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