Thursday, 28 August 2014

What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?

I mean on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move? Here is the work we are dealing with:

Titre : Almagestum novum astronomiam veterem novamque complectens observatiobus aliorum et propriis novisque theorematibus, problematibus ac tabulis promotam in tres tomos distributam / Auctore Ioanne Baptista Ricciolo...
Auteur, Collaborateur : Riccioli, Giovanni Battista
Adresse bibliographique : Bononiae : ex typographia haeredis Victorii Benatii, 1651-1665

Relevant part:

Pars posterior tomi primi.

Relevant section with page view:

Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247

And I quote, but not in full:

I Prima Opinio fuit, cælos moueri à propria forma, seu ab intrinsecò, ne forma illa esset otiosa & inferior formis elementorum ...

II Secunda Opinio fuit eorum, qui cælos & Astra moueri quidem à propria forma dixerunt, sed quæ esset anima Intellectiua, au etiam sensitiua & vegetatiua ...

Tertia itaque Opinio fuit, cælos moueri à Deo ipso Immediatè. ...

The discussion thereof goes on to next page:

Next page : 248

Where we also find:

III. Quarta Opinio, eaque communissima, est; cælos & sidera moueri ab Intelligentijs seu ab Angelis, tanquam assistentibus, & immediatis causis effectiuis, non autem tanquam ab animabus informantibus cælum, atq. adeò moueri ab extrinsecò principio, sed creato.

He goes on to enumerate St Thomas Aquinas, "Ferrariensis" (probably Francesco Silvestri, O.P. who wrote a commentary on Summa contra Gentiles and was Master General of the Dominicans the last three years of his life, 1525-28), Saint Bonaventura, Duns Scotus, one of the two Guillaume Durand (uncle or nephew), Argentinas (not searchable since obfuscated in search engines by Argentina), Gregory of Rimini, John Capreolus, Albertus (the same as already cited for another view, God alone as extrinsic cause?), Nicolas of Cusa, Sancinas (who ever that is), John of Ianduno (I suppose).

Ex recentioribus Conimbricenses [ = the Coimbra Jesuits (with their commentary on Aristotle)], Rufius, Toletus [Francisco de Toledo, Jesuit], Suarez ...

I will not go on to cite the rest of this list. I will comment on Suarez, from wiki:

According to Christopher Shields and Daniel Schwartz, "figures as distinct from one another in place, time, and philosophical orientation as Leibniz, Grotius, Pufendorf, Schopenhauer, and Heidegger, all found reason to cite him as a source of inspiration and influence."

I say this because, having landed in a debate on Geocentrism and giving angels moving heavenly bodies as my alternative explanation for certain movements, I was met with the claim this opinion was always very marginal. OK? Riccioli calls it "the fourth and most common opinion" and among its adherents he enumerates Aquinas and Bonaventura, two Saints, Scotus and Cusanus, two very learned men, the Coimbra Jesuits and Suárez ... and a Dominican who was Master General of the Dominicans. Marginal? If you can call that "marginal", I do not know what qualification you have to speak about history. None equalling mine anyway.

Since the man brought up as "evidence" this was marginal that it was proposed by the flat earther (very marginal indeed in Byzantium of his day) Cosmas Indicopleustes, I may venture to add that none of those cited were Flat Earth believers. Especially the Jesuits were fully aware of cosmographic implications of Vasco da Gama.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Augustine of Hippo Regia

No comments:

Post a Comment