A New Look at Medieval Cosmology, 1200-1687

Author(s): Edward Grant

Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 129, No. 4 (Dec., 1985), pp.
417-432
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/986937 .
Accessed: 26/12/2014 11:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A New Look at Medieval Cosmology,
1200-1687*
EDWARD GRANT

Dept. ofHistoryand PhilosophyofScience,Indiana University,

Bloomington

ATTITUDE TOWARD SCHOLASTIC DEFENDERS Isaac Newton published his Mathematical

OF ARISTOTELIAN COSMOLOGY Principlesof Natural Philosophy.4Coperni-
cus's heliocentricsystem,withits Keplerian
mNo speak of medievalcosmologyas modifications,was at lastprovideda physical
rangingfrom1200 to 1687, virtually
basis that made continuedsupportforAr-
. * the end of the seventeenthcentury,
istotle's geocentric cosmology untenable.
may appear to some yetanotherinstanceof
After1687, medieval cosmologybecame ir-
medievaltemporalimperialism.Whyshould
relevant because it no longer represented
the sixteenthcenturyand 87 years of the
even a minimallyplausible alternativeto the
seventeenthcenturybe embraced by the
new Newtonian cosmology.Unlamentedit
Middle Ages? To thisquestion,thereis only
simplyfaded away.
one plausibleresponse:despiteseriouschal-
Ifmedievalcosmologywas dominantfrom
lenges, medieval cosmology,based solidly
1200 to 1687, and thereforean intellectual
on the cosmic conceptionsof Aristotle,re-
force to be reckoned with duringthe 144
mained thedominantworldviewuntil1687.
yearsthatwererequiredforthetotaltriumph
When, in 1632, Galileo published his mon-
of the Copernican system,why is this not
umental assault on Aristoteliancosmology,
1 properlyreflectedin the great mass of re-
theDialogueontheTwoChief
World
Systems,
search on seventeenth-century science and
the majorityof astronomersand natural
naturalphilosophythathas appeared in this
philosophers were probably defenders of
century?Whyis our knowledgeofitderived
traditional
Aristotelian
geocentriccosmology,
primarily,but indirectly,fromits enemies,
a cosmology that had been shaped in the
ratherthan directlyfromstudies of the lit-
thirteenthand fourteenthcenturies.There
erature?Witha few possible exceptions,we
are as yetno good reasons forbelievingthat
look in vain forevidence of genuineinterest
the situation had altered significantlyby
in the last centuryof scholasticcosmology.5
1687, some fifty-five years after Galileo's
Whataccountsforthisvirtualabsence of in-
Dialogue and 144 years afterpublicationof
terestin the argumentsand defensesof one
On theRevolutions
Copernicus's oftheHeav-
of the major sides in the debates thatraged
enlySpheres Butin that
(De Revolutionibus).2
in the seventeenthcentury?Is it because, as
fatefulyear,the yearchosen as the terminal
one historianhas recentlydeclared,"in sci-
date forscholasticAristoteliancosmology,3
ence as in war historyis writtenby the vic-
tors" and "those who firstembraceda new
* Froma paper read at the SpringGeneral Meeting scienceare styledprecursorsof thelatestor-
of the AmericanPhilosophicalSociety,21 April 1984. thodoxy.Those who stubbornlyclungto the
PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, VOL. 129, NO. 4, 1985

417

This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
418 EDWARD GRANT

old are featuredas historicalcuriosities.One most enduringassault on scholasticAristo-

groupis absorbed,the otheris absurd."6Al- telian cosmology derived from a fictional
thoughthisperceptivedescriptionwas for- characterwhom he named Simplicio,after
mulated for Christian anti-Darwiniansin the sixth-century Greek Aristoteliancom-
theirstruggleagainst Darwinism,it is even mentator,Simplicius. Simplicio, who first
morerelevantand applicable to thescholas- appears in the Dialogue on the Two Chief
tic Aristotelianswho defended medieval WorldSystems, Galileo's major attackon Ar-
cosmology against Copernicanism. Those istotelian cosmology, became almost im-
who upheld the fixityof species have been mediatelythe paradigmof the dull-witted,
studiedfortheirown sake in the totalityof unimaginative, unyielding scholastic de-
researchon thehistoryofnineteenth-century fenderof theindefensible.Althoughthecir-
biology. Even phlogistontheoryhas been cumstances of publication made a direct,
studied for its role in the historyof eigh- unrestrained,and scornfulcritiqueof Sim-
teenth-century chemistry. But serious plicio's Aristoteliancosmologyunwise,Gal-
considerationsof Aristotelianscholasticcos- ileo leftlittledoubt of his sympathiesand
mologyare absent fromresearcheson sev- attitude.AlthoughmanyAristotelians would
enteenth-centuryscience and cosmology. accept the telescope as a valid scientificin-
The names, works, and ideas of late six- strument,Simpliciois made to declare that
teenth-and seventeenth-century scholastic "followingin the footstepsof otherPeripa-
authorshave all but disappearedfromsight. teticphilosophersof my group,I have con-
Perhaps the victors in the cosmological sidered as fallacies and deceptions of the
struggledid indeed banish the vanquished lenses thosethingswhichotherpeople have
to historicaloblivion. admiredas stupendousachievements."9 The
In fact,theybanished them even before slavish dependence on Aristotleis empha-
thevictory.Beginningwiththelate sixteenth sized when, in denyingthatthe earthis an
century,those who supportedthe develop- orbitingplanet, Simplicio appeals to Aris-
ing new science and cosmologyrarelycited totle,who, accordingto Simplicio,raisedse-
scholastic authors except, on occasion, to rious, unresolved objections to such an
attack and ridiculethem.7Instead of Aris- opinion."And since he [Aristotle] raised the
totelian scholastics,they cited Greek and difficulty withoutsolvingit,it must,"insists
Roman authors,along withrecentand con- Simplicio,"necessarilybe very difficultof
temporarymechanical philosophers, Her- solution,ifnotentirelyimpossible."'0In this
meticists,Platonists,Neoplatonists,Stoics, manner Galileo achieved, perhaps unwit-
and Atomists.By a seeming conspiracyof tingly,more than he mighthave thought
silence, scholasticauthorswere largelyab- possible. By his literaryand artisticgenius,
sent fromthe body of literaturethatwould he fashioneda stereotypeand caricaturethat
be of greatestinterestto modern scholars. has been applied to all scholasticAristotelian
Even Galileo, who clashed directlywith scholarsfromtheiremergencearound 1200
scholasticnatural philosophers-especially to theireffectivedemise near the end of the
theJesuitsChristopherScheinerand Horatio seventeenthcentury.More than anyone,
Grassi-rarely mentioned their names in Galileo createdthe conceptof a monolithic,
publishedworks,largelybecause,forvarious homogeneous,unimaginative,inflexibleAr-
reasons,his foes chose to attackby the use istotelianism,which,when finallychallenged
of pseudonymsand surrogates.8 by Copernicanismin the sixteenthand sev-
But as if ignominioussilence were not enteenthcenturies,reactedas a whole in the
enough,fate,in the guise of Galileo Galilei, manner of Simplicio:it blindlyrejectedall
dealt an even harsher blow. For Galileo's that was new by opposing to it one or an-

This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MEDIEVAL COSMOLOGY 1200-1687 419

otherof the many dogmas of Aristotle.On But all this was destined to change. Al-
this approach, there are no significantdif- ready in the 1460s, rival cosmologies and
ferencesbetween the scholasticcontempor- new ideas began to appear. The works of
arieswhom Galileo flayedin theseventeenth Plato and those attributedto Hermes Tris-
centuryand theirmedieval predecessorsin megistus were translated from Greek to
thethirteenth and fourteenthcenturies.This Latin,as a greatnew wave of translating ac-
is undoubtedlythe popular and, to a large tivitygot underwayin Italy.13 By the mid-
degree,even the learned conceptionof me- sixteenthcenturycosmologicalconceptsand
dieval cosmologythatprevailsto thisday. reportsembedded in previouslyunknown
It is small wonder that modern scholars works by Sextus Empiricus,Plutarch,Sim-
have ignoredthe finalcenturyof scholastic plicius, Philoponus, Themistius,Alexander
Aristoteliancosmology. They found little of Aphrodisias,Lucretiusand Cicero were
mentionof scholasticauthorsin the works available.The worldviewsofPlato,theStoics
that formedthe corpus of the new and de- and Atomistswere now potentialrivals to
velopingscience of the seventeenthcentury Aristotle.In worksfalselyand rightlyattrib-
and what they did learn fromGalileo was uted to Plutarch were descriptionsof the
enough to convince them that any further earth's axial and orbital motions.14 The
examinationof scholastic literaturewould probabilityis strongthateven ifCopernicus
only yield more Simplicio-likepronounce- had never writtenthe De revolutionibus, a
ments. After three centuries of neglect, significant debate about the earth'spossible
however,it is time to take anotherlook at axial and orbitalmotions would have oc-
medievalcosmologyin thelate sixteenthand curred.
seventeenthcenturies.To do thatwith any Butin 1543 Copernicusdid publishhis De
hope of genuinecomprehension,it is essen- revolutionibus and, by his convictionthatthe
tial to look at the whole of medieval cos- earthreallyrotateddaily on itsaxis and also
mology.Only then will it become apparent orbited the sun annually, posed the most
that that whole is not monolithicand ho- dangerouschallengeto theAristoteliangeo-
mogeneousbut ratherdividesnaturallyinto centricworldview. Not long after,Tycho
two distinctand considerablydifferentparts, Brahe demonstratedthat the new star of
each of which is itselfunhomogeneous. 1572 and the comet of 1577 were actually
celestialphenomena and not alterationsin
THE Two PARTS OF MEDIEVAL the upper atmospherejust below the moon,
ARISTOTELIAN COSMOLOGY as Aristoteliansbelieved.15 The implications
were profound:the new starstrucka seem-
The firstpart embraces the period from inglyvital blow at the Aristotelianconcept
approximately1200, when the worksof Ar- of an absolutely unchangeable and incor-
istotlewere translatedinto Latin and began ruptible celestial region while the comet,
to have an impact,untilapproximately 1500, thoughtby Tychoto be movingin a circular
when a new wave of translationswas un- orbitaround the sun,16seemed to destroy
derway.Duringthe firstperiod,Aristotelian thetraditional beliefin hard,celestialspheres
cosmologyhad no rivals and went unchal- to which the planets were attachedand by
lenged.Disagreementsabout interpretations which theywere moved. Such hard spheres
of majorand minorpointsofAristotle'scos- would eitherhave preventedthecometfrom
mology duringthis period were always of traversingits observedpath, or would have
an internalnature." There is no hint of been shatteredby its impact. In the early
abandoningthatsystemin favorof anything seventeenthcentury,1611 to be exact,Gal-
else."2 ileo, ChristopherScheiner,and JohannFa-

This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
420
briciusobserved variable spots on the sun,
whichsome would interpret as anotherblow
againstcelestialincorruptibility.17
Confrontedwith these momentousnew
challenges,scholasticAristotelians ofthelate
sixteenthand seventeenthcenturiesreacted
in a wide varietyofways,rangingfromthose
who drew upon the storeof traditionalex-
planationsand who wroteas ifnothingnew
had occurredsince the thirteenth century18
to those who adopted the geoheliocentric
systemof Tycho Brahe.Incredibleas it may
seem, in at least one instance scholastic
opinion even extendedto the acceptanceof
theheliocentricsystemitself.In a treatiseti-
tled PeripateticallInstitutions
and published
in 1656, Thomas White,a theologian,who
considered himself a faithfulAristotelian,
thoughadmittingthathis conclusionssome-
timesdissentedfromthe master,concluded
that wind-drivenseas caused the earth to
rotatedaily and, because of an unequal im-
pact on the earth'ssurface,those same seas
also pushed the earthlaterallyand caused it
to move with an orbitalmotionaround the
sun.'9 Thomas White is admittedly an
anomalous case but should serveas a warn-
ing thatseventeenth-century scholasticsare
not easy to categorize.Nor indeed are me-
dieval scholastics,who, withoutanypressure
to defendtheAristoteliansystem,oftendis-
agreed on points of cosmologicaldoctrine.
Because of the directchallenge of the Cop-
ernicansystemto the Aristotelian, however,
seventeenth-century scholasticswere under
greaterpressure and their responses, not
surprisingly,were farmorevariedthanany-
thingfoundin the Middle Ages, as we shall
now demonstrate.
DEPARTURES FROM MEDIEVAL COSMOLOGY
1. CelestialIncorruptibility20
Following the introductioninto Western
Europe of Aristotle'sscientifictreatisesdur-
ingthetwelfthand thirteenth centuries,me-
dieval natural philosophers assumed with
Aristotlethattheworldwas dividedintotwo
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EDWARD GRANT
radically differentregions, the terrestrial,
which embracedeverythingbelow the con-
cave surface of the lunar sphere, and the
celestial,which included the sphere of the
moon and everything beyondto thefarther-
most reaches of the finitecosmos. An im-
portantingredientof Aristotle'stwo-region
cosmologywas theconvictionthattheceles-
tialregionwas incomparablysuperiorto the
terrestrial.That superioritywas most dra-
maticallymanifestedby the attributionof
absolute incorruptibilityto the celestialre-
gion, which was said to be composed of an
incorruptibleether.21 By contrast,corrupti-
bilityseemed an obvious propertyof terres-
trialbodies,whichwere subjectto incessant,
perceptiblechanges.Aristotlehad seemingly
clinchedhis case forcelestialincorruptibility
when he declared that no changes in the
celestialregion had ever been observed or
recorded.22If the heavens were corruptible,
some obvious sign of it should have been
detectableover a long period of time. But
what about shootingstars,comets,and other
similarphenomenawhichseem to appear in
theheavens?Are thesenottransientcelestial
phenomena that indicate changes in the
heavens? Not according to Aristotle,who
simply denied their celestial location and
placed theminsteadin theupperatmosphere
just below the moon. He explained themas
productsof the various motionsof hot and
dryterrestrial vaporsin theregionjustabove
air.23By the eliminationof such potential
counterinstances, Aristotlemade the histor-
ical recordservethecause of incorruptibility.
It is small wonder that celestialincorrupti-
bilitywon near-unanimousacceptance be-
tween the thirteenth and late sixteenthcen-
turies.During thatsame period,it was also
assumed that the incorruptibleether was
shaped intohard spheresto whichtheplan-
ets and stars were attached and by which
theywere carriedaround theheavens in cir-
cular orbits.
These beliefs,which were conceived as
fundamentalduringthe Middle Ages, were,
as already seen, seriouslychallengedin the
 MEDIEVAL COSMOLOGY 1200-1687
late sixteenthand early seventeenthcentu-
ries by Tycho Brahe, Galileo, and others.
Some of those who accepted these discov-
eries and the new interpretations were pre-
pared to accept dramaticchanges in the na-
tureof theheavens. Observationsofthenew
star, comet and sunspots taken together
convinced many that the celestial region
could no longer be assumed incorruptible;
telescopic observationof sunspots offered
startlingevidencethateven the familiarand
seeminglyunalterableplanets were subject
to change;and theapparentlackofresistance
to the cometof 1577 as itmoved around the
sun impliedan absence of hard,transparent
celestialspheres.
How did scholasticauthorsreactto these
seeminglygravedangersto Aristoteliancos-
mology?Beforereplyingto thatquestion,it
is well to keep in mind that,with a few ex-
ceptions,mostseventeenth-century scholas-
tics were not only aware of the new Cop-
ernicancosmology,but also knew about the
discoveriesand claims of Tycho Brahe and
Galileo. Nevertheless,many doggedly de-
fended the traditionalopinions. Following
Aristotle,theyinsistedthat the new star of
1572, the comet of 1577, and the spots on
thesun's surfacewere in realityphenomena
of the upper atmosphere,much as Aristotle
had describedthemin his Meteorology.
But changes in approach would soon be-
come apparent.A numberof scholasticau-
thorsfoundAristotle'sresponsesinadequate
to the challenges they confronted.Tycho
Brahe's reputationas an observationalas-
tronomerwas notto be setaside lightly.And
so it was thatsome scholasticsaccepted the
new starsand even cometsas celestialphe-
nomena generatedin some manner within
the celestial region itself.But this did not
mean that theywere prepared to abandon
theirbeliefin celestialincorruptibility.
Their
problem now was to explain the "new"
celestial phenomena without abandoning
incorruptibility.
Leavingaside thepossibilitythatnew stars
and comets were supernatural creations,
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
421
which few believed, two major approaches
were devised to reconcilecelestialincorrup-
tibilitywiththecelestiallocationofnew stars
and comets.One approach constructednew
starsand cometsfrombodies alreadypreex-
istingin the heavens, while the other as-
sumed theirformationfromaccidental-not
substantial-changes thatactuallyoccurred
in the heavens.
The firstapproach made implicituse of
Galileo's discoveryof thesatellitesofJupiter.
Here were celestialbodies that had always
been in the heavens but remained unseen
until revealed by Galileo's telescope. Was
Galileo's discoveryonly the tip of the ice-
berg?Was it not reasonable to suppose that
manyotherpermanent,but ordinarilyinvis-
ible, fixturesof the sky were awaiting dis-
covery?24 And, to take it a step further,
per-
haps some celestialbodies were so faintthat
one could neverhope to see themeven with
a telescope. The stage for the introduction
of celestialphantomswas now set. Thus, as
StillmanDrake has observed,"Conservative
astronomerswho forphilosophicalreasons
had previouslyrejectedGalileo's discovery
ofnew movingstarsin theheavens,now for
philosophicalreasons commencedto popu-
late theskywithmovingstarsat a ratewhich
made Galileo blush."25
To save celestialincorruptibility,
invisible
heavenly bodies were now postulated as
needed. Indeed thispracticehad begun even
beforeGalileo's discoveries,as we learnfrom
ChristopherClavius (1537-1612), the fa-
mous Jesuitastronomer,who reportsthata
fewexplainedthenew staras a magnification
of a regular,but ordinarilyinvisible,starin
theconstellationCassiopeia.26Itsemergence
as an apparentnew starwas caused by ter-
restrialexhalationsthatwere interposedbe-
tween us and the star. Following Galileo's
celestialdiscoveries,the practiceintensified,
as is evidentin the discussionsof Bartholo-
mew Amicus (1562-1649), a Jesuittheolo-
gian who described at least four ways in
which new starsmightbe formedfromal-
ready existingcelestialmatter,only two of
422 EDWARD GRANT
which will be mentionedhere.27One way
was to assume that a numberof small, or-
dinarily invisible, stars would somehow
come intoalignmentand forma sufficiently
large mass capable of reflectinglight and
thusbecomingvisible.Anotherway, which
Amicusfavored,was to assume theexistence
of epicycleseach of which carrieda denser
than normalpiece of celestialether.When,
forexample,threesuch epicyclescame into
alignment,the sun, which shines on the
whole heaven, would illuminatethat ethe-
real cluster,thereflectedlightof whichthen
produces the appearance of a new star.As
the epicycles continue with theiruniform
motions,the new star will gradually fade
away. On this approach, celestial changes
are notrealbutonlyapparent.Combinations
and dissociationsof alreadyexistingentities
are said to produce the new but transient
phenomena.
Not long afterTycho Brahe had declared
thattheNew Starof 1572 was locatedin the
celestial region, ChristopherClavius also
declared unequivocally for this interpreta-
tion.28Thus early on, we findat least one
scholastic who found the evidence for a
celestiallocationconvincing,or, conversely,
found the evidence fora sublunarlocation
quiteunconvincing.The New Starhad to be
higherthan the regionof the air because it
would have revealeddifferent aspectsat such
a close distance,whereas none had thus far
been observed. Thus it had to be in the
celestialregion.Butit could notbe in any of
the regularplanetaryorbs because no as-
tronomerhad yetdetectedany othermotion
forthe new star.Therefore,argues Clavius,
itmustbe in the firmament, or sphereof the
fixedstars.Moreoverit could not be in the
elementaryregionbecause therewould then
be no plausible explanationas to why it al-
ways maintainedthe same distanceand rel-
ativepositionwithrespectto the otherfixed
stars.
As to the originof the star,Clavius de-
clared thatit was eithercreatedby God as a
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
major portent,or ifit was a naturalcelestial
event,thenone would have to concede that
cometscould also be createdin theheavens,
just as theycould be createdin the air. But
ifthe latteralternativeis true,thenperhaps
"the heaven is not a certainfifthelement,
buta mutablebody,althoughless corruptible
than inferior[terrestrial]bodies." 29 Priorto
Plato and Aristotle,many philosophersbe-
lieved this and indeed afterthose two lu-
minaries,some of the mosteminentChurch
Fathers-Ambrose, Basil, and Gregoryof
Nyssa-taught the corruptibilityof the
heavens.
But just as we expect Clavius to take a
daringstance and opt forthe corruptibility
of the celestial region,he declares that he
does notwish to interposehis opinionin this
matter(meamenimsententiam in tantarenon
interpono).30He is contentto have demon-
stratedthatthe new staris in the starryfir-
mament.As forall the otherdifficult ques-
tionsassociated withthe new star-what it
portended,why it vanished aftertwo years,
and so on-Clavius insistedthatonly God
knew the answers.Thus in his mostfamous
and widelyused book, Clavius opted forthe
real existenceof the new star but chose to
avoid any commitmenton the perplexing
questions about the corruptibility or incor-
ruptibility of the celestialregion. But there
were otherscholasticswho also came to be-
lieve in the celestiallocationof thenew star,
but,unlikeClavius,emphaticallymaintained
the traditionalbeliefin celestialincorrupti-
bility.They were convinced that the new
celestial phenomena representedreal, and
notmerelyapparent,changes.One such was
Raphael Aversa (1589-1671), who, though
he assumed a sublunar originand location
for comets, allowed that new stars repre-
sentedrealcelestialchange.31 How could real
celestial change be reconciled with incor-
ruptibility?By assuming,as Aversa did, that
new stars are formedby accidental rather
than substantialchanges. To make his case,
Aversa assumed that parts of the heaven
 MEDIEVALCOSMOLOGY 1200-1687
were transparentand parts opaque rather
than rare and dense.32 Transparencyand
opacity are qualitative propertiesand the
changesassociatedwiththemare accidental,
whereas rare and dense are quantitative
propertiesand the changes associated with
them are substantive.To avoid substantial
changes in the heavens, Aversa abandoned
the propertiesrare and dense, and insisted
thattheetherealmatterof theheavens could
only be transparentand opaque. A qualita-
tivechange occurswhen a diaphanous part
of the heaven becomes sufficiently opaque
to reflectlightand become visible as a star;
as thestar'sopacitydiminishes,however,the
abilityof the ethereal substance to reflect
lightdiminishesand the new stargradually
disappears. AlthoughAversa confessedig-
noranceas to the cause or causes thatcould
transforma part of the celestialetherfrom
transparentto opaque and back again to
transparent,he thought that he had de-
fendedcelestialincorruptibilityby replacing
the essentiallyquantitativetermsrare and
dense by the qualitativetermstransparent
and opaque.33
By the thirdquarterof the seventeenth
century,at least threeJesuitauthors-Giov-
anni BaptistaRiccioli(1598-1671), Melchior
Cornaeus (1598-1665) and George de
Rhodes (1597-1661) abandoned the tradi-
tionalscholasticbeliefin theincorruptibility
of the heavens. Riccioli,the most famous
scholastic astronomerof his day, believed
that "from its very internal nature, the
heaven has the capacityforgenerationand
corruption."34Riccioli based his belief in
celestialcorruptibility
on threesources,
namelytheauthorityofSacredScripture,
thetes-
timony oftheFathers,
andthearguments derived
fromexperienceconcerning
spotsandtorches
near
thesolardiskthatwerediscovered by thetele-
scope and fromcertaincometsthathave come
intobeingand passed away above the moon.
Thesechangesare morenaturally explainedby
generationandcorruption
thanbyothermorevi-
olentmeansorbynonviolent miracles.35
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
423
Of thesethreesources,however,Riccioliwas
influencedmostby the ChurchFatherswho
convincedhim thatthe heavens were com-
posed of two elementsthat were identical
with their terrestrialcounterparts,namely
water and fire,with the formercomposing
the solid sphere of the fixedstars and the
latter comprising the planetary heavens,
which Riccioli conceived as a fieryfluid.36
Because waterand fireformeda vitalaspect
of terrestrial
change,Riccioli,liketheChurch
Fathershe claimed to follow,believed they
were also involved in celestial generations
and corruptions.WithRiccioli,Cornaeus,de
Rhodes, and others, the claims of Tycho
Brahe and Galileo were accepted without
qualification.
2. FluidMediumand TychonicSystem
Withregardto the issue of celestialincor-
ruptibility,we see that scholastics in the
seventeenthcenturyadopted a varietyof
positions,ranging from acceptance of the
traditionalmedievalpositionto itscomplete
repudiation. A similar range of reactions
could be citedforothercosmologicalissues
in the seventeenth century. Because the
celestial path of the comet of 1577 would
have destroyed,or been affectedby, solid
planetaryspheres,TychoBraherejectedthe
existenceof solid spheres and assumed in-
stead a fluidmediumthroughwhich comets
and planets were self-moved.37In this sig-
nificantbreakwithAristotleand the Middle
Ages, a numberof scholasticsfollowedTy-
cho, as did, for example, Roderigo de Ar-
riaga,FranciscusBonae Spei, and Franciscus
de Oviedo,38while others-Riccioli, forex-
ample-accepted thefluidity of theheavens
but retainedthe solidityof thesphereof the
fixed stars.39Some scholastics, including
BartholomewMastrius,BonaventuraBellu-
tus,GiovanniBaptistaRiccioli,and Melchior
Cornaeus, even adopted Tycho Brahe's cos-
mologicalsystemin whole or in part.40That
is, they located the stationaryearth in the
424 EDWARD GRANT

centerof a sphericaluniverseand assumed sumed thatearthand waterformeda single,

thatat leasttwo,and perhapsall,oftheother unifiedsphere and so abandoned the two
planetsmoved aroundthesun as theircenter separatespheresof theMiddle Ages. On this
of motionwiththe sun, in turn,orbitingthe point, at least, scholastic natural philoso-
earth. phers were au courant.

3. The TerraqueousSphere THE RELATIONS BETWEEN MEDIEVAL AND

EARLY MODERN SCHOLASTIC COSMOLOGY
Anotherinstanceofa significant departure
from medieval cosmology concerned the Fromtheexamplesjustdescribed,itseems
physicaldescriptionof the earthitself.The reasonable to assume that early modern
change involved a shiftfromthe medieval scholasticAristoteliancosmologydid indeed
view,in whichone sphereeach was assigned departconsiderablyfromitsmedievalcoun-
to earthand water,to a singlesphereconcept terpart.May we inferfromthis that early
in the seventeenthcenturythat included modern scholasticswere more flexibleand
both earthand waterand which came to be innovativethantheirmedievalpredecessors?
called the "terraqueoussphere."41Because Such an inferencewould be unwarranted.
it was obvious that parts of the earth rose Indeed a careful comparison between the
above the sphere of water,it was assumed two might well reveal that medieval cos-
duringthe Middle Ages that the sphere of mologistswere more imaginativeand ven-
water surroundedthe sphere of earth in a turesome. Why, then, did early modern
mannerthatleftonlya quarteroftheearth's scholasticsdepart more radicallyfromAr-
sphereelevated above the waters.The hab- istoteliancosmologythan did scholasticsin
itableportionof the earth'sspherewas said the Middle Ages? In my judgment,the an-
to lie wholly in the northernhemisphere swer lies, as already indicated,in the new
with the southernhemisphere completely externalchallengesto theAristotelian system
submerged.The Portugueseexplorationsof thatbegan to takeeffectin thesixteenthcen-
thesouthernhemisphere,especiallya voyage tury.Significantalterationsin Aristotelian
along the coast of Brazilin 1501, revealed a cosmologymade in theMiddle Ages contin-
wide distributionof land in the southern ued to be discussed into the seventeenth
hemispherethatwas previouslythoughtto century,as, forexample, the possible exis-
be submerged.In 1515, JoachimVadianus tenceof an infiniteextracosmicvoid space45;
of Switzerlandproclaimedthatnot onlydid the existence of eccentric and epicyclic
earthand watertogetherforma singleglobe, spheres46;and the identification of celestial
but theirrelationshipwas such thatoverthe and terrestrialmatter.47These medieval in-
entiresurfaceof that globe earth is partly novationswere well knownto scholasticsin
submergedand partlyelevated.Here was the the seventeenthcentury.But seventeenth-
firstdescriptionof what would be called the centuryscholasticswere confrontedwith a
"terraqueousglobe" in theseventeenthcen- situationthathad no precedentin theMiddle
tury.42But even beforeit was named, Co- Ages. They had not only to contendwith a
pernicusadopteditin his De revolutionibus.43 heliocentriccosmologythatwas virtually the
The conceptenteredscholasticcosmologyin antithesisof theirown, but even more im-
thelate sixteenthcenturywhen Christopher portanttheyhad to cope with astronomical
Clavius embraced it in his famous and discoveries and interpretationsthat chal-
widelyread Commentary on theSphereofSac- lenged the veryexistenceof the traditional
robosco.44During the seventeenthcentury, solid spheres,theincorruptible heavens,and
most scholastic natural philosophers as- the two-regioncosmos. With such formi-

This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 MEDIEVAL COSMOLOGY 1200-1687
dable threatsto thesystem,itis smallwonder
thatsignificant changes occurred.
It was the external threat that caused
scholasticAristoteliancosmologyto undergo
majoralterationsin the seventeenthcentury.
The disagreementsthatarose in the Middle
Ages about particularaspects of the pre-
vailingAristoteliancosmologydid not pro-
duce serious challenges to the systemas a
whole. Butthingswere quite different in the
late sixteenthand seventeenth centuries.
Galileo is perhapsthebestillustrationof the
dramaticchanges.Withconsiderablejustice,
Galileo may be viewed as an Aristotelian
who abandoned the system.Whetheror not
Galileo's Aristoteliantreatises-theso-called
Juvenilia-actuallyreflecthis trueopinions,
it is reasonable to assume thatin his youth
his opinionsabout naturalphilosophywere
largelyAristotelianbecause he had been so
educated. Butalreadyin the De motu,which
formspartof the Juvenilia,Galileo attacked
Aristotle'sexplanationof naturaland violent
motion as well as his concept of absolute
lightand heavy.48Similar criticisms,how-
ever,had alreadybeen made in the Middle
Ages49and, althoughGalileo's critiqueswere
presentedmoresystematically, theywerenot
radicallydifferent fromwhat could be found
earlier. At some point, however, Galileo
learned about the Copernican systemand
when, in 1597, in a letterto Kepler,50
he de-
clared himselfa Copernican,we may con-
clude thatGalileo no longerbelieved in the
fundamentalstructureof the Aristotelian
cosmos.ButGalileo could shiftcosmological
allegiancebecause he had an option.Poten-
tial Galileos in the fourteenthcenturyhad
no such options.Whatevertheirdissatisfac-
tionswithAristoteliancosmology,theyhad
no seriousalternativesand continuedto op-
eratein thetraditionalframework, accepting
as systemicthe various anomalies thathad
emerged.
The firstsignificantand dramaticalter-
native to Aristotle's cosmology was, of
course, the Copernican. The emergenceof
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
425
that incrediblyimportantoption does not
appear to have been directlyor intimately
associated with the scholasticcosmological
tradition.It surelywas not the outcome of
internalcritiqueswithintheAristotelian sys-
temitself.51If anything,it is morelikelythe
productof the new Renaissance currentsof
sixteenth-century Europe. With its appear-
ance in 1543, however,Copernicancosmol-
ogyrepresenteda powerfulalternative to the
Aristotelian.It was a challenge that could
not be ignored.
Aristoteliansnow realized that theyhad
to defend more seriouslythan ever before
theirclaimsfortheearth'scentrality and im-
mobility.52Because there were as yet no
convincingmeans to demonstratethe truth
of the heliocentricsystem, that defense
would have been feasiblewere itnot forthe
more threateninginferences that Tycho
Brahe drew fromthe new starof 1572 and
the cometof 1577 and the equally devastat-
ing consequencesof Galileo's telescopicdis-
coveries,especiallythosethatfollowedfrom
the discoveryof sunspots.
In the cosmological controversiesof the
sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies,some
abandoned Aristoteliancosmologyand be-
came Copernicans. Many of these subse-
quentlyalso adopted thecelestiallocationof
new stars,comets,and sunspots.But many
remainedAristotelians. Theirreactionto the
new challenges was, as we have argued,
varied. Some not only abandoned celestial
incorruptibility and solid spheres,but even
acceptedTycho Brahe's geoheliocentricsys-
tem in which all the planets orbitedaround
the sun and the latter,in turn,moved an-
nually around the earth,which was immo-
bile in the centerof the cosmos.53At least
one scholastic,and perhaps more,assumed
thattheearthwas moreperfectthanthesun,
which impliesan abandonmentof the fun-
damentalAristotelianidea thatthe celestial
regionis more perfectthan the terrestrial.54
Indeed, we even saw thatThomas Whiteas-
sumed thephysicalrealityof theheliocentric
426 EDWARD GRANT
system. Such actions-especially the last
mentioned-by avowed Aristoteliansraises
a significant
question:is a coreofAristotelian
cosmologicalbelief distinguishablewithout
which the appellation "Aristotelian" be-
comes meaningless?or was the Arisotelian
systemso capaciousthatitcould even absorb
majorideas thatwere antitheticalto its own
authenticand well-establishedconcepts?
What has been shown here thus far in-
dicates that Aristoteliancosmology, and
especiallyAristotelian naturalphilosophyas
a whole, was unusuallycapacious through-
out the period of its existence.55
It absorbed
ideas that at firstglance appear subversive
ofthesystemiftheirconsequenceshad been
pursued.56 Such consequences, however,
were eitherundetected or ignored and in
those rare instanceswhere cognizance was
taken of them they were made compatible
withthe system.Thus Aristoteliansseemed
capable oflivingwithseriousanomaliesthat
should have focused attentionon inconsis-
tencieswithinthesystemas a whole. Rather
thandraw damaginginferencesfromanom-
alous conceptsand ideas, theysuccessfully
isolated and compartmentalized them.57
Were thereconcepts,however,which, if
adopted by Aristotelians,would, by their
verynatures,have destroyedthe systemor
emptied the expression "Aristoteliancos-
mology" of significantcontent? I should
want to argue that at least one belongs to
thiscategory,namelytheheliocentric system
itself.To accept the earthas a planet no dif-
ferentfrom any other of the traditional
planets and to have it orbitaround the sun
assumed at restat or near the centerof the
cosmos would have made Aristoteliancos-
mology indistinguishablefromthe Coper-
nican system.Virtuallyall thatmade theAr-
istoteliansystemdistinctivewould vanish,
most notablythe centralityand immobility
of the earth and the sharp distinctionbe-
tweenthecelestialand terrestrial regionsand
withitpresumablythecapacityoftheformer
to cause change in the latter.
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
How thenshall we explainThomasWhite,
who, as we saw earlier,assumed the truth
of the Copenican systemand yetconsidered
himselfan Aristotelian?In reply,it is essen-
tial to understandthatthese are not incom-
patible concepts.Insofaras Whiteaccepted
the heliocentricsystem,we must conclude
that he had effectively abandoned Aristo-
telian cosmology.But he could nonetheless
continueto considerhimselfan Aristotelian
ifhe retainedothersignificant aspectsof Ar-
istoteliannaturalphilosophy.He mighthave
continuedto believe in Aristotle'sprinciples
of biology and perhaps also Aristotle'sex-
planations of change, and so on. Indeed
there were Aristoteliansin the eighteenth
and nineteenthcenturies(for example, in
logic, biology,and metaphysics)who were
undoubtedlyheliocentrists and would hardly
have consideredthemselvesAristoteliansin
cosmology.DuringtheMiddle Ages most,if
not all, were Aristoteliannatural philoso-
phers in the full sense, that is, they sub-
scribedto Aristotle'snaturalphilosophyas
a whole althoughtheymightdisagreewith
particularexplanations.Butas particularas-
pectsofAristotelian naturalphilosophywere
repudiatedand overthrownor simplyaban-
doned, the termAristotelianhas to be more
carefullyspecified.In cosmology,some, as
we saw, rejectedcelestialincorruptibilityand
solid spheres and at least one person also
assumed theaxial rotationoftheearth,58 but
all quite reasonably consideredthemselves
Aristoteliansbecause all retainedbeliefin a
geocentric universe. To my knowledge,
ThomasWhiteis theonlyexception,theonly
one who consideredhimselfan Aristotelian
and embracedtheheliocentric system.As the
sole exception,and forthe reasons already
given,Thomas Whiteshould be considered
an anomaly. AlthoughAristoteliancosmol-
ogy was extraordinarily absorbtiveof seem-
inglyincongruousand even hostileconcepts
and ideas duringthe sixteenthand seven-
tenthcenturies, itwas notso sponge-likethat
it could also absorb the heliocentricsystem.
 MEDIEVAL COSMOLOGY 1200-1687
CONCLUSION
By the seventeenthcentury,Aristotelian
scholasticcosmologycould hardlybe char-
acterizedas "a manysplendoredthing."But
neitherwas it a hopelessly staticand con-
gealed body of medieval doctrine,as it has
so often been depicted. Based on the ex-
amples describedhere,it ought to be more
accuratelycharacterizedas a body of varied
opinion in which there was at least some
genuine effortto incorporateaspects of the
new cosmologyintothe old. Far frombeing
monolithic,scholastic Aristoteliansranged
fromsteadfastdefendersof the status quo
to those who actually came to oppose im-
portantelementsof the Aristoteliansystem
whichtheyreplacedwithnew ideas and ob-
servations derived from their opponents.
And like some of theirmedieval predeces-
sors,a feweven came to view Aristotlewith
a more criticalspirit,in a mannerstrikingly
at variance with Galileo's depictionof the
slavish and dogmatic Simplicio. Melchior
Cornaeus, for example, in his defense of
celestial corruptibilityin 1657, sought to
convincehis readersthat
IfAristotle
werealivetodayand couldsee the
alteration
andconflagrations
thatwenowperceive
in thesun,he would,without doubt,changehis
opinionand join us. Surelythe same couldbe
NOTES
1. Dialogodi GalileoGalileiLinceo. . . soprai due mas-
simi sistemidel mondo Tolemaico,e Copernicano
(Florence,1632); reprintedin the National Edition:
Le operedi Galileo Galilei,ed. AntonioFavaro, 20
vols. (Florence,1890-1909), vol. 7.
2. Nicholas Copernicus,De revolutionibus orbiumcoe-
lestium(Nuremberg,1543).
3. As used here,theterm"scholasticAristotelian"ap-
plies largelyto Catholic theologianswho, for the
mostpart,acceptedAristotle's philosophyof nature
and cosmologyand consideredthemselvesAristo-
telians. For furtherdiscussion and reasons for
avoiding a definitionof "Aristotelian"or "Aristo-
telianism,"see Edward Grant,"In Defense of the
Earth's Centralityand Immobility:Scholastic Re-
action to Copernicanismin the SeventeenthCen-
tury,"TransactionsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSo-
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
427
saidabouttheplanets,ofwhichthePhilosopher
knew no more than seven. But in our time,
through theworksof thetelescope,whichwas
lackingtohim,we knowforan absolutecertainty
thattherearemore.59
While payingtributeto Aristotle'sscientific
objectivitywhichwould have promptedhim
to accept new and well-attesteddiscoveries,
Cornaeus also reveals a diminishedconfi-
dence in Aristotle's cosmology. Indeed
FranciscusBonae Spei would declarethat"in
thebooks on De caelo,[Aristotle]
erredmany
times.-60
During the seventeenthcentury,many
compromiseswere made. Bitsand pieces of
Aristoteliancosmologywerereplacedby bits
and pieces of the new cosmology.6'Strange
cosmological mosaics were produced none
of which could win widespread support.It
was trulya periodof transition.One system
was passing away, another coming into
being. To comprehend the momentous
changes that occurred in the seventeenth
century,it is essential to study the fate of
the old cosmologyas well as the new. Only
then will we have a comprehensivepicture
of the cosmos as it was understoodin the
seventeenthcentury.Perhaps thenwe may
learn,among otherthings,why Aristotelian
cosmologycoexistedwithits Copernicanri-
val forsome 144 yearsbeforeit succumbed.
ciety,74, part 4 (1984), 3-4. AlthoughI shall not
offera formaldefinitionof "Aristotelian"or "Ar-
istotelianism,"I shall attemptbelow to considercri-
teriaforbeing an Aristotelianin cosmology.
4. PhilosophiaeNaturalisPrincipiaMathematica(Lon-
don, 1687).
5. Two possible exceptions are unpublished Ph.D.
dissertationsat CambridgeUniversityby Christine
Jones,"The GeoheliocentricPlanetarySystem:Its
Development and Influencein the Late Sixteenth
and SeventeenthCenturies"(1964) and WilliamH.
Donahue, "The Dissolutionof the CelestialSpheres
1595-1650" (1972). Although neither of these
works was intendedas a studyof scholasticAris-
toteliancosmologicalideas in theseventeenthcen-
tury,both containmuch usefulinformation about
scholastic attitudes toward certain cosmological
428 EDWARD GRANT
concepts,namelythescholasticAristotelian reaction
to Tycho Brahe's geoheliocenticsystemand to the
existenceand natureof thecelestialspheres.In both
works, however, only the basic conclusions of
scholasticargumentsare presented;detailsare usu-
ally omitted.
6. JamesR. Moore, The Post-DarwinianControversies:
A StudyoftheProtestant Struggleto Cometo Terms
withDarwinin GreatBritainandAmerica1870-1900
(Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1979),
114. See also Grant, "In Defense of the Earth's
Centralityand Immobility,"65.
7. Therewereofcourseexceptions,a notableone being
Otto von Guericke,who citednumerousscholastic
authors, including Leonard Lessius, Athanasius
Kircher,and especially the Aristoteliancommen-
tariesof the Coimbra Jesuits(see his Experimenta
nova [ut vocantur]Magdeburgicade vacuo spatio
[Amsterdam,1672; reprintedin facsimileAalen:
Otto Zeller,1962], 51-52, 61-65).
8. See StillmanDrake, Galileo at Work:His Scientific
Biography(Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press,
1978), 180, 489, n. 4; 264-273; also Drake,Discov-
eries and Opinionsof Galileo (Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday & Co., 1957), 81-82. In his attackon
Christopher Scheiner,Galileo also used a surrogate,
Mario Guiducci (see Drake, Galileo at Work,267-
268).
9. Galileo: Dialogue Concerningthe Two ChiefWorld
Systems,translatedwithrevisednotes by Stillman
Drake (Berkeley:Universityof California Press,
1962), 336. AlthoughSimplicioimmediatelyadds
that "if I have been in errorI shall be glad to be
liftedout of it," thereis no evidence that he was
so lifted.
10. Ibid., 379.
11. There were numerous disagreements,as for ex-
ample, whethereccentricsand epicycleswere real
or meregeometricconveniences;whether,if other
worlds existed,more than one centercould exist;
whetherthe world was in a place; whethermatter
existedin theheavens,and so on. On all such issues,
therewereat leasttwo opinions.Butsuch "internal"
disagreementsdid not produce opposition to the
systemas a whole and lead natural philosophers
to devise a new system.Indeed in some of the dis-
putes,each side claimedto be thefaithful interpreter
of Aristotle.
12. Althoughapproximatelytwo-thirdsof Plato's Ti-
maeuswas availablein Chalcidius'sLatintranslation
duringthe Middle Ages, it posed no seriousthreat
because most of Plato's otherworks were absent.
Indeed Aristotle'scosmology had already con-
fronted-and displaced-Plato's Timaeus,which
was the basic cosmologicaltextforscholarsin the
earlyMiddle Ages priorto the introductionof Ar-
istotle's physical works in the twelfthand early
thirteenth centuries.
13. AlthoughI am unaware of any single list of Re-
naissance translationsfromGreek to Latin, R. R.
Bolgarhas presenteda listof "Greek Manuscripts
in ItalyDuringtheFifteenth Century"(R. R. Bolgar,
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Classical Heritageand Its Beneficiaries [Cam-
bridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1954], 455-
505) and also organizeda tableofvernaculartrans-
lationsof Greekand Romanclassicalauthorsbefore
1600 (506-541). Not onlydid Renaissancehuman-
ists retranslatemany works previouslytranslated
in the Middle Ages, but theirmore noteworthy
contributions,according to Paul Kristeller(The
Classicsand RenaissanceThought,MartinClassical
Lectures,vol. 15 [PublishedforOberlinCollege by
Harvard UniversityPress, 1955], 16-17), lay "in
thosenumerouscases wheretheytranslatedworks
of Greekantiquityforthe firsttime.The catalogue
of these translationscannot yet be given in the
presentstateof our knowledge,but it appears cer-
tain thatthe body of newly translatedmaterialin-
cludes practicallyall of Greek poetry,historiogra-
phy,and oratory,much of Greekpatristictheology
and of non-Aristotelian philosophy,and even some
additionalwritingson the sciencesof mathematics
and medicine.The authors,all or most of whose
writingsthus became known to Westernreaders,
include Homer and Sophocles, Herodotus and
Thucydides, Xenophon, Isocrates, Demosthenes,
Plutarchand Lucian,Epicurus,Sextusand Plotinus,
to mentiononly a few writersof obvious meritor
influence.Again, dividingthe line between works
translatedin the Middle Ages and firsttranslated
duringtheRenaissanceoftenseparatestheindivid-
ual writingsof the same author,as is the case with
Plato,Hippocrates,Galen, and Ptolemy,withmany
Aristotelian commentators and patristic theologians,
and even withAristotle."
14. See De placitisphilosophorum, bk. 3, ch. 13, falsely
ascribed to Plutarchbut which was regularlyin-
cludedin theeleventhvolumeof Plutarch'sMoralia;
and see also Plutarch'sConcerning theFace Which
Appearsin theOrboftheMoon(De faciequae in orbe
lunae apparet),p. 55 of Harold Chemiss's transla-
tion:Plutarch'sMoraliawithan Englishtranslation
by Harold Chernissand WilliamC. Helmbold,vol.
12, 920A-999B (Loeb Classical Library;London:
WilliamHeinemann Ltd; Cambridge,Mass.: Har-
vard UniversityPress, 1957).
15. Tycho's firstpublicationon the New Star of 1572
was the De nova et nulliusaevi memoriaprius vis
stella. . . (Copenhagen, 1573). His mostimportant
discussionof itappeared muchlaterin Astronomiae
instauratae progymnasmata. . . (Prague,1602). The
latterwas the main source for subsequent sum-
mariesand descriptionsin theseventeenthcentury.
Tycho'saccountofthecometof 1577 did notappear
until 1588 (shortlyafterthe comet disappeared in
1578, Tycho wrotea Germanversionthatwas not
published until 1922), when he published the De
mundiaethereirecentioribus phaenomenis. . . (Ur-
aniborg). See C. Doris Hellman, "Brahe, Tycho,"
Dictionary ofScientific
Biography, 2 (1970), 414; also
402-403 (on the New Star) and 406-409 (on the
cometof 1577 and latercomets).In thetenthchapter
of the De mundiaetherei,Tycho summarizedthe
opinionsofcontemporary astronomers on thecomet
 MEDIEVALCOSMOLOGY 1200-1687
of 1577 and thusprovidedvaluable historicaldata
on thatnotablecelestialevent(see C. DorisHellman,
The Cometof1577:Its Place in theHistoryofAstron-
omy[New York:Columbia UniversityPress, 1944],
120-121.
16. Hellman,"Brahe,"Dictionary ofScientificBiography,
2 (1970), 408.
17. See Drake, Discoveriesand OpinionsofGalileo,82-
83. The EnglishmanThomas Harriotseems also to
have observedsunspotsat about the same time.
18. One such was JuanHidalgo,an Augustinianhermit,
who, in a twovolumetreatiseon naturalphilosophy
based on the thoughtof Giles of Rome (Aegidius
Romanus,ca. 1247-1316) and publishedin 1736-
1737 (Cursusphilosophicus ad mentem B. AegidiiCol.
Rom. . . authoreR.P.M.Fr.JoanneHidalgoAstigiensi
. . .[Cordova]), makes no mentionof modernau-
thorslikeGalileo,Copernicus,TychoBrahe,Kepler,
etc. Instead he followsAquinas rathercloselyand
citesquite a few of the major scholasticauthorsof
the seventeenthcentury.Hidalgo seems caughtin
a thirteenth-century timewarp.
19. On White,see mystudy"In Defense of theEarth's
Centralityand Immobility,"8-9.
20. The presentsectionon celestialincorruptibility is a
highlyabbreviatedversionof a paper thatwas de-
liveredat an international workshopin Israel("The
Interrelationsbetween Physics, Cosmology and
Astronomy: TheirTensionand Its Resolution1300-
1700," April 29-2 May 1984) and which will be
publishedin the proceedingsof the workshop.
21. See Aristotle,De caelo,bk. 1, ch. 3.
22. Ibid. 1.3.270b. 13-17.
23. Aristotle, Meteorologica 1.3.341a. 33-35 and
1.4.342a. 30-33.
24. In his thirteenth-century Hexaemeron, RobertGros-
setestealready posed the questions that Galileo's
telescopicdiscoverieswould raise when he asked:
"how is it known thatthereare not more planets,
invisibleto us butnevertheless usefuland necessary
forgenerationin the lower world?For the philos-
opherssay thatthe MilkyWay is made up of very
small fixedstars,invisibleto us. Therefore,how
can it be known, except by divine revelation,
whetherthereare notmorestarsofthissortinvisible
to us." Translatedby RichardC. Dales, "The De-
Animationof the Heavens in the Middle Ages,"
JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas 41 (1980), 541.
25. Drake, Discoveriesand OpinionsofGalileo,83.
26. "Nonnullienim,licetpauci,putaverunt, eam stellam
novam non fuisse,sed unam ex antiquis illis tre-
decimquae semperin Cassiopeia ab astronomissunt
observatae;visam autem tuncesse maioremsolito
propterexhalationemin supremaaerisregioneinter
ipsam et nostrumaspectum interiectam."Christo-
phori Clavii Bambergensisex Societate Iesu in
SphaeramIohannisde SacroBoscoCommentarius (4th
ed.; Lyon, 1593), 208. BartholomewAmicus mis-
takenlyattributedthis opinion to Clavius himself
and added that the interposedexhalationsmade
the starvisible "just as a coin placed in waterap-
pears greaterbecause of refraction."See Amicus,
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
429
In AristotelislibrosDe caelo et mundodilucidatextus
explicatioet disputationes in quibus illustrium scho-
larumAverrois, D. Thomae,Scoti,etNominaliumsen-
tentiaeexpenduntur earumquetuendarumprobabil-
ioresmodiafferuntur (Naples, 1626), 246, col. 1. In
fact,Clavius refutesthisopinion (ibid., 210).
27. BartholomewAmicus,De caelo,244, col. 2 and 245,
col. 2.
28. "Itaque ut breviterquod sentio,dicam,censeo stel-
lam illamquaecunque illa fueritin Firmamentoubi
stellae fixae sunt extitisse."Clavius, In Sphaeram
Iohannisde SacroBoscoCommentarius, 210.
29. "Dicendum enim fortasseerit caelum non esse
quintamquandam essentiamsed mutabilecorpus,
licet minus corruptiblesit quam corpora haec in-
feriora."Ibid., 211.
30. Ibid.
31. Raphael Aversa, Philosophiametaphysicam physic-
amque complectensquaestionibuscontexta(2 vols.;
Rome: Apud lacobum Mascardum,1625, 1627), 2,
9 1-100 (forargumentsproand con withan ultimate
resolutionin favorofthesublunarnatureofcomets),
85-86 (forthecelestialnatureofnew stars).Aversa's
opinion was rathersimilarto thatof Galileo, who
acceptedthe realityof celestialchangesbut did not
declare in favorof the celestialnature of comets.
In his Discourseon Cometsof 1619 (although the
workappeared underthe name of Mario Guiducci,
Galileo was unquestionablyitsauthor;see TheCon-
troversy on theCometsof1618:GalileoGalilei,Horatio
Grassi,Mario Guiducci,JohannKepler,tr. Stillman
Drake and C. D. O'Malley [Philadelphia:University
of PennsylvaniaPress, 1960], xvi-xvii)Galileo ar-
gued that astronomershad not yet demonstrated
thatcometswerereal bodies ratherthanreflections
fromvapors and therefore theywerein no position
to argue fromparallax that comets were celestial
(The Controversy on Comets,36-39; also Drake,Gal-
ileo at Work,271). He seems notto have abandoned
his skepticismin the Dialogue Concerning the Two
ChiefWorldSystems, wherehis spokesmanSalviati,
afterfirstassertingthat"excellentastronomers have
observedmanycometsgeneratedand dissipatedin
places above the lunar orbit,besides the two new
stars of 1572 and 1604, which were indisputably
beyond all the planets" (Drake tr.,51), goes on to
explain (ibid., 52) that:
"As far as the comets are concernedI, formy
part,care littlewhethertheyare generatedbelow
or above the moon, nor have I ever set much store
by Tycho's verbosity.Neitherdo I feel any reluc-
tance to believe thattheirmatteris elemental,and
thattheymay rise as theyplease withoutencoun-
teringany obstacle fromthe impenetrability of the
Peripateticheavens, which I hold to be more ten-
uous, yielding,and subtle than our air. And as to
thecalculationofparallaxes,in thefirst place I doubt
whethercometsare subjectto parallax;besides the
inconstancyof the observationsupon which they
have been computedrendersme equallysuspicious
of both his opinionsand his adversary's..
In this passage, Galileo seems to believe that
430 EDWARD GRANT
cometsare formedfromvaporsof terrestrial origin,
which could however rise into the heavens, since
thelatterweresufficiently tenuousto be penetrated.
But he does not assume thattheyactuallyriseinto
the heavens because he (1) doubts whetherthey
are subject to parallax,presumablybecause, as in
the Discourseon Comets,he was stillunconvinced
thattheywere real bodies, and (2) because even if
theywere subjectto parallax,the computationsof
parallaxesis unreliable.Exceptforthe assumption
of a tenuous and permeable heaven and the pos-
sibilitythatthe constituentvapors of cometsmight
rise into the heaven, Galileo's opinions were not
uncommonamong scholastics,who also took ad-
vantage of the uncertaintiesof parallax measure-
mentsand who also believed, with Aristotle,that
cometswere formedfromsublunarvapors.
32. Aversa,ibid., 89, col. 2-90, col. 1.
33. Aversa's shiftfromrare and dense to transparent
and cpaque was seeminglypromptedby his belief
in thesolidityofthecelestialspheresand by a com-
parison of crystaland wood. Although crystalis
quitedenseitis notopaque buttransparent, whereas
wood, which is more opaque than crystal,is less
dense. The transparencyof the heaven is thus a
resultof its greatdensityand not of its rarity.For
Aversa,then,the traditionalopinion thatstarsare
denserportionsof celestialetherwhichare capable
ofreflecting lightand becomingvisibleis untenable.
In termsof the analogybetweencrystaland wood,
the opposites dense and rare cannot explain the
appearance of planets and stars as dense clusters
ofetherand thetransparency ofthecelestialspheres
as the rarerparts of the heavens. By substituting
transparentand opaque, however, Aversa asso-
ciatedthe formerwiththeinvisiblecelestialspheres
and the latterwiththe visibleplanets and stars.
34. Almagestum novumastronomiam veteremnovamque
complectens observationibus aliorumet propriisno-
visque theorematibus, problematibus ac tabulispro-
motam;intrestomosdistributam. . . (Bologna,1651),
pars posterior,238, col. 1. Only the firstvolume,in
two parts,appeared. For Melchior Cornaeus, see
Curriculum philosophiae peripateticae, utihoctempore
in scholisdecurri solet. . . auctoreMelchioreCornaeo,
Soc. Iesu, SS. Theologiaedoctoreeiusdemquein alma
universitate Herbipolensi professore ordinario(Wiirz-
burg, 1657), 489; forGeorge de Rhodes, see R. P.
Georgiide Rhodes Avenionensis,e SocietatisIesu,
Philosophiaperipatetica ad veramAristotelis mentem
librisquatuordigestaet disputata. . . (Lyon, 1671),
278-81.
35. Ibid., 239, col. 1.
36. Ibid., 233, col. 2; 236, cols. 1-2.
37. In his Astronomiae InstaurataeMechanicaof 1598,
Tycho declared that the "whole heaven is most
transparentand fluidand is not filledwith hard
and real orbs" ("totum caelum limpidissimumet
liquidissimumesse, nullisqueduriset realibusorb-
ibus refertum").The Mechanicahas been reprinted
in the moderneditionof Tycho's works. See Ty-
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
chonisBraheDani Opera omnia,J.L. E. Dreyer,ed.,
15 vols. (Copenhagen,1913-1929), 5: 117. Forsome
yearsbeforehe wrotethe lines citedabove, Tycho
had denied the existenceof solid spheres in both
publishedworksand in correspondence. See Opera,
3 (Progymnasmata; althoughpublishedin 1602,most
of it was writtenlong before):78, 90-91, 111, 151;
4 (De mundiaethereirecentioribus phaenomenis): 159,
222ff;6 (correspondencewithRothmann):88, 140,
148, 187; 7 (generalcorrespondence):130, 163, 229,
260, 267, 293); 8: 45, 206, 208. For the references
to Tycho's works,I am gratefulto my colleague,
VictorE. Thoren.Donahue (DissolutionoftheCeles-
tial Spheres,63) explains that Tycho had already
"read and substantially agreedwithCardan's comet
theory[whichlocatedcometsin thecelestialregion],
and he also commentsfavourablyupon the idea,
whichhe attributesto Paracelsus,thatthe heavens
are filledwithfire.At theveryleast,thisshows that
his investigationof the parallax of the 1577 comet
was inspiredby a philosophicalviewpointwhich
was not in the Aristotelianmainstream." The
bracketedphraseis mine.A contrasting hypothesis
fitsthe situationjust as well. Having discovereda
parallaxthatwould place the cometof 1577 above
themoon,Tychothensoughtsupportforwhatwas
stilla daringopinion in the sixteenthcentury.
38. See Roderigo de Arriaga, Cursus philosophicus
(Antwerp,1632), 503, col. 1; FranciscusBonae Spei,
Commentarii tres in universamAristotelisphiloso-
phiam:commentarius tertiusin librosDe coelo, De
generatione etcorruptione,De anima,etMetaphysicam
Aristotelis (Brussels,1652), 13, col. 2-14, col. 1; and
Franciscusde Oviedo, Integercursusphilosophicus
ad unumredactus,in Summulas,Logicam,Physicam,
De caelo,De generatione, De anima,etMetaphysicam
distributus (2 vols.; Lyon,1640), vol. 1, 468, col. 2-
469, col. 1.
39. We have already seen this since Riccioliassumed
that the sphere of the fixedstars was congealed
waterand the restof the heaven was a fieryfluid.
40. Fora briefdiscussionand references, see Grant,"In
Defense of the Earth'sCentralityand Immobility,"
13.
41. Only a skeletalsummaryis givenhereof a detailed
discussion in Grant, "In Defense of the Earth's
Centralityand Immobility,"22-31. Aristotlehad
argued (Meterologica2.2.354b. 23ff.)thatthe four
elements were arranged concentricallyfrom the
centeroutwardto the concave surfaceof the lunar
sphere in the order:earth,water,air, and fire.He
was, however,aware thatthisschemewas notfully
realizedin naturebecause dryland extendedabove
the waters and firecould be seen on the earth's
surface.
42. In the fourteenthcentury,JohnBuridanprovided
an accuratedescriptionof the terraqueoussphere
only to rejectit. See IohannisBuridaniQuaestiones
superlibrisquattuorDe caelo et mundo,ed. Ernest
A. Moody (Cambridge,Mass.: Mediaeval Academy
of America,1942), 157. For a translationof therel-
 MEDIEVAL COSMOLOGY 1200-1687
evant passage, see Edward Grant,A SourceBookin
MedievalScience(Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUni-
versityPress, 1974), 622.
43. Nicholas CopernicusOn the Revolutions,ed. Jerzy
Dobrycki,translationand commentaryby Edward
Rosen (Baltimore:The JohnsHopkins University
Press,1978),bk. 1,ch. 3 ("How EarthFormsa Single
Sphere withWater"),9.
44. For Clavius's discussion, see Christophori Clavii
Bambergensis ex SocietateIesu in Sphaeramlohannis
de SacroBoscoCommentarius (4th ed.; Lyon, 1593),
133-51 ("whetherearthand waterformone globe
* . ."). Judging by thebibliographyin Carlos Som-
mervogel,S. J.,Bibliothe'que de la CompagniedeJesus
(12 vols.; Brussels/Paris,1890-1911), vol. 2, cols.
1212-1213, Clavius's Commentary on theSphereof
Sacroboscowent throughat least fiveeditionsand
fourteenprintings.
45. See Edward Grant,Much Ado AboutNothing:The-
oriesofSpace and VacuumfromtheMiddleAges to
the ScientificRevolution(Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress, 1981), 116-144 (formedieval ar-
guments)and 152-181 (for sixteenthand seven-
teenth century scholastics, among whom were
FranciscoSuarez and BartholomewAmicus).
46. During the Middle Ages, many accepted the real
existenceof eccentricand/or epicyclicspheres(for
example,see Pierred'Ailly's 14 Quaestiones[i.e. 14
Questionson the Sphereof Sacrobosco]in Spherae
TractatusIoannisDe SacroBustoAngliciviriclariss.;
GerardiCremonensis Theoricaeplanetarum;. . . Al-
petragiiArabiTheoricaplanetarumnuperrime latinis
mandataliterisa Calo CalonymousHebreoNeopoli-
tano,ubi nititursalvareapparentiasin motibuspla-
netarum absqueeccentriciset epicyclis(Venice,1531),
question 13 ("whether,in order to save the ap-
pearances, it is necessaryto assume eccentricand
epicycliccircles"),fols.163v-164v.Forseventeenth-
centurydefenses of eccentricsand epicycles,see
Clavius, In SphaeramIohannisde SacroBoscoCom-
mentarius(Lyon, 1593), 499-525 ("By what ap-
pearanceshave eccentricsand epicyclesbeen found
in the heavens by astronomers")and Bartholomew
Amicus,De caelo,265, col. 1-270, col. 2 ("whether
eccentricsand epicyclesmustbe assumed").
47. For the identificationof celestial and terrestrial 56. Some have already been mentioned,forexample,
matterby AegidiusRomanusand WilliamOckham,
see Edward Grant,"Celestial Matter:A Medieval
and Galilean Cosmological Problem," Journalof
Medieval and RenaissanceStudies,13, nr. 2 (1983),
165-172. Although conceived ratherdifferently, 57. Thatscholasticsrarelydrewpotentiallydevastating
FranciscusBonae Spei, and others,made the same
identification in the seventeenthcentury(see Fran-
ciscus Bonae Spei, Commentarii tresin universam
Aristotelis philosophiam: commentarius 9, col.
tertius,
2-10, col. 1.
48. A summaryof theseargumentsappears in Edward
Grant,"Bradwardineand Galileo: Equalityof Ve-
locitiesin the Void," ArchiveforHistoryof Exact
Sciences,2, nr. 4 (1965), 355-364.
49. Forexample,thefollowingdeparturesfromAristotle
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
431
were proposed: (1) thatit was not absurd thatun-
equal but homogeneous bodies would fall with
equal speeds in a vacuum(see Grant,"Bradwardine
and Galileo," 344-355; (2) thatbodies are moved
violentlyby impressedforces(or impetus) rather
thanby air(see MarshallClagett,TheScienceofMe-
chanicsin theMiddleAges[Madison,Wis.:University
of WisconsinPress, 1959], chs. 8, 9, 505-582); and
(3) thatheavy and lightbodies, and the places as-
sociatedwiththem,are relative(see NicoleOresme:
Le Livredu ciel et du monde,edited by AlbertD.
Menut and AlexanderJ.Denomy; translatedwith
an introduction by AlbertD. Menut(Madison,Wis.:
Universityof WisconsinPress, 1968), 71, 173.
50. See Le operedi GalileoGalilei,10: 68.
51. No plausible evidencehas yetappeared to suggest
that fourteenth-century discussionsof the earth's
possible axial rotationby JohnBuridanand Nicole
Oresme had any influenceon Copernicus(forthe
texts,see Clagett,The ScienceofMechanicsin the
MiddleAges,583-609 and Grant,A SourceBookin
MedievalScience,500-510).
52. The argumentsare describedin Grant,"In Defense
of the Earth'sCentralityand Immobility."
53. See Jones,"The Geoheliocentric PlanetarySystem,"
286.
54. See Riccioli,Almagestum novum,pars posterior, 469,
col. 1. Because mostscholasticsin the seventeenth
centurybelieved that animate beings, however
lowly (thus includingeven wasps and flies),were
noblerthantheinanimateplanetsand stars,Riccioli
inferredthat the earth on which they lived must
also be noblerthan the sun, which was oftencon-
sideredthe noblestplanet.I have treatedthisissue
at lengthin a forthcoming article,("Celestial Per-
fectionFrom the Middle Ages to the Late Seven-
teenthCentury")that will appear in a festschrift
volume (Cambridge UniversityPress) edited by
MargaretJ.Oslerand Paul L. Farber;see also Grant,
"In Defense of the Earth's Centralityand Immo-
bility,"59.
55. I have describedthecapaciousnessofearlymodern
Aristotelianism in my article,"Aristotelianism and
theLongevityoftheMedievalWorldView," History
ofScience,16 (1978), especially100-101.
the realityof eccentricand epicyclicspheres,im-
petus theory,the identification of celestialand ter-
restrialmatter,and the existenceof an infiniteex-
tracosmicvoid space.
consequencesfromtheirsometimesinnovativeideas
is perhapsattributable to thenatureofthequestiones
formof scholasticliterature, whichemphasizedthe
independentquestion and effectively "prevented
any largersynthesisthatmighthave forceda major
overhaul or reconstitution of Aristoteliancosmol-
ogy." This "atomization of Aristotle'sphysical
treatisesresultedin an intellectualflotsamand jet-
sam ofunrelatedquestionswhichactuallyconcealed
grave inconsistenciesand discrepancies" (Grant,
432 EDWARD GRANT
and the Longevityof the Medieval
"Aristotelianism
WorldView," 98-99).
58. See AndreasCesalpino,Peripateticarum quaestionum
libri quinque (Venice: apud luntas, 1571), bk. 3,
question 4, fols. 53r-59v; and for a summaryof
Cesalpino's arguments,Grant,"In Defense of the
Earth'sCentralityand Immobility,"6-8.
59. "Si Aristoteleshodie viveretet quas modo nos in
sole alterationem etconflagrationes deprehendimus,
videret,absque dubio mutata sententianobiscum
faceret.Idem sane est de planeteis,quos Philoso-
phus septenispluresnon agnoscit.At nos hoc tem-
pore opera telescopii(quo ille caruit)pluresomnino
esse certoscimus." Comaeus, Curriculumphiloso-
phiae peripateticae,503. Through his spokesman,
Salviati, Galileo had earliersaid much the same
thing:"I declare thatwe do have in our age new
eventsand observationssuch thatifAristotlewere
now alive, I have no doubt he would change his
opinion" (Dialogue Concerning theTwo ChiefWorld
Systems, Drake tr.,50).
60. "Respondeo authoritatem Aristotelis non ita attendi
quia in librisDe coelo pluries erravit."Franciscus
Bonae Spei, Commentarii tresin universam Aristotelis
philosophiam: commentarius tertius,14, col. 2.
This content downloaded from 193.255.88.62 on Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:09:59 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
61. Occasionally, the process worked the other way,
with a nonscholasticscientificauthorretainingan
importantpiece of Aristoteliancosmology. Thus
Otto von Guericke,a confirmedCopernican (Ex-
perimentanova, 218, col. 1, where he says: "Ergo
CopernicanumSystema est verum et alteriprae-
ferendum")insistedthat the planets moved with
perfectregularityand thereforedid not varytheir
distancesfromthe earth.As he explainedit (ibid.,
166, col. 1):
"Indeed it is truethatwe see the sun and, other
thingsbeingequal, themoon now greaterand now
smaller.Butthisis notbecause of an approach and
withdrawalof thesebodies toward[and away from]
the earth,but [because of] air, which, on account
of its diversehigheror wetterconstitution, or be-
cause of itsgreateror lesserdepth,causes different
appearances."
By his beliefin perfectcircularmotionsforthe
planetsand denialofanyvariationin theirdistances,
Von Guericke,thougha Copernican,retainedone
of the mostbasic of Aristotle'scosmologicaltenets.
In this sense, he seems a purerAristotelianthan
medieval and contemporaryscholastics,veryfew
of whom would have denied the real variationof
planetarydistances.