 293, 294, 295,
h a v e bee n m o s t p o p u l a r o v e r the cent uri es, e x a m i n a t i o n o f s in g l e treatises p r o v id e s
296, 308, 323, 327, 330.
little in s ig h t in to a n y p ar tic ula r a u t h o r ’s a t t it u d e t o w a r d a n y g i v e n q u e s t io n . S c h o ­
Total = 21
lastic au tho rs g i v e little or n o i n d ic a t i o n o f the s i g n if ic a n c e o f q u e s t io n s . T h e y s i m p l y

take up o n e q u e s t io n after a n o th e r in the s a m e d is p a ss io n a t e m a n n e r , w i t h o u t p ro ­ 5. S ai n t B o n a v e n t u r e ( 1 2 2 1 - 1 2 7 4 )

v i d i n g a n y clue that this or that q u e s t i o n m i g h t h a v e gr ea te r r e la tiv e o r ab so lu te


C om m en ta ry on the Sentences
1, 48, 50, 69, 85, 1 1 7 , 122, 126, 132. 145, 1 9 1, 195, 2 1 1 , 2 1 4 , 247.
i m p o r t a n c e than s o m e o t h e r q u e s t io n or g r o u p o f q u e s t io n s . A l t h o u g h A l b e r t o f
Total = 1$
S a x o n y w a s o n e o f 22 au th or s w h o c o n s i d e r e d q u e s t i o n 97, o n the n u m b e r o f spheres,
w e h a v e n o reason to b e l i e v e that he t h o u g h t it m o r e i m p o r t a n t tha n q u e s t i o n 141, 6. T h o m a s A q u i n a s (ca. 1 2 2 4 / 2 5 - 1 2 7 4 )

w h i c h w a s c o n c e r n e d w i t h the cause o f luna r s p o t s an d o f w h i c h he w a s o n e ot 6 C om m en ta ry on the Sentences


dis cussants; or m o r e i m p o r t a n t tha n q u e s t i o n 22$ o f w h i c h h e w a s o n e o f 3 dis­ 4, 69, 85, 97, 1 1 2 , 195, 237 , 270.
Total - 8
cussants. In the s a m e m an n e r, Jean B u r i d a n d oe s n o t s p e c if i c a ll y i d e n t i f y a n y ot the
59 q u e st io n s w h i c h he i n c lu d e d in his Q u estio n s on D e caelo as b e i n g m o r e im p o r t a n t 7. P s e u d o - S i g e r o f B r a b a n t (fl. 2 n d h a l f 13 th c.)
tha n a n y o f the ot h er 58. Q u estio n s on the Physics
It is thus o n l y w i t h h i n d s i g h t an d b y a statistical c o u n t tha t w e can d e r i v e the 4, 159, 203, 209, 2 7 1 , 276, 289, 2 9 1 , 293, 295, 296, 298, 299, 301 , 305, 306,
p o p u l a r i t y o f a q u e s t io n f r o m the f r e q u e n c y w i t h w h i c h it w a s dis cu s s ed . S u p e r ­ 308, 325, 328, 329.

fi cially, w e m a y infer the p o p u l a r i t y o f a q u e s t i o n in p r o p o r t i o n to the n u m b e r o f Total = 20

its discussants. B u t w e m a y n o t also infer that a sta tis tic a lly p o p u l a r q u e s t i o n w as 8. R o b e r t u s A n g l i c u s (fl. ca. 1 2 7 1 )
c o n s i d e r e d im p o r t a n t b y a particular a u t h o r w h o in c l u d e d it in his treatise. N o r is C om m en ta ry on the Sphere o f Sacrohosco
the l e n g t h o f a q ue st io n a m ea su re o f its s ig n if ic a n c e . D e s p i t e t he t e m p t a t i o n , w e 104, 132.
s h o u ld resist the u r g e to infer that an a u t h o r w h o d e v o t e s t w o p a g e s t o a q ue st io n Total = 2

m u s t h a v e t h o u g h t it m e r e i m p o r t a n t in s o m e sense tha n o n e t o w h i c h h e d e v o t e d
9. R i c h a r d o f M i d d l e t o n (fl. 2n d h a l f 13 th c.)
o n l y a s in g le page.
C om m en ta ry on the Sentences
768 A P P E N D I X II ANATOMY OF C O S M O L O G Y 769

49, 52, 69, 117, 118 , 120, 121, 122, 128, 132, 136, 193, 195, 21 1, 230, 249, 18. Jean B u r i d a n (ca. 1300-ca. 1358)
Q u estio n s on D e caelo
256, 377-
Total = 18 12, 54, 62, 66, 68, 7 1 , 72, 73, 78, 9 1 , 106, 122, 123, 124, 130, 1 4 1, 168, 169,
177, 180, 189, 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 , 21 8, 21 9 , 234, 244, 2 6 1 , 369, 373, 374, 378, 381,
10. G o d f r e y o f Fo n ta in e s (d. 1306)
3**3, 389. 396.
Q u odlibets II, I V , and V Total = 36
1, 65, 129.
Q u estio n s on the Physics
Total = 3
16, 7 3, 15 5 , 159, 163, 27 6, 2 7 7 , 289, 296, 308, 3 2 1 , 32:5.
Total = 12
Fourteenth century
Q u estio n s on the M etap hysics
89, 102, 156, 1 57, 192, 200, 202, 220.
11. Peter A u r e o l i (d. 1322)
Total = 8
Com m entary on the Sentences
47, 79, 128, 195, 339. 19. S i m o n d e T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) (d. 1361)
Total = $ Q u estio n s on the M eteorology
132, 140, 235, 265, 334, 347, 348, 350, 352, 354, 3 6 1, 362.
12. H e r v a e u s N a t a l is [ H a r v e y ot N e d e l l e c ] (ca. 1 2 6 0 - 1 3 2 3 )
Total = 12
D e materia celi »
235, 256, 25 7 , 258, 269. 20. A l b e r t o f S a x o n y (ca. 1 3 1 6 - 1 3 9 0 )
Total = 5 Q u estio n s on D e celo
1 1 , 17, 62, 66, 68, 70, 7 1 , 73, 74, 76, 77 , 9 1 , 97, 106, 122, 123, 124, 126, 132,
13. C e c c o d ’A sco li ( 12 6 9 -13 2 7 )
1 4 1, 169, 180, 181 , 184, 189, 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 , 21 9, 220, 222, 225, 2 3 1 , 234, 244,
Com m entary on the S p h ere o j Sacrobosco
336, 369, 374, 378, 380, 381 , 383, 387, 389, 396.
126, 132, 170, 196, 201, 240, 383, 389, 396. Total = 44
Total = 9
Q u estio n s on the Physics
14. D u r a n d u s de S a n c t o P o r c i a n o ( 1 2 7 0 / 7 5 - 1 3 3 4 ) 159, 2 7 6, 2 7 7 , 283, 289, 293, 296, 308, 325, 388.

Com m entary on the Sentences Total = 10

1 1 7 , 126, 173, 2 1 1 , 23 7 , 242.


21 . N i c o l e O r e s m e (ca. 1 3 2 0 - 1 3 8 2 )
Total = 6
Q u estio n s on D e celo
12, 17 , 54, 62, 66, 68, 73, 78, 9 1 , 122, 123, 1 4 1, 168, 169, 1 7 7 , 180, 1 81 , 190,
15. J o h n o f j a n d u n (ca. 1 2 8 5 - 1 3 2 8 )
2 1 1 , 2 1 6 , 2 1 7 , 222, 225, 2 3 1 , 336, 363, 365, 378, 381, 389.
Q u estions on D e coelo
Total = 30
12, 25, 54, 60, 62, 68, 73, 79, 9 1 , 122, 128, 130, 169, 1 75 , 1 7 7 , 180, 2 1 1 , 216,
224, 236, 260, 2 6 1 , 264, 300, 3 7 1 , 389. Q u estio n s on the Sphere
Total = 26 104, 184, 207, 2 1 5 , 366, 383, 389, 393.
Total = 8
Q u estions on the P hysics
6, 16, 149, 154, 155, 159, 165, 166, 17 6 , 192, 204, 2 7 1 , 27 6, 2 7 7 , 283, 289, 22. T h e m o n J u d a e u s (ca. 1 3 30 -d . after 1 3 71 )
293, 296, 301, 307, 309. 325- Q u estio n s on the M eteorology
Total = 22 140, 23 5, 262, 263, 334, 344, 348, 350. 352, 362, 385, 389.
Total = 12
16. J o ha n ne s C a n o n i c u s (1st h a l f 14th c.)
Q u estio n s on the Physics Q u estio n s on the Sphere

2, 276, 308. 54, 9 7, 106, 126, 184, 220, 335, 383, 384, 389, 396.

Total = 3 Total = 11

23. M a r s i li u s o f I n g h e n (d. 1396)


17. W i l l i a m o f O c k h a m (ca. 1 2 9 0 - 1 3 4 9 )
Q u estions on the Physics Q u estio n s on the P hysics
1, 4, 17 , 73, 159, 165, 27 5, 27 6, 283, 289, 293, 296, 308, 325.
1 7 1 , 172 , 208, 21 0, 275, 2 7 7 , 289.
Total = 14
Total = 7
A PPEN D IX II A N A T O M Y OF C O S M O L O G Y 771
24. Pierre d’Ailly (1350—1420) Q u e s t io n s on th e M e t a p h y s ic s
Q u e s t io n s on th e S p h e r e o f S a cr o b o sco 128, 155, 162, 197, 198, 199, 220, 237.
97, 106, 126, 180, 184, 220, 335, 388, 396. Total = 8
Total = 9
32. John M ajor (1467/68-1550)
Fifteenth century C o m m e n t a r y on th e S e n te n c e s
50, 58, 79, 85, 97, 99, 1 1 7 , 1 43, 182, 183, 242, 272, 350, 387.
25. Paul o f Venice (1369/72-1429) Total = 14
Q u e s t io n s on D e celo ( L i b e r ce li et m u n d i) Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s
11, 62, 70, 122, 132, 169, 178, 181, 216, 220, 221, 225, 231, 244, 340, 379, C 159, 293, 297, 321, 326.
380, 387, 396. Total = 6
Total = 19 (in same publication as P h y s ic s)
Q u e s t io n s on D e ce lo
26. Benedictus Hesse o f K rakow (fl. 1st half 15th c.) 18, 68, 78, 9C 122, 124, 126, 169, 184, 215, 220, 222, 231, 244, 371, 374,
Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s 378, 383, 389, 396-
128, 155, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 167, 176, 271. 275, 276, 277, 283, 289, Total = 20
296, 301, 302, 308, 321, 324, 325.
33. Christopher Clavius (1537-1612)
Total 23
C o m m e n t a r y on th e S p h e r e o f S a cro b o sco
27. Johannes de Magistris (fl. 2nd half 15th c.) 388.
Q u e s t io n s on D e celo Total = 1
18, 54, 61, 62, 73, 74, 79, 91, t 2 2 , 123, 126, r27, 128, 168, 173, 177, 180,
216, 220, 244, 383, 3S6, 389, 393- 34. Franciscus Toletus (1532-1596)
Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s
Total = 24
1, 8, 25, 28, 59, 159, 274, 276, 277, 289, 308, 326.
Q u e s t io n s oti th e \ I e te o r o lo y y
Total = 12
235. 337. 34>k 3^2, 389.
Total = 5 35. Galileo Galilei (1 564-1642)
Q u e s t io n s on D e ca elo
28. Johannes Versor (d. after 1482)
Q u e s t io n s on D e celo
I, 12, 62, 66, 68, 75, 79, 97, 128.
11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 62, 66, 68, 71, 72, 73, 74. 78, 122, 123. 126, 127, 130, 140, Total = 9
168, 177, 180, 185, 186, 187, 211, 216, 220, 222, 231, 244, 369, 372, 373, 36. Conimbricenses (Coimbra Jesuits)
376, 382, 383, 389. Q u e s t io n s on D e co elo
Total = 38 10, 12, 15, 62, 63, 64,68, 69, 79, 84, 85,91. 94, 97, 102, 103, 124, 126, 128,
29. Thomas Bricot (d. 1516) 1 55» 163, 169, 174. I 77»180, 183, 192, 195. r96, 206, 213, 222, 229, 230,
Q u e s t io n s on D e celo 231, 237, 241, 250, 252, 256, 259, 270, 275, 331, 333, 334, 335, 570, 378.
17, 62, 66, 68, 78, 92, 97, 124, 169, 177, 180, 184, 211. 216, 220. 222. 231, 382, 384, 387, 389, 396, 398.
387, 389. Total = 55
Total = 19 Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s
1, 3. 22, 24, 28, 29, 55. 289, 292, 308. 321, 322, 325, 326.
Sixteenth century Total = 14

30. Johannes Dullaert (ca. 1470-1513) 37. Peter de Ona (1560-1626)


Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s

1, 326. 28, 29, 152, 153, 159, 275, 277, 280. 289, 301. 308, 325, 326.
Total = 2 Total = 13

31. Chrvsostomus Javelli (1470/72-ca. 1538) 38. John Case (Johannes Casus) (ca. 1546-1600)
Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s Q u e s t io n s on rhe P h y s ic s
6, 23, 27, 154, 155, 165, 166, 176, 205, 289, 300, 301, 303, 326, 337, 338. 54, 173. 179. 238, 254, 289.
Total = 16 Total = 6
772 A PPE N D IX II A N A T O M Y OF C O S M O L O G Y
773
Seventeenth century 44. B a r th o lo m a e u s M a s tr iu s (1602-1673) an d B o n a v e n tu r a B e llu tu s (1600-1676)
Q u estio n s on D e coelo

39. Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza (1578-1651) 79,85, 97.


Q u estio n s on D e coelo
Total = 3
12, 15, 30, 79, 85, 91, 97, 112, 119, 126, 128, 146, 173, 183, 209, 228, 237,
45. F ran ciscu s d e O v i e d o (1602-1651)
256, 275, 335, 341, 353, 392. Q u estio n s on D e caelo
Total = 23 12, 85, 97, 128, 135, 194.
Q u estio n s on the Physics T o ta l = 6
2, 4, 7, 55, 58.
Q u estio n s on the P hy sics (both works in same publication)
Total = 5
1, 2, 7, 55, 58, 280.
Q u estio n s on O n G eneration and C o rru p tio n (all are in the same publication) Total = 6
33i, 339-
Total = 2 46. Thomas Com pton-Carleton (ca. 1591-1666)
Q u estio n s on D e coelo
40. Bartholomew Amicus (1562-1649)
12, 79, 85, 86, 97, 126, 128, 133, 135, 195, 231, 237, 256.
Q u estio n s on D e caelo
Total = 13
1, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 31, 32, 33, 35, 41, 42, 43, 45, 62, 63, 68, 69, 79, 83,
85, 87, 91, 92' 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 101, 106, 122, 128, 130, 132, 135, 141, Q u estio n s on the P hy sics (both works in same publication)
144, 169, 174, 180, 190, 211, 216, 220, 222, 233, 237, 242, 243, 250, 252, 1, 23, 55, 58, 280, 283.
253, 254, 258, 261,262,267, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 280, 284, 301, 332, Total = 6
333, 334- 335. 34T353.355. 35b, 357. 359, 360, 364, 367, 374, 375, 384,
47. Giovanni Baptista Riccioli (1598-1671)
386, 387, 388, 390,391,396, 397, 398.
A lm ag estu m novum
Total = 90
12, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 51, 53, 79, 83, 85, 88, 97. 128, 135, 190,
Q u estio n s on the P hysics 195, 388, 389, 393.
55, 56, 152, 283, 289, 308. 310, 31 1, 321, 325, 326. Total = 23
Total = 11
48. Franciscus Bonae Spei (1617-1677)
41. Raphael Aversa (ca. 1589-1657)
Q u estio n s on D e coelo (1652)
Q u estio n s on D e caelo
10, 12, 25, 62, 68, 75, 85, 97, 128, 135, 195, 242, 399.
2, 12, 21, 26, 55, 62, 68, 69, 79, 80, 81, 85, 90, 96, 97, 98, 99, 105, 125, 126,
Total = 13
128, 130, 131, 132, 138, 139, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147, 150, 170, 182, 195,
220, 222, 231, 233,237,239, 242, 250, 255, 256, 270, 331, 334, 335, 348, Q u estio n s on the P hy sics (in same publication as D e coelo )
353, 358, 388,389. 55, 58.
Total = 54 Total = 2

42. Roderigo de Arriaga (1592-1667) 49. M e lc h io r C o r n a e u s (1598—1665)


Q u estio n s on D e caelo Q u e stio n s on D e coelo
97, 128, 135. 2, 7, 10, 12, 32, 62, 63, 68, 69, 74, 79, 85, 97, 99, 105, i n , 112, 126, 127,
Total = 3 135, 137,
170, 180, 183, 195, 220, 231, 237, 273, 33 1, 339. 341, 383, 384,
Q u estio n s on the Physics (in same publication as D e caelo) 388, 389, 393, 394, 395-
55. 58. Total = 39
Total = 2 Q u e stio n s on the P hysics

43. Johannes Poncius (1599-1661) 57, 58, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283,304, 308,312,313,314, 315,
Com m en tary on rite Sentences 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 325.
Total = 24
97,237.
Total = 2 Q u e stio n s on the M eteorology (all three treatises or sections are in the same
Q u estio n s on D e coelo publication)
1, 9, 12, 67, 68, 75, 91, 97, 105, 128, 135, 194, 231, 237, 250, 256. 342, 343, 345, 34b, 347. 348. 349, 351 - 392-
Total = r6 T o ta l = 9
774 A PPE N D IX II
A N A T O M Y OF C O S M O L O G Y
775
50. Sigismundus Serbellonus (d. ca. 1660) III. Q u e s t io n s on th e Sphere
Q u e s t io n s on D e ca elo (vol. 1, 1657)
1, 9, 54, 62, 97, 104, 106, 126, 127, 128, 132, 147, 170, 173, 180, 184, 188, 196,
1, 12, 22, 79, 82, 97, 122, 130, 131, 135. 148, 194, 195, 209, 227, 237, 262.
201, 203, 207, 212, 215, 220, 223, 240, 242, 245, 248, 266, 331, 335, 366, 368,
Total = 17
383, 384, 388, 389, 393, 396, 400.
(vol. 2, 1663)
Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s
Total = 41
55, 275, 277, 280, 304, 325-
Total = 6
IV . C o m m e n t a r ie s on th e Sentences
51. George de Rhodes (1597-1661) 1, 4, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 58, 69, 79, 85, 97, 99, 112, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 126,
Q u e s t io n s on D e co elo
128, 132, 136, 143, 145, 173, 182, 183, 191, 193, 195, 211, 214, 230, 237, 242,
79, 88, 135. 247, 249, 256, 270, 272, 339, 350, 377, 387.
Total = 3 Total = 45
52. Illuminatus Oddus (d. 1683)
Q u e s t io n s on th e P h y s ic s V. Q u e s t io n s on th e M eterology
2, 58, 154, 275, 280, 284, 289, 308, 310, 325, 326. 13 2 , 14 0 , 2 3 5 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 3 , 2 6 5 , 3 3 4 , 3 3 7 , 3 4 2 , 34 3 , 34 4 , 3 4 5 , 346 , 3 4 7 , 348 , 349,
Total = 11 350, 351, 352, 354, 36i , 36 2 , 3 8 5 , 389, 392 .
Q u e s t io n s on D e co elo Total = 25
1, 15, 25, 62, 67, 74, 79, 85, 94, 97, 101, 103, 128, 132, 135, 141, 144, 147,
148, 173, 174, 183, 195, 201, 232, 237, 241, 242, 246, 268, 270, 273. V I. Q u e s t io n s on th e Metaphysics
Total = 32 89, 102, 128, 155, 156, 157, 162, 192, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 220, 237.
Total = 15

V II. Q u e s t io n s on O n Generation and Corruption

T a b le A . 2 T r e a tis e s a n d th e q u e s tio n s d r a w n fro m th e m 33i, 339-


Total = 2
I. De caelo
1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, V III. Q u o d lib e t a l Q u e s t io n s

35, 41, 42, 43, 45, 54, 55. ho, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 1, 65, 129, 255, 256, 257, 258, 269.
75, 7 6 , 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 8 6 , 87, 8 8 , 90, 91, 92. 93, 94, 95, 96, Total = 8
97. 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, h i , 112, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127,
128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 138. 139, UO, 141, 142, H 4, U h, 147, 148, IX . Alm agestum novum ( R i c c io li )
150, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 12, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 48, 51, 53, 79, 83, 85, 88, 97, 128, 135, 190, 195,
187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 194, 195, 196, 201, 206, 209, 211, 213, 215, 216, 217, 388, 389, 393.
218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, Total = 23
237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 258, 250,
290, 261, 262, 264, 267, 268, 270, 273, 300, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 339, X. De universo ( W i lli a m o f A u v e r g n e )
340, 341, 348, 353, 355, 35h, 357, 358, 359. 360, 363, 364, 365, 367, 369, 370,
34, 40, 43, 62, 69, 100, 108, 109, h i , 113, 134, 151, 226.
371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 379, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 386, 387, 388,
Total = 13
389, 390, 39i, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399-
Total = 221
X I. Summa theologica ( A le x a n d e r o f H a le s )

II. Physics 106, 107, 109, n o , h i , 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 228.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, Total = 11
73, 122, 128, 149, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,
171, 172, 173, 176, 179, 183, 192, 203, 204, 205, 208, 209, 210, 238, 254, 271,
274, 275, 276,277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 289, 290,
291, 292, 293,294, 295, -96, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 309,
307, 308, 309,310, 311. 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322,
323, 324, 325,326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 337, 338, 388.
Total = 116
BIBLIO GR APH Y 111
librum De sensu et sensato; librum De memoria et reminiscentia; librum De somno et
vigilia; librum De longitudine et brevitate vite; librum De iuventute et senectute Ar-
istotelis. Recognitae rursus et emendatae summa accuratione et iudicio Magistri Georgii
Lokert Scotia quo sunt tractatus proportionum additi. P a ris : v a e n u n d a n t u r in a e d ib u s
Bibliography I o d ic i B a d ii A s c e n s ii e t C o n r a d i R e s c h , 1 5 1 8 .
A lb e r t u s M a g n u s . Alberti Magni Opera omnia. E d . B e r n h a r d G e y e r .
V o l . 16 , p t. 2: Metaphysica, b k s . 6— 13 . E d . B e r n h a r d G e y e r . A s c h e n d o r f f : M o n ­
a s t e r y W e s t f a lo r u m , 19 6 4 .
V o l . 5, p t. 1: De caelo et mundo. E d . P a u l H o s s fe ld . A s c h e n d o r f f : M o n a s t e r ii
W e s t f a lo r u m , 1 9 7 1 .
A lb u m a s a r . Introductorium in astronomiam Albumasaris abalachi octo continens libros par-
P u b lic a t io n s in th e s a m e y e a r a re c it e d in o r d e r o f a p p e a r a n c e . If, f o r e x a m p le , the tiales. V e n ic e : p e r J a c o b u m p e n t iu m L e u c e n s e m , 15 0 6 . U n f o lia t e d .
y e a r o f p u b lic a t io n is 19 7 8 , th e fir s t p u b lic a t io n in th a t y e a r is c it e d as 19 7 8 a , th e A l c u i n . Interrogationes et responsiones in Genesim. V o l . 100 in J. P . M i g n e , e d ., Pa-
s e c o n d as 19 7 8 b , a n d s o o n . In th e b i b l i o g r a p h y , th e le tte r s a, b , c, e t c ., a re p la ce d trologiae cursus completus, series Latina. P a ris , 18 6 3 .
a fte r th e r e le v a n t w o r k s . In m u l t i v o l u m e w o r k s b y s c h o la s t ic a u t h o r s , th e v o lu m e A le x a n d e r o f H a le s . Summa Theologica. T o m u s II: P n m a p a rs s e c u n d i lib r i. F lo r e n c e :
c o n c e r n in g c o s m o l o g y is s p e c ifie d w h e n n e c e s s a r y . In e a r ly p r in t e d b o o k s , w h e r e C o l l e g i u m S . B o n a v e n t u r a e , 19 2 8 .
s e c tio n s d e v o t e d to q u e s tio n s o n o n e o r m o r e o f A r i s t o t l e ’ s r e le v a n t c o s m o lo g ic a l A lf r a g a n u s . Alfragano (al-Fargani) II “ Libro dell’aggregazione delle stelle” (Dante,
w o rk s (De caelo, Physics, Metaphysics, a n d s o o n ) o c c u r b u t a re n o t r e fle c te d in the Conv., II, VI-134). Secondo il codice Mediceo-Laurenziano PI. 29-Cod. 9 contem-
title , t h e y a re m e n t io n e d f o l l o w i n g th e e n t r y ( fo r e x a m p le , se e H u r t a d o d e M e n d o z a ) . poraneo a Dante. E d . R o m e o C a m p a n i. C a s t e llo : L a p i. V o l s . 8 7 - 9 0 in G . L .
P a s s e r in i, e d ., Collezione di opuscoli danteschi indediti 0 rari. F lo r e n c e , 19 1 0 .
Liber de orbibus. In Alexandri Achillini Bononiensis Philosophi
A c h illin i, A le s s a n d r o . A l Farghani Differentie scientie astrorum. E d . F r a n c is J. C a r m o d y . B e r k e le y : 19 4 3 .
celeberrimi Opera omnia unum collecta. Cum annotationibus excellentissimi doctoris A lh a z e n . See H a y t h a m , ib n a l-.
Pamphili Montij, Bononiensis scholae Patavinae publici professoris. Omnia post primas A m b r o s e , S a in t. Hexameron, Paradise, and Cain and Abel. T r . J o h n J. S a v a g e . V o l .
editiones nunc primum emendatiora in lucem prodeunt. V e n ic e : a p u d H ie r o n y m u m 42 in The Fathers o f the Church, A New Translation. N e w Y o r k : F a th e rs o f th e
S c o tu m , 1545. C h u r c h , 19 6 1.
Egidii Romani in libros De physico auditu Arisiotelis
A e g id iu s R o m a n u s ( G ile s o f R o m e ) . In Aristotelis libros De caelo et mundo dilucida textus explicatio
A m ic u s , B a r t h o lo m e w .
commentaria accuratissime emendata et in marginibus ornata quotationibus textuum et et disputationes in quibus illustrium scholarum Averrois, D. Thomae, Scoti, et Nom-
commentorum ac alijs quamplurimis annotationibus. Cum tabula questionum in fine. inalium sententiae expenduntur earumque tuendarum probabiliores modi afferuntur.
Eiusdem questio de gradibus formarum. V e n ic e , 15 0 2 . (a) N a p le s : a p u d S e c u n d in u m R o n c a lio lu m , 16 2 6 .
Gaetani expositio in libro De celo et mundo.Cum questione Domini Egidii De materia In Aristotelis libros De physico auditu dilucida textus explicatio et disputationes in quibus
celi nuperrime impressa et quam diligentissime emendata. V e n ic e , 15 0 2 . (b) illustrium scholarum Averrois, D . Thomae, Scoti, et Nominalium sententiae expen­
In primum librum Sententiarum. Correctus a reuerendo magistro Augustino Montifalconio. duntur earumque tuendarum probabiliores modi afferuntur. 2 v o ls . N a p le s : a p u d S e ­
V e n ic e : O c t a v ia n u s S c o t u s , 1 5 2 1 . F a c s im ile , F r a n k fu r t : M i n e r v a , 19 6 8 . c u n d in u m R o n c a lio lu m , 16 2 6 — 16 2 9 .
Opus Hexaemeron, sive De mundo sex diebus condito, in Primus tomus operum D. questiones o n A r i s t o t l e ’ s D e caelo
I t a p p e a r s th a t A m i c u s ’ s c o m m e n t a r ie s a n d
Aegidii Romani, Bituricensis Archiepiscopi, Ordinis Fratrum Eremitarum Sancti Au- and Physics f o r m e d p a r t o f a s e v e n - v o l u m e s e t o f c o m m e n t a r ie s w i t h th e f o l­
gustini. R o m e : a p u d A n t o n i u m B l a d u m , 1 5 5 5 . l o w i n g g e n e r a l title : In universam Aristotelis philosophiam notae et disputationes,
Giles o f Rome, Errores philosophorum: Critical Text with Notes and Introduction. E d . quibus illustrium scholarum Averrois, D. Thomae, Scoti et Nominalium sententiae
J o s e f K o c h ; tr. J o h n O . R ie d l. M i l w a u k e e : M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1944. expenduntur earumque tuendarum probabiles modi afferuntur. N a p le s , 1 6 2 3 - 1 6 4 8 .
14 Quaestiones. In Spherae tractatus Ioannis de Sacro Busto Angliii viri
A i l l y , P ie r r e d \ A n o n y m o u s . See “ C o m p e n d i u m o f S ix B o o k s . ”
clariss.; Gerardi Cremonensis Theoricae planetarum veteres; Georgii Purbachii Theo- A q u in a s . See T h o m a s A q u in a s .
ricae planetarum novae; Prosdocimo de Beldomando Patavini super tractatus sphaerico A r i s t o t le . Aristoteles Latinus X I 1.2, De mundo. E d . W . L . L o r im e r . R o m e : L ib r e r ia
commentaria, nuper in lucem diducta per L .G A . nunquam amplius impressae . . . Cam- d e llo s t a t o , 1 9 5 1 .
pani compendium super Tractatu de sphera; Eiusdem Tractatulus de modo fabricandi On the Heavens. T r . W . K . C . G u t h r ie . L o e b C la s s i c a l L i b r a r y , i9 6 0 .
spheram solidam; Petri Cardin, de Aliaco episcopi Camaracensis 14 Quaestiones. . ■ Meteorologica. T r . H . D . P . L e e . L o e b C la s s i c a l L i b r a r y . 19 6 2 .
Alpetragii Arabi Theorica planetarum nuperrime Latinis mandata Uteris a Calo Ca- The Complete Works o f Aristotle. 2 v o ls . R e v . e d . E d . J o n a t h a n B a r n e s . P r in c e to n :
lonymos Hebreo Neapolitano, ubi nititur salvare apparentias in motibus planetarum P r in c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19 8 4 .
absque eccentricis et epicyclis. V e n ic e , 1 5 3 1 . Categories, tr. J. L . A c k r i ll.
Ymago Mundi de Pierre d’Ailly. F r e n c h t r a n s la t io n . E d . a n d tr . E d m o n d B u r o n . On Generation and Corruption, tr. H . H . J o a c h im .
P a ris: M a is o n n e u v e F re re s, 19 3 0 . Generation o f Animals, tr. A . P la tt .
A i t o n , E . J. “ C e le s t ia l S p h e r e s a n d C i r c l e s . ” History o f Science 19 (Ju n e 1 9 8 1 ) , 75" On the Heavens, tr. J. L . S t o c k s .
U 4. Physics, tr. R . P . H a r d ie a n d R . K . G a y e .
Questiones et decisiones physicales insignium virorum: Alberti de Saxonia
A lb e r t o f S a x o n y . Metaphysics, tr. W . D . R o s s .
in octo libros Physicorum; tres libros De celo et mundo; duos libros De generatione et Meteorology, tr. E . W . W e b s t e r .
corruptione; Thimonis in quatuor libros Meteororum; Buridani in tres libros De anima; De mundo, tr. E . S . F o r s te r .

776
BIBLIOGRAPH Y
77 8 BIB LIO GR A PH Y 779
Nicomacheatt Ethics tr. W. D. Ross, rev. J. O . Urmson. Introduction, and Notes, o f “ De multiplicatione speciemm” and “ De speculis combu-
Arriaga, Roderigo de. Cursusphilosophicus. Antwerp: Plantiniana Balthasaris Moreti, rentibus.” Ed. and tr. D avid C . Lindberg. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
1632. Baldini, U g o . “ L’Astronomia del Cardinale Bellarmino.” In P. Galluzzi, ed., Novita
Augustine, Saint. The City oj God. Ed. and tr. Marcus Dods. 2 vols. N ew York: celesti e crisi del sapere. Atti del C onvegno internazionale di studi Galileiani.
Hafner, 1948. Florence: Giunti Barbera, 1984, 293-305.
St. Augustine The Literal Meaning o f Genesis: De Genesi ad litteram. 2 vols. Ed. and Bartholom ew the Englishman. Bartholomaei Anglici De genuinis rerum coelestium, ter-
tr. John Hammond Taylor. Vols. 41—42 in Johannes Quasten, Walter J. Bur- restrium et inferarum proprietatibus. Franklurt: Apud W olfgang Richterum, im-
ghardt, and Thomas C om erford Lawler, eds., Ancient Christian Writers: The pensis Nicolai Steinii, 1601. Facsimile, with title De rerum proprietatibus.
Works o f the Fathers in Translation. N ew York: N ew m an, 1982. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1964.
Aureoli, Peter. Petri Aureoli Verberii Ordinis Minorum Archiepiscopi Aquensis S .R .E . Basil, Saint. Exegetic Homilies. Tr. Agnes Clare Way. Vol. 46 in The Fathers oj the
Cardinalis Commentariorum in primum [-quartum] librum Sententiarum pars prima Church, A New Translation. Washington, D .C .: Catholic U niversity o f America
[-quarta]. 2 vols. Rome: Aloysius Zannetti, 1596—1605. Press, 1963. This is Basil’s Hexaemeron.
Averroes. Averroes’ Tahajut al-Tahajut (The Incoherence o f the Incoherence). 2 vols. Bechler, Z ev. “ The Essence and Soul o f the Seventeenth-Century Scientific Rev­
Tr. Simon Van den Bergh. London: Luzac, 1954. olution.” Science in Context 1 (1987), 87-101.
Aristotelis opera cum Averrois commentariis. 9 vols. in 11 parts plus 3 supplementary Bede, Venerable. Bedae Venerabilis Opera. Pt. II: Opera exegetica, 1: Libri quatuor in
vols. Venice: Junctas, 1562-1574. Facsimile, Frankfurt: Minerva, 1962. principium Genesis usque ad nativitatem Isaac et eiectionem Ishmahelis adnotationem.
Vol. 4: Aristotelis De physico auditu libri octo cum Avertois Cordubensis variis in Ed. Charles W. Jones. In Corpus Christianorum, series Latina, vol. 1 18a. Turnholt:
eosdem commentariis. Brepols, 1967.
Vol. 5: Aristotelis De coelo, De generatione et corruptione, Meteorologicorum, De Bellarmine, Robert. “ The Louvain Lectures (Lectiones Lovanienses) o f Bellarmine
plantis cum Averrois Cordubensis in eosdem commentariis. and the Autograph C o p y o f his 1616 Declaration to G alileo.” Ed. and tr. U go
Vol. 7: De causis libellus proprietatum elementorum Aristoteli ascriptus. Baldini and George V. Coyne. Latin or Lilian texts with English translation.
Vol. 8: Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libri X III cum Averrois Cordubensis in eosdem Vatican Observatory Publications, Special Series: Studi Galileiani, vol. 1, no. 2.
commentariis et Epitome. Vatican C ity, 1984.
Vol. 9: De substantia orbis. Bellutus, Bonaventura. See Mastrius, Bartholomaeus.
“ A Treatise Concerning the Substance o f the Celestial Sphere.” [A translation o f Benedictus Hesse. Quaestiones super octo libros “ Physicorum" Aristotelis. Ed. Stanislaw
De substantia orbis.] Tr. Arthur Hyman. In Arthur Hym an and James J. Walsh, Wielgus. W roclaw: Polish Academ y o f Sciences, 1984.
eds., Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions. Bernard o f Verdun. Birnardus de Virduno, Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, Tractatus super
Indianapolis: Hackett, 1973, 307-314. totam astrologiam. Ed. P. Polykarp Hartmann. Werl: D ietnch-Coelde-Verlag,
Aversa, Raphael. Philosophia metaphysicam physicamque complectens quaestionibus con- 1961.
texta. 2 vols. Vol. 2. Rome: apud Iacobum Mascardum, 1627. V ol. 1 was pub­ Bible. Biblia Sacra Vulgatae editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. Iussu recognita et dementis
lished in 1625, but has not been used here. Vol. 2 includes questions on what VIII auctoritate edita. Rome: Marietti, 1965.
Aversa calls De mundo, but which is cited throughout this study as De caelo. The New English Bible with the Apocrypha, Oxford Study Edition. Ed. M . Jack Suggs
Avicenna. Avicenneperhypateticiphilosophi medicorum acfacileprimi opera in lucem redacta (N ew Testament) and Arnold J. Tkacik. General editor, Samuel Sandmel. N ew
ac nuper quantum ars niti potuit per canonicos emendata: Logyca; Sufficientia; De celo Y ork: O xford U niversity Press, 1976.
et mundo; De anima; De animalibus; De intelligentiis; Alpharabius de intelligentiis; Biel, Gabriel. Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum, Prologus et Liber primus.
Philosophia prima. Venice: Octavianus Scotus, 1508. Facsimile, Frankfurt: M i­ Ed. Wilfrid Werbeck and Udo Hofmann. Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1973.
nerva, 1961. BitrujI, al-. De motibus celorum. Critical edition o f the Latin translation o f Michael
Bacon, Roger. The “ Opus Majus’’ o f Roger Bacon. 2 vols. Ed. John Henry Bridges. Scot. Ed. Francis J. Carm ody. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University o f California
London: Williams & Norgate, 1900. Press, 1952.
Opera hactenus inedita. 16 fascicules. Ed. Robert Steele and Ferdinand M. Delorme. Al-Bitruji: On the Principles ofAstronomy. Arabic and Hebrew texts with translation,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905-1940. analysis, and Arabic-Hebrew-English glossary by Bernard R. Goldstein. N ew
Fasc. 3: Liber primus comtnunium naturalium Fratris Rogeri. Pts. 3—4. Ed. Robert Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.
Steele. 1911. Blund, John. Iohannes Blund, Tractatus de anima. Ed. D. A. Callus and R. W. Hunt.
Fasc. 4: Liber secundus communium naturalium: De celestibus. Pt. 5. Ed. Robert Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi, no. 2. London: For the British Academ y by
Steele. 1913. O xford U niversity Press, 1970.
Fasc. 13: Questiones supra libros octo Physicorum Aristotelis. Ed. Ferdinand Delorme Boethius o f Dacia. Quaestiones super libros Physicorum. In Boethii Daci Opera. Vol. 5,
and Robert Steele. 1935. pt. 2. Ed. Geza Sajo. Copenhagen: 1974.
L’ti fragment inedit de I’Opus Tertium de Roger Bacon precede d’une etude sur cefragment. De aeternitate mundi. In Boethii Daci Opera, Topica-Opuscula. Vol. 6, pt. 2. Ed.
Ed. Pierre Duhem. Florence: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1909. Nicolaus Georgius Green-Pedersen. Copenhagen: 1976.
The Opus majus oj Roger Bacon. 2 vols. Tr. Robert B. Burke. Philadelphia: U ni­ Bonae Spei, Franciscus. R.P. Francisci Bonae Spei, Carmelitae Reformati, Commentarii
versity o f Pennsylvania Press, 1928. Reprinted N ew York: Russell & Russell, tres in universatn Aristotelis philosophiam. Commentartus tertius in libros De coelo;
1962. De generatione et corruptione; De anima et Metaphysicam. Brussels: apud Franciscum
Roger Bacon’s Philosophy o f Nature, A Critical Edition, with English Translation, Vivienum , 1652.
780 b i b l i o g r a p h y BIBLIOGRAPH Y 781

Bonaventure, Saint. Opera omnia. A d Claras Aquas (Quaracchi): Collegium S. Bon- X II libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis Expositio. Cum summariis, notis, et scholiis
aventurae, 1882-1901. R .P .F. Hugonis Cavelli, Hibemi. Item eiusdem Doctoris In Metaphysicam quaestiones
V ol. 1: Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi: In subtilissima, cum annotationibus R .P .F. Mauritii de Portu Hibemi. Vol. 4. Lyon,
Primum librum Sententiarum (1882). 1639-
Vol. 2: Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi: In This is the Luke Wadding edition o f the Opera omnia o f John Duns Scotus.
Secundum librum Sententiarum (1885). Facsimile, Hildesheim: Olm s, 1968. Although the Expositio and questions on
On the Eternity o f the World (De aetemitate mundi). Tr. Paul M . Byrne. Milwaukee: the twelfth book o f the Metaphysics are attributed to Duns Scotus, they are not
Marquette University Press, 1964, 99—117. his. Cavellus’s comments on those books are nevertheless relevant.
See also Siger o f Brabant, 1964; Thomas Aquinas, 1964. Cecco d ’Ascoli. De eccentricis et epicyclis. In G. BofFito, “ II D e eccentricis et epicyclis
Bradwardine, Thomas. De causa Dei contra Pelagium et de virtute causarum ad suos di C ecco d’Ascoli novamente scoperto e illustrato.” In Leo S. O lschki, ed.. La
Mertonenses libri tres. . . opera et studio Dr. Henrici Savili Collegii Mertonensis in Biblioflia rivista dell’arte antica in libri, stampe, manoscritto, autografi e legature. Vol.
Academia Oxoniensis custodis, ex scriptis codicibus nunc, primum editi. London: apud 7. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1906, 150-167.
loannem Billium, 1618. Facsimile, Frankfurt: Minerva, 1964. “ Com m entary on the Sphere o f Sacrobosco.” In Lynn Thorndike, ed. and tr.,
Brahe, Tycho. Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera omnia. 15 vols. Ed. J. L. E. Dreyer. The “ Sphere” of Sacrobcsco and Its Commentators. Chicago: University o f Chicago
Copenhagen, 1913-1929. Press, 1949, 343-411.
De Mundi aetherei recentioribus Phaenomenis. Vol. 4in J. L. E. Dreyer, ed., Tychonis Cesalpino, Andrea. Andreae Cesalpini Aretini medici atque philosophi subtilissimi peri-
Brahe Dani Opera omnia. Copenhagen, 1922. First published Uraniborg, 1588; tissimique peripateticarum quaestionum libri quinque. Venice: apud Iuntas, 1571.
then Prague, 1603; Frankfurt, 1610. Chalcidius. Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus. Ed. J. H. Waszink,
Bricot, Thomas. De celo et mundo. In Textus abbreviatus Aristotelis super octo libris and P. J. Jensen. Vol. 4 in Raymond Klibansky, ed., Plato Latinus. London:
Phisicorum et tota ndturali philosophia nuper a Magistro Thoma Bricot vernantissi- Warburg Institute, 1962.
marum artium atque divine legis claro professore compilatus una cum continuatione Chenu, M . D. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New
textus magistri Georgii et questionibus eiusdem de recenti ab eodem Thoma Bricot revisus Theological Perspectives in the Latin West. Ed. and tr. Jerome Taylor and Lester
atque dililgentissime emendatus. Lyon, i486. K. Little. Chicago: University o f Chicago Press, 1968; originally published in
Buridan, Jean. Acutissimi philosophi reverendi Magistri Johannis Buridani subtilissime French, 1957.
questiones super octo Phisicorum libros Aristotelis diligenter recognite et revise a Magistro Chrysostom , John. Homilies on Genesis 1—17. Tr. Robert C . Hill. Vol. 74 in The
Johanne Dullaert de Gandavo antea nusquam impresse. Paris, 1509. Facsimile, en­ Fathers o f the Church, A New Translation. Washington, D .C .: Catholic Univer­
titled Johannes Buridanus, Kommentar zur Aristotelischen Physik. Frankfurt: M i­ sity o f America Press, 1986.
nerva, 1964. Cicero. De natura deorum; Academica. Tr. Harris Rackham. Loeb Classical Library.
In Metaphysicen Aristotelis. Questiones argutissimae Magistri loanms Buridani in ultima I933 -
praelectione ab ipso recognitae et emissae ac ad archetypon diligenter repositae cum duplice Clagett, Marshall. The Science o f Mechanics in the Middle Ages. Madison: University
indicio materiarum videlicet in fronte et quaestionum in operis calce. Paris: Vaenun- o f Wisconsin Press, 1959.
dantur Badio, 1518. Facsimile, Frankfurt: Minerva, 1964. The added title page V ol 1: Archimedes in the Middle Ages. The Arabo-Latin Tradition. Madison: Uni­
o f the facsimile gives 1588 as the date o f publication. versity o f Wisconsin Press, 1964.
Iohannis Buridani Quaestiones super libris quattuor De caelo et mundo. Ed. Ernest A. Clavius, Christopher. Christophori Clavii Bambergensis ex Societate Iesu in Sphaeram
M oody. Cambridge, Mass.: Mediaeval Academ y o f America, 1942. Iohannis de Sacro Bosco Commentarius. 4th ed. Lyon: sumptibus Fratrum de
Burley, Walter. “ Questiones circa libros Physicorum .” Basel, Universitiitsbi- Gabiano, 1593. First ed. Rome: apud Victorium Helianum, 1570.
bliothek, M S. F. V . 12, fols. io 8 r - i7 iv . Christophori Clavii Bambergensis e Societate Iesu Opera Mathematica V tomis distributa
Burleus super octo libros Phisicorum. Venice, 1501. Facsimile, entitled Walter Burley, ab auctore nunc denuo correcta et plurimis locis aucta. Ad Reverendiss. et Illustriss.
In Physicam Aristotelis expositio et quaestiones. Hildesheim: Olm s, 1972. Principem ac Dominum. D. Joannem Godefridvm Episcopum Bambergensem etc.
Campanus o f Novara. Tractatus de sphera. See d ’A illy, 1531. Mogvntiae: sumptibus Antonij Hierat Excudebat Reinhardus Eltz, 1612. Tomus tertius
Campanus o f Novara and Medieval Planetary Theory: Theorica planetarum. Ed.and complectens commentarium In sphaeram Ioannis de Sacro Bosco, et Astrolabium. M o-
tr. Francis S. Benjamin, Jr., and G. J. Toom er. Madison: University o f Wis­ guntiae [MainzJ: sumptibus Antonii Hierat excudebat Reinhardus Eltz, 1611.
consin Press, 1971. Cobban, Alan B. The Medieval English Universities: Oxford and Cambridge to c.1500.
Capek, Milic, ed. The Concepts o f Space and Time, Their Structure and Development. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University o f California Press, 1988.
Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976. Cohen, Morris R., and I. E. Drabkin. A Source Book in Greek Science. 1st ed. N ew
Carm ody, Francis J. “ The Planetary Theory o f Ibn Rushd.” Osiris 10 (1952), 556— York: M cG raw -H ill, 1948. Reprinted Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
586. Press, 1958.
Caroti, Stefano. “ N icole O resm e’s Polemic against Astrology, in his Quodlibeta.” “ Com pendium o f Six Books on Metaphysics and Natural Philosophy.” Paris, Bib-
In Patrick Curry, ed.. Astrology, Science and Society: Historical Essays. W ood- liotheque Nationale, fonds latin. MS. 6752. Anonym ous. Com posed after 1323.
bridge, U .K .: Boydell, 1987, 75-93. 239 leaves. Book 6, the last book, concerns the spheres, intelligences, and first
Case, John (Johannes Casus). Lapisphilosophicus seu commentarius in S libros Physicorum cause and begins on fol. 213v.
Aristotelis in quo arcana physiologiae examinantur. Oxford: Josephus Bamesius, Com pton-Carleton, Thomas. Philosophia universa. Antwerp: apud Iacobum Meur-
U 99 - sium, 1649.
Cavellus, Hugo. R.P.F. Ioannis Duns Scoti, Doctoris Subtilis, Ordinis Minorum, In
782 BIB LIO GR A PH Y BIBLIOGRAPHY 783

Commentarii Collegii Conimbricettsis Societatis Iesu In quatuor libros


C o n im b r ic e n s e s . D u h e m , P ie r r e . Etudes sur Leonard de Vinci, ceux qu’il a lus et ceux qui I’ont lu. 3 v o ls .
De coelo Aristotelis Stagiritae. 2 n d e d . L y o n : e x o f f ic in a iu n t a r u m , 15 9 8 . 1st ed . P a ris : H e r m a n n , 1 9 0 6 - 1 9 1 3 . V o l . 2, 190 9 .
C o i m b r a , 1592 . Le systeme du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon a Copernic. 10 v o ls .
Commentariornm Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Iesu In octo libros Physicorum Ar­ P a ris : H e r m a n n , 1 9 1 3 - 1 9 5 9 .
istotelis Stagiritae. 2 p a rts w i t h s e p a r a te tit le p a g e s . L y o n : s u m p t ib u s H o r a t ii To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Idea o f Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo.
C a r d o n , 1602. 1st e d . C o i m b r a , 1 5 9 2 . T r . E d m u n d D o la n d a n d C h a n in a h M a s c h le r . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o
E a c h p a rt is s e p a r a te ly n u m b e r e d b y c o lu m n s . P a r t 1 c o n t a in s th e c o m m e n t a r y P r e s s , 19 6 9 . F irs t p u b lis h e d in F r e n c h , 1908.
o n b o o k s 1 t h r o u g h 3 o f th e Physics; p a r t 2, th e c o m m e n t a r y o n b o o k s 4 t h r o u g h Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of
8. Worlds. E d . a n d tr. R o g e r A r i e w . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 19 8 5.
Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Iesu In duos libros De generatione et corruptione Ar­ D u ll a e r t , J o h a n n e s . Questiones super octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis necnon super libros
istotelis Stagiritae. Hac secunda editione, Graeci contextus Latino e regione respondents De coelo et mundo. P a ris : O l i v e r i u s S e n a n t , 150 6.
accessione auctiores et emendatiores. L y o n : s u m p t ib u s H o r a t ij C a r d o n , 16 0 6 . D u r a n d u s d e S a n c to P o r c ia n o . D . Durandi a Sancto Porciatto, Ord. Praed. et Meldensis
C o p e r n ic u s , N ic h o la s . Nicholas Copernicus On the Revolutions. E d . J e r z y D o b r z y c k i ; Episcopi, in Petri Lombardi Sententias theologicas commentariornm libri IIII. V e n ic e :
tr. a n d c o m m e n t a r y b y E d w a r d R o s e n . L o n d o n : M a c m illa n , 1 9 7 8 . F ir s t p u b ­ G u e rra e a , 1 5 7 1 .
lis h e d 15 4 3 . E a s t w o o d , B r u c e S. “ T h e ‘ C h a s t e r P a th o f V e n u s ’ (Orbis Veneris Castior) in the
C o p l e s t o n , F r e d e r ic k . Mediaeval Philosophy, Augustine to Scotus. V o l . 2 in A History A s t r o n o m y o f M a r tia n u s C a p e lla .” Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences
o f Philosophy. W e s t m in s t e r , M d . : N e w m a n , 1 9 5 7 . 32 (1 9 8 2 ), 1 4 5 - U 8 .
Curriculum philosophiae peripateticae, uti hoc tempore in scholis
C o r n a e u s , M e lc h io r . “ H e r a c lid e s a n d H e lio c e n t r is m : T e x t s , D ia g r a m s , a n d I n t e r p r e t a t io n s .” Journal
decurri solet. . . autore R. P. Melchiore Cornaeo, Soc. Iesu, SS. Theologiae Doctore for the History of Astronomy 23 (1 9 9 2 ) , 2 3 3 - 2 6 0 .
eiusdemque in Alma Universitate Herbipolensi Professore ordinario. H e r b i p o li [ W u r z ­ E ise n ste in , E liz a b e th L . The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. C a m b r id g e : C a m ­
b u r g ] : s u m p t ib u s e t t y p is E lia e M ic h a e lis Z i n c k , 1 6 5 7 . b r id g e U n iv e r s it y Press, 19 79 .
Capacity and Volition: A History o f the Distinction o f Absolute
C o u r t e n a y , W illia m J. F in o c c h ia r o , M a u r ic e A . The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. B e r k e le y / L o s
and Ordained Power. B e r g a m o : P i e r l u i g i L u b r in a E d it o r e , 199 0 . A n g e le s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a li f o r n ia P r e s s , 198 9.
C r o m b i e , A . C . Medieval and Early Modern Science. 2 v o ls . G a r d e n C i t y , N . Y . : F o r t in , E r n e s t L . , a n d P e t e r D . O ’ N e i l l . T r a n s la t io n o f C o n d e m n a t i o n o f 1 2 7 7 , in
D o u b le d a y , 19 59 . R a lp h L e r n e r a n d M u h s in M a h d i, e d s ., Medieval Political Philosophy: A Source-
C r o w l e y , B o n a v e n t u r e . “ T h e L i f e a n d W o r k s o f B a r t h o l o m e w M a s t r iu s , O . F . M . book. N e w Y o r k : F re e P r e s s o f G le n c o e , 19 6 3 , 3 3 7 - 3 5 4 .
C o n v . 1 6 0 2 - 1 6 7 3 .” Franciscan Studies 8 ( 1 9 4 8 ), 9 7 - 1 5 2 . G a ie t a n u s d e T h ie n is . Recollecte . . . super octo libros Physicorum cum annotationibus tex-
D a le s , R ic h a r d C . “ T h e D e - a n im a t io n o f th e H e a v e n s in th e M i d d le A g e s ." foumal tuum. V e n ic e , 14 9 6 .
of the History of Ideas 41 (19 8 0 ), 5 3 1 - 5 5 0 . G a lile o G a lile i. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei. E d iz io n e N a z io n a le . 23 v o ls . E d . A n t o n i o
Viator 15 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 1 6 9 — 179 .
“ T h e O r i g i n o f th e D o c t r in e o f th e D o u b l e T r u t h . ” F a v a r o . F lo r e n c e , 1 8 9 1 - 1 9 0 9 .
D e n if le , H e in r ic h , a n d E m il C h a t e la in . Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis. 4 v o ls . Discoveries and Opinions o f Galileo. Including The Starry Messenger (1610 ), Letters
P a ris: F r a tr u m D e la la in , 1 8 8 9 - 1 8 9 7 . on Sunspots (1613), Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615), and Excerpts from
Plurality o f Worlds: The Origins o f the Extraterrestrial Life Debate from
D i c k , S t e v e n J. The Assayer (1623). E d . a n d tr . S t illm a n D r a k e . G a r d e n C i t y , N . Y . : D o u b le d a y ,
Democritus to Kant. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19 8 2 . 1957.
D ic k s , D . R . Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ith a ca : C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s, Galileo: Dialogue Concerning the Two C hief World Systems. T r . S t illm a n D r a k e .
19 7 0 . B e r k e le y / L o s A n g e le s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a li f o r n ia P r e s s , 19 6 2 .
Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 16 v o l s . E d . C h a r le s C . G illis p ie . N e w Y o r k : Galileo’s Early Notebooks: The Physical Questions. A Translation from the Latin, with
S c r ib n e r ’ s, 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 8 0 . Historical and Paleographical Commentary. E d . a n d tr. W illia m A . W a lla c e . N o t r e
Dictionnaire de theologie catholique. 15 v o ls . E d . A . V a c a n t , E . M a n g e n o t , a n d E . D a m e , I n d .: U n i v e r s i t y o f N o t r e D a m e P r e s s , 1 9 7 7 . I n c lu d e s q u e s t io n s o n De
A m a n n . P a ris: L ib r a ir ie L e t o u z e y e t A r e , 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 5 0 . caelo.
D o m in ic u s d e F la n d n a . Questionutn super xii libros Methaphisice. N . p . , 1 5 2 3 . F a c s im ­ Sidereus Nuncius or The Sidereal Messenger: Galileo Galilei. T r . A l b e r t V a n H e ld e n .
ile , F r a n k fu r t: M in e r v a , 19 6 7 . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 19 8 9 .
D o n a h u e , W illia m H . The Dissolution o f the Celestial Spheres, 1595-1630. N e w Y o r k : G e s n e r , C o n r a d . Physicarum meditationum, annotationum et scholiorum libri V. Z u r ic h ,
A r n o P r e s s, 19 8 1. P h . D . d is s ., C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 2 . 15 8 6 .
“ T h e S o lid P la n e t a r y S p h e r e s in P o s t - C o p e m i c a n N a t u r a l P h i l o s o p h y . ” In R o b e r t G illis p ie , C h a r le s C . The Edge o f Objectivity, An Essay in the History o f Scientific Ideas.
S. W e s t m a n , e d ., The Copernican Achievement. B e r k e le y / L o s A n g e le s : U n i v e r ­ P r in c e t o n : P r in c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19 6 9 .
s it y o f C a lifo r n ia P r e s s , 1 9 7 5 , 2 4 4 - 2 7 5 . See also Dictionary o f Scientific Biography.
D r a k e , S tillm a n , a n d C . D . O ’ M a lle y . The Controversy on the Comets o f 1618. T r . A History o f Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages. L o n d o n : S h e e d
G ils o n , E t ie n n e .
S t illm a n D r a k e a n d C . D . O ’ M a lle y . P h ila d e lp h ia : U n i v e r s i t y o f P e n n s y lv a n ia & W a rd , 1955.
P r e s s , i9 6 0 . G i n z b u r g , C a r l o . The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller.
D re y e r, J. L. E . A History o f Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. 2 n d e d ., r e v . W . H . T r . J o h n a n d A n n e T e d e s c h i. H a r m o n d s w o r t h . U . K . : P e n g u in , 19 8 2 . F irst
S ta h l. N e w Y o r k : D o v e r , 19 5 3 . 1 s t e d . tit le d History o f the Planetary Systems p u b lis h e d in Ita lia n , 1 9 7 6 .
from Thales to Kepler, 1906. G l o r i e u x , P a le m o n . La Litterature quodlibetique. 2 v o ls . V o l . 1: L e S a u lc h o ir , K a in
D S B . S e e Dictionary o f Scientific Biography. ( B e lg i u m ) , 19 2 5 ; V o l . 2: P a r is , V r i n , 19 3 5 .
784 BIB LIO GR A PH Y BIBLIO GRAPH Y 785

“ S e n te n c e s ( c o m m e n t a ir e s s u r l e s ) .” In A . V a c a n t , E . M a n g e n o t , a n d E . A m a n n T r a n s u e , e d s ., Rebirth, Reform and Resilience: Universities in Transition ijoo—


e d s ., Dictiotinaire de theologie catholique. P a ris : L ib r a ir ie L e t o u z e y e t A n e , 1941 1700. C o l u m b u s : O h i o S ta t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19 8 4 , 6 8 - 1 0 2 . (a)
v o l. 14 , c o ls . 1 8 6 0 -1 8 8 4 . “ In D e fe n s e o f th e E a r t h ’ s C e n t r a l i t y a n d I m m o b ilit y : S c h o la s t ic R e a c t io n to
Les quatre premiers Quodlibets de Godefroid de Fontaines. E d . M .
G o d f r e y o f F o n ta in e s . C o p e r n ic a n is m in th e S e v e n t e e n t h C e n t u r y . ” Transactions oj the American Phil­
Les
D e W u l f a n d A . P e lz e r . V o l . 2 in M . D e W u l f a n d A u g u s t e P e lz e r , e d s ., osophical Society 74, p t. 4. P h ila d e lp h ia : A m e r ic a n P h ilo s o p h ic a l S o c ie t y , 1984,
Philosophes beiges, Texte et etudes. L o u v a in : E d it io n s d e l ’ ln s t it u t S u p e r ie u r d e 1 - 6 9 . (b)
P h ilo s o p h ic d e l ’ U n iv e r s it e , 190 4. “ A N e w L o o k a t M e d ie v a l C o s m o l o g y , 1 2 0 0 - 1 6 8 7 .” Proceedings of the American
Les Quodlibets cinq, six et sept de Godefroid de Fontaines. E d . M . D e W u l f a n d J. Philosophical Society 12 9 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 4 x 7 - 4 3 2 . (a)
H o ff m a n s . V o l . 3 in M . D e W u l f a n d A u g u s t e P e lz e r , e d s ., Les Philosophes “ Issu e s in N a t u r a l P h i lo s o p h y a t P a ris in th e L a te T h ir t e e n t h C e n t u r y . ” Medievalia
beiges, Texte et etudes. L o u v a in : E d it io n s d e l ’ ln s t it u t S u p e r ie u r d e P h ilo s o p h ic et Humanistica, n .s . , 13 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , 7 5 —9 4 . (b)
d e T U n iv e r s it e , 19 1 4 . “ C e le s t ia l P e r f e c t io n f r o m th e M i d d le A g e s to th e L a te S e v e n t e e n t h C e n t u r y . ”
G o ld s t e in , B e r n a r d R . “ L e v i b e n G e r s o n ’ s T h e o r y o f P la n e t a r y D i s t a n c e s .” Centaurus Religion, Science, and Worldview:
In M a r g a r e t J. O s i e r a n d P a u l L . F a r b e r , e d s .,
29 (19 8 6 ), 2 7 2 - 3 1 3 . Essays in Honor o f Richard S. Westfall. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s,
G o ld s t e in , T h o m a s . “ T h e R e n a is s a n c e C o n c e p t o f th e E a r t h in its I n flu e n c e u p o n 19 8 5 , 1 3 7 - 1 6 2 . (c)
C o p e r n i c u s . ” Terrae Incognitae 4 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 19 —5 1 . “ C e le s t ia l O r b s in th e L a tin M i d d le A g e s . ” Isis 78 (1 9 8 7 ), 1 5 3 — 1 7 3 . (a)
G r a n t , E d w a r d . “ Je a n B u r id a n : A F o u r t e e n t h - C e n t u r y C a r t e s i a n . ” Archives Inter­ “ E c c e n t r ic s a n d E p ic y c le s in M e d i e v a l C o s m o l o g y . ” In E d w a r d G r a n t a n d J o h n
nationales d’FUstoires des Sciences 64 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 2 5 1 —2 5 5 . E . M u r d o c h , e d s ., Mathematics and Its Applications to Science and Natural Philos­
Physical Science in the Middle Ages. N ew York: Wiley, 1971. Reprinted Cambridge: ophy in the Middle Ages. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19 8 7 , 1 8 9 -
Cambridge University Press, 1 9 7 7 . 2 1 4 . (b)
“ M e d ie v a l E x p la n a t io n s a n d I n t e r p r e t a t io n s o f th e D i c t u m th a t ‘ N a t u r e A b h o r s “ M e d ie v a l a n d R e n a is s a n c e S c h o la s t ic C o n c e p t i o n s o f th e I n flu e n c e o f th e C e le s t ia l
a V a c u u m . ’ ” Traditio 29 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 3 2 7 - 3 5 5 . R e g i o n o n th e T e r r e s t r i a l .” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 1 7 (1 9 8 7 ),
A Source Book in Medieval Science. C a m b r i d g e , M a s s .: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P re ss, I - 2 3- (c)
1974- “ W a y s to I n t e r p r e t th e T e r m s ‘ A r i s t o t e l i a n ’ a n d ‘ A r is t o t e lia n is m ’ in M e d ie v a l a n d
“ P la c e a n d S p a c e in M e d ie v a l P h y s ic a l T h o u g h t . ” In P e t e r K . M a c h a m e r a n d R e n a is s a n c e N a t u r a l P h i l o s o p h y . ” History of Science 25 (1 9 8 7 ), 3 3 5 - 3 5 8 . (d)
R o b e r t G . T u r n b u ll, e d s ., Motion and Time, Space and Matter. C o l u m b u s : O h i o “ N i c o l a s O r e s m e o n C e r t i t u d e in S c ie n c e a n d P s e u d o - S c i e n c e .” In P . S o u ff r in
S ta te U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s, 1 9 7 6 , 1 3 7 - 1 6 7 . (a) Nicolas Oresme: Tradition et innovation chez un intel-
a n d A . P h . S e g o n d s , e d s .,
“ T h e C on cept o f Ubi in M e d ie v a l a n d R e n a is s a n c e D is c u s s io n s o f P l a c e .” In lectuel du X I V siecle. P a ris : B e lle s L e t t r e s , 1988, 3 1 - 4 3 .
N a n c y G . S ira is i a n d L u k e D e m a it r e , e d s .. Science, Medicine, and the University: “ M e d ie v a l D e p a r t u r e s f r o m A r is t o t e lia n N a t u r a l P h i l o s o p h y . ” In S t e fa n o C a r o t i,
1200-1550, Essays in Honor o f Pearl Kibre. P t . 1. Manuscripta 20 ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 7 1 - e d ., Studies in Medieval Natural Philosophy. B ib lio t e c a d i N u n c iu s . F lo r e n c e :
80. (b) O l s c h k i , 19 8 9 , 2 3 7 - 2 5 6 .
“ C o s m o l o g y . ” In D a v i d C . L i n d b e r g , e d ., Science in the Middle Ages. C h ic a g o : R e v i e w o f A la n B . C o b b a n , The Medieval English Universities. Libraries and Culture
U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1 9 7 8 , 2 6 5 - 3 0 2 . (a) 25 (1 9 9 0 ), 2 7 6 - 2 7 7 .
“ Aristotelianism and the Longevity o f the Medieval W orld V ie w .” History of “ C e le s t ia l I n c o r r u p t ib ilit y in M e d i e v a l C o s m o l o g y , 1200— 1 6 8 7 .” In S a b e t a i U n ­
Science 16 ( 1 9 7 8 ), 9 3 - 1 0 6 . (b) g u r u , e d ., Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, 1500-1700: Tension and Accom­
“ S c ie n t ific t h o u g h t in F o u r t e e n t h - C e n t u r y P a ris : J e a n B u r id a n a n d N i c o l e O r - modation. D o r d r e c h t : K l u w e r , 1 9 9 1 , 1 0 1 — 1 2 7 . (a)
Machaut’s World:
e s m e .” In M a d e le in e P e ln e r C o s m a n a n d B r u c e C h a n d le r , e d s ., “ T h e U n u s u a l S t r u c t u r e a n d O r g a n i z a t i o n o f A lb e r t o f S a x o n y ’ s Questions on De
Science and Art in the Fourteenth Century. A n n a ls o f th e N e w Y o r k A c a d e m y o f coelo." In J o e l B ia r d , e d ., Itineraires d’Albert de Saxe Paris-Vienne au X I V Siecle.
S c ie n c e s , n o . 3 1 4 . N e w Y o r k : N e w Y o r k A c a d e m y o f S c ie n c e s , 1 9 7 8 , 1 0 5 - P a ris: V r i n , 1 9 9 1 , 2 0 5 - 2 1 7 . (b)

I2 4 ‘
See also O r e s m e , N i c o l e .
“ T h e P r in c ip le o f th e I m p e n e t r a b ilit y o f B o d ie s in th e H i s t o r y o f C o n c e p t s o f G r e e n b e r g , S id n e y . The Infinite in Giordano Bruno with a translation o f his Dialogue
S e p a r a te S p a c e f r o m th e M id d le A g e s to th e S e v e n t e e n t h C e n t u r y . ” Isis 69 “ Concerning the Cause Principle, and O ne." N e w Y o r k : K i n g ’ s C r o w n P r e s s,
( 1 9 7 8 ), 55I - 57I- (d) _ 19 50 .
“ T h e C o n d e m n a t i o n o f 1 2 7 7 , G o d ’ s A b s o l u t e P o w e r , a n d P h y s ic a l T h o u g h t in Die philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von
G ro sse te ste , R o b e r t.
Viator 10 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 2 1 1 —244.
th e L a te M id d le A g e s . ” Lincoln. E d . L u d w i g B a u r . Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters,
Much Ado about Nothing: Theories o f Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Texte und Untersuchungen, v o l . 9. M u n s t e r : A s c h e n d o r f s c h e V e r la g s b u c h h a n -
Seventeenth Century. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 1 . (a) d lu n g , 1 9 1 2 .
“ T h e M e d ie v a l D o c t r in e o f P la c e : S o m e F u n d a m e n t a l P r o b le m s a n d S o l u t i o n s .” De sphaera, 10 —32.
Studi sul xiv secolo in memoria di
In A . M a ie r u a n d A . P a r a v ic in i B a g lia n i, e d s ., De generatione stellarum, 32—36.
Anneliese Maier. R o m e : E d iz io n i d i S t o r ia e L e tt e r a t u r a , 1 9 8 1 , 5 7 - 7 9 . (b) De intelligentiis, 1 1 2 — 1 1 9 .
Studies in Medieval Science and Natural Philosophy. L o n d o n : V a r i o r u m R e p r in ts , Summa philosophiae, 2 7 5 - 6 4 3 .
198 M e ) On Light [De luce]. T r . C l a r e C . R ie d l. M ilw a u k e e : M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,
“ C e le s t ia l M a t t e r : A M e d ie v a l a n d G a lile a n C o s m o l o g i c a l P r o b le m . ” Journal of 19 4 2 .
Medieval and Renaissance Studies 13 ( 1 9 8 3 ), 1 5 7 - 1 8 6 . Roberti Grosseteste Episcopi Lincolniensis Commentarius in VIII libros Physicorum Ar-
“ S c ie n c e a n d th e M e d ie v a l U n i v e r s i t y . ” In J a m e s M . K it t e ls o n a n d P a m e la J. istotelis. E d . R ic h a r d C . D a le s . B o u ld e r : U n i v e r s i t y o f C o l o r a d o P r e s s , 19 6 3 .
786 BIB LIO GR A PH Y BIBLIOGRAPH Y 787
H e x a e m e r o n . E d s . R ic h a r d C . D a le s a n d S e r v u s G ie b e n . L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i­ T h e B irth o f H istory and P h ilo so p h y o f Science: K e p le r ’s “ A D efen ce o f T y ch o against
v e r s it y P r e s s f o r B r it is h A c a d e m y , 19 8 2 . U r su s,” w ith E ssays on Its Provenance and Significance. C a m b r id g e : C a m b r i d g e
G u e r ic k e , O t t o v o n . E x p e r im e n t a n o v a [ u t v o c a n tu r ] M a g d e b u r g ic a d e v a c u o spa tio. U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19 8 4 .
A m s t e r d a m , 16 7 2 . F a c s im ile , A a le n : Z e l l e r , 19 6 2 . J a v e lli, C h r y s o s t o m . C h ry so sto m i Ia v e lli C a n a p icii, O rd in is Praedicatorum , P hilosophi
H a ll, A . R . “ M ilit a r y T e c h n o l o g y . ” In T h e M e d ite r r a n e a n C i v i l i z a t i o n s a n d th e M id d le et theologi inprim is nostra aetatis eruditissim i, T o tiu s rationalis, naturalis d ivinae ac
A g e s c. 700 B .c . to c. a . d . 150 0 . V o l . 2 in C h a r le s S in g e r e t a l., A H is to r y o f m oralis p h ilo so p h ia e com pendium innum eris fe r e locis castigatum et in duos tomos di-
T e c h n o lo g y . 8 v o ls . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1 9 5 4 - 1 9 8 4 , 6 9 5 - 7 3 0 . 19 5 6 . gestum quorum qua tomus prim us contineat sequens pagitia itidicabit. H is adiecimus in
H a n s o n , N o r w o o d R u s s e ll. C o n stella tio n s and C o n jectu res. E d . W illa r d C . H u m ­ libros P h y sico r u m , D e anim a, M etap hysicoru m eiusdem quaestiones, quarum om nium
p h r e y s , Jr. D o r d r e c h t : R e id e l, 19 7 3 . conclusiones mira brevitate nuper collectas in margine subiecim us. 2 v o ls . L y o n : a p u d
H a y t h a m , ib n a l-. L a s tra d u ccio n es o r ien ta te s en lo s m a n u scr ito s d e la B ib lio t e c a C a te d r a l h e r e d e s I a c o b i I u n c t a e , 15 6 8 .
de T o le d o . E d . J o s e M a r ia M illa s V a llic r o s a . M a d r id : 19 4 2 . A p p e n d i x 2: T rata d o J e r v is , J a n e L . C o m eta ry T h eo ry in F ifte en th -C en tu r y E u ro p e. D o r d re c h t: R e id e l,
de a stron om ia de a l- H a s a n ben a l- H a y ta t n , en tra d u ccio n la tin a d e sc o n o c id a , 2 8 5 - 3 1 2 . 19 8 5 .
H e a t h , T h o m a s . A r ista r c h u s o f S a m o s , T h e A n c ie n t C o p e r n ic u s . A H is t o r y o f G r e e k J o h a n n e s C a n o n ic u s . Q u a estio n es super V I I I libros Physicorum A risto telis. V e n ic e : m a n -
A s tr o n o m y to A r ista r c h u s to g eth er w ith A r is t a r c h u s ’s T r e a t is e on th e S i z e s a n d D i s ­ d a t o h e r e d u m q u o n d a m d o m i n i O c t a v i a n i S c o t i, 15 2 0 .
tances o f th e S u n a n d M o o n . A N e w G r e e k T e x t w ith T r a n s la tio n a n d N o t e s . O x f o r d , J o h a n n e s d e M a g is t r is . Q u estio n e s p e m tile s supra tota p h ilo so p h ia [na tu rali] magistri
C la r e n d o n P r e s s, 1 9 1 3 . fo h a n n is M a g istr i[s] cum exp la n a tio n e textus A risto telis secundum m entem doctoris
H e fe le , C h a r le s - J o s e p h . H is t o ir e des C o n c ile s d ’a p re s les d o c u m e n ts o r ig in a u x . T r . D o m su btilis S co ti. V e n ic e , 14 9 0 . U n f o li a t e d . O t h e r e d itio n s : P a r m a , 1 4 8 1 , a n d V e n ­
H . L e C le r c q f r o m 2 n d G e r m a n e d . V o l . 5, p t. 2. P a ris : L e t o u z e y e t A n e , 1 9 1 3 . ic e , 1 4 8 7 . I n c lu d e s q u e s t io n s o n D e celo a n d th e M eteorology .
H e ilm a n , C . D o r is . T h e C o m e t o f 1 5 7 7 : Its P la c e in th e H is t o r y o f A s t r o n o m y . N e w J o h n D a m a s c e n e ( S a in t J o h n o f D a m a s c u s ) . D e fid e orthodoxa: Versions o f Burgundio
Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 19 4 4 . and C erb a n u s. E d . E l ig iu s M . B u y t a e r t . F r a n c is c a n I n s titu te P u b lic a t io n s , T e x t
H e n in g e r , S. K . , Jr. T o u c h e s o f S w e e t H a r m o n y : P y th a g o r e a n C o s m o lo g y a n d R e n a is sa n ce S e r ie s , n o . 8. S t. B o n a v e n t u r e , N . Y . : F r a n c is c a n I n s titu te , 19 5 5 .
P o e tics . S a n M a r in o , C a l i f .: H u n t i n g t o n L i b r a r y , 19 7 4 . T h e O r th o d o x F a ith . In S a in t J o h n o f D am ascus: W ritings. T r . F r e d e r ic H . C h a s e ,
H e r v a e u s N a t a lis . Q u o lib e t a H e r v e i. S u b tilis s im a H e r v e i N a ta lis B r ito n is th e o lo g i acu- Jr. V o l . 3 7 in T h e Fathers o f the C h u r c h , A N e w T ra n slation. N e w Y o r k : F a th e rs
tissim i q u o lib e ta u n d ecim cum octo ip s iu s p r o fiin d is s im is tra cta tibu s in fra p e r ordinem o f th e C h u r c h , 19 5 8 .
descrip tis . . . T ra c ta tu s V I I I v id e lic e t: D e b e a titu d in e ; D e v erb o; D e e te r n ita te m u n d i; J o h n o f J a n d u n . Q u a estio n es J o a n n es de Ja nd u n o D e p h y sico auditu noviter emendatae.
D e m ateria ce li; D e r e la tio n ib u s ; D e p lu r a lita t e fo r m a r u m ; D e v ir tu tib u s ; D e m otu H e lie H eb rei C reten sis questiones: D e prim o motore; D e ejficientia m undi; D e esse
a tig eli. V e n ic e , 1 5 1 3 . F a c s im ile , R i d g e w o o d , N .J .: G r e g g , 19 6 6 . essentia et uno; annotationes in plu rim a dicta commentatoris. V e n ic e , 1 5 1 9 .
H e r v e i N a ta lis B r ito n is , D o c to r is th e o lo g i P a r is ie tis is , p r a e s ta n tis s im i et s u b tilis s im i ac Ioannis de Ianduno In libros A risto telis D e coelo et m undo quae exta n t quaestiones sub-
q u on d a m O r d in is F ra tru m P r a e d ica to r u m , G e n e r a lis M a g is t r i, In Q u a t u o r L ib r o s S e n - tilissim ae . . . D e substantia orbis cum eiusdem Ioannis Com m etU ario ac Q u a estio n ibu s
ten tia ru m C o m m e n ta r ia . Q u ib u s a d ie ctu s est e iu sd e m a u ctoris T r a c ta tu s d e p o testa te . . . V e n ic e : a p u d Iu n ta s, 1 5 5 2 .
P a p a e . P a ris: a p u d v id u a m D y o n i s i i M o r e a u e t D y o n i s i u m M o r e a u f iliu m , v ia Q u a estio n es in duodecim libros M etap hysica e. V e n ic e , 1553. F a c s im ile , F r a n k fu r t:
la c o b a e a s u b s ig n o S a la m a n d r a e A r g e n t e a e , 16 4 7 . M in e r v a , 19 6 6 .
H id a lg o , J u a n . C u r s u s p h ilo s o p h ic u s a d m en tem B . A e g i d ii C o l . R o m . , d octoris fu n d a tis - K e l l y , M a r y S u z a n n e . “ C e le s t ia l M o t o r s : 1 5 4 3 - 1 6 3 2 . ” P h . D . d is s ., U n i v e r s i t y o f
s im i, O r d in is E r em ita ru m . 2 v o ls . C o r d o v a : in v i c o C is t e r c ie n s i, p e r P e t r u m A r ia s . O k l a h o m a , 19 6 4 .
V o l . 1, 17 3 6 ; v o l. 2, 1 7 3 7 . K e p le r , J o h a n n e s . E p ito m e o f C o p e m ica n A stron om y, b k s . 4 a n d 5. T r . C h a r le s G le n n
H is s e tte , R o la n d . E n q u e te su r les 2 i g a rticles co n d a m n es a P a r is le 7 M a r s 1 2 7 7 . L o u v a in : W a llis . In E ncyclopaedia B ritannica, 19 5 2 , v o l. 16 , 8 3 9 - 1 0 0 4 .
P u b lic a t io n s U n iv e r s it a ir e s , 1 9 7 7 . K e p le r ’s “ S o m n iu m ,” “ T h e D r e a m ,” or Posthum ous W ork on L u n a r A stro n o m y . T r .
H o lk o t , R o b e r t . In q u a ttu o r lib ros S e n te n tia r u m q u a e s tio n e s . L y o n , 1 5 1 8 . F a c s im ile , E d w a r d R o s e n . M a d is o n : U n i v e r s i t y o t W is c o n s in P r e s s , 19 6 7 .
F r a n k fu r t: M in e r v a , 19 6 7 . U n f o lia t e d . J o h a n n es K ep ler: “ M ysteriu m cosm ographicum ,” T h e Secret o f the U n iverse. E d . E . J.
H u g o n n a r d - R o c h e , H e n r i. L 'o e u v r e a str o n o m iq u e de T h e m o n J u i f M a itr e p a r is ie n du A i t o n , tr. A . M . D u n c a n . N e w Y o r k : A b a r is , 1 9 8 1 .
x i v c sie cle . G e n e v a : D r o z , 1 9 7 3 . K ib r e , P e a rl. S e e T h o r n d i k e a n d K ib r e .
H u r t a d o d e M en d o fca , P e d r o . U n iv e r s a p h ilo s o p h ia . V a lla d o lid , 1 6 1 5 . O t h e r e d itio n s : K i l w a r d b y , R o b e r t . D e ortu scientiarum . E d . A lb e r t G . J u d y . O x f o r d : B r it is h A c a d ­
L y o n , 1 6 1 7 , a n d la te r. I n c lu d e s q u e s t io n s o n D e co elo a n d P h y s ic s . e m y , 19 7 6 .
H y a t t e , R e g in a ld , a n d M a r y s e P o n c h a r d - H y a t t e , e d s . L ’ H a r m o n ie d es s p h e r e s . E n ­ K o y r e , A le x a n d r e . “ L e v id e e t l ’ e s p a c e in fin i a u x i v c s i e c l e . ” A r c h iv e s d ’H isto ire
c y c lo p e d ic d ’ a p tro n o m ie e t d e m u s iq u e e x t r a it e d u c o m m e n t a ir e s u r L e s E ch ecs D o ctrin ale et Litteraire du M o y en A g e 2 4 (1 9 4 9 ), 4 5 - 9 1 .
am oreux ( X V e ; s .) . E d it io n c r it iq u e d ’ a p r e s le s m s s d e la B ib lio t h e q u e N a t io n a le “ A n E x p e r im e n t in M e a s u r e m e n t .” Proceedings o f the A m erica n P h ilo so p h ica l Society
d e P a ris . N e\sf Y o r k : L a n g , 19 8 5 . 97, n o . 2 (19 5 3 ), 2 2 2 -2 3 7 .
H y m a n , A r t h u r , a ifd ja m e s J. W a ls h , e d s . P h ilo so p h y in the M id d le A g es: T h e C h ristia n , “ A D o c u m e n t a r y H i s t o r y o f th e P r o b le m o f F a ll f r o m K e p l e r t o N e w t o n , D e
Islam ic, and Jew ish Traditions. I n d ia n a p o lis : H a c k e t t , 19 7 3 . motu gra vium naturaliter cadentium in hy po thesi terrae m o ta e.” Transactions o f the
S ee also A v e rro e js. A m erica n P h ilo so p h ica l S o ciety , n .s . , v o l . 4 5 , p t. 4 ( i 955). 329~ 395-
J a k i, S ta n le y L . Uneasy G en iu s: T h e L if e and W ork o f Pierre D u h e m . T h e H a g u e : T h e A stron om ical R evo lu tio n : C o p e rn icu s, K e p ler , B o relli. T r . R . E . W . M a d d is o n .
N i j h o f f , 19844 Ith a ca : C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 7 3 . O r i g i n a l l y p u b lis h e d in F r e n c h , 1 9 6 1 .
J a r d in e , N ic h o la s . ;‘T h e S ig n ific a n c e o f th e C o p e m i c a n O r b s . ” J o u rn a l f o r the H istory L e f f, G o r d o n . Paris and O x fo r d U n iversities in the T h irteen th and F ourteenth C en tu ries:
o f A stron om y 1)3 (19 8 2 ), 1 6 8 - 1 9 4 . A n In stitutional and Intellectu a l H isto ry . N e w Y o r k : W i l e y , 19 6 8 .
788 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 789

L e m a y , H e le n R. “ S c ie n c e and T h e o l o g y at C h a r t r e s : T h e C a s e o f t he Supracelestial Major, John. In Prim um Sententiarum e x recognitione Io. B ad ii. Paris: apud Badium,
W a t e r s . ” British Jo u rn a l f o r the H isto ry o f Science 10 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 2 2 6 - 2 3 6 . 1519. (a)
L e m a y , R ich a rd . A b u M a ’shar and L a tin A risto telia n ism in the T w e ljth C en tu ry : T h e E d itio secunda Jo h a n n is M a ioris D octoris Parisiensis In secundum librum Sententiarum
Recovery o f A r is to tle ’s N atu ra l P h ilo so p h y through A ra b ic A stro lo g y . B e ir u t: A m e r ­ nunquam antea impressa. Paris: apud Iohannem Granion, 1519. (b)
ican U n iv e r s it y o f B e ir u t, 1962. O c to libri Physicorum cum naturali p hilo so p h ia atque M etap hysica J o h a n n is M a ioiris
L e o n a r d o da V i n c i . T h e Literary W orks o f Leonardo da V in ci. 2 v o l s . 3rd ed. E d . Jean H ad ingtonani T h eo lo g i Parisiensis. Paris: V e n u n d a n t u r Parrhisiis in v i c o sancti
Paul R ich te r. N e w Y o r k : P h a i d o n , 19 70 . First p u b l i s h e d L o n d o n , 1883. J a c o b i a J o h a n n e P a r v o s u b i n t e r s i g n io Lilii A u r e i et ab E g i d i o G o r m o n t i o s c u t o
Lerner, M i c h e l- P i e r r e . “ L e p r o b l e m e d e la m a t ie re cel este apres 1550: A s p e c t s de la t r i u m c o r o n a t u m C o l o n i e in dic e, 15 26 . In clu des Q u estio n s on D e celo, w h i c h is
bataille des c ie u x f lu id e s .” R e v u e d ’ H isto ire des Sciences 42 (198 9) , 2 5 5 - 2 8 0 . n o t m e n t i o n e d o n title p a g e.
L i n d b e r g , D a v i d C . T h eo ries o f V ision fro m A l - K i n d i to K e p le r . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y L e T ra ite “ D e I’ in fin i’ ’ de J e a n M a ir. N e w ed. E d . an d tr. H u b e r t Elie. Paris: V r in ,
o f C h i c a g o Press, 1976.
I938‘
“ T h e T r a n s m i s s i o n o f A r a b i c L e a r n i n g to the W e s t . ” In D a v i d C . L i n d b e r g , ed., M a l e b r a n c h e , N i c h o l a s . D ia lo g u es on M etap hysics and on R e lig io n . T r . M o r r i s G i n s ­
Science in the M id d le A g es. C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 19 78, 5 2 - 9 0 . (a) berg. L o nd o n : A llen & U n w i n , 1923.
“ T h e S c ie nc e o f O p t i c s . ” In D a v i d C . L i n d b e r g , e d . , S cien ce in the M id d le A g es. O eu v r es com pletes de M alebranche. 21 v o l s . E d . A n d r e R o b i n e t . Paris: V r i n , 19 58—
C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 78 , 3 3 8 - 3 6 8 . (b) I 9 7 °-
Lift, Thom as. L es corps celestes dans V un ivcrs de S a in t T h om a s d ’A q u in . Lo u va i n : V o l . 12: E ntretiens sur la M eta p h y siq u e et sur la R elig io n . Paris: V r i n , 1965.
Pu b li ca ti o n s U n iv e rs it a i re s, 1963. M a n d e v i l l e , J o h n . M a n d e v ille ’s T ra v els, T e x ts and Translations. 2 v o l s . E d . an d tr.
L o h r , C h a r l e s H . “ M e d i e v a l La ti n A r i s t o t l e C o m m e n t a r i e s , ” T raditio: M alcolm Let ts. H a k l u y t S o c i e t y , 2 n d ser., nos . 100-101. London: H akluyt
“ A u t h o r s : A - F . ” 23 (19 67) , 3 1 3 - 4 1 3 ; S o c i e t y , 1953.
“ A u t h o r s : G - I . ” 24 (1968), 1 4 9 - 2 4 5 ; M a r s i li u s o f In g h e n . Q u estio n es M a r silii super quatuor libros Sententiarum . S t r a s b o u r g ,
“ A u t h o r s : J a c o b u s- J o h a n n e s J u f f . ” 26 (1 9 7 0) , 1 3 5 - 2 1 6 ; 15 01 .
“ A u t h o r s : Jo ha n ne s de K a n t h i - M y n g o d u s . ” 2 7 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 2 5 1 —3 51 ; Q u estio n es subtilissim e J o h a n n is M a r cilii Inguen super octo libros Physicorum secundum
“ A u t h o r s : N a r c i s s u s - R i c h a r d u s . ” 28 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 2 8 1 - 3 9 6 ; nom inalium viam . C u m tabula in f in e libri posita suum in lucem prim um sortiuntur
“ A u t h o r s : R o b e r t u s - W i l g e l m u s . ” 29 ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 9 3 _ I 97; effectum . L y o n , 1 5 1 8 . F a c si m il e , F ra n k fu rt : M i n e r v a , 1964.
“ S u p p l e m e n t a r y A u t h o r s . ” 30 ( 19 7 4 ), 1 1 9 - 1 4 4 . M a r t i n o f D a c i a . M a r tin i de D a cia O p era . E d . H e n r y R o o s . C o r p u s P h i l o s o p h o r u m
La tin A risto tle Com m entaries, II: R enaissance A u th o rs. F lo r en c e: O l s c h k i , 1988. D a n i c o r u m M e d i i A e v i , n o. 2. C o p e n h a g e n : G . E . C . G a d , 19 61.
L o v e j o y , A r t h u r O . T h e G rea t C h a in o f B ein g : A Stu d y in the H istory o f an Idea. N e w M a s t r i u s , B a r t h o l o m a e u s , a n d B o n a v e n t u r a B e l lu t u s . In A r ist. Stag, libros Physicorum
Y o r k : Harper & R o w [Harper T o r c h b o o k s ] , i960. 1st e d . , 1936. quibus ab adversantibus veterum turn recentiorum laculis S co ti p h ilo so p h ia vindicatum .
M c C o l l e y , G r a n t, and H . W . M i l le r . “ S ai n t B o n a v e n t u r e , Francis M a y r o n , W i ll i am A P .P . M agistris B artholom eo M astrio de M e ld u la . . . et Bonaventura B ellu to s de
V o r i l o n g , and the D o c t r i n e o f a P l u r a l i t y o f W o r l d s . ” S p ecu lu m 12 ( 19 3 7 ), 3 8 6 - C a ta na . . . In hac secunda editione ab eisdem ubique sedulo recisae, n ovisqu e addition-
3 «9 - ibus, ac copiosiori indice locupletatae. V e n i c e : T y p i s M a r c i G i n a m m i , 1644.
M c E v o y , Ja m es. T h e P h ilo so p h y o f R obert G rosseteste. O x f o r d : C la r e n d o n Press, R R . P P . Bartholom aei M astrii de M eld u la et B onaven turae B e l l u t i . . . P h ilo so p h ia e ad
1982. m entem S co ti cursus integer. E d itio novissim a a mendis expurgata. 4 t h ed. 5 vo l s.
M c L a u g h l i n , M a r y M a r t i n . Intellectual F reedom and Its L im ita tio n s in the U n iversity o f V e n i c e : a p u d N i c o l a u m P e z z a n a , 1 7 2 7 . Earl ier e d i ti o n s in 16 78 , 1688, an d 1708.
Paris in the T h irteen th and F ourteenth C e n tu r ies. N e w Y o r k : A r n o Press, 1977. V d1. 2: C o n tin e n s disputationes ad m entem S co ti in A risto telis Stagiritae libros: P h y s­
P h . D . diss., C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 19 52 . icorum.
M c M u l l i n , Er n an . “ A u g u s t i n e o f H i p p o , S a i n t . ” In D ictio n a ry o f S cien tific Biography, V o l . 3: C o n tin e n s disputationes ad m entem S co ti in A r isto telis Stagiritae libros: D e
L 1970, 3 3 3 - 3 3 8 . anim a, D e g e n e r a tio n e et corruptione, D e coelo, et M etheo ris. D i s p u t a t i o n s in vo !.
M acrobius. Com m entary on the D rea m o f S c ip io . Tr. W illiam St ahl. N ew York: 3 first p u b l i s h e d 1640.
C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1952. M a u r a c h , G r e g o r . C o e lu m E m p y reu m , Versuch einer Begriffsgeschichte. B o ethiu s: T e x te
M a i e r , A n n e l ie s e . D ie Vorldufer G a lile is im 14. Ja hrhu nd ert. S tu d ien z u r N atu rphilo- und A bha n d lu n gen z u r G esch ich te der exa k ten W issenschafien. V o l . 8. W i e s b a d e n :
sophie der Spatscholastik. R o m e : E d i z i o n i di S t or ia e L e tte ra tu ra , 1949. St einer, 1968.
Z w e i G rundproblem e der scholastischen N a tu rp h ilo so p h ie: D a s Problem der Intensiven M a u r e r , A r m a n d . “ B o e t i u s o f D a c i a a n d t he D o u b l e T r u t h . ” M ed ia ev a l S tu d ies 17
Grosse; D ie Im petustheorie. 2 n d ed. R o m e : E d i z i o n i di S t or ia e Le tte ra tu ra , 1951 - ( 1 9 55 ), 2 3 3 - 2 3 9 .
Z w isc h en P h ilo so p h ie und M ech a n ik . S tu d ien z u r N a tu rp h ilo so p h ie der Spatscholastik. M e l a n c h t h o n , Ph ili p . Initia doctrinae p h y sica e dictata in A ca dem iia V uitebergensi. W i t ­
R o m e : E d i z i o n i di Sto ri a e Le tte ra tu ra , 1958. t e n b e r g : per I o h a n n e m L u f f t , 1550 .
A u sg ehen d es M ittelalter: G esam m elte A u js d t z e z u r G eistesgeschichte des 14. Jahrhun- M i c h a e l S c o t . “ C o m m e n t a r y o n t he S p h e re o f S a c r o b o s c o . ” In L y n n T h o r n d i k e ,
derts. R o m e : E d i z i o n i di Sto ria e L e t te ra tu ra , 1964. ed. a n d tr., T h e “ S p h e r e ” o f Sacrobosco and Its Com m entators. C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y
O n the T h resho ld o f E xa ct Science: Selected W ritings o f A n n e lie s e M a ie r on L a te M edieval o f C h i c a g o Press, 1949, 2 4 7 - 3 4 2 .
N atu ra l P h ilo so p h y . E d . an d tr. S t e v e n D . S a r g e n t . P h ila d e lp h ia : U n i v e r s i t y ot M i n i o - P a l u e l l o , La ur e n c e, an d B e r n a r d G . D o d , eds. A risto teles L a tin u s I 6—j , C a -
P e n n s y l v a n i a Press, 1982. tegoriarum Su pplem en ta: P o rp h y rii Isagoge translatio B o e th ii et A n o n y m is Fragm entum
M a i g n a n , E m a n u e l . C u rsu s ph ilo so p h icu s. L y o n , 1673. vulgo vocatum ‘ L ib er se x p rin cip io r u m .’ B r u g e s : D e s c l e e d e B r o u w e r , 1966.
M a i m o n i d e s , M o s e s . T h e G u id e o f the P e r p le x e d . 2 v o l s . T r . S h l o m o Pines. C h i c a g o : M o o d y , E r n e s t A . “J o h n B u r i d a n o n t he H a b i t a b i l i t y o f t he E a r t h . ” In E r n e s t A .
U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1963. M o o d y , Stu d ies in M ed ie v a l P h ilo so p h y , Scien ce, and L o g ic, C o lle cte d Papers 1 9 3 3 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY 791
790 BIBLIOGRAPHY
S e e also C a r o t i .
1969. B e r k e l e y / L o s A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1975, m -12 5 .
O v e r b y e , D e n n i s . L o n ely H earts o f the C osm os: T h e Story o f the Scientific Q u e st fo r the
First p u b li s h e d in Sp ecu lu m 16 (1 9 4 1 ).
Secret o f the U n iverse. N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r C o l l i n s , 1 9 91 .
M o o r e , J a m e s R. T h e P o st-D a riv in ia n C on troversies: A S tu d y o f the Protestant Struggle
Overm ann, R o n a l d J. “ T h e o r i e s o f G r a v i t y in the S e v e n t e e n t h C e n t u r y . ” P h . D
to C o m e to Term s w ith D a rw in in G re a t B ritain and A m erica , 1870—1900. C a m ­
dis s., Indiana U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.
br id ge : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1979.
O v i e d o , F ran cis cu s de. Integer cursus philo so phicus ad unum corpus redactus in summuias,
M u r d o c h , J o h n E. “ M a t h e s i s in p h i l o s o p h i a m s c h o l a s t i c a m i n t r o d u c t a : T h e Rise
logicam , phy sicam , D e caelo, D e generation e, D e anim a, & M etaphysicam distributus.
and D e v e l o p m e n t o f the A p p l i c a t i o n o f M a t h e m a t i c s in F o u r t e e n t h - C e n t u r y
2 v o l s . V o l . 1: C o m p lecten s S u m m u ia s, Logicam , P hy sicam , libros D e caelo, et D e
P h i l o s o p h y and T h e o l o g y . ” In A rts L ib e r a u x et P h iio so p h ie au M o y e n A g e . M o n ­
generatione. L y o n : s u m p t i b u s Petri Pr os t, 1640.
treal: Ins titut d ’E t u d e s M e d i e v a l e s , 1969, 2 1 5 - 2 5 4 .
Pa lac io , M i c h a e l de. M agistri M ich a elis de Pa lacio, G ranaten sis p h ilo so p h i atque theologi,
“ In fi n it y and C o n t i n u i t y . ” C h . 28 in N o r m a n K r e t z m a n n , A n t h o n y K e n n y , Jan
civitatensis ecclesiae a sacris concionibus. In prim um librum M agistri Sen ten tiaru m ,
P i n b o r g , E l e o n o r e S t u m p , e ds ., T h e C a m b rid ge H isto ry o f L a ter M e d ie v a l P h i­
disputationes gravissim ae abstrusos quaestionum theologiarum sensus enodantes. Sala­
losophy from the Rediscovery o f A risto tle to the D isintegra tion o f S ch o la sticism , 11 0 0 -
m a n c a : In ae d ib us G a s p a r is a Po r t o n a ri is , 1574 .
1600. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Pr ess, 1982, 5 6 4 - 5 9 1 .
Patrizi, Fr an c e sc o. Francisci Patricii N o v a de universis p h ilo so p h ia . In qua A ristotelica
A lb u m o f Science: A n tiq u ity and the M id d le A g e s . I. B . C o h e n , g e n e r a l ed. A lb u m s
m ethodo non p er m otum , sed p er lucem , et lum in a, ad prim am causam ascenditur; deinde
o f Science. N e w Y o r k : S c r i b n e r ’s, 1984.
propria Patricii m ethodo, tota in contem plationem venit D iv in ita s. Ferrara: a p u d B e -
N o r t h , J o h n . “ C e l e s t ia l Influence: the M a j o r P r e m i s s o f A s t r o l o g y . ” In P a o l a Z a m -
n ed ictum M a m m a r e llu m , 1591.
belli, e d. , “ A stro lo g i h a llu cin a ti” : Stars and the E n d o f the W orld in L u th e r ’s T im e .
Part 4: Francisci P atricii Pancosm iae m undi corporei principia et constitutio.
Ber lin: d e G r u y t e r , 1986, 4 5 - 1 0 0 .
Pa ul o f V e n i c e . L ib er celi et m undi. In Su m m a naturalium . V e n i c e , 1476.
“ M e d i e v a l C o n c e p t s o f C e l e s t ia l Influence: A S u r v e y . ” In P a t r i c k C u r r y , ed. ,
P e de rs en , O l a f . A S u r v ey o f the A lm a g est. A c t a H i s t o r i c a S c i e n t i a r u m N a t u r a l i u m
A stro lo g y, Science and S o ciety , H istorica l E ssays. W o o d b r i d g e , U .K .: B oydell,
et M e d i c i n a l i u m , no. 30. O d e n s e : O d e n s e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974.
1987, 5—17- “ A s t r o n o m y . ” In D a v i d C . L i n d b e r g , e d. , Scien ce in the M id d le A g es. C h i c a g o :
O c k h a m . S ee W illiam o f O c k h a m .
U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1 9 78 , 3 0 3 - 3 37.
O d d u s , I l lu m in a tu s. P hysica peripatetica ad m entem S co ti. Q u a su btilissim i doctrina adhuc
Pe te r o f A b a n o . II L ucidator D u b ita b iliu m A stron om iae di Pietro d ’A b a n o , O p er e scien-
magis dilucidatur, defenditur, roboratur; opera et industria R . P . Illu m in a ti de O d d o a
tifiche inedite. E d . G ra zi e ll a Fe d er ic i V e s c o v i n i . P a du a : P r o g r a m m a e 1 + 1
C o llisa n o C a p u ccin i, Sacrae T h eo lo g ia e Praelectoris, etc. M e s s a n a e : a p u d H a e r e d e s
E d i t o r i , 1988.
Petri Bree(?), 1667.
Pe te r L o m b a r d . M agistri Petri Lom bard i, Parisietisis E p isco p i, S en ten tiae in I V libris
D ispu ta tio n es D e generatione et corruptione ad m entem S co ti cuius doctrina adhuc magis
distinctae. 3rd ed. G ro tt a f e r ra t a [ R o m e ] : E d i t i o n e s C o l l e g i i S. B o n a v e n t u r a e ad
elucidatur, defenditur, roboratur. O p era et industria R . P . Illu m in a ti a C o llisa n o ,
C l a r a s A q u a s , 1 9 7 1 . T o m I, pars II, liber I et II.
C a p u ccin i. C u m resolutione aliquorum dubiorum ad libros D e coelo et M eteo ris spec-
P e u r b a c h , G e o r g . “ P e u r b a c h ’s T heoricae novae platietarum : A T r a n s l a t i o n w i t h C o m ­
tantium . . . N a p l e s : a p u d A n d r e a m C o l i c c h i a , 1672 .
m e n t a r y b y E. J. A i t o n . ” O sir is, 2 n d - 3 ( 198 7), 5 - 4 3 .
O n a , Pete r de. Fratris Petri de O h a B u rg en sis,in sacra theologia M a g istri, O r d in is R egalis
S ee also d ’ A i l l y 1 5 31 fo r a La tin e d i ti o n ne Theorica.
S. M ariae de M ercede, R edem ptionis captivorum de O bserva n tia , in p ro vin cia C a stella e
P h i l o Ju d a e u s. P h ilo w ith an E n g lish translation. 12 v o l s . E d . and tr. F. H . C o l s o n ,
P rovincialis. S u p er octo libros A risto telis de P h y sico auditu com m entaria una cum
G . H . W h i t a k e r , an d R . M a r c u s . L o e b C l a s s ic a l L i b r a r y . 1 9 2 9 - 1 9 6 2 .
qu a estio n ib u s. . . Secunda editio, in qua p e n e infinita loca hu iu s operis ab A u cto r e sunt
V o l. 1: D e opificio m undi, tr. F. H . C o l s o n and G . H . W h i t a k e r , 1929.
recognita, emendata. . . . C o m p l u t e n s e [A lc al a ]: e x o ff ic in a Io an n is G r a t i a n i , 1598.
P h i l o p o n u s , Jo h n . Jo ha n n es P h ilo p o n os G ra m m a tikos von A lexa tid rieti [6. J h . n. C h r .] ,
Oresm e, N icole. “ M aistre N i c o l e Oresm e, T r a i t i e de l ’e s p e r e . ” Ed. Li ll i a n M .
C h r istlich e N aturw issenschaft im A u sk la n g der A n tik e , Vorlau fer der modernen P h y s ik ,
M c C a r t h y . P h . D diss., U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1943.
W issenschaft und B ib e l, A u sg ew a h lte Schriften. E d . an d tr. W a l t e r B o h m . M u n i c h :
“ T h e Q u e s t i o n e s su per D e c el o o f N i c o l e O r e s m e . ” E d . a n d tr. C l a u d i a K r e n .
S c h o n i n g h , 1967.
P h . D diss., U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , 1965 .
Pl a to . P la to 's C o sm olog y . T h e T im a eu s, ed. an d tr. Fr ancis M a c D o n a l d C o r n f o r d .
“ T h e Q u e s t i o n e s de spera o f N i c o l e O r e s m e . ” La ti n t e x t w i t h E n g l i s h tra ns la tio n .
w i t h r u n n i n g c o m m e n t a r y . N e w Y o r k : Li be ra l A rt s , 1957 .
E d . an d tr. G a r re tt D r o p p e r s . P h . D dis s., U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , 1966. (a)
S ee C h a l c i d i u s .
N ic o le O resm e: “ D e proportionibus p ro p o rtio n u m ” and “ A d pauca resp icien tes.” E d .
P li n y . N a tu ra l H istory. 10 v o l s . T r . H ar r is R a c k h a m (vo ls. 1—5, 9); W . H . S. Jo n es
and tr. E d w a r d G ra n t. M a d i s o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n Pr ess, 1966. (b)
( vo ls . 6 - 8 ) , an d D . E . E i c h h o l z (v o l. 10). L o e b C l a s s ic a l L i b r a r y . 1938-1963.
L e L iv r e du d e l et du monde. E d . A l b e r t D . M e n u t a n d A l e x a n d e r J. D e n o m y . T r .
P lu ta rc h . P lu ta r ch ’s M ora lia . V o l . 12, 9 2 0 A - 9 9 9 B . T r . H a r o l d C h e r n i s s an d W i l l i a m
A l b e r t D . M e n u t . M a d i s o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n Press, 1968.
C. H e l m b o l d . L o e b C la s s ic a l L i b r a r y . 1957 .
N ico le O resm e and the Kinem atics o f C ir c u la r M o tio n . “ Tractatus de com m ensurabilitate
P o l a c c o , G i o r g i o . A n ticop ern icu s C a th o licu s sen D e terrae statione et de solis motu contra
t/el incomm ensurabilitate motuum c e li.” E d . a n d tr. E d w a r d G r a n t . M a d i s o n : U n i ­
systetna C opernicatium C a th o lica e assertiones. V e n i c e : a p u d G u e r i li o s . 1644.
v e r s it y o f W i s c o n s i n Press, 1 9 7 1 .
P o n c i u s , J o h a n n e s (John P u n c h ) . R . P . F . Ioannis D u n s S co ti, D octoris S u b tilis, O rd in is
“ Nicole Oresme, Q u aestio contra divinatores horoscopios.” Ed. S. Caroti. A r ch iv es
M in o r u m , Q u aestioties in L ib . I I Sententiarum . . . cum com m entariis R m i P .F . F ran ­
d ’ H istoire D octrinale et Litteraire du M o y e n A g e 43, Paris, 1 9 7 7 , 2 0 1 - 3 1 0 .
cisci L y ch e ti, B rixie tisis, O rd in is M in o ru m R egularis O bserva ntia e olim M in istri G e ­
N ico le O resm e and the M arv els o f N a tu re. C r i t i c a l e d i t i o n an d t ra ns la tio n o f “ D e
neral is, et supplem m ento R . P . F . Ioannis P oticii [John P u n c h ] H ib ern i, eiusdem
causis m irabilium . ” E d . an d tr. B e r t H a n s e n . P o n t if ic a l Insti tu te o f M e d i a e v a l
O r d in is, in C o lle g ia R om ano H ibernorum T h eo lo g iep r im a r ij Professoris. L y o n , 1639.
Stu dies , Studi es an d T e x t s , no. 68. T o r o n t o : P o n t if ic a l Insti tu te o f M e d i a e v a l
V o l . 6, pt. 2. Fa c si m ile , H i l d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1968.
Stu dies , 1985.
79 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 793
P hilosophiae ad mentem Scoti cursus integer prim um quidem editus in collegio Rom ano de r P h i l o s o p h i e u n d T h e o l o g i e des M it t el a lt e rs , n .s . , n o. 32. M unster: A s -
Fratrum M in orum H ibern orum . N u n c vero dem um ab ipso authore in conventu magno chendorff, 1989.
Parisiensi recog nitu s. . . L y o n , 16 72 . S ar to n , G e o r g e . Introduction to the H istory o f Science. 3 v o l s . B a l t i m o r e : W i l l i a m s &
S ee also S c ot us . W ilkins, 1927-1948.
Pseudo-Grosseteste. S u m m a p h ilo so p h ia e. S ee G r o s s e t e s t e , R o b e r t (to w h o m it is S c a li g e r , Ju liu s C a e s a r . Exotericarum exercitationum liber X V de subtilitate ad H ieron-
falsely ascribed). ym um C ardan um . L y o n : s u m p t i b u s V i d u a e A n t o n i i d e H e r s y , 16 15 .
P s e u d o —S i g e r o f B r a b a n t. S ig er de Brabant Q u estio n s sur la P h y siq u e d ’A risto te. Ed. S c h e d e l, H a r t m a n n . L ib e r chronicarum. Pt. 1: N u r e m b e r g , 1493. La ti n t e x t an d trans­
P h il i p p e D e l h a y e . Louvain: E d i t i o n s de l ’ ln s ti tu t S u p e r ie u r d e P h i lo s o p h ie , la tio n in E d w a r d R o s e n , ed. an d tr., T h e Story o f the C rea tio n o f the W orld. N e w
19 41. In cl u des o n l y b o o k s 1 - 4 a n d 8. Y o r k : B u r n d y L i b r a r y , 1948.
P to lem y, Claudius. H y p o theses o f the Pla nets. In O p era quae exstan t om nia, v o l . 2: S c h e in e r, C h r i s t o p h e r . Rosa Ursina siv e S o l e x admirando facularum et m acularum suarum
O pera astronomica minora. Ed. J. L. Heiberg. Leipzig: Teubner, 1907, pho en o m en o varius, necnon circa centrum suum et axem f ix u m ab occasu in ortum
69 -14 5- annua, circaque alium axem m obilem ab ortu in occasum conversione quasi menstrua
Tetrabiblos. E d . an d tr. F. E. R o b b i n s . L o e b C la s s i c a l L i b r a r y . 1948. super p o lo s proprios libris quatuor m obilis ostensus. B ra c ci an i: apud Andream
T h e A lm ag est. T r . R . C a t e s b y T a li a f e r r o . V o l . 16 in R o b e r t M a y n a r d H u tc h in s , P h a e u m t y p o g r a p h u m D u c a l e m , 1630.
ed. , P to lem y , C o p ern icu s, K ep ler: G rea t B o o k s o f the Western W orld. C h i c a g o : S c h m i t t , C h a r l e s B . A risto tle and the Renaissance. C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i ­
E n c y c l o p a e d i a B r ita n ni c a, 1 9 52 , 5 - 4 9 5 . v e r s i t y Press fo r O b e r l i n C o l l e g e , 1983.
“ T h e A r a b i c V e r s i o n o f P t o l e m y ’s Planetary H y p o th e s e s ." T r . B e r n a r d R . G o l d ­ S c h m i t t , C h a r l e s B . , an d D i l w y n K n o x . P seud o-A ristoteles La tin u s: A G u id e to L a tin
stein. Transactions o f the A m erica n P h ilo so p h ica l S o ciety , n .s ., v o l . $7, pt. 4 (1967). W orks F a lse ly A ttribu ted to A r isto tle before 1500. L o n d o n : W a r b u r g Institute, 1985.
Philad elph ia: A n \ e r i c a n P h i l o s o p h i c a l S o c i e t y , 1967 . S c h n e id e r , Notker. D ie K o sm o lo g ie des Franciscus de M archia. T e x te , Q u e lle n und
P to le m y ’s A lm ag est. T r . G . J. T o o m e r . N e w Y o r k : S p r i n g e r , 1984. U ntersuchungen z u r N a tu rp h ilo so p h ie des 14. fahrhu n d erts. L e id en : Brill , i " i .
R andles, W . G. L. D e la Terre p la te au g lob e terrestre, u ne m utation epistem ologique S c h o f i e l d , C h r i s t i n e Jon es. T y ch o n ic and S e m i-T y c h o n ic W orld System s. N e w Y o r k :
rapide,14 8 0 -15 2 0 . Paris: C o l i n , 1980. Am o, 1 9 8 1. P h . D diss., C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y , 1964.
R eis ch , G r e g o r . M argarita p hilo so p hica . Bas el , 1517. 1st e d . , 1503. F a c si m il e , D i i s - S c o t u s , J o h n D u n s . O p era omnia. E d . L u k e W a d d i n g . 12 v o l s . L y o n , 1639. Facsi m ile ,
seldorf: S t e r n - V e r l a g Janssen, 19 73 . H i l d e s h e i m : O l m s , 1968.
R h o d e s , G e o r g e de. R .P . G eo rg ii de R hod es A v e n io n e n sis, e Societate Iesu Philosophia V o l . 3: M eteorologicorum libri quatuor (the first o f a n u m b e r o f w o r k s in v o l . 3).
peripatetica ad veratn A risto telis m entem libris quatuor digesta et disputata Pharus ad F al s el y as cri be d to D u n s S c ot u s; p e rh aps b y S i m o n d e T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o -
theologiam scholasticam nunc prim um in lucem prodit. L y o n s : s u m p t i b u s A n t o n i i S c o t u s ) (d. 1369).
H u g u e t a n et G u i l e l m i B ar bi er , 1 6 7 1 . In c lu de s q u e s t io n s o n D e caelo. V o l. 6, pt. 2: R . P . F . Ioannis D u n s S co ti, D octoris S u b tilis, O rd in is M in o ru m ,
Ric cio li , G i o v a n n i B ap t is t a. A lm ag estu m n ovum astronom iam veterem novam que com- Q u a estio n es in L ib . I I Sententiarum . . . cum commentariis R m i P . F . Francisci
plectens observationibus aliorum et propriis n ovisque theorem atibus, problem atibus ac L y ch e ti, B r ix ie n sis, O rd in is M in o ru m R egularis O bserva ntia e olim M in istri G e ­
talibus prom otam ; in tres tomos distributam quorum argum entum sequens pagitia ex- neral is, et supplem m ento R . P . F . Ioannis P o n cii [John P u n c h ] H ib ern i, eiusdem
plicabit. B o l o g n a : E x t y p o g r a p i a haeredis V i c t o r i i B e n a ti i, 1 6 5 1 . O r d in is, in C o lle g io R om ano H ibernorum T h eo lo g ie prim arij Professoris.
R ic h a rd o f M i d d l e t o n . C la rissim i theolog ie m agistri R icardi de M ed ia V illa . . . Super T h e q u e s t io n s o n Pe te r L o m b a r d ’s Sentences, b k . 2, are t h o s e o f S c o t u s ,
quatuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lom bardi questiones subtilissim ae. 4 v o l s . B ri xi ae b u t t he c o m m e n t a r i e s are b y Fr anc isc us L y c h e t u s a n d J o h a n n e s P o n c i u s
[Brescia], 1 5 9 1 . Fa c si m ile , F ra n k fu r t: M i n e r v a , 1963. (John P u n c h ) .
R ip a , Jean de. “Jean d e R i p a I Sent . D i s t . X X X V I I : D e m o d o in e x i s t e n d i div in e V o l . 8: R . P . F . Ioannis D u n s S co ti, D octoris S u b tilis, O r d in is M in o ru m , In L ib . I V
essentie in o m n i b u s c re at ur is .” E d . A n d r e C o m b e s a n d Francis R u e l l o . Traditio Sententiarum . . . cum commentario R . P . F . A n to n ii H iq u a ei H ib e m i, eiusdem O r ­
23 (19 6 7) , 1 9 1 - 2 6 7 . dinis S . T h eo lo g ia e Lectoris em eriti.
R obertson, H o w a r d Percy. “ C o s m o l o g y . ” E ncyclopaedia Britannica, 1968. 2 : 5 8 2 - O p er a om nia. G e n e r a l ed. C a r l B al ic . V o l . 4: O rd in a tio , b k . 1, 4 t h to 10th dist.
5«7 - V a t i c a n C i t y : T y p i s P o l y g l o t t i s V a t ic a n i s, 1956.
R o b e r t u s A n g l i c u s . “ C o m m e n t a r y o n the S p h ere o f S a c r o b o s c o . ” In L y n n T h o r n ­ S e r b e ll o n u s , S i g i s m u n d u s . P h ilo so p h ia T icin en sis. 2 v ol s. M i l a n : e x t y p o g r a p h i a L u -
d ike, ed. and tr., T h e “ S p h e r e ” o j Sacrobosco and Its C om m entators. C h i c a g o : d o v i c i M o n t i a e in C o l l e g i o S. A l e x a n d r i i PP . B a r n a b i t a r u m , 1 6 5 7 - 1 6 6 3 .
U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1949, 1 4 3 - 1 9 8 [Latin], 1 9 9 - 2 4 6 [ E n g li s h ] . V o l . 1 ( 16 5 7 ) c on ta in s the Physics.
R o se n , E d w a r d . “ T h e D i s s o l u t i o n o f the C e l e s t i a l S p h e r e s . " fo u r n a l o f the H istory V o l . 2 (1663) c on ta in s D e caelo.
o f Ideas 46 (1985) , 1 3 - 3 1 . S he a, W i l l i a m R . “ G a l il e o , S che in er, an d the In te rpr et ati on o f S u n s p o t s . ” Isis 61 ,
R os s , W . D . A risto tle. 5th e d. , rev. L o n d o n : M e t h u e n , 1949. ( 19 7 0) , 4 9 8 - 5 1 9 .
S a c r o b o s c o , J o h n of. T h e “ S p h e r e ” o j Sacrobosco and Its C om m entators. E d . and tr. S i g e r o f B r a b a n t . O n the E tern ity o f the W orld ( D e aetem itate m undi). T r . L o t t i e H .
L y n n T h o r n d i k e . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1949. K e n d z i e r s k i . M i l w a u k e e : M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964, 7 5 - 9 8 .
S a m b u r s k y , S a m u e l. Phy sics o f the S toics. N e w Y o r k : M a c m i l l a n , 1959. L e s Q u a estio n es su per Libru m de causis. E d . A n t o n i o M a r la s c a . Paris, 1972 .
T h e P h y sica l W orld o f L a te A n tiq u ity . N e w Y o r k : B a s i c B o o k s , 1962. S ee also B o n a v e n t u r e , 1964; P s e u d o - S i g e r ; T h o m a s A q u i n a s , 1964.
Santillana, G i o r g i o de. T h e C r im e o f G a lile o . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, S i m o n d e T u n s t e d e ( P s e u d o - S c o t u s ) . See S c o t u s , O p era , v o l . 3.
1955- S im p l i c i u s . S im p licii p h ilo so p h i acutissim i commentaria in quatuor libros D e celo A risto telis,
S a m o w s k y , J u r g e n . D ie aristotelisch-scholastische T h e o r ie der B ew egu n g . Stu d ien zum G u ille r m o M orbeto interprete. V e n i c e , 1540.
K om m en tar A lb erts von Sachsen z u r P h y s ik des A risto teles. Beitriige zur Geschichte S in g e r , Charles. “ T h e S c ie nt if ic V i e w s a n d V i s i o n s o f Sai nt H i l d e g a r d e ( 1 0 9 8 -
794 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 795
1 1 8 0 ) . ” In C h a r l e s S in g e r , e d. , S tu d ies iti the H istory and M e th o d o f Science. tione; M eteorologicorum E x p o sitio cum textu e x recensione leonina. E d . R a y m u n d u s
O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1 9 1 7 , 1-55. M . S p ia z z i. T u r i n : M a r ie tt i , 1952.
Siraisi, N a n c y . A v ic en n a in Renaissance Italy: T h e “ C a n o n ” and M ed ica l T ea chin g in S. T h o m a e A q u in a tis In octo libros D e physico auditu sive Physicorum A risto telis com-
Italian U n iversities after 1500. Pr in c et o n : P r in c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1987. mentaria. N e w ed. E d . A n g e l i - M . Pi rotta. N a p l e s : D ’ A u r i a P o n t if ic u s , 1953.
S o l m s e n , F riedrich. A r is to tle ’s S ystem o f the P h y sica l World: A C o m p a riso n w ith H is C o m m en ta ry on the M etap hysics o f A risto tle. 2 v o l s . T r . J o h n P. R o w a n . C h i c a g o :
Predecessors. C o r n e l l S t ud ie s in C la ss ic a l P h i l o l o g y , no. 33. Ithaca: C o r n e l l U n i ­ Regnery, 1961.
v e r s i t y Press, i960. Treatise on Separate Substances. Lati n te x t w i t h E n g l i s h tra nsla tion. E d. and tr.
S o m m e r v o g e l , C a r l o s . B ib lio th eq u e de la C o tn p a g n ie de Jesus. 12 v o l s . N e w ed. Ed. Fran cis J. L e s c o e . W e s t H a r t fo r d : Saint J o s e p h C o l l e g e , 1963.
C a r l o s S o m m e r v o g e l . Brussels: O s c a r S c h e p e n s , 18 9 0 -19 11. O n the E tern ity o f the W orld ( D e aeternitate m undi). T r . C y r i l V o l l e r t . M i l w a u k e e :
S o r a b ji , R ic h a rd . T im e , C reation and the C o n tin u u m : T h eories in A n tiq u ity and the E arly M a r q u e t t e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1964, 1 - 7 3 .
M id d le A g es. Ithaca: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1983. S e e also B o n a v e n t u r e , 1964; S i g e r o f B ra b a n t, 1964.
“ In fi n it y and C r e a t i o n . ” In R i c h a r d S o r ab ji, e d . , P h ilo p o n u s and the R ejection o f S u m m a theologiae. 60 v o l s . La tin t e x t w i t h E n g l i s h tra nslation. E d . and tr. T . G i l b y
A ristotelia n Science. Ithaca: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Press, 19 87, 164— 178. et al. N e w Y o r k : B l a c k f r i a r s / M c G r a w - H i l l , 19 64 — 1976.
St ahl, W i l l i a m H . Rom an Science: O r ig in , D ev elo p m e n t and Influ en ce to the L a ter M id d le V o l . 8 (196 7): C r e a tio n , V ariety and E v il ( 4 4 - 4 9 ) . T r . T h o m a s G i l b y .
A g es. M a d i s o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n Press, 1962. V o l. 10 (19 6 7) : C o sm og o n y ( 6 5 - 7 4 ) . T r . W i l l i a m A . W al la ce.
Stegm uller, F riedrich. Reportorium C om m en tatorium in Sen ten tias Petri Lom bardi. 2 T h o m a s d e B u n g e y e . “ T h o m a s de B u n g e v e ’s C o m m e n t a r y on the First B o o k o f
vols. W u r zb u rg : S c h on in g h , 1947. A r i s t o t l e ’ s D e c a e l o . ” E d . B e r n a r d Street Pa rker. P h . D . diss., T u l a n e U n i v e r ­
S t e n e c k , N i c h o l a s . Science and C reation in the M id d le Aijes: H en ry o f La n gen stein (d. s it y. 1968.
1397) on G e n e sis. N otre Dame, Ind.: U n iversity of N otre Dam e Press, T h o m a s o f S t r a s b o u r g . T h o m a e ab A rg en tin a , Erem itarum d ivi A u g u stin i prioris generalis
1976. qui floruit anno C h r is ti 1343, C om m en taria in I I I I libros Sententiarum . V e n i c e : e x
S t e w a r t , D a v i d . “ A r i s t o t l e ’s D o c t r i n e ot the U n m o v e d M o v e r . ” T h o m ist 37 (1973), o ff ic in a Stellae, Io rd an i Z il e t ti , 1564. Fa c si m ile , R i d g e w o o d , N . J . : G r e g g , 1965.
^ 52 2- 54 7. T h o r e n , V i c t o r E. “ T h e C o m e t o f 1 5 7 7 and T y c h o B r a h e ’s S y s t e m o f the W o r l d . ”
St iefel, T i n a . T h e Intellectual R evo lu tio n in T w e lfth -C e n tu r y E u rope. N e w Y o r k : St. A r c h iv e s Internationales d ’ H isto ire des Sciences 29 ( 19 7 9 ) . 53 —67.
M a r t i n ' s Press, 198$. T h e L o rd o f Uraniborg: A B iograp hy o j T y ch o Brahe. C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i ­
S t o c k , B ri an . M y th and Science in the T w e l f h C en tu ry : A S tu d y o f Bernard Silvester. v e r s i t y Press, 1990.
Pr in c e t o n : P r in c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1972 . Th orn d ike, Lyn n. A H isto ry o f M a g ic and E xp erim en ta l Science. 8 v o l s . N e w Y o r k :
S ua re z, Fr an c is c o. D ispu ta tion es m etaphysicae. 2 v o l s . Paris, 1866. F a c s i m il e , H i l - C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 2 3 - 1 9 5 8 .
d e s h e im : O l m s . 1965. First p u b li s h e d 15 97 . U n iv ersity Records and L ife in the M id d le A g es. N e w Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y
S w e r d l o w , N o e l . “ P s e u d o x i a C o p e r n i c a n a : or, E nq ui ri es in t o v e r y m a n y r e c ei ve d Press, 1944.
tene nts an d c o m m o n l y p r e s u m e d trut hs, m o s t l y c o n c e r n i n g s p h e r e s . ” A rchives T h o r n d i k e , 1949. S ee S a c r o b o s c o , J o h n of.
Internationales d 'H isto ire des Sciences26 (19 7 6) , 1 0 8 - 1 5 8 . T h orn d ik e, Lynn, an d Pear l K ib r e . A C a t,, gu e o j Incipits o j M ed ia ev a l Scien tific
S yl la , E d i th . “ G a l i l e o and P r o b a b l e A r g u m e n t s . ” In D a n i e l O . D a h l s t r o m , ed., W ritings in L a tin . R e v . ed. C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : M e d i a e v a l A c a d e m y o f A m e r i c a ,
N a tu re and Scien tific .Method. S t ud ie s in P h i l o s o p h y a n d the H i s t o r y o f Ph il o s ­ 1963.
o p h y , no. 22. W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y o f A m e r i c a Pr ess, 19 91, T o l e t u s , F ran cis cu s. D . Francisci T o le ti Societatis Iesu Com m entaria utia cum Q u estio n -
2 11-2 3 4 . ibus in octo libros A risto telis D e physica auscultatione, nunc secundo in lucem edita.
T h a b i t ib n Q u r r a . T h e A stronom ical W orks o j T h a b it b .Q u r r a . E d . Fran cis J. C a r m o d y . V e n i c e : a p u d Iuntas, 1580.
B e r k e l e y / L o s A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, i960. Tovnbee, Paget. A D ictio n a ry o f Proper N am es and N o ta b le M atters in the W orks of
T h e m i s t i u s . L ib r i Paraphraseos T h em istii Peripatetici acutissim i: In Posteriora; In libros D a n te. R e v . ed. E d . C h a r l e s S. S i n g l e t o n . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n Press, 1968.
D e atiitna; . . . interprete H erm olao Barbaro. V e n i c e , 1499. T n n k a u s , C h a r l e s . “ T h e A s t r o l o g i c a l C o s m o s and R h e t o r i c a l C u l t u r e o f G i o v a n n i
T h e m o n Ju dae us . In quatuor libros M eteororum . G i o v i a n o P o n t a n o . ” Renaissance Q u arterly 33 (1985) , 446—472.
See A lbert o f Saxony. V a n H eld en, A lb ert. M easu ring the U niverse: C o sm ic D im en sio n s fro m A ristarchus to
T h o m a s A q u i n a s . S. Th om ae A q u in a tis Q u a estio n es disputatae. Ed. P. M a n d o n n e t . 3 H a lle y . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o Press, 1985.
vo l s. Paris: P. Le t h i e ll e u x , 1925. V e l c u r i o ( V e l t k i r c h i u s ) , J o h a n n e s B er n ar di . C om m en ta rii in universdm P hy sicen A r ­
V o l . 2: D e potential D e malo. istotelis distincti libris I I I I , iam recens accuratissime r eco g n iti. . . L y o n : a p u d Io. F r a n -
Scriptum super libros Sententiarum M agistri Petri Lom bardi E p isco p i Parisietisis. 4 vols. c iscu m de G ab ia n o , 1554.
N e w ed. Paris: L e t hi el le u x, 1929— 1947. V e r s o r , J o h a n n e s . Q u estio ties sitbrilissim e in via sancti T h o m e magistri J o h a n n es Versoris
Bks. 1 - 2 : ed. R . P. M a n d o n n e t , in v o l s . 1 - 2 (1929) su per libros D e celo et mundo A resto telis [ s i c ] . . . Q u estioties Versoris super Parva
B k s . 3 - 4 , dist. 22: ed. R . P. M a r i a F a b ia n us M o o s , in v o l s . 3 - 4 ( 19 3 3 , 1947)- N a tu ra lia cum tex tu A resto telis . . . Tractatus com pendiosus sancti T h o m e D e ente et
T h e L etter o j S a in t Thom as A q u in a s “ D e occultis operibus naturae ad quem datn militem essentia . . . Tractatus . . . G erhardi de M o n te ostetidens sanctum T h om am et vetiera-
ultram ontanum .” T r . J o s e p h B . M cA llister. C ath olic U n iversity o f A m erica biletn A lh ertu m . . . non esse contrarios . . . Q uestioties magistri Jo h a n n is Versoris super
P h i l o s o p h ic a l Studi es, n o 42. W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y o f A m e r ­ libros D e generatiotie et corruptione . . . super libros M etheororum . . . C o l o g n e : H .
ica, 1939. P h . D . diss. Q u e n t e l l , ca. 1493.
Q u aestion es Q u o dlib eta les. Ed. R a y m u n d u s Spia zz i. T u r i n : M a r ie tt i , 1949. V i n c e n t o f B e a u v a i s . B iblio theca m undi sen venerabilis viri V in ccn tii Burgundi e x O rd in e
5 . T h om a e A q u in a tis In A risto telis libros D e caelo et m undo; D e generatiotie et corrup- Praedicatorum , episcopi B ellova cetisis, S pecu lu m Q u a d ru p lex: naturale, doctrinale, mo­
796 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 797
rale, historiale. 2 vo l s. D o u a i : E x o ff ic in a t y p o g r a p h i c a et s u m p t i b u s B althaza ris W i l s o n , C u r t i s . W illia m H eytesbu ry: M ed ie v a l Lo g ic and the R ise o f M athem atical Physics.
B el le ri in C i r c i n o au re o, 1624. M a d i s o n : U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n Press, 1956.
V o l. 1: S peculum naturale. W i p p e l , J o h n F. T h e M eta p h y sica l T h o u g h t o f G o d frey o f F ontaines: A S tu d y in La te
V o n P la t o, Jan. “ N i c o l e O r e s m e an d the E r g o d i c i t y o f R o t a t i o n s . ” In I n g m a r Por n, T h ir te e n th -C e n tu r y P h ilo so p h y . W ashington, D .C .: C ath olic U n iversity of
e d. , Essays in P h ilo so p h ica l A n a ly sis D edica ted to E r ik S ten iu s on the O ccasion o f A m e r i c a Press, 1 9 81 . (a)
his 70th B irthday. A c t a P h i l o s o p h i c a F en n ic a, no. 32 ( 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 9 0 - 1 9 7 . “ D i d T h o m a s A q u i n a s D e f e n d the P o s s i b i li t y o f an E t e r n a l l y C r e a t e d W o r l d ? ”
W a ll a c e , W i l l i a m A . “ V i n c e n t o f B e a u v a i s . ” D ictiona ry o f S cien tific B iog rap hy, 1976, Jo u rn a l o f the H isto ry o f P h ilo so p h y 19 (1 9 81 ), 2 1 - 3 7 . (b)
14: 34- 36. W o l f s o n , H a r r y A . “ T h e P l u r a l i t y o f I m m o v a b l e M o v e r s in A r i s t o t l e an d A v e r r o e s . ”
Prelude to G a lileo : Essays on M e d ie v a l and S ix te e n th -C e n tu r y Sources o f G a lile o ’s In Is a do r e T w e r s k y and G e o r g e H . W illiam s, eds. Stu d ies in the H istory o f
T h o u g h t. Boston S tu di es in the P h i l o s o p h y o f S c ie n c e , no. 62. Dordrecht: P h ilo so p h y and R e lig io n . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 19 73 , 1 -
R ei d e l, 1981. 2 1 . (a)
W allace-H adrill, D. S. T h e G r e e k Patristic V iew o f N atu re. N e w Y o r k : B ar n es Sc “ T h e P r o b l e m o f the S o u l s o f the Sp he re s f r o m the B y z a n t i n e C o m m e n t a r i e s on
N oble, 1968. A r i s t o t le t h r o u g h the A r a b s an d St. T h o m a s to K e p l e r . ” In Isa dore T w e r s k y
W e i n b e r g , Julius. N ico la u s o f Autrecourt: A S tu d y in F o u r iee n th -C en tu r y Th ou g ht. an d G e o r g e H . W i l l i a m s , e d s ., S tu d ies in the H istory o f P h ilo so p h y and R elig io n .
Pr in c et o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1948. C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 73 , 2 2 - 5 9 . (b)
W e is h e ip l , J a m e s A . “The P r o b l e m a t a D e t e r m i n a t a X L I I I A s c r i b e d t o A lb e r t u s T h e P h ilo so p h y o f the K a la m . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1976.
M a g n u s ( 1 2 7 1 ) . ” M ed ia ev a l S tu d ies 22 ( i9 6 0) , 3 0 3 - 3 5 4 . W r i g h t , J o h n K i r t l a n d . T h e G eog raph ica l L o re o f the T im e o f the Crusades: A S tu d y in
“ T h e C e l e s t ia l M o v e r s in M e d i e v a l P h y s i c s . ” T h o m ist 24 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 286—326. the H isto ry o f M e d ie v a l S cien ce and Tradition in Western E u rope. A m e r i c a n G e o ­
“ T h e C o n c e p t o f M a t t e r in F o u r t e e n t h - C e n t u r y S c i e n c e . ” In E r n a n M c M u l l i n , g r a p h ic a l S o c i e t y R e s e a r c h Series, n o. 15. N e w Y o r k : A m e r i c a n G e o g r a p h i c a l
T h e C o n c ep t o f M a tter in G r e e k and M e d ie v a l P h ilo so p h y . N o t r e D a m e , Ind.: S o c i e t y , 1925.
U n i v e r s i t y o f N o t r e D a m e Press, 1963. Y a t e s , Fr anc es A . G iord an o B ru no and the H erm etic T radition . N e w Y o r k : R a n d o m
“ C u r r i c u l u m o f the F a c u l t y o f A r t s at O x f o r d in the E a r l y F o u r t e e n t h - C e n t u r y . ” House, 1969. First p u b l i s h e d 1964.
M ed ia ev a l S tudies 26 (1964), 1 4 3 - 1 8 5 . Z e d l e r , J o h a n n H e i n r ic h . G rosses vollstdndiges U n iv e r sa l-L e x ik o n . 64 v o l s . H al le , 1 7 3 2 -
F riar T h om as D ’A q u in o , H is L ife , T h o u g h t, and W ork. G a r d e n C i t y , N . Y . : Dou­ 17 5 0. F a c si m il e , G r a z : A k a d e m i s c h e D r u c k , 1 9 6 1 - 1 9 6 4 .
b l e d a y , 1974. Z i m m e r m a n n , A l b e r t , ed. E in K om m en tar z u r P h y s ik des A risto teles aus der Pariser
A lb ertu s M agn us and the Sciences: C o m m em ora tiv e Essays, ig8o. E d . J a m e s A . W e is h ­ A rtisten fa k u lta t um 1273. B er li n: de G r u y t e r , 1968.
eipl. T o r o n t o : Po n t if ic a l Insti tu te o f M e d i a e v a l S tu di es , 1980.
W e s t m a n , R o b e r t S. “ T h e C o p e r n i c a n s and the C h u r c h e s . ” In D a v i d C . L i n d b e r g
an d R o n a l d L. N u m b e r s , e ds ., G o d and N ature: H istorical E ssays on the Encounter
betw een C h ristia n ity and Science. B e r k e l e y / L o s A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l if o r n ia
Press, 1986, 7 6 - 1 1 3 .
W hite, L y n n , Jr. “ C u l t u r a l C l i m a t e s an d T e c h n o l o g i c a l A d v a n c e in the M i d d l e
A g e s . ” In L y n n W h i t e , Jr., M e d ie v a l R e lig io n and T e ch n o lo g y , C o lle cte d Essays.
B e r k e l e y / L o s A n g e l e s : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1 9 78 , 2 1 7 - 2 5 3 .
W h i t e , T h o m a s . Peripateticall Institutions in the w ay o f that em in en t Person and excellent
P h ilo so p h er K e n e lm D ig b y . T h e T h eo retica ll part. A ls o a T h eo lo g ica l A p p e n d ix o f
the B eg in n in g o f the W orld. L o n d o n : P r in te d b v R. D . an d are to be s o ld b y Jo hn
W i l l i a m s at the s ig n o f the C r o w n in S. P a u l ’ s C h u r c h y a r d , 1656.
W h i t r o w , G . J. “ O n the I m p o s s i b i l i t y o f an Infinite P a s t . ” B ritish fo u r n a l fo: the
P h ilo so p h y o f Scien ce 29 ( 197 8), 3 9 - 4 5 .
W i l l i a m o f A u v e r g n e . G u ile lm i A lv e r n i O p era om nia. 2 v o l s . P a n s . 1674 . Facsimile,
Fr ank fur t: M i n e r v a , 1963.
V o l. 1: D e universo
W illiam o f O c k h a m . G u ile lm i de O c k h a m O p era philo so p hica et theologica ad fidetn
codicum m anuscriptorum edita. E d . Fr an c isc an Institute. St. B o n a v e n t u r e , N . Y . :
St. B o n a v e n t u r e U n i v e r s i t y :
O p era theologica, v o l . 4. V enerabilis Inceptoris G u ille lm i de O ck h a m Scriptum in
librum prim um Sententiarum O rd in a tio. D i s t s . 19—48. E d . G i r a r d I. E t z k o r n and
Francis E. K e l l y . 1979.
O p era theologica, v o l . 5. V enerabilis Inceptoris G u ile lm i de O ck h a m Q u aestio n es in h-
brum secundum Sententiarum (R ep o rta tio ). E d . G e d e o n G a l a n d R e g a W o o d . 1981.
O p era p hilo so p hica , v o l . 6. V enerabilis Inceptoris G u ille lm i de O ck h a m B revis Summa
libri P hysicorum , S u m m u la p h ilo so p h ia e naturalis, et Q u a estio n es in libros Physi-
corum A risto telis. E d . S t e p h e n B r o w n . 1984.
INDEX 799
Albumasar (Abu Ma ’shar), 227m 232m 525; move orbs by actualizing a force,
2 3 3 . 5 7 in 530; move orbs by executive power,
Alcuin, 372 559; se e a ls o intelligence(s)
Alexander of Aphrodisias: last sphere not in animals: perfect and imperfect, 580

Index place, 124-5; 13. 18, 425


Alexander of Hales: fluid waters above
firmament, 333; 33, 39, 85, 86-87, 28011
Alfraganus (al-Fargani; al-Farghani): and
anonymous: on lux and lu m e n , 393; orbs
produce no heat by friction, 594; planets
are opaque and dense bodies, 398—9;
relationship between intelligence and
ratio o f earth to firmament, 620; on orb, 545-6
Sun, 454n; 13, 1 i6n, 277 anonymous French writer: fluid waters
Alfred o f Sareshel, 13 above firmament, 333
Algazali, 190 Anselm o f Laon: and emergence o f
Alhazen (ibn al-Haytham): no indication empyrean heaven, 372
Page numbers cited directly atter a semicolon following a final textual subentry refer to
whether orbs hard or soft, 346; 13, 277, Apelles, 454, 456
relatively minor mentions in the text o f the main entry.
64311 Apollo. 506
Alkindi, 13 Aratus, 444
alteration(s): corruptive and perfective, Archimedes, 13, 11611
Abelard, Peter, 151 celestial surtaces, 291: assumes
zoyn; proper and improper, 203 Aristarchus o f Samos: and axial rotation,
Abraham de Balmes, 1611, 34n differences among celestial bodies, 223m
Ambrose, Saint: and corruptible heavens, 638; 18, 64
Abraham de Balneis, 3411 assumes three kinds o f eccentric orbs,
216; waters above firmament, 321, 333 Aristotelian: defined, 22-23
accidents: celestial, 208-10 282m celestial bodies differ in species,
Amicus, Bartholomew: analogy o f ship and Aristotelian cosmology, 675, 677
Achillini, Alessandro, 563, 6o6n, 614 22 in, 429; celestial light as cause o f heat,
living orb, 477m and arguments for hard Aristotelian natural philosophers, 678
Adelard of Bath, 12, 13, lyon, 47m 603n; denies existence ot immobile
orbs, 350, 363-6; and eight-orb theory, Aristotelian natural philosophy: departures
adornment, 92, 93, 104 heaven, 376; earth at center o f concentric
3i6n; and empyrean heaven, 382, 385; from, 302; 150
Aegidius Ronianus: and animation of orbs, 296—7; last sphere not in place,
and excluded questions, 759; and Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system: and three-
heavens, 473; and Aquinas, 254; and 124; matter lacking in heavens, 202n,
explanation o f sunspots, 211; and orb system, 279; why concept used, 310;
improvement o f world, 144m assumed 246; on change and cessation o f celestial
fluidity o f heavens, 365-6; and too, 102, 285, 308, 320
hard and soft orbs, 331, 342, 361; motions, 599—600; on concentric and
generation o f heat, 595; and heaven Aristotelianism, 3, 22-23, 56
assumed real eccentric orbs, 281; celestial successive worlds, 160-1; on earth’s
created on first day, 94-95; and impact Aristotelianism, Renaissance, 750
and terrestrial matter identical, 254-8; center o f gravity, 634—5; on fatigue o f
o f Copernicus, 650; and metaphor o f Aristotle: and actual and potential infinites,
celestial and terrestrial regions separated, celestial orbs, 54cm, 54m; on Moon and
Sun as king and heart. 227m 233; and 69-70, 106—7, 108—9; -»nd arrangement of
262; denies substantial improvement o f epicycles, 301-2; on perfection o f world,
motion on ship, 656; and production o f four elements, 630; and celestial ether,
species, 143; density o f celestial ether 138m on plurality o f self-contained
heat by light, 609-10; cast doubt on new 189, aoon, 424, 515, 571-2; and celestial
varies, 305; did not anticipate universal worlds, i6on; on species o f celestial
discoveries, 367—8; explanations o f new 'is, 310, 318, 342; and centers o f earth
matter, 268-9; hollow eccentric deferents bodies, 222n, 431; on Sun as sole source
stars, 213; Mercury and Venus have : world, 623m and intelligences, 225,
in single heaven. 304-5; on Avempace. o f celestial light, 394; on the infinite, 69,
Sun-centered orbits, 367-8; on animated * r; and other worlds, 15m, r52n, r58—
126; on firmament. 99—100; on place o f :07m on uniform and regular motion,
heavens, 484-5; on celestial 9n, 160; and oviform spheres, 292; and
last sphere, 127; one, continuous heaven, 489; planets are denser parts o f orbs,
commensurability and Ptolemy, 286; and terrestrial rarity and
274; planets move like fish in water, 426; questions on D e c a e lo , 755; rejects
incommensurability, 509-11; on celestial density, 201—2; attributes axial rotation
274-sn; 25, 33, 34m i02n. 14 2 11 extracosmic space, 132m 6, 31, 57, io6n,
incorruptibility, 206, 207, 209—10, 212; to Plato, 638n; C a t e g o r ie s , io8n; celestial
ages o f man, 577 I09n, 11611, 117m 17m, 319-20, 426-7n,
on celestial motions, 490, 500, 601; on bodies are alive, 236m 469-700; celestial
Agricola, Rudolf, 635 568, 6o5n, 626m 766
firmament, 97, 27411, 337; on future and bodies nobler than man, 236m contrary
air: as firmament, 97; middle region ot, Albertus de Orlamunde, 28n, 2yn
end o f world, 78, 81-82; on imaginary qualities absent from celestial region,
6o6n. 610; motive force of, 6~o Albertos Magnus (Albert the Great):
space, 179-80, 181; on intelligences, 324; D e a n im a , 4820; D e c a e lo , 6
Albert of Saxony: and earth’s center of accepted real eccentric orbs, 281; and
533-4, 535; on order o f the planets, 232- (description o f contents, 14-16; focal
gravity, 632-5: and earth's possible axial empyrean heaven, 373; and number ot
4; on perfection o f world, 138m 139m point o f study, 9; questions and
rotation. 63911; and earth's sphericity, orbs, 309n; arguments against actual
146, 208, 510; on planetary light, 411 commentaries on, 27-31); 63, 108, ii6n,
627m and extracosmic existence, 170—1; infinite, 109; attributes three motions to
(Moon, 404n); on plurality o f worlds, 119m i20n, I23n, 138m I50n, 152m
and fourfold sense o f world, 13711; and eighth sphere, 3 1511; celestial bodies
157, i6on; on rest and motion, 383, 662; i62n, 169m 224. 236m 449, 514, 620; D e
impact on 16th and 17th centuries. 18— belong to same species. 431, 433; denies
on simultaneous creation, 87-88; on g e n e r a t io n e e t c o r r u p t io n e , 6, i sn; denied
19; and imperfect world, 13911; and dynamic rarity, 295m heavens vary in
three causes that preserve heavens, 206: waters above lunar sphere. 321;
impetus theory, 549—50, 66in; and thickness, 198; Moon somewhat
planets and orbs differ, 432; two kinds distinction between celestial and
metaphor o f Sun as king and heart. transparent, 404; on differences in stellar
o f accidents, 209; 57, 109, 137m 14m. terrestrial regions, 5-6; editions o f
227m and Moon's rotation. 464; and magnitudes, 440; on matter between
175m 177, 178m 19611, 20511, 2i8n, works, 9; emphasizes celestial over
order o f planets, 311, 312n: and plan for orbs, 294-6; on production o f heat by
225n, 261, 419m 660, 676 terrestrial, 755; heavens move without
De c a e lo . 618; and self-luminositv ot light, 607-9; on Sun, 22711, 395-6, 452-
Anantius (al-Nairizi), 13 effort, 539; heavens suffer no change,
planets, 399; and spherical shape o f 3; on twinkling stars, 449-50; planet is
Andreas de Bilius, 2911 203, 575-6; H is t o r y o j A n i m a l s , 58011;
world, I20n; and twofold sense ot denser part o f its orb, 426m questions
angel(s), 526-45; and Condemnation ot ignored size o f universe. 761; ladder o f
perfection. 137m and virtual qualities in posed to, 548m rejects identification ot
1277, 528-30; and movement o f planets, nature, 58011; made “ celestial”
heavens 433n; arguments tor prime intelligences and angels, 527m 19, 22,
364, 559; identified with intelligences. phenomena sublunar, 204: medieval
mover, 521; assumes contiguity o f 2 5 , 3 0 , 3 3 . 5 17 n- 7 5 2

798
8o o INDEX
INDEX 801
Aristotle (cont.) Asclepius, 173
563-4, 566; and heaven divided into sources of light, 415; Moon not self-
departures from, 26; Metaphysics, 137, astrologers: and natural philosophers, 35-36
seven zones, 305-6; and location of luminous, 400n; on celestial ether, 422;
14m, 143m 225, 271, 310, 514, 515 astrology: and natural philosophy, 36m 511,
intelligence in its orb, 535—6; and lunar on eccentrics and epicycles, 284m on lux
(relevant topics in, 31); Meteorology 6, 569
light, 404; and shifting of earth’s center, and lumen, 392-3; on properties of
353, 424, 630 (relevant topics in, 31); on astronomers: and cosmological arguments,
625; and six magnitudes of stars, 439m planets, 468; on sphericity of fixed stars,
celestial causation, 571—2, 573; on 17; compared to natural philosophers,
and “terrestrial globe,” 636; and 447n; on the Sun and retrogradation,
celestial hierarchy, 224n; on celestial 36-37; merged astronomy with
theological condemnation, 666—7; and 4 5 3 - 4 ; 3m, 35, 99n, 379
incorruptibility, 191-2; on celestial cosmology, 38-39
three centers, 622n; compares heavens Basil, Saint: and shape of heaven, 12in; on
movers. 514-17; on circular motion, atomism, [51
and animate bodies, 238—9; critical of firmament, 103-4, I90n, 335; 87m 94,
I25n, 196; on circularity of world, u6n; atomists, 176
Galileo, 406; heavens as disposing cause, 95, 216, 321, 470
on continuous and contiguous surfaces, Augustine, Saint: air and fire in heavens,
582, 583; heavens not animated, 479; Bassolis, John de, io6n, i6on
289; on corporeality of spheres, 325n; on I90n; and celestial animation, 470, 472;
heavens opaque and transparent, 217-19; Bechler, Zev, 58—59n
eternity of world, 63-64, 78-79; on and changes in Venus and Spica, 210,
ignores common motion arguments, Bede, Venerable: and empyrean heaven,
extracosmic existence, 152, 169m 177; 211; and extracosmic void space, i8on;
651; lunar epicycle and abandonment of 371-2; waters above firmament are hard,
on opposite directions, 64 m; on place of and heaven created on first day, 95m 98;
orbs, 465; M oon is opaque, 404-5; new 321, 332; 12, 85, 95n, 98, 100
a body, 122-3; on place of last sphere, and innumerable stars, 444; and literal
stars are celestial, 216; no rule for Bellarmine, Robert: assumed fluidity of
129; on psychic powers of living things, truth of Scripture, 91; and waters above
determining nobility of planets, 235; on heavens, 348; rejected orbs, 272m 34m;
482n; on rare and dense, 198; on shape and below firmament, 9in; identity of
density and rarity, 199, 200-1; on end of 46gn
of the world, 117m on size of earth, terrestrial and celestial matter, 25 5n; on
world, 81, 82; on intellective soul, 479— Bellutus, Bonavenura, see Mastrius and
620-1; on sphericity of earth, 627; on days of creation, 88-89n; on firmament,
81; on lunar spots, 460-1; on opacity Bellutus
Sun and generation, 558; on Sun as sole 33 5. 338; on relations between science
and diaphaneity (transparency), 20in, Benedictus Hesse, 482m 485, 522n, 726m
source of celestial light, 393; on Sun’s and scripture, 647; on simultaneous
462; on religious implications of 756
motion, 453; on Sun’s production of creation, 84-85; on sphericity of heaven,
animated heavens, 481; on self­ Bernard de Trille, 529
heat in air, 59i-2n; on system of 115n; relation between finite world and
luminosity of fixed stars, 416, 420; on Bernard of Verdun: and harmony of world,
concentric spheres, 275-6; on terrestrial God’s infinite immensity, 175; 86, 103,
sunspots, 456—8; on the species God can 149; and synchronization of orbs, 293n;
motions, 152-3; on the goodness of the I39n
create, I42n; on twinkling of stars, 450- on lunar spot, 30m, 464; 38
world, 14m; on twinkling stars, 449; Aureoli, Peter: and animated heavens, 473,
1; opts for celestial incorruptibility, 216; Bernard Silvester, 12
one heaven, 271; orbs of one planet do 475, 485; matter and form lacking in
orbs moved by assisting intelligences, Bible, references from, citations to, and
not affect those of another, 318; heavens, 247-9; 33. -45
534 - 5; perfection and variety in world, mentions of: Apocrypha, 8on, 81;
perfection of celestial bodies varies with authorities, citations of, 56-57
139m planets receive light from Sun, Baruch 3.34-35, 417; 1 Chronicles
distance, 223; perfection taken two Autolycus, 13
408; rejects miracle as explanation, 217m 16.jo, 665; Deuteronomy to, 240;
ways, 137; Physics, 108, 122, 123m 12411. aux. 283, 284, 300
summarizes three-orb system, 283m Ecclesiastes 1.4-5, 665; j . 14, 217m,
I29n, 153, 170, I 9 8 n, 201, 514 (relevant Avempace (ibn Bajja): and the place of the
world is finite, 113; ion, 100, 12m, Ecclesiasticus 18.1, 84m 85m Exodus
topics in, 31); planets and orbs last sphere, 126-7; i—8, non
2ion. 237m 261, 676 20.11, 88; Genesis, 39, 63m 84, 85m 1.6,
composed of same substance, 426m Avenalpetras, 287
Avicenna (ibn Sina): and habitability of 320; 1.6-8, 95n; 1.7, 332; 1.9, 630m
planets cause heat in inferior world, Averroes: and celestial dimensions, 247n;
world, 63 2n; distinguished souls and 1.14, 94n; 1.14—15, 416; 1.14—17, 363;
591-2; pseudo-Aristotelian De mundo, and Condemnation of 1277, 602; and
intelligences, 472; each celestial body in 1.14-19, 334; 2.1, 92, 2i7n; 15.5, 444-5,
148, 224; pseudo-Aristotelian De Sun’s light on Moon, 395; celestial
own species, 221; last sphere not in 446; Isaiah, 63n, 80, 81; j8.8, 666n;
proprietatibus elementorum, 222n, 424, bodies in same species, 221;
pkce, 124; planets self-luminous, 393; 40.12, 665; 40.22, U5n; 51.6, 351; Job
426n; pseudo-Aristotelian Liber de commentaries of, 752; comparison of
9n, 13, i6n, 18, 190, 229 26.7, 665; 28, 89m J 7 , 3 3 8 ; 3718, 3 3 9 .
animalibus, 223n; quantity cannot arise infinites, 68—69; De substantia orbis, 16,
Avicennan-Macrobian theory, 413 351. 363, 366; 38, 89m 38.33, 536; John,
from nonquantity, 42; reconciled with 34, 223m existence of terrestrial bodies
63m Joshua 10.10—13, 5 9 8 ; to.12-14,
faith, 74; rejects flat earth, 629m theory and celestial motion, 588; heavens move
Bacon, Roger: and diversity of celestial 666; 2 Kings 20.9-11, 665; 2 Maccabees
of comet formation, 353—5; three causal without effort, 539-40; imagination and
motions, 291; and endurance of world, 7.28, 89m Psalm 6, 102, 113; 8, ioon;
accounts of celestial motion. 514-17; infinite space, 177; increase occurs m
77; and magnitudes of fixed stars. 438-9; 18.6-7, 665; 92, 665; 103, ioon, 630m
two views on heavens, 271-2; 13. 18, three ways, 202; on action of denser
comparison of infinites, 68n; De celestibus 103.2, 115m 103.5, 665; Revelation, 63m
162, 244n, 245 body, 198-9; on Alexander, 124; on
of, 752—3; diversity of species in celestial Romans, 63m Wisdom 11.21, 509;
Arithmetic, muse of, 149, 506—7 celestial commensurability and
bodies, 430, 432; fixed stars are Wisdom o f Solomon 11.17, 89m
Arriaga, Roderigo de: angels prevent incommensurability, 500; on celestial
innumerable, 445n, 446; influence of immobility o f earth, 664-5
planets from falling, 545; empyrean light and heat, 603-4; on celestial
terrestrial on celestial, 570n, 575n; Biel, Gabriel, 33, I44n
heaven has dark cover, 39m; eternity matter, 249; on hierarchical differences
motion threefold, 298-9; on eternity, 71; big bang, xvii
and creation reconciled, 72m firmament among planets, 223m on lunar spots,
on physical eccentrics and epicycles, 278, BitrujI, al-: and avoidance o f contrary
does not imply hardness, 337; fixed stars 462; on place of last sphere, 127-8; on
288n, 302n; planet is denser part of its motions, 563-4; and transmission o f
are self-luminous, 417; God can create similarity of Moon and earth, 45911; only
orb, 426m 30, 1i6n, 124, 152, 153m impressed force, 562-3; 280, 287, 343
an actual infinite, 113; heavens hard and one heaven, 272; supported concentric
155, 156, 299, 434, 632n black holes, xvii
incorruptible, 349; infinity of worlds orbs, 280; things generated from seed
Baconthorpe, John, io6n Blund,John, 547-8
possible, i67-8n; on fluid heavens, 273, and putrefaction are identical. 58on; 18.
Bandinelli, Roland (Pope Alexander III), 372 Boethius o f Dacia, 29m 65m 74-75, 472
350, 361; on the meaning of the term 69n, 109, 129, I33n, I52n, 190, 228,
Banu Musa, 13 Bonae Spei, Franciscus: and creation, 85m
fluid, 351; ion, 33n, io6n 245, 252, 393, 568
Bartholomew the Englishman: and waters celestial bodies and locomotive soul,
arts faculty, see universities Aversa, Raphael: and contrary motions.
above heaven, 333-4; fixed stars and 483—4; defends celestial corruptibility.
802 INDEX INDEX 803

Bonae Spei, Franciscus (cont.) 540-1; distinguished proper and 766; qu. 128, 236m, qu. 135, 49; qus. angels, 526-35; as voluntary agents, 541;
263, 266; God's immensity identified improper alteration, 203; distinguished 195-202, 206; qu. 231, 392; qu. 283, varieties of, 525
with real space, 182-3; internal power total and partial orbs, 491; earth is not 124; qu. 289, 124; qu. 383, 626; qu. 388, celestial orb(s): and absence o f friction, 594;
moves orbs, 551-2; life o f 746n; on tour center o f last sphere, 128-9; emphatic 48-49; 675, 754 and analogy with wheels, 329; and
levels o f soul in heavens, 474; rejects departure from Aristotle, 2611; ether Caussin, Nicolaus, 3780 species, 428-33; and sphere(s), 114-15;
miracles as explanations, 217; 139m nobler than tour elements, 197; God and Cavellus, Hugo, 303, 52in hardness or softness of, 324-70; less
14m, 143, 144m 175m 177, 183m 23611, extracosmic infinite space, 170; God and Cecco d’Ascoli: and problems o f eccentrics dense than planets, 426—8; move by own
3 5° impressed forces. 567-8; God and the and epicycles, 288; on matter between nature, 523; moved by assisting
Bonaventure, Saint: and celestial element, actual infinite, 110—i, 1 i2n; how to orbs, 296n; on synchronization o f orbs, intelligences, 534; ninth, 98, 322-3; no
119-20; and shape o f sky, 118; defense measure celestial perfection, 225—7; 29311; planetary centers ditter, 298; 116 need to distinguish between simple and
o f temporal creation, 67-68; fluid waters imagined planet as self-moving, 274m, Ceffons, Pierre, 77, 646 compound motion of, 496; number of,
above firmament, 333; on empyrean no change in heavens, 203; no matter in celestial bodies: and generation ot living 308-10, 315-20; on contiguity and
heaven, 379, 380; questions on light, heavens, 202, 245-6; on cessation o f things, 579-86; compared to sublunar continuity of, 289-93, 344; on solid.
390-1; rejects celestial souls, 547; why celestial motion and change, 599, 600; bodies, 235-43; differ in species, 429; 327-8; partial and total (whole), 281,
superiors act on inferiors, 575; ion, 33, on empyrean heaven, 374—5; on eternal have varied effects, 572; influence 285, 297n, 308, 491; reason for, 274-5;
53. 55. 69, 85. io6n, 143, 144m 14611, and created world, 76; on light in the sublunar things, 570; move like birds in relation o f intelligence to its, 526; ten
178m 2Son, 327m 337n, 747 middle region ot air, 610; on meaning of air and fish in sea, 348; not alive, 473; mobile, 316-17; the case for hard, 363-7;
Bonetus, Nicholas, io6n “ world,” 24—25; on Moon and epicycles, perfection of, 220-35; terminological 21 on, 271, 285; see also sphere(s)
Book of the X XI V Philosophers, 175 299-301, 464-5; on motion, 490—1; on problems with, 413—4; 20711; see also celestial region: accidentally incorruptible,
Bradwardine. Thomas: and Oresme, 501; motion and the infinite, 109; on motion fixed stars, planet(s) 265; from lunar orb to fixed stars, 304;
God and extension, 183; God cannot and the production o f heat in inferior celestial causes: o f terrestrial change, 571-9 incorruptibility of, 189-219; influence o f
create actual infinite void, 176; God’s things, 592-3; on perfection o f God and celestial corruptibility, 206, 216, 262-8 on terrestrial, 569—617; no change
immensity and infinite void space, 176; world, 138, 139-40; on relationship celestial ether, 422-33; most perfect body, experienced in, 203-4; nobler than the
on God-tilled extracosmic void space, between earth and water, 631—2; on 120; nobler than four elements, 197; 191. terrestrial, 579
173-6; 58, io6n, 172m 177 syncategorematic infinite, 70; on the 325, 326, 344 celestial species: celestial bodies and species,
Brahe, Tycho: and Capellan system, 313; comparative nobility o f motion and rest, celestial forces: simultaneous external and 428-33; see also species
and comet o f 1577, 49; and fluidity o f 374, 375-6, 641; on the prime mover, internal, 553-5 center o f gravity: o f two spheres, 634
heavens, 347, 348, 353; and hard orbs, 519m 521; on virtual qualities, 195-6; celestial impetus, 548-51 centers o f earth, 622-4
260, 342, 345; and instruments, xix; and planet is denser part o f its orb, 426m, celestial incorruptibility, 189-219; and Cesalpino, Andrea: assigned circular motion
motion o f cannonballs, 656-7; and new questions excluded trom De caelo, 758; fluidity or solidity o f heavens, 264, 268; to earth, 669-70; 23, 673, 676
star, 205, 210; on Copermcan theory and rejected comparison o f infinites, 69; challenge to, 205; compared to sublunar Chalcidius, 11, 189, 227n
magnitudes o f stars, 418. 439; rejects rejects celestial resistances, 495; 22, 30, region, 192; experience ot, 206; not Charles V, king o f France, 49n
two basic Aristotelian beliefs, 210; 34n, 51-5211, io6n. I07n, 109, 124, 125, doctrinal, 205; results from absence ot Chaucer, 40
technical astronomy and cosmology. 39; 13711, 13911, 14711. 150n, i6on, lo6n, contraries, 244; truth of, accepted, 204; stianuy: and creation o f world, 63; and
10, 16, 48, 121, 191, 202, 214, 219, 235, 198, 22jn, 227, 298, 549, 676, 755, 766 220n aatural philosophy, 55; reconciliation o f
261, 446, 676 Burley, Walter, io6n. 127, i6on, 752n celestial influence(s), 569-617 passim-, and with Aristotle, 74
Bricot, Thomas, 78, 282m 285, 399m 497n Burton, Danny, 233m 74611 invisible influence, 611-15; and light, Chrysostom, John, 97, 98, 100
Brulefer, Stefanus, 33 611-12; as instrumentality of heavens. Church: and its theologians, 52—53
Bruno, Giordano: other worlds, 156m stars caelum (celum, coelumy. as world. 129m 586; 605 Church Fathers: and celestial corruptibility,
as suns, 449; 4i6n, 649 defined, 8; translation of, 8; 7, 9, 271; celestial light, 390-421; and empyrean 267; denied incorruptibility. 213; 49, 190
Buridan, Jean: adopts ascending order ot see also heaven(s) heaven, 387, 391; and heat, 603-11; as Cicero: and axial rotation, 648—9; defined
celestial perfection, 227—30; and article Callippus, 272. 275. 303 cause o f hotness and coldness. 605; as Great Year. 498-9; 394
49 o f the condemnation, i i o - i i ; and Cambridge University: compared to instrumentality o f heavens, 586, differs Clagett, Marshall, 623m 039m 66rn
celestial impetus theory, 548-9; and Oxford, 57—58 from terrestrial light, 39m; Grosseteste Clarenbaldus o f Arras. 12
destruction o f heavens, 165m and earth's Campanus o f Novara: accepted empyrean on, 42-44; in middle region of air, 610: Clavius. Christopher: accepts traditional
center o f gravity, 624; and earth's sphere on faith, 377; and cosmic in one species, 419; multiplication ot, eccentrics and epicycles, 308: and
centers, 622—4; and earth’s possible axial dimensions. 435—8; and place ot last 42n; role of, in universe. 94; 92 crystalline sphere, 321; and Egyptian
rotation, 639-42; and eccentrics and sphere, 131; are spheres hard or soft, celestial matter: and terrestrial generation, svstem, 312; and Great Year, 512: and
epicycles, 314m and heavy bodies in 343; on continuity or contiguity ot 588-602; identical with terrestrial, 256—7. new star o f 1572, 214m 215-16; and
other worlds, 163; and his De caelo, 25- spheres, 290—1, 292, 343; on crystalline 261; lacks contrary, 253-4; on existence number o f orbs, 316, 318-19; and
26; and internal space, 131-2; and orb, 322; on firmament, 337; 38, 100 of, 244-70; two rival theories of, 250-4; solidity o f spheres, 347-8; and
metaphor o f Sun as king and heart, canonnballs: shot east and west. 656-9 248; see also matter synchronization o f orbs, 293; and
22711; and production o f heat from light, Capellan system, 313 celestial motion(s): and production ot heat, terraqueous globe, 636; and three
60311, 605—7, 609; and relative perfection Capreolus, Johannes. 33 591-5; application o f definitions to, 492- centers. 62 m. 637; fixed stars are
o f world, 139—40; and Sun-centered Carmodv, Francis, 508 6; avoidance o f contrary, 563-6; innumerable, 445m merged technical
variable order o f Mercury and Venus, Case, John, 17511, 1-7 kinematics of, 488-97; on cessation of, astronomy and cosmology. 39; on al-
313-14; and the theologians, 51-52, 112, Cassiodorus, 12 597-602; on incommensurable. 503; BitrujT's theory o f contrary motions,
16311, 549n; celestial bodies not in same Cassiopeia: new star in, 214 simple and compound, 493; 590 564-6; on continuity and contiguity o f
species, 220—in; celestial motions cause Catalog of Questions: qu. 66, 15911: qus. celestial mover(s): 523—8; and impressed celestial orbs. 290, 291; on cosmic
primary qualities, 59m; defines fatigue, 91, 92. 94 - 95 - 448; qu. 97, 47-48- 309. force or impetus, 524; as intelligences or sphericity. 117-18; on properties of
804 INDEX INDEX 805

Clavius, Christopher (com.) on correspondences, 577; on end o f Council o f Constance, 15m deferent orb(s): and middle orb that carries
celestial ether, 423; Riccioli on, about world, Hon, 81; on incorruptibility and Courtenay, William, 15m planet, 283; 282, 284
planets not self-moving, 367m 33, 100, Peripatetic schools, 205m on primary creation (of world), 83-105; Aquinas Del Guercio, Gino, xvii
Ii5n, 213, 233m 274, 301, 3ion, 439m qualities in heavens, 199m on species o f distinguishes three aspects of, 93; article Delhaye, Philippe, 66
442 celestial bodies, 221; on Sun as middle o f faith, 75; from nothing, 64, 89—90; Democritus, 155
Cleanthes, 649 planet, 232; on Thomas Aquinas, 589m reconciliation of, with physics and density, see form(s); qualities
Cleomedes, 18, 453m 62 m one intelligence cannot move all orbs, cosmology, 92; simultaneous, 83-88; six Descartes, Rene, 135
clock analogy, 478 560-1; reject orbs as channels, 306, 307; days, 84—85, 88; three interpretations of, Dick, Steven J.: on Major, i66n; on
Cobban, Alan C ., 57-58 ion, 72, 12m, 134n, 139m 14m, 15m, 83; three ways to reconcile it with plurality o f worlds, 136m 15m, 165
Coimbra Jesuits, see Conimbricenses I75n, 177, 183, 206, 233, 350, 38m, eternity, 71-72 Dicks, D. R.: on Aristotle’s unrolling
coldness: and heat and light, 603-5 622m 637, 755 creation ex nihilo, xvii, xviii, 64, 89—90 spheres, 276; 277
Collegio Romano, 219m 252 contiguity: o f orbs, 344 Crescas, Hasdai, 1840 Diego de Zuniga, 668
Columbus, Christopher, 59, 621—2 contraries: doctrine of, 207~8n; 194, 425, Crombie, A. C ., 278n Diel, Nicolaus, 28
comet(s), 6, 353-6; o f 1577: and fluidity o f 623 crystalline heaven (or orb), 95, 103-4, 320, Dionysius Carthusianus, 33
heavens, 345; in celestial region, 355; contrary motions: avoidance of, 563—6 321, 332-4 Dominicus de Flandria, 225m 470n, 478n
thought sublunar, 210; 49, 205, 268, Copernican system: and cosmic dimensions, Cusa, Nicholas of: on God as infinite Donahue, William, 325
286, 308; o f 1618: 212, 214; self- 442 sphere, 175; on life beyond earth, 168; double truth, doctrine of, 647
luminous, 400 Copernican system: and scholastic support 4i6n Drake, Stillman: on sunspots, 21 in
commensurability: and sense perception, for it, 669-72; 234 Drever, J. L. E., 5630
507; defined, 505; o f celestial motions, Copernicans: and common circular motion, d’Ailly, Pierre: and definition o f a celestial Duhem, Pierre: and cause o f celestial
498-513 658; earth’s spherical shape suited for sphere, 309; and eight-orb theory, 3i6n; motion, 517; and Le Systeme du monde,
commentary, 23 circular motion, 663 and elements above earth, 619-20; and 3-5; on Averroes and the Moon’s light,
common motion, see motion(s) Copernicus, Nicholas: accepted terraqueous Oresme, 508; and sphericity o f earth, 395; on Basil, I90n; on fall o f heavy
Compton-Carleton, Thomas: and empyrean globe, 49, 636; and Buridan and 626—7; and synchronization o f eccentric bodies to center, i62n ; on Major, i66n,
heaven, 121, 386; and internal movers, Oresme, 648; and Capella, 314; and orbs, 293; and system o f eccentric orbs, 167m on medieval concepts o f the
552; and surface o f outermost heaven, compound motion, 650; and fusion o f 281^3; and the empyrean sphere, 377-8, infinite, 107m on Michael Scot, 154m on
117m and universal cause, 617; assumes astronomy and cosmology, 39; and his 381-2; and virtual celestial qualities, 469; Peter o f Abano, 336m on Philoponus,
imaginary space three-dimensional, 183— arguments, 647-8; and light o f planets, arguments for immobile sphere, 377-8; 272n; on place. I22n; on plurality of
4; celestial light in same species, 420; 402; and planetary eclipses o f Sun, 4C2n; criticizes Sacrobosco’s arguments, 116, worlds, I52n, 154m 155; on Ptolemy
compares heavens to man, 239; God and and Sun’s centrality. 31 in; assumed 1x7-18; definition o f universe, 6, 8; and fluid medium, 326m on souls and
space, 177, 178, 1Son; light sources for immense universe, 442; made earth a denies small motions o f earth, 625; intelligences, 525m Origines de la statique,
fixed stars, 416; on empyrean light, planet, 205; on hard or fluid spheres, describes three-orb system, 283; qn; 9, 10, 136m 15m
39m; on implausibility o f celestial 346; on kinship o f earth and Moon, distinguished three types o f eccentric Dumbleton, John, 58, 616
matter, 26on; ion, 33m 113, 213m 350, 223m on Moon, 463; 10, 16, 235, 653, orbs, 282; earth and total orb, 296; Duns Scotus, John: and incommensurability
478—9n, 551, 585m 746n, 753n 668 implies hard orbs, 341-2; on spera and o f motions, 499; and number o f orbs,
Condemnation o f 1270, 53 Copleston, Frederick, 85n orbis, 115n; selection o f questions from, 309; God can act where he is not, 176m
Condemnation o f 1277, 53-55, 113, 169, Comaeus, Melchior: accepts T ycho’s 759r_; single center o f gravity for spheres on comparison o f perfections, 237—8;
528-35; article 6, 499; article 34, 151, geoheliocentric system, 358; and celestial o f earth and water, 635; uniform and varying thickness o f eccentrics, 282n; 33,
155-6, 159m 161, 166; article 49, no; terminology, 414; and Copernicus, 346m regular motion synonymous, 4890; 33, 58, io6n, iy8n, 246m 281, 744n
article 92, 473; article 94, 473; article and eclipse o f stars, 402n; God assigned 59, 118, 299, 331, 466 Durandus de Sancto Porciano: heavens are
156, 595-6, 599, 600, 601, 602; article angel to each star, 370; God can always Dales, Richard, 470n, 486m 548 like seed, 581-2; on perfectibility o f
186, 596n; article 201, 176; article 212, make things better, 142m heavens Damascene, John (John o f Damascus): and world, 141-5; ion, 33, 96-97, 146m
528; articles on eternity o f world, 65—66; corruptible, 263, 265—6; imperceptible celestial corruptibility, I90n, 192m 263m I47n, 246m 281
articles on souls, 547; as external social movements o f earth, 625m on Aristotle, and the seven planets or zones, 273~4n,
influence, 54; 568 267; on lunar epicyle and new 305m denied causal efficacy o f celestial earth: and center o f gravity ot. 623-4, 634;
condensation and rarefaction, 367 discoveries, 302, 357—8; rejects epicyclic bodies, 579m on impossibility ot filth and its cosmic relations, 618-73; and its
Conimbricenses (Coimbra Jesuits): and orbs, 360-1; 81, I37n, 143, 144m 14711, element, 325m 89, 98, 333, 470 habitability, 375; and its possible daily
crystalline sphere, 321; and metaphor o f 177, 350 , 622n, 746n Dannemeyr, Johannes, 290 axial rotation, 637-72; and movement
Sun as king and heart, 227m and shape Comford, Francis MacDonald, i89n Dante, 40, 378n, 461, 527m 570n toward other worlds, 154; as a planet,
o f last heaven, 117m and ten orb theory, Coronado, Melchior, 29n De aetemo uerbo, 173 205, 234; as a point in relation to
316—17; and terminology o f motion, Corpus Hermeticum, 18 de Fundis, John, 508 universe, 620; axial rotation and defense
495-6; and three orbs o f Sun, 231; Cortesius, Paulus, 33 de Goes, Emmanuel, 745n o f faith, 646; axial rotation and Joshua
angels and celestial impressed forces, cosmic dimensions, 433—43 De materia celi, 34 miracle, 666; center o f universe, 241,
553—5; celestial changes by miracle, 212; cosmographia, 711 De mundo (pseudo-Aristotelian): describes 296—7; circumference of, 435, 621;
commentaries of, 745m denied life to cosmologia, jn degrees o f perfection, 224; 148 compared to Moon, 269; discussants o f
heavens, 236m God’s will preserves cosmology(-ies): Christian, 32; De placitis philosophorum, 649 axial rotation besides Copernicus, 648-9;
world, 77; heavens are like seeds, 582; idiosyncratic, 39-44; medieval, 5 (impact De proprietatibus elementorum (pseudo- estimates o f its size, 620—2; flat, 628—9;
imaginary space as negation, 178—9; on on society, 59); old and new, 55 Aristotelian): on the Sun, 222n; 424, Galileo calls it noble and admirable, 353;
actual infinite, no; on celestial light, cosmos, definition of. 7 426n immobility of, and biblical support,
403, 415, 419m on celestial species, 221; Cottunius, Johannes, 655—6 De ysoperimetris, ii6n 664—5; impetus and movement through
8o6 INDEX INDEX 807
earth (cortt.) external forces: and simultaneous internal doctrine o f contraries, 207-8n; and heavens, 194m immutability of, 73,
earth’s center, 660—in; like Moon, 22311, forces, 553-9 metaphor o f Sun as king and heart, 174; in himself before world, i8on;
461; not perfectly spherical, 626—8; only 227m 454; and Moon’s secondary light, nature o f attributes of, 169-70;
one-fourth inhabited, 631-2; rotation of, Fabricius, Johann; and sunspots, 210—11 406; and other worlds, 156m and omnipresence of, 32, 174; on extension
and collapse o f buildings, 659; shadow taith: and natural philosophy, 50—52 sunspots, 210-11; and telescopic of, 175, 180-1
of, 79; shape of, 626-30; simplicity ot Farabi, al-, 13, I26n discoveries, 353; and theories o f lunar Godfrey o f Fontaines; and motion o f
axial rotation of, 645; size of, 620—2; Farghani, al-, 434, 760 light, 405m and two kinds o f accidents. celestial orbs, 553; on creation and
small rectilinear motions ot, 624; Jatigatio, 540 209; and two kinds o f lunar light, 404; eternity, 70, 7m; on how an angel
spherical shape of, and circular motion, Federici Vescovim, Graziella, 288n, 376 each celestial body in its own species, moves an orb, 530-1; 39, i6on, 245,
663-4; standard o f measure for cosmic Fernel, Jean, jo in 221-2; earth is the equal o f other 2 5on
dimensions, 434; three centers of, 622-4 Ficino, Marsilius, 18 planets, 234; fixed stars are suns, 418; Goldstein, Bernard, 29511, 563n
Eastwood, Bruce, 3i2n, 3i4n firmament (Jirmamentum): and eighth sphere heavens enclosed between hard surfaces, Grant, Edward: and Much Ado about
eccentric orb(s): and its thickest and thinnest o f fixed stars, 99, 100—3, 264, 335; and 368—9; heavens not augmentable, 202- Nothing, i7on; and ubi, 134m Aristotle
parts, 288—9; and synchronization of heaven on second day, 92, 337; and 311; on celestial incorruptibility, 77-78, on void space, 15311; God and actual
motions of, 292-3; as hollow cavities or planetary orbs, 334-42; Basil on, i9on; 193-4, 206, 219m 269-70; on celestial infinite, 147m on de Ripa, 172m 630m
zones, 305; physical nature ot. 303-8, different interpretations of, 102, 320; matter, 251—4; on lunar spots, 46m; on 639m 6470
326; problems with, 287-9; 278, 281, divided into seven zones, 274m 305m relations o f Sun and Venus, 402m on Great Year: and celestial
282 divides the waters, 91; Grosseteste on, shape o f fixed stars, 447m 447-8; on incommensurability, 503; 498, 512, 513
Ecphantus the Pythagorean, 649 42-43, 99; only seen through luminaries, sunspots, 455-6; on the nobility o f the Gregory o f Nyssa, 216, 321
eighth sphere: and precession, 315; as 416; solid and hard, 336, 363; waters earth, 270; on the universe and variety, Gregory o f Rimini: comparison o f infinites.
firmament, 100-3; identified with above, 103-4, 321, 423; 95 139, 149; on varying distances o f fixed 68, 107; 33, io6n
scriptural waters, not in a place, 125; Fishacre. Richard, 181, i82n stars, 440-1; was cosmologist, not Gregory the Great, 85, 87n
three motions assigned to it, 3 16; 99, fixed stars: and distance from earth, 440; astronomer, 37; xix, 9, 10, 14, 16, 47, Grosseteste, Robert: and fifth element,
124m 267, 309 and sources o f light, 415-18; are 72, 98n, [2i, 137m 139m 14m, [43, 194m 325m equator habitable, 632m
elements: and celestial region, 189; innumerable, 444-6; are spherical, 447; 145m 205, 2i2n, 2i3n, 235, 246m 250m fluid waters above firmament, 333;
Grosseteste on, 43; indestructibility of. as, suns, 418, 449; at least three motions 647 formation o f celestial spheres, 42-43, 44;
192; 6, 15, 190, 250 attributed to, 315, 316; in hard orb, 362; Gassendi, Pierre, i84n idiosyncratic cosmology, 42-44; no
Empedocles o f Acragas, 96. 1 son on same surface or dispersed, 448; Geminus o f Rhodes. 13, 36n definite number o f stars, 444; on
empyrean heaven (or sphere), 371—89; and relationship to Sun, 421; self-luminous, Gemma, Cornelius, 219 consequences o f changing Sun’s
terrestrial influences, 372-82. 384-7; 416-18; shape of, 446—8; six magnitudes generation and corruption; Aristotle on, location, 452; on firmament, 99, 33811;
arguments against existence ot. 374—6; of, 438; twinkling of, 449—51; 264 193; Galileo on, 193-4; requires matter, on heavens, 272-3, 336; on light as
arguments for its causal efficacy, 385-6; flat earth, 628—9 form, and privation, 257; would foundation o f universe, 42-44; on souls
as article o f faith, 383; as heaven created flying creatures, 96, toon, 336 continue after cessation ot celestial and animation o f heavens, 472; one
on first day, 94-95, 372m as true place Fonseca, Pedro: imaginary space as motions, 597-601; 253 heaven without orbs, 273; rejects
o f last sphere, 130, 131; four basic negation, 179; [3411, 178 geoheliocentric cosmos, 358 -lestial ether, 422m 34, 58, 96, 169
attributes of, 373-4; has purest light, force-resistance relationship, 502, 504, 541- Geometry, muse of. 149, 506—8 eke, Otto von: and Galileo, 44 m; on
391; homogeneous or heterogeneous, Gerard o f Cremona, 13 . .rth holding Moon in orbit, 465-6; on
386, 387; in 16th and 17th centuries, forces: angels and intelligences as, 567-8 Gesner, Conrad, 28n God and vacuum, i8on; Sun does not
382-7; invisible to us, 391; lacks causal form(s), 195-202; and matter, 194; Gilbertus Porretanus (Gilbert de la Poree), light stars, 4i8n; 10, 121, i22n, 383
efficacy, 386—7; Riccioli on. 265; contrariety of, 497; Galileo on contrary, 130-1, 169 Guldin, Paul, 625-6
scholastic defense of, 376-8; shape ot, 253; lack of, in heavens, 247, 257; ot Giles o f Rome, see Aegidius Romanus Gundisalvo, Domingo, 2111
121; why invisible, 383; 35, 98, 99, 317, heaviness and lightness. 196-7; o f Gilson, Etienne, 89 Guthrie, W. K. C., I99n
756 , 757 opacity and diaphaneity, 217—18, 427 Ginzburg, Carlo, 40
encyclopedias, 34-35 428; o f rarity and density, 198—202. 217, Gnostics, I48n
epicvcie(s). and observed motions, 284; 218 Goclenius, Rudolphus, 50n Halv Abenregel, 22yn
defined, 284; for Moon, 463-5; physical Foscarini, Paolo, 668 God; absolute power of, 53, 71, 77, 113, Hanson, Norwood R., 276n
reality of, 307-8; problem with, 299- Fourth Lateran Council, 83-84, 85, 90 158, 207n, 258; and creation o f more harmony, doctrine of, 148-9
302; stars fixed in, 213; 209. 278 Fracastoro, Girolamo. 47m 560, 562 perfect world, 140-48; and creation o f heaven(s) (caelum): animation of, and five
Eratosthenes, 621 Franciscus de Marchia, 553 other worlds, 166; and imaginary, responses, 485—6; are they alive, 469-87:
eternity o f world, 63-82; and Franciscus de Mayronis, 33, io6n infinite void space, 173-6; and as disposing cause, 582: faith and
Condemnation o f 1277, 53, 65; and free will, 569 impressed force, 554; and new acts, 66; celestial animation of, 481; fluid, and
University o f Paris, 65; three ways to and the creation o f new species, 142, problem o f planetary motion, 369-70;
reconcile it with creation, 71-72; 51, 621 Gaietanus de Thiems, iyon 146; and the infinite, 107; and whole- gradually deanimated, 486-7; hard orbs
ether, see celestial ether Galen, 13, 18 in-every-part doctrine, 182; as infinite or fluid substance, 324—70; lack form,
Euclid, [3 Galileo Galilei: and Aegidius, 253, 256m sphere, 175; as prime mover, 516; can 247; lacks matter, 202; on density or
Eudoxus, 272, 275, 303, 444 and attitude toward Aristoteliamsm, act where he is not, 176; creation by, rarity of, 198; on first and second days,
executive power (or force), 553. 555, 559, 750—1; and Augustine. 91; and citation on fourth day. 105; creative powers of, 91-92, 97; one, divided into eight
560 ot authorities, 251; and collapse ot 142; his immensity and infinite space, spheres, 274; one or many, 271-5;
experiences, 578 buildings on rotating earth, 660; and 172-6, 182-3; his power to destroy opaque and transparent, 217; orbless, in
8o8 INDEX INDEX 809

heaven(s) (cant.) 507; defined, 505; o f celestial motions, inferior things on celestial motion, 589- bodies, 413; on celestial ether, i9on; on
Middle Ages, 273-4; perfection of, 220— 79-80, 498-513 90; faith and an eternal world, 76; on celestial hierarchy, 223-4; on Sun’s
43; translates caelum, 8; 271, 273 incorruptibility: o f world, 77 alteration o f Sun’s heat, 204; on celestial position and role, 227m 452, 453;
Heilman, Doris, 2ion incorruptibility, see celestial incorruptibility animation, 484; on intelligences, 525-6; planets self-luminous, 393
Heninger, S. K .,Jr., I48n infinite(s): actual and potential, 69, 106; and on plurality o f worlds, 161-3; on Magirus, Johannes, 50n
Henry o f Hesse, see Henry o f Langenstein motions o f orbs, 543; categorematic and production o f hotness and coldness, magnet (lodestone): and analogy with solar
Henry o f Langenstein (Henry o f Hesse): and syncategorematic, 70, 106; comparison 603-4, 605n; orb moves without effort, rays, 608; and fall o f heavy bodies, 162;
Oresme, 508; assumed hardness o f orbs, of, 68-69; future, 77, 80; impossibility 540; 30, 69m 127, I37n, I39n, 152m and invisible influences, 615; and
339. 340; rejected eccentric and epicyclic o f traversing, 67; space, 169-85 passim; I96n, 209n, 22in, 246m 281, 474n magnetic force, 214-15; and perpetual
orbs, 307—8n; I05n universe, 120; 32 John o f Seville, 13, 232m 434m 57m motion, 578; 520, 573, 574, 612
Heraclides o f Pontus, 638, 649 infinite regress, 518 John o f Vercelli, 548n Maier, Anneliese, 543-4
Heraclitus o f Ephesus, 150n influence(s), see celestial influence(s) Joshua, 552 Maignan, Emmanuel: and infinite imaginary
Hermann o f Carinthia, 232m 57m Ingolstadt, University of, 214 Joshua miracle, 38m, 598, 599, 600, 602, space, 180; on imaginary space as virtual
Hermes Trismegistus, 18 Innocent III, Pope, 83 645, 646, 666 extension, 181, 183; 175m 177
Hero o f Alexandria, 18 instrumentalities o f celestial action: motion, Judgment Day, 81, 82 Maimonides, Moses: and saving the celestial
Hervaeus Natalis: and cessation o f celestial light, and influence, 586—615 Jupiter: on properties of, 468; 35, 407, 577, phenomena, 307m love makes world go
motion, 597-8; and motion o f celestial instruments, xix 612 round, 568; 16
orbs, 553; on how intelligences move intellectual tradition: as social context, 56 Major, John: and celestial animation, 547;
orbs, 531-2; on matter, 246m 33, 34m mtelligence(s), 526—45; and Condemnation Keckermann, Bartholomew, 5on and flat earth, 629; and other worlds,
263, 38m o f 1277, 528—31, 547; and differences Kepler, Johannes: and De caelo, 16; and 53-54, 166-7; defends actual infinite,
Hicetas, 648 among them, 222; and movement o f magnetic forces, 370; and metaphor o f 112-13, 166-7; heavens do not influence
Hidalgo, Juan, 388-9 planets and stars, 364; and movement Sun as king and heart, 227n; and rational soul, 569-70; influence o f
hierarchy (hierarchical): cosmic, 400, 574; o f with their orbs, 538—9; and nature of Riccioli, 511—12; and sphere o f fixed planets on metals, 612; on celestial
being, 229; o f perfection, 223-35; 137-8 connection with its orb, 526; and stars, 121, 368n; intelligences and matter and form, 26on; on light and
Hieronymus de Janua, 29n rejection o f hard orbs, 544; and soul, planetary motion, 544; on fusion o f heat, 610; on varying thicknesses o f
Hildegarde o f Bingen, 40-42; oval world. 517; are they forms o f celestial orbs, astronomy and cosmology, 39; 356, eccentrics, 282~3n; 33, io6n, 155, 171,
545-7; assisting, 533-4, 535; associated 418 177, 291, 426n, 473n, 485
41
Hipparchus, 210, 211, 322n with each orb, 471, 524; cannot move Khwarizmi, al-, 13 Malebranche, Nicolas, 182
Holkot, Robert: and actual extracosmic orb by will alone, 528-9; do not become Kilwardby, Robert: self-motion o f orbs, Mandeville, John, 628-9
vacuum, 171-2; 33, io6n, i6on fatigued, 541; identified with angeis, 547-8; 2 in, 517m 548n manuscripts: and the advent o f printing, 17-
hotness: production of, by planets, 603-11 525; infinite motive power of, 543; Kircher, Athanasius, i8on, 441 18; Paris, BN, fonds latm, MS. 6752,
Hugh o f Saint Victor. 372 location of, on its orb, 535-8; one Koyre, Alexandre, 174m 649, 667 34m, 393n, 398n, 399n, 463m Paris,
Hugonnard-Roche, Henri. 632m 576n cannot move all orbs, 560-1; Krakow, University of, 648 BN , fonds latin, MS. 6280, 3 ion; Paris,
Hurtado de Mendoza, Pedro: and Serbellonus’s interpretation of, 557—9; BN, fonds latin, MS. 7195, 295n
corruptible heavens, 215; and division ot 137; see also angel(s) Lactantius, 628 Mars: hot and dry, 195, 468; 577, 612
his work, 753n; and invisibility o f Isaac Israeli, 13 ladder o f nature, 58on Marsilius o f Inghen: and actual infinite,
empyrean heaven, 383; and six-day Isidore o f Seville, 12 Lee, H. P. D., 63on 107-8; and article 156 o f condemnation,
creation, 85; God can create an actual Lemay, Richard, 232n 601-2; and authorship, 744n; on new
infinite, 112; on celestial rarity, 200; on Jacobus de Blanchis, 31 Leonarco da Vinci, 165 species, 80; on plurality o f worlds, 523;
firmament, 101-2; on light o f fixed Jardine, Nicholas, 39, 324-5, 327n Lessius, Leonard, i8on on prime movers, 518, 519, 522-3; on
stars, 415-16; on Sun and generation o f Javelli, Chrysostom: on prime mover(s), Levi ben Gerson, 295m 443 probability o f eternal world, 73-74; 33,
living things, 581; on waters above the 519m 521, 522; I30n Liber de animalibus, 127, 223m 396m 459 72, 124, 246n
firmament, 97; planets are self-moved, Jerome: and waters above firmament, 321, Liber de intelligentiis, 528—9 Martianus Capella: and Copernicus, 314;
306; 28n, 72n, 100, io6n. 177, 222m 332; denied life to heavens. 470; 85 Liber sex priticipiorum, 13 m, 169 and his planetary order, 312—13;
236m 350 Johannes a Sancto Thomas (Johannes light, see celestial light employed term empyreum, 372n; 12
Hus, Johannes, 33 Poinsot), 29n Litt, Thomas, 25m, 6i6n master o f arts degree, 20
Hyatte, Reginald, 334n Johannes Canonicus, 124 living things: two kinds of, 580 Mastrius and Bellutus: and cause o f celestial
Hypsicles, 13 Johannes de Bassolis, 33 locus intrinsecus, 134 motions, 559-62; and empyrean heaven,
Johannes de Magistris: and Versor, 590m Lohr, Charles: analysis o f his catalog, 29- 384; and Galileo’s arguments, 651, 655;
imaginary space, see space each planet and orb in different species, 30; 27, 28, 31, i66n, 746n and star magnitudes, 439; criticize
immovable movers, 514-15 431; on celestial animation, 476—7; on Lokert, George, 576n Averroes, 128; fixed stars innumerable,
impetus: and cannonballs, 658; and the infinite, 109-10; 6, 28n. 119m I57n, love: as cause o f celestial motions, 568 445-6; fly nobler than heavens, 579; four
intelligences (angels), 364m 536, 553, 222n Lovejoy, Arthur, 147-8 effects o f celestial bodies, 571; hard
555-6; 51, 555, 556 Johannes de Muris, 499-500 Lull, Ramon, i6on sphere with fluid heavens, 362-3; new
impetus theory, 548-51; Buridan's use o f Johannes de Sancti Fide, 29n lux and lumen: defined, 392-3; 408 star in celestial region, 2i8n; on
John o f Dumbleton, 28n cannonballs and impetus, 657—8; on
642 . McColley, Grant, i68n existence o f prime mover, 518; on
impressed forces: transmission ot, 553, 554, John ofjandun: all worlds in same species,
159m and four levels o f soul, 482m and M cEvoy, James, 44n inanimate heavens, 478; on last heaven,
561; 555. 557
impulsus, 557 questions on De caelo, 755; commentary Macrobius: and purpose o f world soul, I35n; on location o f intelligence in its
incommensurability: and sense perception. on De substantia orbis, 34; dependence ot 148m and terminology for celestial orb, 536; on opacity and diaphaneity in
8 io INDEX INDEX 8l l
Mastrius and Bellutus (cotit.) mountains, 624, 63 1 incommensurability, 505; denied life to Paul o f Burgos, 632, 634
the heavens, 217-18, 427; on six days, numdus: defined, 24-25; 7-8, 9, 138, 157 celestial bodies, 477; earth and Paul o f Venice: and rectilinear motion in
88; on sunspots, 455, 458; planets have simultaneous, component motions, 644; heavens, 299; on earth and total orb,
some self-luminosity, 409-10; ship natural books (lihri naturales), 20, 21, 50, French commentary of, 752; motionless 296m 297m on Moon and proper
analogy and motion o f heavenly body, 5211 center unnecessary, 128, 644; natural motions, 30m, 464m 28n
48011; two forms o f sunlight tor planets. natural philosophers: and astrologers, 36; philosophy and faith, 646; no part o f Pecham, John, 71-720
410; 8sn, 100, 227m 237, 261, 441. and celestial ether, 190; as group, 46—47, heaven can vary in density, 200; on Pererius, Benedictus, 95m tot
622n, 636 56; asked new question, 345; assume celestial matter, 259—6on; on cessation o f perfection: how to measure it, 224-5; o f
matter; lacking in heavens, 202, 271; single celestial bodies are simple, 30211; celestial motion, 598—9; on world, 146, 510; within heavens, 220—is
cosmic, 262; term used in different compared to astronomers, 36—37 commensurabilitv and Peripatetics, 456
wavs, 245-6; 194; see also celestial matter natural philosophy: and faith, 50-52, 646; incommensurability o f celestial motions. Peter Lombard: and empyrean heaven, 372;
matter and form; each celestial body described, 21; timeless aspect of, 56; 150 500—8; on comparison o f inanimate and can God make something better, 140;
composed of, 221; Galileo on, 252—3; in naturally speaking (loquendo naturaliter), 76, animate things, 237; on concentric icy waters above heaven, 332-3; on
heavens, 245, 255; 194 79n, 82, 90, 167 worlds, 156—7; on creation, 76, 90; on ways that material and spiritual
mechanical forces, 567-8 Nature (Natural, 118 criteria for belonging to same species, substances occupy places, 537; questions
Melanchthon, Philip: order ot planets, 31 in; nature: does nothing in vain, 246 220n; on eternity o f world, 78-80, 90; on Sentences of, 31-33; Sentences, bk. 1.
50n, i68n new star(s), 357; o f 1 572, 205, 210, 214, 216, on God’s immovability, 174m on God’s dist. 37, 32m 170; Sentences, bk. 1, dist.
Menelaus, 13 217, 266, 308; o f 1600 and 1604, 211 power to destroy heavens, 194m on how 44, 136—49 passim, 169—70; 85, 150
Mercury, 311, 312, 577 Newton, Isaac: God and space are angels occupy space. 537; on Peter o f Abano: and crystalline sphere, 322:
Merton College Calculators, 58 corporeal, 178; 9, 10, 21, 135, 184 intelligences, 527m 537, 539; on Milky and magnitudes o f stars, 439; and self-
Messahala, 13 Nicholas o f Cusa: and other worlds, I56n Way, 400n; on Moon, 395, 463, 466; on moved planets, 336n; argued for nine
Michael Scot: against plurality ot worlds, Nicholas Siculus, 22411 natural place, 164—5; on new species. 80; spheres, 316; icy waters above heaven,
153-4; diversity o f species in celestial Nicolaus de Orbellis, 33 on regular and compound motions in 332-3; on celestial bodies, 2470; on
bodies, 430; on empyrean heaven, 379; nobility argument, 663 heavens, 492m on ships and motion, rarity and density, 198m 28yn
on end o f world, 80—1; on firmament North, John D., 2y8n 644, 654m on space beyond world, 178; Peter o f Auvergne: on generation o f heat by
and eighth sphere, 100—1; on terms solid on two causes o f corruption, 193; Sun. 593-4; 66n
and surface, 328—9; 13, 33, 116, 152, Ockham, William of: on celestial matter, opposed ninth sphere, 319; planets not Peter Peregrinus, 578
155. 323 194, 255n; on center of heaven, I28n; on perfectly spherical, 466-7; rejects Petrus de Alvernia, 25
Milky Way: Oresmc on, 400m, 6, 397m earth trom another world, 160; on ascending order o f nobility, 231, 234; Petrus de Aquila, 33
4 4 8 -y n identity of celestial and terrestrial rejects celestial influence, 613-14; Sun is Petrus de Palude, 33
Miller, H. W., i68n matter, 258—9; on movement by noblest planet, 231; Treatise on Petrus de Tarantasia, 33
mixed bodies, 597-8 another, 51911; on place of last sphere, commeusurability, 504—8; 28n. ion. 31, 34, Peurbach, Georg, 38, 293, 309n
Moerbeke, William ot, 13, 1611, 36m 129—30; on possibility of other worlds, 47n, 69, 137, 139, 160, 177. 203m 223m Philo Judaeus, 83, 8711, 105
132n 163-40; 19, 33, 58, io6n, 127, 14m 245m 291, 298. 38m, 383m 489m 75m Philolaus the Pythagorean, 649
Molina, Ludovicus de, 29m 95n, 101 Ockham's razor, 24611. 556, 661 Origen. 470 -onus. John: and beginning ot world,
monsters, 139 Oddus, lllunnnatus: and empyrean heaven, ouranos, I29n and celestial corruptibility, 19011.
Moon, 459—66; and terrestrial influence, 38611; assumed nine mobile heavens, 316; Overbye, Dennis, xvii . .an, 262-3; and internal space, 133; and
576-7; cold and wet, 195, 466; Cornaeus comparison of two things to God, 238; Oviedo, Franciscus de: and celestial ninth sphere, 98m 322; anticipated
rejects lunar epicycle, 357-8; epicycle of, God can make other worlds, 166; life ot, motions, 552; denies celestial animation. universal matter. 269; on firmament,
299-302, 357—8, 463-5; Galileo compares 746m on essential perfection of planets, 481-2; division o f his work. ”’5311: 99n. 336; only one heaven, 272; 13, 18,
it to earth, 269; Leonardo on, 165; light 235; 85m 22sn, 236m 387 locomotion not essential principle ot lite, 67. 2-7. 470
of, 396, 397, 404-7; like earth, 165, 396, Ona, Peter de: “everything that is moved, 483; on celestial incorruptibilitv. 20511, philosophers: and theologians. 74
396m 461; luminescence of, 395; orbs of, is moved by another," 518-19; on 206, 213; on identity o f intelligences and physicians, 577
279—80; proper motion of, 463-5; intelligence and motion of its orb, 558; angels, 47 m; rejects eccentrics. 306--; Pingree, David. 232n
“ queen o f the heavens,” 452-3; on place of last sphere, 128 rejects hard orbs. 2-411; rejects self- place: o f a thing, 289; o f outermost sphere.
secondary light of, 406; spots on. 459- orb(s), see celestial orb(s) moving planets, 306; 3311, 72. 350 123-35
63; 6, 35, 9-1. I9 C $73 . 599 Oresme, Nicole: and celestial terminology, Oxford University: compared to planet(s): and correspondences, 577; and
Moore, James R., 75m 414-15; and clock metaphor, 478; and Cambridge, 57—58; 173 human complexions, S” -8; and life,
More, Henry: God and space are corporeal. cosmic hierarchy, 400-1; and diversity 471; and thicknesses o f planetary
178; 135, 184 o f world, 149; and earth’s possible axial Palacio, Michael de, 177 spheres, 437-8; and virtual qualities, 469;
Moses, 93, 97, 336 rotation, 642-7; and hardness o f orbs, parallax: lacking in new star ot 1572. 216; as cause o f hotness and coldness, 603; as
Moses Maimonides, 438 339, 340—1; and his incommensurability none found for planets, 310; stellar, 418; denser part o f orbs, 426-8, 305; as
motion(s): and fall o f bodies on a ship, 655— doctrine, 512—13; and impetus, 66in; 210, 212, 2i8n opaque bodies, 403; as transparent
6; and rest, 374, 375-6, 383; as and intellective soul, 474; and Joshua Pans, University of: and statute ot 1272. bodies receiving Sun’s light, 397—8;
instrumentality o f heavens. 586; miracle, 645; and local movements ot 50-51, 54; eternity o f world at, 65; 151 distances of, 38, 203-4; have same basic
common, 650—6; contrary celestial, 497— earth, 624-511; and other worlds. 150, Parker, Bernard, 75311 properties, 300; in different species,
8, 563-6; definitions of, 489-90; 166; and the three centers, 622; and Pastor o f Hermas, 89 22211, 394n; in fluid medium, 544—5;
perpetual, 578; relativity of, 639, 643, theology, 55m as translator, 49m De Patrizi, Francesco: and infinite universe, motion of, 493-6; order of. 38, 310-14;
647-8; simple, 493; three types, 520; two proportionibus, 501-3; defines 120; on heavens, 349; 18411 phases of, 401; powers of, vary in
kinds of, 244 commensurabilitv and patronage, 49n zodiac, 204; properties of, 227, 46",-9;
INDEX INDEX 813
8 12
364~5n; on celestial corruptibility, 264-5; seed theory, 581-3
planet(s) (cont.) 16, I7n, 38, 277, 289-90, 295, 312n;
on comets, 355, 356; on earth’s motion Seneca, 11, 648
real speeds o f their orbs indeterminable, on celestial medium, 326, 326n; on
or rest, 652-3; on fluidity o f heavens, Serbeilonus, Sigismundus: and division o f
495; self-luminosity of, 393-4, 399, 4°°— transits o f Sun, 3i2n; Tetrabiblos, 467;
264, 327, 366—7; on identity o f celestial his work, 753n; assumed planets opaque
2, 403, 404; self-motion of, 274m 367; 13, 2on, 342, 444, 648, 650
and terrestrial matter, 263-4; on location and self-luminous, 412-13; comets
sources o f light of, 396, 407-13 Pythagoras, 149
o f intelligence in its orb, 536; on matter demonstrate fluid heavens, 355-6; life of.
Plato: and animate world, 470n; and Middle in heavens, 26on; on rationality and
quadrivium, 20, 35 74611; magnetism and “ new” celestial
Ages, 189-90; and principle o f plenitude, irrationality o f celestial motions, 511-12;
qualitas tnotiva, 550 bodies, 214-15; no friction in celestial
147-8; 12, 18, 96, 12m, 206, 393n on self-luminosity o f fixed stars, 417;
qualities: celestial density and rarity, 198— ether, 594-5; on angels and planetary
Plato o f Tivoli, 13 planets and orbs differ, 433; solidity
202, 26 m, 426; conservative, 207; motions, 557—9; on imaginary space,
Pliny the Elder, 11, 210, 453n implies hardness, 345-6; ion, 39, 47m
contrary, 64, 195-202, 244, 245, 425-6, I79n; on location o f intelligence in its
plurality o f worlds, 3, 5n, 53 100, 296n, 527n, 676, 749 orb, 536—7; on rarity and density, 199,
Plutarch: and earth’s axial rotation, 649; on 623; four, 196; primary, absent from
Richard o f Middleton: and Condemnation 201; on twinkling o f stars, 450; relied on
face in the Moon, 460m 18 heavens, 588; two kinds o f rarity and
o f 1277, 473, 596—7; and influence of natural causes, 213; 89m 177, 197, 205n,
Polacco, Giorgio, 533 density, 199—200; virtual, in celestial
empyrean heaven, 381; and two kinds of 21 in, 350
Pomponazzi, Pietro, 34n bodies, 195-6, 433, 469
celestial light, 399; celestial bodies seven liberal arts, 35
Poncius, Johannes (John Punch): and quanta esse, 248
inanimate, 473-4; earth o f each world Sextus Empiricus, 18
celestial incorruptibility, 207; and questiones, 23-33; and scholastic method, 23;
remains at rest, 159; his definition o f ship(s): and rise o f star, 118-19; and the
equivalence o f two types o f generation, cosmological, 751; excluded, 758—60;
world, 136, 137; how an angel moves its common motion, 654—6; 644
580-1; compares celestial bodies and questio form and differences o f opinion,
orb, 529-30; on celestial and terrestrial Siger o f Brabant: and animated celestial
animate beings, 239; fi$ed stars are self- 26-27; structure o f questio, 24-25
light, 39in; on celestial influences, 612- bodies, 472-3; and eternity o f world, 65,
luminous, 417; on celestial role in quodlibeta, 39
13; on firmament, 97, 333, 337m 338-9; 66; 29n, 75
terrestrial production, 584—6; on light on God and world, 144; on types o f Simon de Tunstede, 592, 595, 61 in
received by planets, 409; 219, 235, 331 Rabanus Maurus, 32m
goodness, 14 m; opposed elemental Simplicio, 750
Pontano, Giovanni Gioviano: rejected Randles, W. G. L., 469m 635n, 636n
nature o f heavens, 190-1; 33, io6n, simplicity arguments, 359-60, 661-2
physical orbs, 272m 274m 570n rarefaction and condensation, 43, 202, 247n
I39n, 143, i46n, 291, 342, 52yn Simplicius: and axial rotation, 638; on
Portius, Simon, 34n rarity and density. See form(s); qualities
Richardus de Lavenham, 29n difference between astronomers and
Portuguese explorations, 48-49, 629, 63 5 ratio o f ratios: more irrational than rational,
Ripa, Jean de: God and infinite imaginary natural philosophers, 36-37; on
Posidonius, 36m 62m 502; 501
space, 172-3; I76n distinction between the mathematician
potetitia executiua, 531, 533, 553, 555 ratio(s): conversion o f one kind o f ratio co
Robertus Anglicus: and cosmic dimensions, and physicist, 17m 13, i6n, 18, 132m
precession, 316, 318 another, 510
76m; and fluid orbs, 329, 330, 343-4; I 7 6 n, I92n. 277, 648
prime matter, 87, 247m 251. 264 rationes semitiales, 84m 93
and ninth orb, 323; 33, 291, 588 Snerveding de Hamburg, Johannes, 29n
prime motion: controls permanence and Reisch, Gregor: on empyrean sphere, 346—7;
Roeslin, Helisaeus, 219 Sobol, Peter, I94n
continuity, 590-1 on sphere, 346; 35, 100, 439n
Rosen, Edward, 223~4n, 314m 325 social factor(s): affect of, on questions, 48;
prime mover(s): as final cause, 560; Buridan Renaissance: De caelo treatises in, 30
Rothmann, Christopher, 219 three kinds of, 47; what counts as, 58
on, 226: causes motion while immobile. rest: nobility of, compared to mocion, 374,
Rubio, Antonio, 268 Socratic ignorance, 647n
520, 521; equated with God, 519; 375-6, 383, 641, 662
solid (solidum): meaning o f term, 328—31
existence and attributes of, 518—21; Rhazes, 13
Sacrobosco, John of: and ninth sphere, 322; Solinus, 11
possible plurality of, 522-3; power of, Rhodes, George de: and empyrean heaven,
and round earth, 628; and size o f earth, Sorabji, Richard, 69, 89n
542-3; 158, 516 383m and fluid heavens, 307n, 350,
620; and sphere, 328; on fifth essence Sosigenes, 277
primum mobile: and irregular celestial 359n; and light o f fixed stars, 415; and
(ether), 423; on sphericity o f heaven. soul(s): and animation o f heavens, 545—7; as
motion, 492-3; 158, 316. 373, 560, 561, new stars, 357; celestial bodies differ in
115; 20, 33, 100, 169 internal mover, 517; assisting, or
565 species, 429; on celestial corruptibility,
satellites, 359 intelligence. 484-5; Aversa on
principle o f plenitude, 147-8 263, 266; on twinkling o f planets, 450;
Saturn: cold and dry, 35, 195, 468, 469; intellective, 479—81: intellective, or
printing: and the history o f science, 17-19 33n, 439n
129, 191, 353n. 578, 612 rational, 471. 474-86, 546. 569;
probability, 501-2, 504, 508 Ricci, P., 33n
save the phenomena (or appearances), 302, locomotive, 482, 483; three levels of,
Proclus, 13 Riccioli, Giovanni Baptista: and arguments
307 471, 474; vegetable, sensitive, rational,
Protestants: and scholastic tradition, 50n for hard heavens, 366—7; and Capellan
Scandella, Domenico (Menocchio), 40 471; vegetative, 237, 238
pseudo-Aristotelian, see Aristotle system, 314m and celestial impetus
Schedel, Hartmann, 339, 340 space: as privation or negation, 179;
Pseudo-Grosseteste: fixed stars innumerable, theory. 551; and common motion
Scheiner, Christopher: and sunspots, 2to­ divinized, 185; God in infinite, 32, r81 —
444-5; on empyrean heaven, 379-80 arguments, 652, 654—5; and doctrine of
i l , 454-5; ion, I02n, 336 2, 183-4; imaginary, as three-
Pseudo-Siger o f Brabant: on traversal o f simplicity, 359; and nobility arguments,
scholastic(s), 21—22: and new question on dimensional, 183-4; imaginary, as
infinite, 66; 177 663; angel and Sun’s motion, 539, 545i
heavens, 345; and role for celestial virtual extension, 181; infinite
Ptolemy: Almagest, 16, 37; and Aristotle, angels and impressed forces, 555; as
influences, 614; divided on generation of extracosmic void, 169-85; infinite,
286; and inter-orbal matter, 295m and possible Copernican, 668; earth, plus
heat, 595; on celestial movers, 551 imaginary, void, 172, 173-6; internal, as
ninth sphere, 322m and order ot the animals, is nobler than Sun, 240-3;
scholastic method, 23 place o f last sphere, 131-5; meaning o f
planets, 311; and power from heavens, earth’s rotation and impetus, 658; tive
Scientific Revolution, 13-14, 185 “ imaginary.” 177-85; not destroyed by
572-3; and the contiguity o f celestial views o f celestial hardness or softness,
Scripture: and celestial corruptibility, 267; body that fills it, 179-80; real, 182;
orbs, 289-90; Cosmographia, 18; 327; heavens are combination ot hard
Aquinas’s attitude toward, 90-91 special problem o f imaginary, 180-5
Geography, 629; Hypotheses oj the Planets, and soft, 362; impetus and intelligences.
814 INDEX INDEX
spatium intrinscatm, see space, internal Swerdlow, Noel, 34611 animals, 581; on Philoponus, 262m, on Venus: as Sun’s companion, 468; has Sun-
species: accidental perfections of', 146; and Swineshead, Richard, 58 simultaneous creation, 87; on soul ot a centered orbit, 312; location of, 311;
the world, 142, 144, 145, 147; new, 80; Svlla, Edith, 6470 sphere, 54511; on species in celestial phases of, 358. 407; 577
on celestial bodies in same, 220-3; Systi'tne du monde, Le, 3—5 bodies, 430; on the firmament, 95-99; Verinus, Franciscus, 2qn
Oresme’s criteria tor belonging to, 22011 on the term “ goodness,” 140-1; on the Versor, Johannes: and de Magistris, 590m
sphere(s): and orb, terms used Tatian, 470 things God can make, 142m on world and earth's sphericity, 62711; and
interchangeably, 114-15; Aristotle’s Taurellus, Nicolaus, 7 and evil, 139m questions to. 548m, sphericity o f elements, 119; and
unrolling, 276; convex surface o f last, telescope: and sunspots, 211; 212, 265, 266, reconciles creation and eternity ot sphericity o f world, 12011; on distinction
130-1; eighth, 99, 100-2, 12411, 125, 349 . 445 world, 71-72; ion, 19, 22, 25, 30, 33, between philosophers and theologians,
267, 309, 3i5n, 316, 335; hardness of, Tellez, Balthasar, 27—28 39. 55. 85, 100, 105, io6n, 143, i46n, 74; on faith and an ungenerated world,
339; ninth, 98, 316; noblest shape, 118; Tempier, Etienne (bishop o f Paris): and 147 n, 154. 155. 177 . 749 . 752 76; on motion o f part o f heaven, 197; on
outermost, of world not in a place, 124- animation o f heavens, 473; 53, 55, 72, Thomas de Argentina (Thomas ot plurality o f celestial motions and
5; solid signifies hard, 273, 345; 271; see 1 5911 Strasbourg), 33 terrestrial change, 590-1; on plurality of
also celestial orb(s) terraqueous globe (or sphere), 48—9, 630—7 Thomas de Bungeve. 30, 753n centers, 297-8; on uniform and regular
Spinoza, Benedict, 178 terrestrial globe, 636 Thomas o f Strasbourg: and empyrean motion, 48911; on whole and partial orb,
spiral lines, 561, 562 Thabit ibn Qurra: and trepidation, 315, 320; heaven, 373-4, 377, 381; and light, 39m; 297m 10611, 10911, 117m I96n
splendor, 393n 13, 277, 27811 God and improvement o f world, 145m Vescovini Federici, Graziella, 336n
spontaneous generation, 580 Themistius: on place o f last sphere, 129-30; influence o f heavens, 571; two senses o f Vielmius, Hieronymus, i02n
Stahl, William H., 41411 13. 18 term “ universe,” 158; I44n, 14611, 16011, Vincent o f Beauvais: and celestial
stations, 284 Themon Judaeus: and effect o f celestial 178m 76on terminology, 41411; and matter between
Stegmuller, Friedrich, 3211 region on terrestrial, 576; and influence Thoren, Victor E., 2840 orbs, 293-4; linked biblical waters and
S t e w " Oavid, 51511 o f orbs, 613; and magnet, 578; and three-orb system: and Aristotelian- ninth orb, 323; on firmament and
Stoic*.. 1-n, 184 vacuum, 586; assumed hardness o f orbs, Ptolemaic system, 279; described, 284-6; creation o f heaven. 337; on space
Strabo, Walat'rid: and empyrean heaven, 339-40; heavens govern interior things, 38, 287, 298, 307. 3io _ _ between spheres, 287; on waters above
371; on created heavens, 98; 18, 9511, 100 570; on influence, 61 in; on production rime: and motion, 75m infinity ot, 66 firmament, 333, 334; ]in , 35, too, 748
Suarez. Francisco: and concept o f ubi, 134; or heat, 608-9; ii7n, 624, 626m 627m Toletus, Franciscus: and Avempace, 127; firms jbrmativa, 584
and universal nature. 616; identified 75 in and empyrean sphere, 131; and internal virtus impressa, 550
infinite void with God’s immensity, 178; Theodosius o f Bithvnia, 13 space, 131, 132-4; on Alexander, 125; I’irtus motiva, 531, 543, 550, 553
imaginary space and vacuum identified, theologians: and external influence, 54; and 124m 130n, 134 Vitruvius, 3i4n
178; matter and form in heavens, 25411. philosophers, 74; trained in natural Tolosani, Giovanni Maria, 649n Voelkel, Janies, 300n
261; on angels and impetus, 555-7; on philosophy, 55; 54911 translations: from 12th and 13th centuries, Von Plato, Jan, 503-40
motion o f intelligence with its orb, 538— Theon o f Smyrna, 45311 12-13; second wave of, 17-18 Vorilong, William: on infinity o f worlds,
9; on the firmament, 100, ioin; 2911. Theophilus o f Antioch, 89 transparency: in the heavens, 427; 334n i6~n; on life in another world. 168; I47n
33n. 72n, 177 Theophrastus, 18 trepidation, 315, 316, 318. 320
substance(s): separate, 573, 574; 237 Theorua planetarum anonymous), 20. 38 tnvium, 35 'g, Luke, 207n
Summa philosophiae, 444- 5, 379 Thierry o f Chartres. 12, iqon Tvchomc system, 668—9 . William. 219m 252
summas, 28n Thijssen, Hans, 744n waters: and firmament, 101-2, 104m 321.
Sun: alteration o f its heat, 204; and Capellan Thomas Aquinas: and animation o f celestial ubi, 134
system, 312-13; and celestial causation. bodies, 475-6; and Averroist position, 323 .
ubi citcumscriptiutim, 181, 537 Weisheipl, James, 548
575-6; and changes below moon, 230-1; 588—9; and container theory o f nobility, ubi defmitivum, I22n, 181, 537 Welser, Mark, 454m 455
and Joshua’s command, 599; and light 225, 228; and daily rotation. 638; and universal nature, 615-17 White. Lynn, Jr., 478n
of, 94; and Moon, 500; and relationship empyrean heaven, 373, 380—1; and universe: center of, noblest place. 242; White, Thomas: accepted earth’s daily and
to fixed stars, 421; and self-luminositv Lovejoy, 148m and sidereal heaven, 27 dimensions of, 438; eccentric orbs and annual motions, 671-2; 23. 37811. 973,
o f planets, 394; and species, 222; and 274; and three distinctions on creation. plurality o f centers, 297—8; order ot, 208; 676
spots, 2 ti. 484-9; and superior planets, 92-93; and twinkling stars, 450; attitude steady state, xvm; see also world(s) Whitman. Walt, 17m
228; as cause o f heat, 191. 195, 591-2; as of, toward Scripture, 90-91; intelligence universities, 19-21 Whitrow, G. J., 6711, 68n
middle planet, 232, 233, 452; as sole can move orb by will alone, 529; universum: defined by d’Ailly, 8; two whole-in-every-part doctrine. 181-2. 1S4
source o f celestial light, 393, 395-400; intelligence cannot create. 52411; neither meanings of, 158; 7, 9, 24 William o f Auvergne: against simulr .neous
creation of, 92; densest planet. 199; does creation nor eternity demonstrable, 70: unmoved movers, see immovable movers creation, 88; 3m, 39. 152, 153m ; 54m
not illuminate orbs, 432; eclipses of, 401; on Aristotle’s explanation o f celestial 155, 156, 28on
in ascending order o f nobility. 226—7; motion, 516—17; on Avempace’s vacuum: and Condemnation ot 1277, 54; William o f Auxerre, I78n
less perfect than living things, 581; light conception o f place, 126; on celestial and universal nature, 615—16; as William o f Conches: denied waters above
of, in planets, 397; measurements of, matter and form, 250—1; on celestial negation, 179; between worlds, 165; firmament, 10411, 332m. 12, 7111. loon
437; metaphor of, as “ wise king” and/or region and animals generated from cannot exist without God, 175; William o f Moerbeke, 176m 192m 26211
“ heart.” 226-7, 233, 311, 452; motion putrefaction, 237; on crystalline heaven. imaginary, infinite, 172-6; 59411 William o f Vorillon, 33
of, 79; noblest planet, 231: properties of, 103-4; on eccentric orbs, 281; on Vadianus, Joachim, 635 William o f Ware, 16011
451-9; rises instantaneously. 84; role of. improvement o f species, I45n; on Vallesius. Franciscus, 2i7n Wilson, Curtis, 8811
in generation, 578-9, 585; virtually hot, influence o f celestial region on Van Helden, Albert, 43411, 443m 760 Witelo, 528, 643n
587-8; 105, 451, 577 terrestrial, 573-4; on matter between Vasquez, Gabriel, 177—8 Wodcham. Adam, 33
surface: three-fold definition, 328—9 orbs, 296m on perfect and imperfect Velcuno, Johannes, 414, 752n Wolfson, Harry A. 89, sisn
8 16 INDEX
world(s): and place of, 122; as single of, after 1277, 155-68; plurality of,
celestial body, 136-7; as totality o f before 1277, 150—5; plurality o f
natural bodies, 138; concentric, 156—7; simultaneous, 156—68; shape of, 113 —
dimensions of, 760; finitude of, 106-13; successive, r61; that differ in species,
fourfold sense of, 137, 138; identical 162; three aspects o f sphericity of, ti
worlds, 152, 154; Major and infinity of, 14, 11 5; two kinds of, 136; vacuum
112-13; meanings o f term, 157—8; on between, 165; see also universe
movement o f elements from one world Wycliffe, John, 151
to another, 159; on the perfection o f the,
136-49; outermost sphere of, 123;
perfectibility of, through its parts, 141- Zabarella, Jacooo, 22
6; perfection and diversity of, 148-9; Zeno ol Elea, 66
perfection and goal, 146; perfection Zeno’s paradoxes, 6ion
through order o f its parrs, 146; plurality zodiac, I95n

You might also like