VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
-
Upload
manticora-venerabilis -
Category
Documents
-
view
250 -
download
0
Transcript of VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
1/281
Vivarium
Volume 31
1993
Reprinted ith hepermission ftheoriginal ublisher
by
Periodicals Service
Company
Germantown,
NY
2013
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
2/281
Printedn cid-free
aper.
This
eprint
as
reproduced
romhe
best
riginal
dition
opy
vailable.
NOTE O
THEREPRINTDITION:
In
ome ases
full
age
dvertisements
hicho not dd o
the
cholarly
alue f his olume
ave een mitted.
As
result,
ome
eprinted
olumes
ay
ave
rregularagination.
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
3/281
CONTENTS
OF
VOLUME
XXXI
(1993)
J.E.
Murdoch
nd
Introduction
1
J.M.M.H. hijssen
Stefano
aroti
Oresme
n Motion
Questiones
super
hysicam,
II,
2-7)
8
Edith
udley ylla
Aristotelian
ommentaries
nd
Scientific
hange:
The
Parisian
Nominalists
n
theCause
of
he
NaturalMotion
f
nanimate
Bodies
37
Edward
Grant
JeanBuridan
nd Nicole
Oresme
on Natural
Knowledge
84
AndrGoddu
Connotative
oncepts
nd
Mathematicsn Ockham's
Natural
hilosophy
1 6
George
Molland
Roger
Bacon
and the
Hermetic
TraditionnMedievalScience 140
WilliamR. Newman
The
Corpuscular
heory f
J.
B.
Van
Helmont nd ts
Medieval
Sources
161
Henk
J.M. choot
Aquinas
nd
supposition:
he
possibilities
nd
imitations
f ogic
in divinis1
193
Thomas ullivan Benedictine asters
f
he
University
of
Paris in
the ate Middle
Ages:
Patterns
f
Recruitment
226
William . Charronnd
On the
elfRefuting
tatement
John .
Doyle
There s no
Truth : Medieval
Treatment
241
Reviews
267
Books
Received
275
Announcement
Institute Recherche
t d'Histoire es
Textes
Paris)
Constantijn uygens
Instituut
La
Haye)
278
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
4/281
Vivarium
XXI,
1
(1993)
E.J.
Brill,
eiden
Introduction
J.
E.
MURDOCH
&
J.
M. M.
H.
THIJSSEN
The
essays
collected
n this
special
issue
of
Vivarium
rovide
a view
of
contemporary cholarship
n
the
history
of
late medieval
science.
The authors, all distinguishedscholars in the historyof medieval
science,
have
been asked
to
present
the
result of their own
current
research.
Although
no
specific
theme was
imposed upon
the
con-
tributors,
heir articles all
explore
topics
that
fall
within
the area of
natural
philosophy,
rather than
mathematics,
astronomy, optics,
or
medicine,
to
mention
only
a
few of the
other branches of
medieval
science that have
recently
received attention.
Seen from an
historiographie
oint
of
view,
the
authors here col-
lected have been
'
'working
the
veins that had
been
opened,
on
the
one hand, byPierre Duhem (1861-1916), and followed, mong others,
by
Eduard
Dijksterhuis
1892-1965),
Anneliese
Maier
(1905-1971),
and
Marshall
Clagett
(1916- ),
and,
on
the other
hand,
by Lynn
Thorndike
(1882-1965),
and Dame
Frances Yates
(1899-1981).
1
To
begin
with
Duhem,
he
was
firmly
onvinced
that
the
usual view
of
science
in
the
Middle
Ages
separated
by
a
deep
abyss
from the
4
'new
science' of
the
early
modern
period
was
totally
wrong-headed.2
In
this
way
he
not
only
helped
to
establish the
historiography
f
medieval
(and Renaissance)
science as a
legitimate
intellectual
endeavor,
but the work he had done in
erasing
this
deep abyss
set
a
canon of
research
topics
for
subsequent
historians of
kne medieval
science.3
1
This
figure
f
peech
s borrowedrom .
B.
Durant,
icole resmend he
edieval
Originsf
Moderncience
in:
Speculum,
6
1941),
168,
who
pplied
t
olely
o
Pierre
Duhem.
2
P.
Duhem,
tudesur eonard
e
Vinci3
vols.,
aris
906-1913;
e
systme
u
monde.
Histoirees octrines
osmologiques
e
Platon
Copernic
10
vols.,
Paris
1913-1959.
3
See
J.
E.
Murdoch,
ierreuhemnd
he
istory
f
ate
Medievalcience
nd
hilosophy
in he atin
Westin:
Gli
tudi i
ilosofia
edievale
ra
ttonovecento
eds.R.
Imbach nd
A. Maier,Roma1991, 53-302 or criticalssessmentfDuhem's ontribution
toand
nfluencen the
istoriography
f
atemedieval
cience. ee alsoScience
n
he
Middle
ges,
d.
D. C.
Lindberg,
hicago-London
978,
ii-ix.
1
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
5/281
One
of
the
earliest o
appreciate
what
Duhem had
accomplished
was
E.
J. Dijksterhuis,
whose
1924
Val
en
worp
ontinued to
focus
on
sub-
jects that Duhem had renderedcanonic, such as projectilemotion,the
acceleration
of bodies in
free
fall,
and the intension and remission
of
forms.4
Over the
years,
Anneliese Maier and
Marshall
Clagett
had each in
their own
way enlarged
the
nucleus
of
topics
on Duhem' s
research
program, although
once
again
the focal
point
of
their
work
remained
substantially
Duhemian.
Thus,
in his
1959 Science
f
Mechanics
n
the
Middle
Ages
Clagett
divided
his
subject
into
medieval statics
a
sub-
ject
Duhem
had
also
treated in
his earlier
Les
origines
e la
statique
medieval kinematics nd medieval dynamics,under whichrubricshe
ever so
more
fully
nd
adequately investigated
he
Duhemian
topics
of
the
theory
of uniform
cceleration,
the
latitude of
forms,
he
con-
tinuation of
projectile
motion,
and the
free
fall of bodies.5
Somewhat
earlier,
in
the
five
volumes of her Studien ur Natur-
philosophie
er
Sptscholastik
Anneliese Maier had
examined
many
of
the
same
Duhemian
topics,
also
adding appreciably
to his
analysis
of
such
subjects
as
infinity
nd
continuity,
he
nature of
motion,
time,
and
space.6
Moreover,
Maier
emphasized
the
importance
of the ntel-
lectual context n which ate medieval scientificdeas were
developed,
and
in
this
way
came to
realize more
clearly
than
Duhem
that the
accomplishments
of late medieval science were
of
a
philosophical
4
E.
J. Dijksterhuis,
al
n
worp.
en
ijdrage
ot
e
eschiedenis
er
mechanica
an ristoteles
tot ewton
Groningen
924.Often
ijksterhuisave
he
riginal
atin f
he
rimary
texts,
hich uhem
had
not;
Duhem' consistentabitwas
to translatehem
nly
into rench.ee
also
E.J. Dijksterhuis,
e
mechanisering
an et
ereldbeeldAmsterdam
1950,
ranslated
y
C. Dikshoorns TheMechanization
f
he
Worldicture
Oxford
1961,which elies pon heworkfDuhem,Maier, ndClagett.
5
M.
Clagett,
he
cience
f
Mechanics
n he
iddle
ges,
adison
WI
1959
here
ited
according
o the
econd
dition f
1961),
nd
Nicole resmend he
Medieval
eometry
of
Qualities
ndMotions
Madison
WI
1968.
Clagett'
position
n
the
historiography
f
medieval
ciences
outlinedn
the ntroduction
o
Mathematicsnd ts
Applications
o
SciencendNatural
hilosophy
n
he
Middle
ges. ssays
n
Honor
f
Marshall
lagett
eds.
E.
Grant
nd
J.
E.
Murdoch,
ambridge
987,
x-xii.
6
A.
Maier,
tudienur
Naturphilosophie
er
ptscholastik
5
vols.,
Roma
1949-1958,
hereafter
ited
ccording
o
the itles f
the
eparate
olumes,
nd
Ausgehendes
it-
telalter.
esammelte
ufstze
ur
Geistesgeschichte
es
4.
ahrhunderts,
vols.,
Roma 1 64-
1977.Maier's
position
n
the
historiography
f
atemedieval
ciences evaluated
n
J. E. MurdochndE. Sylla,A.Maier nd he istoryfMedievalicencein:StudiulXIV secolonmemoriai Annelieseaiereds.A. Maier ndA Paraviciniagliani,
Roma
1981, -13,
Murdoch,
ierre
uhem
283-6,
ndA.
Maier,
nneliese
aier
a
filosofia
ella
atura
ardoscolastico,
n: Imbach
nd
Maier,
Gli tudi303-30.
2
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
6/281
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
7/281
The articles
n
this
volume
can
all
be
considered as
explorations
nd
extensions
of research
topics
inaugurated by
Duhem-Dijksterhuis-
Maier-Clagett or Thorndike- ates, respectively. Stefano Caroti
discusses
Nicholas Oresme's
theory
of motion within the
context of
John
Buridan's
and
Albert
of
Saxony's
views.
Both the
topic
of the
nature of motion
and
the intellectual
framework
of
the
Parisian
school
were
already
on Duhem's
and Maier's
canonic
roster.11
New
in Carotis
approach,
however,
is that
he
is
the
first o
systematically
focus
on
Oresme's
Commentary
n the
Physics.
The
rediscovery
f
the
unique copy
of this
text,
preserved
in the
manuscript
Sevilla,
Bibi.
Colombina
7-6-30,
was announced
in
1962
by Guy Beaujouan.12
AlthoughMaier mentions Oresme's Physicsn her laterpublications,
she
never
really
ncluded
it in her
discussions.13Caroti's
analysis
and
partial
edition
of
the cluster of
quaestiones
evoted
to motion
fill
an
important
gap
in
scholarship,
not
only
with
respect
to
Oresme's
own
views,
but
also
with
regard
to
the
complex
relations between
Oresme
and
the
other
thinkerswho
were once
singled
out
by
Duhem and
Maier as
the leaders
of
the
Parisian
school,
namely
John
Buridan,
Albert of
Saxony,
and Marsilius
of
Inghen.
Edith
Sylla
also
takes
up
a theme
that was
previously
discussed
by
Duhem,
Dijksterhuis,
Maier,
and
Clagett,
namely
the
problem
of the
natural motion
of
inanimate bodies
(i.e.,
free
fall
and
gravitation).14
Her
point
of
view,
however,
s
completely
different rom
hat
of these
two
scholars.
Besides
presenting
he views of
John
Buridan,
Albertof
Bonelli nd W. R.
Shea,
London
975,
nd
more
ecently
.
Vickers,
ntroduction
in:
Occultnd
cientific
entalities
n
the
enaissanceed.
B.
Vickers,
ambridge
984,
1-55,
ndB.
P.
Copenhaver,
atural
agic
hermetism
nd
ccultism
n
arly
odern
cience
in:
Reappraisalsf
he
cientific
evolution
eds.
D.
C.
Lindberg
nd R. S.
Westman,
Cambridge990, 61-303. openhaver,atural agic280-90sfundamentalorhe
terminology.
e
have
used he erm
occultism
n
Copenhaver's
ense. he
term
hermetism
hould,
ccording
o
Copenhaver,
e
used
o
ndicaten
affiliation
ith
thehermetic
orpus
f
exts.
epler,
n a
much
uoted
assage
n theHarmonies
f
the
osmos
sed
t as
a term f
derision,
o
discredithe
work
f
Robert ludd.
11
See,
for
xample,
uhem,
tudes3:
388-99,
A.
Maier,
Zwischen
hilosophie
nd
Mechanik
Roma
1958,
134-8,
nd
Dijksterhuis,
echanization
185.
,2
G.
Beaujouan,
anuscrits
cientifiques
divaux
e a
Bibliothque
olombinee
eville
in:
Proceedings
f
he th
nternational
ongress
n he
istory
f
cience,
thaca
962 Paris
1964,
33.
13
A.
Maier,
Zwei
Grundprobleme
er cholastischen
aturphilosophie
Roma
1968, 58,
382-285,
nd 389.
14Duhem, tudes3: 23-34, 09-314,esystme,: 169-227,ijksterhuis,al nworp,
60-88,
Mechanization,
09-15,
lagett,
cience
541-83,
nd
specially
.
Maier,
An
er
Grenzeon
cholastiknd
Naturwissenschaft
Roma
1952,
43-83.
4
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
8/281
Saxony
and
(John)
Marsilius
of
Inghen,15
her
paper
also serves
the
purpose
of
providing
important
new material for the
study
of con-
tinuity nd transformation ithinthe Aristotelian radition f natural
philosophy.16
er examination of the
mutual influence
f
the different
commentaries
n the
Physics
y
John
Buridan,
Albert of
Saxony,
and
(John)
Marsilius of
Inghen, gives
an
interesting
iew
on the modus
operandi
f
these authors.
Probably,
the
Parisians
took
each other's
commentaries,
often
available
in
several
different
edactions,
as the
point
of
departure
fortheirown solutions.
At times t is
impossible
to
establish who has been
copying
whom. In
addition,
Sylla
studies the
esteem
these
fourteenth-century
uthors held
in
the
eyes
of Nicoletto
Vernia and Girolamo Pico, thus givinga Renaissance perspectiveon
the
medieval
Aristotelian radition.
The
close
intertwining
f the dif-
ferent
ommentaries
on the
Physics
o
meticuously
documented
by
Sylla,
corroborates arlier
observations
by
Stefano
Caroti
concerning
the
commentarieson the De
generatione
t
corruptioneroduced by
the
Parisian school.17
erhaps
we
have
here
come across one
of
the
factors
that
may
explain
the element
of
unity
within
Aristotelianism.
Edward
Grant's
paper
centerson two of Duhem's
champions
-
Oresme
and Buridan but the issue he discusses is
entirely
Maierian:
the
methodology
of science.18 Grant
compares
Buridan's and
Oresme
s
approaches
to
scientific
nowledge,
his
analysis
focusing
on
the
possibility
of
acquiring
certain
knowledge
of
nature
through
experience. During
the Middle
Ages,
the discussion of the
possibility
of
4
'natural
knowledge
was
associated with views on
causality
and
induction and with
Aristotle's remarks on the
requirements
f scien-
tific
knowledge
n
the Posterior
nalytics
I,
19. Buridan
was heralded
by
Maier
as the defender
of
experience
and induction
against
the
15
The
dentity
f
John
Marsilius
nghen
s
unknown,
uthe
hould,
n
any
ase,
not
be
confounded
ith
Marsiliusf
nghen.
ee
also
Edith
ylla's
rticlenthis
olume,
notes 6
and 17.
16
ee
J.
M. M.
H.
Thijssen,
ome
eflections
n
Continuity
nd
Transformationf
Aristotelianism
n
Medieval
and
Renaissance)
atural
hilosophy
in:
Documenti
studi
sulla radizione
ilosofica
edievale,
1991),
03-28
or recent
ttempt
o
nterpret
the
unity
nd
flexibility
f he
Aristotelian
radition
n
natural
hilosophy.
17
ee n
particular
.
Caroti,
a
Buridano
Marsilio
i
nghen:
a
tradizione
arigina
ella
discussionee
reactione
in:
Medioevo,
5
1989),172-233,
nd
also his
paper
n
this
volume.
18
See A.
Maier,
Metaphysische
intergrnde
er
ptscholastischen
aturphilosophie
Roma
1955,
84-97,
nd
Ausgehendes
ittelalter
2: 367-428.
5
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
9/281
attacks
of
Nicholas of
Autrecourt.19This
picture
seems to be
cor-
roborated
n
Grant's
study.
One
of the results f
his
comparison
s that
Buridan had greaterfaith n the reliability f naturalknowledgethan
Oresme,
who
time and
again emphasizes
that
knowledge
of the
natural
world,
acquired
through
sense
experience
and
induction,
is
unreliable
and
uncertain.
The last
essay
which addresses a
topic
that was
inherited
from
Duhem and Maier is
by
Andr
Goddu. He
gives
an
original
inter-
pretation
f the
application
of mathematics
n
medieval
science. Since
the studies
of
Duhem, Maier,
Clagett,
and
Dijksterhuis nvestigation
of medieval
attempts
to measure
all
kinds of
phenomena,
such as
change, and powersor capacities,has become standard n comprehen-
sive
treatments f ate
medieval
science. The
problem
has
always
been
how
medieval
efforts f
mathematicizing
r
measuring
n
natural
phil-
osophy
should
be
evaluated. Recent
historiography
as
suggested
that
the
application
of
mathematics was
a
mode
of
argumentation,
a
specific
4
'linguistic
technique,
not
unlike the
semantic
techniques
that were
applied
in natural
philosophy.20
Goddu carries this
sugges-
tion a
bit further.
hrough
an
ingenious
analysis
of
Ockham's
theory
of
connotation,
he
illustrates hat late medieval
philosophers
ndeed
thought
of mathematics as a
language,
as a 4
symbolic
formalism
capable
of
many
interpretations.'
The
application
of mathematics o
certain
physical problems
was unrelated
to
any specific
ommitments
concerning
the
status of mathematical
objects;
mathematical
analysis
was
not
determined
by
ontological
considerations. Goddu'
s
sugges-
tions
may
become the
startingpoint
or a
reassessment
of the tradi-
tionally perceived separation
between the
analytic
Parisian school
and the
mathematical
Oxford
school
in
late medieval science.21
The essays by George Molland and William Newman pursue the
broader
implications
of the work
of
Thorndike
and
Yates on
the
role
of
occultism
n
science. Molland' s
paper
examines two
specific spects
of the
hermetic
tradition,
namely,
its
doxographic
role
and
its
theoretical
role,
i.e.,
its
conceptual
significance
n
providing
new
theories and
explanations.22
Renaissance thinkers
have
usually
been
19
But ee
J.
M. M.
H.
Thijssen, ohn
uridannd
Nicholas
f
Autrecourtn
Causality
and
nduction
in:
Traditio,3 (1987),237-55 or riticismfthisnterpretation.20SeeMurdoch,ierreuhem293-99.
21
Cf.
A.
Maier,
Die
Vorlufer
alileis
m 4.
ahrhundert,
oma
1949,
-4.
22
See
Copenhaver,
atural
agic
265.
6
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
10/281
singled
out
as
particularly
nclined to
emphasize
the value
of
an idea
from
heir
wn
age,
as
proponents
of
the notion of
prisca
apientia.
he
most importantname in these ntellectualgenealogies, in which deas
were
referred
o a
sanctifying
ast,
was Hermes
Trismegistus.23
ow-
ever,
as
Molland's
paper
demonstrates,
already
Roger
Bacon
attributed
n
important
ole to
things
ncient,
to
prisca
uctoritas
n his
quest
fortruth.
Moreover,
somewhat
ironically,
he
himself
became
a
prisca
auctoritasor
many
alchemical
spuria.
n
the
second
part
of his
paper,
Molland
investigates
he theoretical
spect
of
occultism,
n
par-
ticular of natural
magic,
in
Bacon's work.
Newman's article
s concerned
with the
Paracelsian
Johannes
Bap-
tistavan Helmont (1579-1644). He has been praised as an exponent
of
the
Scientific
Revolution,
and
condemned as a Hermetic and
occultist.
The
results
of
Newman's
study,
however,
show that Van
Helmont' s
position
n
the rise of modern science is
far more
complex.
First,
as
has
also been
pointed
out
by
Allen
Debus,
the
new
approach
to
the
study
ofnature
naugurated by
the
Paracelsians
was,
as
a matter
of
fact,
a
genuine
alternative
nd
even rival to the world view of the
mechanical
philosophers,
so
readily
conceded as
dominant
in
the
ScientificRevolution.24
However,
as
was not
appreciated
by
Debus
and others,Van Helmont
appropriated
a medieval
corpusculartheory
associated
with the
name of Geber
(Jabir)
in his
system
of
thought,
and
combined thiswith
a
Paracelsian tradition.Both
the
fact hatVan
Helmont
took recourse to
medieval
sources,
and that he
adopted
corpuscularism
a
system usually
associated with mechanism
may
come as a
surprise
even to
those historians of
early
modern science
who
are convinced
that
Paracelsian-alchemical literature
must be
integrated
in
the
historiographical
accounts
of
the
Scientific
Revolution.
Harvard
University
Departmentf
the
History
of
Science
Katholieke
Universiteit
Nijmegen
Philosophisch
nstituut
23
Copenhaver,
atural
agic
266-70.
24
See A.
G.
Debus,
The
hemicalebates
f
he
eventeenth
entury:
he
eaction
oRobert
Fludd nd
ean aptisteanHelmontin:Reasoneds.Rigini onelli ndShea,19-49;The hemicalhilosophy:aracelsianciencendMedicinen he ixteenthnd eventeenthen-
turies,
vols.,
New
York
977,
nd lso he
rticlesollected
n
Chemistry,
lchemy
nd
the
ew
hilosophy
1550-1700
London
987.
7
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
11/281
Vivarium
XXI,
1
1993)
E.J.
Brill,
eiden
Oresmeon
Motion
(Questiones
uper
Physic
m,
III
'
2-7)*
STEFANO CAROTI
1.
Preliminary
emarks
In theirchapteron motion published in Sciencen theMiddleAges
John
E.
Murdoch and Edith
D.
Sylla mitigate
some
of
A. Maier'
s
statements
n
the
disagreements
between
Ockham
and
Buridan
con-
cerning
motion.1
Maier was
actually
nclined
categorically
o contrast2
Ockham'
s and Buridan'
s views of
motion;
in
fact,
she
does
not
men-
tion their common effort n
contending
against
a
general theory
of
motion that relied
upon
the
necessity
f
postulating
res
uperaddita
n
addition to the
things suffering
lteration and
augmentation/diminu-
tion
(
alteratio
augmentatio
diminutio).
n
the
contrary,
he
emphasizes
the difference etween Ockham and Buridan on the subject of local
motion,
which for he
atter s not to
be identified
itherwiththe
mobile
or with the
space,
but with
a
fluxus
which he
considers a conditior an
accidental
form
nhering
n the mobile3
Buridan
puts
forwardhis
pro-
*
I
wish o hank
lfonso aier
or
is
uggestions
ndPietro
orsi
or
is
help
with
the ranslationf
his
aper.
1
J.
E.
Murdoch,
. D.
Sylla,
The
cience
f
Motion,
n: D.
C.
Lindberg
ed.),
Science
intheMiddle
gesChicago
nd
London
978,
17
The ChicagoHistory
fScience
andMedicine)
2
A.
Maier,
Zwischen
hilosophie
ndMechanik.
tudien
ur
Naturphilosophie
er
Sptscholastik
Roma
1958, 3,
117
Storia
letteratura.accolta i studi
testi,
9).
The
opposition
etween
ckham nd Buridanies n
thedifferentole
ssigned
y
Maier o them
n the
evelopment
f cientific
hought:
he ormer
s in fact iewed
as the
supporter
f a
position
moredistant
rom he modern han
hose
f his
predecessors
see pp.
41-2,
00 nd for more
orrect
ppraisal .
E.
Murdoch,
.
D.
Sylla,
he
cience
f
Motion
216-7),
he atter
repares
he
way,
ccording
o
Maier,
to the
modernawof
nertia
A.
Maier,
wischen
132-3,
51).
On
A.
Maier ee
A.
Maier,
nnelieseaier a
ilosofia
ella atura
ardoscolasticay
n:
R.
Imbach,
.
Maier
(eds.),
Gli tudii
ilosofia
edievalera ttoNovecento.
ontributoun ilancio
toriografico.
Atti
el
convegnonternazionale.oma, 1-23 ettembre989,Roma1991, 03-30(Storia letteratura.accolta i studi testi,
79).
3
"Nos
autem icimus
rimo
uod
omnismotus st ubiectiven
mobili,
cilicetn
eo
quod
movetur,
er
realemnherentiamicut lbedo
sset
n
pariete", ohannes
8
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
12/281
posad
of
considering
ocal
motion
a
conditio r
a
fluxus
nhering
n the
mobile
being
an
adherent
n this
way
to
what
I
shall call a
ry-theory)
after ntroducing he casus of the rectilinearmotionof the universe.
Some
years
later,
Albert
of
Saxony
in
his
commentary
on
the
Physics
dealt with local motion
where
he
neady
distinguished
between
a
philosophical
and
a
theological
approach:
in
the
former here is
no
need to have recourseto
something
n
addition
to the
mobile
in the at-
ter motion is identifiedwith a
fluxus nhering
to
the
mobile4
Oresme's discussion
of
motion
in
the first even
questions
of
his
commentary
n
the
Physics
which Maier
thought
was lost
when she
wrote
Zwischen
hilosophie
nd
Mechanik
presents
some
original
and
interesting lementsin comparison either with Buridan or Albert of
Saxony.
Oresme's
philosophical
attitude
-
which
I
shall sometimes
call
"
nominalis without
harging
the word
with
any
specific
mean-
ing
and
only
in
order to stress
ts
opposition
to
a
rw-theory5
is at
one with both Buridan
or
Albert as far as their
efforts
o
reject
a
res
superaddita
n
their
explanations
of
alteration and
augmenta-
tion/diminution;
e is
nevertheless
decidedly
more
determined
than
both Buridan and
Albert to refute res-
heory
for ocal
motion.
The
first even
Questiones
f Book
III
of Oresme's
commentary
n
the
Physics
re
very
mportant
n order to sketch more
complete
pic-
ture of the medieval
dispute
about
different
iews with
respect
to
motion.
I
will limit
myself
to mention the
following, concerning
exclusively
ocal
motion:
1)
the
fluxus
turns out to
assume,
if
inter-
preted
n a
Buridanian
way
(which
Oresme does not consider
correct),
a
definitely
realistic"
feature;6
2)
Oresme's new
rendering
of
fluxus
Buridanus,
uestiones
uper
cto
ibros
hysicorum
Paris
1509,
II,
12,
f.
54vb
repr.
Frankfurt
. M.
1964);
ee A.
Maier,
wischen
129.
4 Even nthe itlesfhis uaestioneslbertf axony istinguisheshese wo ifferent
spheres:
utrumecundum
ristotelemt ius
Commentatoremd hoc
uod liquid
moveaturocaliter
equiratur
liqua
res
ue
sit
uidam
luxus
istinctusmobili t
loco" and
"utrum dmitientesasus
divinos
porteat
oncedere
uod
motusocalis
sit
liares mobilit
oco",
Albertus
e
Saxonia,
uestionesuper
ctoibros
hysicorum
Venetiis
504, II,
6 and
7,
ff.
6rb-37va.
5
In
particular,
use he erm
nominalist"orefero
Ockham'sttituden
refusing
a
rr-theory
or
motion,
hat
s,
a res
uperaddita
ifferent
romhe
mobilend
nhering
in t.
On Ockham's iscussionf
motioneeH.
Shapiro,
otionTime
nd lace
ccord-
ing
oWilliam
ckhamSt.
Bonaventure
.Y.-
Louvain-Paderborn
957,
-191
Fran-
ciscan nstitute
ublication,
hilosophy
eries
16);
M.
McCord
Adams,
William
Ockham
2
vols.,
Notre
ame
1987,
I,
799-827
Publications
n Medieval
tudies.
TheMedievalnstituteniversityfNotre ame,26).
6
I
use
this
erm,
ike
nominalist"
see
the
previous
ootnote)
ithout
specific
philosophicalmport
n order
o
describe
n
attitude
avouring
rw-theory.
n the
9
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
13/281
allows an
explanation
of
4
motus
which does
not
require
an
inherent
es
superadditaas
Buridan
does);
Oresme
is
thus entitled
to
preserve
a
substantially nominalistic" attitudeas did Ockham; 3) thisspecial
solution
is based on the
equivalence
between
fluxus
and conditio
eu
modus
psius
mobilis
which for
Oresme
is a
res
ure
uccessiva
ormed
by
the
different
tates of
a
moving thing
and,
in
addition,
allows
him to
maintain the clear-cut distinction between
mobile
es
permanens
nd
motus
res
uccessiva.
There
are,
however,
further
easons
to
stress the
importance
of
Oresme'
s
commentary
on
the
Physics
within the context of
the
medieval
dispute
on
motion,
some
of them
urging
us
to reconsider
some of Maier's conclusionson this ssue. Firstand foremost,herela-
tionship
between Buridan
and
Oresme,7
described
by
Maier
as
a
com-
plete
dependence
of
the latter
on the
former,
needs
to be reassessed
in view
of the
fact
that
Oresme,
even
though
agreeing
with
Buridan
in
viewing
motion
as a
fluxus neatly
departs
fromhim
in
considering
this
luxus
modus f the mobile nd not
an
accidental
form
nhering
n
it.
Moreover,
Buridan is
not
the
first
nd most convinced
supporter
of a definition f
'
motus
in terms
of
"
aliter e
habere
uam prius
as
Maier
claimed;
Oresme
explicitlyquotes
Witelo's
Perspectiva
s the
source
of
this definition.8
Moreover,
Oresme'
s
influence
on the
medieval
ebate
n
formaluens
fluxus
orme
ee
Maier,
Zwischen61-143 nd D.C.
Lindberg,
he
Beginnings
f
Westerncience.
he
European
cientific
radition
n
Philosophical,eligious
and nstitutional
ontext,
00
B.C.
toA.D. 1450
Chicago
nd
London, 992,
92-3.
7
For
a
general
verviewn this
opic
ee
E.
Grant,
cientific
hought
nFourteenth-
Century
aris:
ean
uridan
nd
Nicole resme
in:
M.
Peiner osman
nd
B.
Chandler
(eds.),
Machaut's orld:
ciencend
rt
n he ourteenth
entury
New
York
978,
05-25
(Annals
f
he
New
York
Academy
f
ciences,14);
s far
s
the
iscussionn ocal
motionntheseuaestionessconcernedresmeeemsess ommittedhan uridan
to
theological
rguments.
8
I
have
lready
tudied
his
spect
f
Oresme' discussion
n
La
perception
umouve-
mentelon
icole
resme
Questiones
uperhysicam,
II,
1
,
forthcoming.
ee
A.
Maier,
Zwischen
126-7
or
Buridan.
he source
xplicitlyuotedby
Oresme
s
Witelo,
Perspectiva
IV,
prop.
110
(see
Opticae
hesauruslhazeni rabisibri
eptem...
tem
Witellonis
huringopoloni
ibri ecern
Basel
1572,
.
167).
The definitionf
motion
s
"
alitere
habere
uam
rius
is
mentionedlso
by
Ockham,
ho
hinkshat
t
s
quite
identical
ith isown:
"est
autem sta
descriptio
i.e.
that
roposed y
Ockham]
eademrealiterum lia
qua
dicitur
uod
mutari st
aliter
e
habere unc
uam
prius':
non
nim liter
liquid
e
habet unc
uam
prius
isi
uia
habet
ormam
el
locumuem rius onhabuitel aret ormael oco uem rius abuit", uillelmide
Ockham,
revisummaibri
hysicorum.
ummula
hilo
ophiae
aturalist
Quaestiones
n
libros
hysicorum
ristotelis
ed.
S.
Brown,
t. Bonaventure
984,
54,
41-5
Opera
philosophica,
).
10
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
14/281
younger colleagues
at the
University
of
Paris,
which is not
acknowledged
by
Maier,
is
attested
by
a
quotation
in
Marsilius of
Inghen's commentary n the Physics9
In
comparison
with the
commentaries
by
the most
representative
authors of the
University
of Paris
(from
John
Buridan to Marsilius of
Inghen),
Oresme'
s10
commentary
presents
a
more
systematic
and
complete
discussion
on
motion:
he scrutinizes
nd discusses
five
dif-
ferent
pinions, proposes
his own solution
and
tests
ts
capability
in
explaining
motion
by
confronting
t with two definitionsof
motion
which were
among
the most
widespread
and
quoted
in the
medieval
dispute
on the
topic
(one
from Aristotle
and the other
from
Averroes).11
9
A.
Maier,
Zwischen
139-40;
Maier uses
only
the Abbreviations
ttributedo
Marsilius,
ut he lsomentionshe
Questiones
uper
hysicampublished
y
L.
Wad-
ding mong
cotus'works.
ee
n. 37
of he
resent
rticle
orMarsilius'
uotation.
10
The
discovery
f
Oresme'
Questiones
uperhysicam
as
nnounced
y
Guy
Beau-
jouan,
whohadfound
hemn thems. 7-6-30
from
hich
uotations
re
made)
f
the
ibliotecaolombinan
Sevilla,
n 1962 t the 0thnternational
ongress
f
he
History
f
Science,
.
Beaujouan,
Manuscrits
cientifiques
divauxe a
Bibliothque
Colombinee evillein:
Acts udixime
ongrs
nternational'Histoiree
cience
Ithaca
6
VIII
-
2
IX
1962),
Paris
1964,
33.
M. Markowski
Le
"
Questiones
uper
-8 ibros
Physicorumristotelisde NicoleOresmeetrouves, in: MediaevaliaPhilosophica
Polonorum,
6
1982),19-24)
scribes
oOresme
commentaryormerly
ttributed
to
Buridan,
ithout
onsidering
oweverhe
manuscript
f
Sevilla;
ee the
ritical
remarksf
J.
M. M. H.
Thijssen,
he hortedaction
/John
uridan*
Questions
n he
Physics
nd heirelationo he
uestions
n he
hysics
ttributedoMarsilius
f
nghen
in:
Archives'Histoire
ittraire
t
Doctrinale
u
MoyenAge,
52
(1986),
238-9.
11
do not ntendo
dealwith he
hronology
f his
ommentary
for
which ee M.
Clagett,
icole resmend he
edieval
eometryf
Qualities
nd
Motions. Treatisen he
Uniformity
nd
ifformity
nowns
"Tractatuse
onfigurationibusualitatum
t
motuum",
Madison,Milwaukee,
nd
London
1968,
646
(The University
f Wisconsin
Publications
n
Medieval
cience,
1)); only
wish
o
point
ut
how he
heory
f
eac-
tio n Book
II,
q.
8 is
differentrom hat
f
his
Questiones
uper
e
generationesee
S.
Caroti, a BuridanoMarsilioi nghen:atradizioneariginaella iscussionee eactione
in:
Medioevo,
5
1989), 11): "Quarta
onclusiost
uod
numquam
ovetur
seil,
agens]
passo
medianteirtute
ua passum
esistittmovetur.
robatur,
uia
quod
movet st
fortius
rgo,
i motusllius
moveretur,
ebiliusmoveret
ortius,
uod
est
contra ristotelem
eptimo
uius. ed contra
oc stAristotelesn
primo
e
genera-
tione,
uia
omne
gens
aturale
n
gendo epatitur;
ecundo,
atet xperientia
uod
ferrum
alidum alefacit
quam
et
frigescit
b
ipsa.
Ad
primum
ico
quod
causa
quare
gens epatiturpasso
st
uia
n
utroque
unt
lures ualitates,
deouna est
fortiorn
agente
ecundum
uam git
n
debilioremn
patiente,
t e
conversona
estfortiorn
passo
ecundum
uam
fit
eactio.Modo lle
ualitates
icuntur
gentia
immediata,
deo unt
lures
ctionest
plura gentia.
d
secundum
er
dem
ico
quodcaliditaserriemittitrigiditatemqueetnon converso,edhumiditasqueremittiticcitatemerri
ue
estdebilior,x
quo consequitur
rigefactio
el remissio
caliditatis.t ex hoc
equitur:
rimo, uod
si in ferro on
sset isi aliditast n
aqua
frigiditas
on
fieret
eactio",
. 35rb-va
the
very
ew orrectionso
Oresme's
11
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
15/281
In
this
paper
I
shall deal with the five
opinions presented
and dis-
cussed
by
Oresme,
together
with his own
solution;
I
shall
omit
a com-
parison between the positionOresme has taken in thiscommentary
and
the
one
defended
in
his
other
writings uoted
by
Maier.12
The five
opinions
considered
rationales
y
Oresme
are summarized
in Book
III,
q.
2.
13
They
pertain
to the kind of
being
denoted
by
motus
rather
than its
existence,
which the
natural
philosopher
must
presuppose:
omnis
pinio
ationalis
otest
educi d
aliquam
starum:
rima
st
uod
motus
non st
liquid
el
liqua,
deodicunt
uod
nihil
st.Secunda
pinio
st
uod
motus
on st
liquid
edbene st
liqua,
cilicet
ta ic e habere d motorem
etmobile tacquisitum,c si esset omen orrelativum.ertia st uodmotus
est
mobile.
uarta
st
uod
motus st
cquisitumer
motum.
uinta
st
quod
est
quidam luxus
eu accidens istinctum
quolibet
ermanenti.14
Oresme
deals with the
first wo
opinions
in Book
III,
q.
2,
with
the
third n
q.
3,
15
with the fourth
n
q.
4 and
5,
16
and with the fifthn
q.
6;
17
he
puts
forwardhis own solution
n
q.
7,
18
testing
t
in
the follow-
ing quaestio
9
through
comparison
withthe two
definitions
y
Aristot-
le and Averroes
we
mentioned
above.
textn
the
uotations
ave
notbeen
noted;
am
going
o
publish
n
thenear uture
the
riticaldition
f he
ight uestions
nthe II
Book f he
hysics).
he
conditions
required
or eactioere
roposed
recensuredn the
Questiones
uper
e
eneratione
nd
are denticalo that fRichard
wineshead's
alculationesIt s
n
any
ase
very
if-
ficulto ssume
nly
nthis nstancen nfluencef
winesheadhen
resme
rites
his
ommentary
nthe
hysics
followed
y
change
hen e
ommentshe
e
genera-
tione.he
practice
fmedieval
agisti
f
evising
heir
ommentaries
revents,
ore-
over,
neto
state
with ufficient
ertitude
he
hronological
elationsetweenheir
writings;
ee
J.
Hamesse,
Reportatio"
t
ransmissiones extesin: M.
Asztalos
ed.),
The
ditingfTheological
nd
hilosophical
exts
rom
heMiddle
ges.
cts f he
Con-
ferencerranged y the Departmentf ClassicalLanguages,Universityf
Stockholm,
9-31
August
984,
Stockholm
986,
7-34
Acta
Universitatistock-
holmiensis,
tudia atina
tockholmiensia,
0).
12
A.
Maier,
wischen133-8.
13
Utrummotus it
liquid",
ff.
1ra-31vb.
14
F. 31rb.
15
Utrum
motus itresmota el
psum
mobile",
.
31vb-32va.
16
Utrummotus
itres
cquisita
mobili ummovetur"
nd "utrummotusocalis
sit
llud
uod
cquiritur
obili
ali
motu,
cilicet
ocus n
quo
et circa
uod
mobile
movetur",II, 4,
ff.
2va-33ra;II, 5,
ff.
3ra-33vb.
17
"Utrum
motus it
res successivaive
fluxus istinctus rebus
ermanentibus
cuiusmodiuntmobile t res cquisitad quam stmotus", f. 3vb-34rb.18 Utrummoveriit liter ehabere ontinue
uamprius",
f. 4rb-35ra.
19
Utrummotus enediffiniatur
uando
dicitur
uod
est ctus ntis
n
potentia
secundum
uod
n
potentia",
.35ra-35va.
12
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
16/281
2.
Opinio
:
' (
motus
stnihil'
The
supporters
of
this
opinion
could
be traced back to
the
Greek
philosophers
criticized
by
Aristotle n
Book
III
of the
Physics;20
ow-
ever,
some
typical arguments
found
in
the
sophismatic
contextscon-
cerning problems
raised either
by
verbs of
motion
or more
generally
of
change21
or
by
the
relations between
pars
and totum
do,
never-
theless,
mark
an invitation o
the
examination
of more recent
debates.
This
opinion
is
grounded
on a
special
ontology
according
to
which
only
incomplexeignificabilia
2
are
entitled
o
denote
existent
beings;
on
the
other
hand,
the
denotation
of motus'
a
complexe
ignificabile
aving
the same meaning of "mobile mover? has no place either in the
category
of substance
or in
any
other.23
20
See e.
g.
S.
Thomas
Aquinas,
n
octoibros
hysicorum
ristotelis
xpositio,
d.
P. M.
Maggiolo,
orino-Roma
965, II,
1.
3, 294,
149
and Walter
urley,
n
Physicam
Aristotelis
xpositio
t
uestiones
Venetiis
501,
.66ra
repr.,
ildesheimNew
York
1972).
uridan iscusses
very
imilar
roblem
nhis
ommentary
n he
hysics
II,
6:
"utrummotus
ocalis st
el
utrum ec st era:
motusocalis st"
",
v.Johannes
Buridanus,
uestiones
f.
48va. n
Jean
fMirecourt's
ommentary
o
the entencesn
opinion
s
mentioned
ccording
o
which
actio
ihil
st
ec
motus,
ed
modiehabendi
rerum'
,
which
earswitnesso he irculation
f
his
osition
n
the
niversity
ilieu,
seeA.Maier, wischen333; ee lsoF. Stegmller,ie wei pologienes ean eMire-
court,
n:
Recherches
e
thologie
ncienne
t
mdivale,
(1933),
67-8
no. 45.
Oresme
oes
not
gree
with
he
pinion
ccording
owhich
'motusst
ihil
,
buthe
too
onsents,
s we shall
ee,
o
the
dentificationf motus
with hemodusehabendi
(mobilis).
21
For
example,
uridan's
ophismata
Omne
uod
moveturovebatur
rius
and
"
Nullamutatio
st
nstantneo",
.
Johannes
uridanus,
ophismata
ed.
T.
K.
Scott,
Stuttgart-Bad
annstatt
977,
20-2
Grammatica
peculativa).
22
4
'Pro
prima
pinione
st
ciendum
uod
quedam
unt
ignificabiliancomplexe
sicut
materia,
ompositum,
ormaubstantial ut
ccidentalis;
t lia
omplexe
icut
"hominem
sse
nimal",
hominemurrere" t sic de aliis.
Secundo,
otandum
quod
motus'
on
est
ignificabilencomplexeroprie,uia
motus*
on
est
liud
quam"mobilemoveri" t nihil stet deo motus ihil st",f.31rb.On complexe
significabile
ee
G.
Nuchelmans,
heories
f
he
roposition.
ncient
nd
medieval
onceptions
of
he earers
f
ruth
nd
alsity
Amsterdam-ondon
1973,
227-42
North-Holland
Linguistic
eries,
).
In
the irstf he
notabiliaf
Book
II,
q.
1
Oresme
mphasizes
the
relationship
etween
ognitio
ntuitivanominabsolutand
ncomplexe
ignificabilia
"notandum
uod aliquid
potest
ognoscidupliciter:
no modo
intuitive
t
incomplexe,
lio
modo
complexe,
t
secundum oc
quedam
nomina
ignificant
absolute
t
quedam
omparative
el
connotative,
t
aliquid
icitur
ognosci
uando
multa
omplexa
ognoscuntur
uibus
nuntiatur
liquid
e
alio",
f.30ra.
did
not
haveK.
Tachau's rticle n
Oresme'
theory
f
omplexe
ignificabile
t
mydisposal;
see P.
J. Vasquez
Janiero,
uns coto altrimaestri
rancescani
lV8o
ongresso
nterna-
zionalei ilosofiaedievaleHelsinki,987), n:Antonianum,3 1988),157,159.23 t is thefirst
?ro-argument:
Probatur
rimo,
uia
"mobilemoveri" on est
substantia
ec
ccidens,
uia
talis st
ignificabile
ncomplexe;
odo
mne ns
est
substantia
ut
accidens",
. 31rb.
n the
ast
rgument
or he
xpression
mobile
13
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
17/281
Oresme
appeals
to Aristotle's
authority arg. 1),
the communis
pinio
(arg. 2)
and either the
possibility
for motion to be
perceived
arg.
5)
or, once its existence is denied, the impossibility o have adequate
criteriafor
discriminating
motion fromrest
arg. 6).
In
the
arguments
against
this
first
pinion
Oresme
points
to
some
logical
and semantic
problems
concerningpropositions
ontaining
verbs of
motion.
In
par-
ticular,
n
the third
rgument
he
existence
of
motion
s
granted
on the
basis
of the term movere
being
a
genus
of
special
kinds
of
motion
exemplified by
currere r alterare
24
in
the
fourth
argument,
the
possibility
of
complexeignificabilia
o
be
predicated
of other
complexe
significabilia
s
acknowledged;25
n the seventh
rgument,
entences ike
" aliquidmoveturare consideredmeaningfulbecause it is possible to
locate in the world events such
as
those
they
describe.26
3.
Opinio
I:
'
motus
st
liqua,
seil, mobile t
lla ad
que
se habet liter
uam
prius1
This
opinion, although
dealt with
more
cursorily,
deserves
par-
ticular attention
ecause Oresme
will
make use
of it forhis
own
solu-
tion
proposed
in
Book
III,
q.
7.
In the conclusion
(where
this
opinion
is recorded in its
complete
moveri"
nly
suppositio
aterialiss
allowed,
without
denotation
n
theworld:
"Quarto,
lia: mobile
moverist
liqui,
aut
rgo
ubiectum
upponit
aterialiter
sicut
ro
lia
propositione
mobile
movetur',
t tunc
ene st
liquid,
ed
non
st
d
propositum,
uia
est vera
propositio
el
oratio;
ut
supponit
ignificative,
t
tunc
oratio st
ncongrua
t non
ntelligibilis,
t
patet er
grammaticam",
.
31rb. n
the
replies
o
these
rguments
hedenotationf motus
is fixedn
the
orma
luens
r n
the
mobile
"Tunc ad
rationes
rime pinionis.
d
primam,
otest
ici
uod
mobile
moveri' st
ccidens,
uia aliqui
dicunt
uod
est
forma...
tsi
non
it ccidens
unc
eritmobile elaliquid ale, t sicerit ubstantia...dultimam,uomodoupponit
'mobile
moveri'
otest
ici
uod
upponit
ignificative
test
ongrua,uia
supponit
pro liqua
re et tenetur
eutraliter
oco
unius
ictionis",
. 3 va.
24
"Tertio mne
enus redicatur
e
sua
specie
ffirmative,
edmoverest
genus
d
curreret lteraret
tade
aliis.
t deo
Aristotelesicit
llas
pecies
motus,
rgo
ec
est
vera:
"aliquid
urrerest
liquod
moveri". t
cum
de
quolibet
redicamento
dicaturesse'
vel
ens' vel
aliquid',
equituruod
moverist
liquid",
. 31rb.
25
"Quarto,
supposita
ivisionellius
opinionis,
icut
ignificabiliancomplexe
predicantur
e se
invicem,
icendo
hoc
est
substantia",
ta
etiam erit
de
significabilibusomplexe
icendo
uod
currere
st
moveri t
esse album st
esse
coloratum",
.
31rb.
26
"Iterum,altem ecundummne
ec est concedenda:
aliquidmovetur"el"celummovetur",
rgo
ta est icut
psa
ignificat,uiaab eo
quod
res stvelnon
est
tc.
Sed
si est
uod aliquid
movetur,
unc
alsum
stdicere
uod liquid
moveri
nihil
st",
f.
31rb-va.
14
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
18/281
form27),
t is
pointed
out
that
n
order to
fixthe
denotation
of
lmotus'
more
things aliqua)
are
required,
that
is
the
mobile nd those
things
relativeto which t assumes differentositions ilia ad quese habet liter
quam
prius).
Even
though
Oresme
does
not state
explicitly
he distinc-
tion he
makes later on
(in
Book
III,
q.
7)
between internal
ntrinseca
and external
extrnseca
reference
marks,
these
things
are
external to
the mobile as
clearly
emerges
from the
two
pro
and
the
second con-
arguments.28
We shall
see
how,
in his discussion
of
motion,
Oresme
is
constantly
preoccupied
with
avoiding
the obstacle
of
postulating
a
special being
in
addition
to the
mobile r
to
the
res
cquisita
r
deperdita
ccording
to
the differentindsofmotions. In thisquaestiohe emphasizes how the
relationship
between
different
hings
that is
called
forth
by
the
expression
1
aliter e habere
uam
prius
is not
a
special
being
in
addition
to
its
components.
In
the critical
remarks
gainst
this
opinion,
Oresme
quotes
a
theory
of relations
which
prevents
the
fixing
of
the denotation of
relative
terms
in
more than
a
single
thing,29
and which relies
on
the
synonymity
etween
concrete
and abstract terms
and on
a word's
power
not
only
of
denoting
but also of
connoting.
These
are
very
important
emarksfor t least two reasons:
a)
the ntroduction fcon-
notative
terms;30
)
the mention
of relations could
be a hint to the
27
"Motus
non
st
liquid
num
ed
aliqua,
cilicet obile t
lla
ad
que
se
habet
aliter
uamprius",
.3
va.
Oresme
robably
akes eferenceothe efinition
rom
Witelo's
erspectiva
as can
be
suggestedy
his attributionfthis efinitiono
the
Polish
cholar
n
Book
II,
q.
1.
Ockham onsidered
his
efinition
ot obe different
from is
own,
ee
n. 8.
For Buridanee
A.
Maier,
wischen
124-7.
28
"Probatur:
uia
aliter e habere ad b non
st liud
uam
et
b sic e
habentia,
sicut issimilitudo
stdissimiliat
nequalitas
st
nequalia... ecundo, atet uodmotus onpercipiturisipercipiendolura literehabere,deo ignumstquod
motus
st lla
plura",
.3 va. In the
irst
robatiotheory
already
efuted
y
Aristo-
tle)
ccording
o whichmotion
s
an
inequalitas
s mentioned
it
s recorded
lso n
Aquinas'
nd
Burley's
ommentaries).
29
"Sed
pono
onclusionem
ppositam,
cilicet
uod
motus on
st
alia ic e haben-
tia.
Probatur
uia
nomina elativa el
relationes,
icut
aternitas,
nequalitas
tc.,
non
upponunt
isi
pro
uno sed connotant
liud,
icut
aternitasropatre,
uius
signum
st
quia
omnes
ui ponunt uod
non
unt
ccidentiaistinctaicunt
uod
concretumt abstractumuntnomina inonima
icut
pater
t
paternitas,rgo,
quamvis
motusit
onnotativum,
amen
upponit
ro
no
t onnotat
liud,
icut
ro
mobili onnotando
lla
ad
que
aliter e
habet",
f. 3
va. In the
margin
f
the
manuscriptnanonymousote scribesoOckhamhepositionccordingowhich"concretumt abstractumunt ominainonima".
30
See n. 29. The
mportance
f onnotation
s
evidentlso
as far
s
the
enotation
of he
erm
inequalitas
is
concerned:
Ad
primam
ico
uod
lla
nequalitas
on
st
15
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
19/281
identification
f a
possible
source
of
Oresme' s
modus eu
conditio ei
a
very
important
lement
for his solution.31
3a.
Res
permanentes
nd
res uccessiuae
The
con-arguments pening
this
question
concern
problems
dif-
ferent
from
those discussed
in the first wo
opinions,
but of
a
con-
siderable
importance
n
the
medieval debate on
motion;
in
addition,
Oresme'
s
own
solution calls
for
facing
some
of
these
problems.
As
far
as the
following
iscussion
is
concerned,
the most
interesting
f
these
problems
can be summarized
in
four
points: a)
ontological problems
(and
particularlymereological
problems) rising
from
the
necessity
of
assuming
the existenceof
parts
which are at once
past
and future n
order
to
maintain the
continuity
f
motion
arg.
1 and
232); b)
the
dif-
ference
between
motion
and
beings
which
are
tota imul nd so can be
totally
grasped
in an instant is
so
great
that
the
very
existence
of
motion itself
s
exposed
to the
risk
of
being
denied;33
c)
the difference
of
imits
incipit esinit)
ollowing
rom hese different
ntologies;
d)
as
far as
only
local
motion
is
concerned,
the
difficulty
f
locating
the
place
of motion
in view of
its
continuity.34
resrealis,ed estrealis onnotandoliud, icut xemplificatumstprius epater-
nitte",
. 3
va.
31
should
ike
o
mention
enry
f
Ghent's
heory
f
relations,
pposing
es nd
modus
ei
see
M.
G.
Henninger,
elations.edieval
heories250-1325
Oxford
989,
53.
See also
J.
F.
Wippel,
he
Metaphysical
hought
f
Godefreyf
ontaines.
Study
n
Late
Thirteenth-Centuryhilosophy
Washington
981,
32-6. t
s
nothowever
ossible
to tate
recisely
f
Henry's
r
Godefrey'
writings
re
the irectourcesf
Oresme.
The
same an
be saidfor
nother
ossible
ource
John
f
Mirecourt)
s
well,
men-
tionednn.
20
and
for
eter
livi,
who
n
some
assages
f
his
entences
ommentary
quotedby
A.
Maier
supports
theory
f
motion
ot
far
from
resme's
"Die
Bewegung
st
ben
kein eales
Akzidens,
ondern
ur
in
modusssendi
oder
modus
e
habendi)
es
mobile")'
ee
A.
Maier,
wischen
314,
320,
329,
n.
92 and
namely
21
(for he uotation).tis worthointingut hat or livi he eferenceark f he
modus e
habendi
s
external
"modus
alius et alius
se habendi
d
aliquid
extrinsecum"),
solution
ensured
y
Buridan nd
Oresme.
As far
s
Roger
Swineshead'sutline f motion s
modus
e
habendis
concernedee
A.
Maier,
Zwischen
133-4,
.
91.
32
"Pars
preterita
otus on st
nec
pars
futura
rgo
motus
on
st;
onsequentia
tenet,
uia
totum on st liud
uam
ue
partes.
terum,
otus on
st
nisi
medietas
preterita
t medietas
utura,
gitur
i
non
untnon
st",
f. 3
ra.
33
"Tertio,
mne
uod
est st
n
hoc
nstanti,
uia
nihil
st
presens
isi
nstans,
ed
motus
on st n
nstanti,
uia
non
st
nisi
nte
it,
ed
non
fit
isi
n
tempore
gitur
etc.",
f.
31rb.
34
"Quarto ic: imotus st uncmobilemovetur,erbi radamotuocali; isic, unc
queritur:
utmoveturn oco n
uo
est, thocnon,
uia
amhabetllud t
per
onse-
quens
nonmoveturd
illud,
t
etiam
uia
non st
cquisitio
artis ost artem
n
loco
n
quo
est;
nec
potest
ici
uod
movetur
n
ocoubi
non
st",
f.
31rb.
16
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
20/281
Replying
to the first
rgument
Oresme
distinguishes permanent
and successive
beings
-
a
very mportant
distinction
or
his own sol-
utionin Book III, q. 7; he does not think,however,that this distinc-
tion
is
adequate
to
overcome
the
objection
built into the
relationship
totum
ars
Oresme'
s own solution
-
the
parspresens
onsists of
part
of
the
past
and
part
of the future
-
is
close to
Buridan'
s36 and
is
recorded
by
Marsilius
of
Inghen
in
his
commentary
n
the
Physics
s
Oresme'
s
position.37
A
solution
to the same
problem
given
later
in
Book
III,
q.
738
s
probably
more relevant: Oresme
proposes
to
treat
the
problem
of the
relation
between
the
whole and
the
parts
forres
uc-
cessivae
nd
res
permanentes
n
two
different
ays:
as far as the
former
are concerned,he considers this relation as being equivalent to that
between
points
and a line or instants and
a time
interval.
The same distinction
between
res
successivae which are
to
be
measured
only
in
time,
and res
permanentes
which
can be
measured
even in
an
instant,
occurs in
the
reply
to
the third
argument.
Here
Oresme
-
after
pointing
to some
consequences following
from the
admission
of
"in instantist
motus
39
-
refuses
general
validity
to the
principle
omne
uod
st,
st n nstanti and
is, therefore,
orced o
limit
the
principle
"
omne
uod
st
n
aliquo tempore
st
n
quolibet
llius
temp
ris1
35
Once
onedenied he xistence
f ne
part
f hewhole
in
this ase
motion),
ne
isforcedo
deny
he ther
art
ecause f he
ignificatusopulatus
"Sed
contra:otum
est
ue
medietates;
rgo,
i
prima
on
st,
ec
ecunda,
equitur
uod
otum on st.
Ad llud iceretur
oncedendon ensu iviso
uodprima
medietason
st,
ec tiam
secunda,
um
rima
t ecunda unt e
significato
opulato,uia
unt
pse
motus
ui
est",
f.
3
va.
36
"Ideo
aliter ico
uod
motus abet liam
artemuam
medietatem
reteritam
t
medietatem
uturam,
cilicet
artem resentem,ue componitur
x
aliquopreterito
et
aliquo
futuro;
t deo
liquapars
motus
st icut
lla",
f. 3
va. Buridan
s well
discusseshis
opic
n Book
II,
q.
6 ofhis
commentary
n
the
Physics
in
so far s
thepeculiar ntologyfmotionsconcerned:secundo tiam d hocconcludimus
quod
per
presensportetntelligereempus
ivisibileuius
na
pars
st
prius
talia
pars
posterius",
ee
Johannes
uridanus,
uestiones
f. 48vb.
37
"Respondetur egando
onsequentiam,uia
est
aliquis
motus
ui
nec est
preteritus
ec
futurused
compositus
x
preterito
t
futuro,
ic
dicens
Orem",
Johannes
arsilius e
Inghen,
uestiones
ubtilissime
uper
do
ibros
hysicorum
Lyon
1518,
repr.
rankfurt
. M.
1964)
Book
II,
q.
2,
f.
36vb.
38
A
different
ereology
or es
ermanentes
nd uccessive
s
required
y
he
efinition
of
uccessivum
impliciter
n Book
II,
q.
7,
see
n. 69.
39
"Ad tertiam
icunt
liqui uod
motus on
st n
nstanti,
ed tarnen
n
nstanti
estmotus. ontra:n nstantistmotus
rgo
um nstansstmotus
st;
t
sequitur
ultra:
rgo
n
nstantist
tempus;
t ultra:
rgo
ubito st
tempus;
t
terum:
rgoacquisitioartis ost artemst n nstantiicutmotus; ltra:
rgo
nhacmensura
est
motus,
rgo
mensuraturt contineturali
mensura,
icut n hoc oco
est
orpus
ergo
orpus
ontineturn hoc
oco",
f. 3 va.
17
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
21/281
(
Phys
,
VI, 6,
236b
19-23).
40
Sentences
such
as
"
motus
st also
require
a certain amount
of
time
for their
verification.41
4.
Opinio
II : "motus st mobile
eu
resmota"
Even
though
the
term
mobile is
not
ambiguous,
Oresme
thinks
t
appropriate
in
the notabilia
preceding
the
/?ro-arguments
o state
precisely
that
the resmota his
opinion
refers
o
is not to be
regarded
as
something
different rom
he mobile
like a
sort of accident
qualify-
ing
the substance as
a
moving
one42.
That
a
res-
heory
s the constant
target
of this
opinion
is
unequivocally
confirmed
by
the two last
pro
arguments,
and
mostly
by
the fourth, n which such a
special
being
(here
called
fluxus)
postulated by
a
r&r-theory,
s
thought
o
involve a
never-endingregress.43
40
To be
interpreted
s
referringxclusively
o res
ermanentes
"et forte
melius
diceretur
uod ntelligit
e rebus
ermanentibus,uia
revolutioiurnast
nuna
ota
die et non n
aliquaparte,
uia
successivaon unt
mensurabilia
isi
empore",
.
3 vb.
41
"Et tunc
ltra
uod
ontinueec
st era: motus
st';
potest
ici
uod
numquam
estvera n
nstanti,
ed
per
empus,
icut
on
st ta
n
re icut
psa
ignificat
isi
er
tempus",.3 vb. Buridan ealswith similarroblemn Book II, q. 6 ofhis om-
mentary
n
the
Physics'
ee
Johannesuridanus, uestiones
f.
49rb.
42
"Secundo,
ciendum
uod
potest ntelligiuod
motus st
mobile
no
modo,
scilicet
uod
resmoveatur
otu
istincto
t
uperaddito,
t llemotusicmovetur
el
alio
motu
el se
ipso,
t tunc sset
lia
res
mota
ue
non ssetmotus... t sic
non
intelligitur
sta
opinio
prima.
Alio modo
ntelligitur
uod
omne
quod
movetur
moveture
pso
formaliter,
ta
quod
non it
liquod
ccidens
elfluxusnherens.
t
sic
ntelligiturositio,
t
tunc
esmota st
motus t e
converso",
. 3 vb.
43
"Ducendo
d
impossibile,
uppono
rimo
um
dversario
uod
motus
sttalis
fluxusistinctus.
ecundo,
uod
non
ponitur
isi
uia
est
llud
uo aliquid
ontinue
se
habet
liter t
aliter d
aliquod
on
motum;
t
deo
dicit incolniensis
uod
est
exitus e
potentia
d actum tdicitur
uod
st
via,
dest
uo
fit. ontra: it mobile
et b sit llefluxus;unc ic:priusstverumuodb non st n a etpostea uodbest
in
a,
ergo
estmutatum
d
ipsum
,
ergo
er
uppositionem
ecundam oc
st
per
mutationemistinctamsubiectot
termino,
uia
propter
liud
non
ponitur,
rgo
motus rit
motus,
t
ic
proceditur
n
nfinitum,
uod
st ontra
ristotelem
eptimo
huius.
t si dicatur
uod
e
pso
mutaturd b sinemutatione
uperadditargo
tc.,
hoc st
ontraecundam
uppositionem
t
pari
atione utabitursine
uocumque
fluxu
uperaddito",
.
32ra.
As far
s the nstantaneous
hange
s
concerned,
he
superfluity
f res
uperaddita
s
demanded
y
the
principle
f
parsimony
"Frustra
fit
per plura
ubi sufficiant
auciora",
f.
32ra).
Once
admitted,
ntenable
philosophical
r
theological
onsequences
ollow;
n the
ormerasethe xistencef
a
purely
nstantaneousesmust e admitted
"Tertio, robatur
e
mutatione
ubita,
quiasi esset es uperaddita,unc uraretolum er nstans,uodAristotelesctavohuius
eputat
mpossibile,
uia
simul
nciperet
tdesinerei
sse",
f.
32ra);
n the at-
terGod's
creationf
single
eing roduces
never
nding
hain eaction
"Item
etiam eus
non
posset
reare nam em olum
uin
ausarei
multas",
.
32ra).
18
-
8/9/2019 VIVARIUM - VOL. 31, NOS. 1-2, 1993
22/281
As
an
anonymous copyist
has
recorded n
the
margins
of the Seville
manuscript,
one of
the most renowned
supporters
of this
opinion
is
WilliamOckham, but alreadyAverroeshad maintainedthat thiswas
Aristotle's
own
solution.
Even
if
t can not be
traced
back
exclusively
to
Ockham,
it is
highly
probable
that his
position
is
envisaged
in
this
opinion.
This
assumption
is
grounded
not
only
on the
assignment
of
'
motusto connotative
terms,
but
also on
the fact that the
term
motus
is
considered
to have
been
coined
for the sake of
economy
and
elegance
in
speech
in order to avoid
dangerous
misunderstandings.44
Moreover,
a
large
number
of
solutions to the
dubia
in this
question
indulge
in
a
logical
and
semantic
analysis
of
the different
roblems
raised by thisopinion.
From this
third
question
to
the
seventh,
the number of the
argumentsfollowing
he
titulums
sharply
reduced;
they
are
replaced
by
a
series of dubiawithin he
questions immediately
followed
by
their
solutions.
n the
present
question
the
capacity
of this third
opinion
to
solve some
objections
is
revealed
through
some fourteen
dubia'
but
above
all it
is
shown how
this
opinion
is not
at
variance with some of
the definitionsof motion
by
Aristotle,
Averroes
and,
among
the
Latins,
Robert Grosseteste
-
whose
authority
n
this
discussion
is
confirmed
y
the constantuse of his solution
throughout
hedifferent
opiniones.
The definitions hat are
opposed,
as dubia
to
this third
opinion
are
the
following:
)
"motus est
actus
mobilis
(in
connection
with which
other
ormulae
ike
"
corpus
st
motum
,
"
motus
st
orma
mobilis" "motus
est ccidens" and "motus st
uantitas
are
discussed); b)
"
motus st
ctus
entis
n
potentia
ecundum
uod
huiusmodV
(here
we find
n
the
following
discussion Grosseteste's definition:
"
motus
est
exitus de
potentia
d
actum
); c)
"
motus st actus
mperfectus'(on
this occasion
Averroes'
definitions re dealt with:
"
motus
omponitur
x
ente t
non ente and
"
motus
st mdius nter
otentiam
t actum
ui
est
perfectiootentie
).
44
"Sciendum
rimo
uod
motus'
st
nomen onnotativumt
quod
propter
revilo-
quium onitur
ocounius ictionisicut
llius
el consimilis
mobile
e habet on-
tinue
liter
uam
priusrespectu
uiuslibet on
moti",
et
hoc vel secundum
qualitatem
el
ecundum
ocum
t
icde aliis.Et
pro
odem
upponit
oncretumt
abstractum,
cilicet
motum' t
motus',
t ta
connotai es
xtrinsecas",
.
32ra.
A
text rom verroes'
ommentary
n the
hysics
s
nterpreted
s a confirmationf he
propositional
ature f
motus'
"Et
per
hoc
glosaturictum ommentatorisuartoMetaphysiceicentisuodmotusomponiturxente tnon nte, uiaadhoc uod
sit
verum
uod
hocmover