Abstract
Prior to the introduction of Aristotle’s physical works into the Latin West during the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, the idea of celestial incorruptibility was probably a minority opinion. It was not uncommon for scholars in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages to assume that the heavens were composed of one or more of the four elements. Since the elements were thought of as changeable entities, those who held that the whole world, including the heavens, was composed of one or more of them were committed, implicitly or explicitly, to the idea of a changeable or corruptible heaven.1 The introduction of Latin translations of Aristotle’s works during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries radically altered this tradition. A vital ingredient of Aristotle’s ‘new’ cosmology was the belief in celestial incorruptibility.
I am grateful to the Program in History and Philosophy of Science of the National Science Foundation for its generous support of my research on medieval cosmology of which this article forms a part.
Because this article considers medieval scholastic thought from the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries, I have chosen a termination date of 1687 for dramatic effect. As the date of publication of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, it marks the effective end of medieval cosmology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Two who were explicit in their assumption of celestial corruptibility were John Philoponus, the sixth century Greek Neoplatonic commentator on the works of Aristotle, and John Damascene. For selections on celestial corruptibility drawn from the works of Philoponus, see Walter Böhm, (ed. and tr.), Johannes Philoponos Grammatikos von Alexandrien [6. Jh. n. Chr.] (Munich: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 1967), pp. 326–27, 329–31. Although the works of Philoponus, from which Böhm drew his selections, were unknown in the Middle Ages, some of the relevant passages had been quoted by his contemporary, Simplicius, who included them in his Greek commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo, which was translated into Latin by William of Moerbeke in 1271. For a brief discussion, see S. Sambursky, The Physical World of Late Antiquity (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1962), pp. 158–166, especially p. 164. John Damascene assumed the corruptibility of the heavens when he declared that ‘it is evident that the sun, moon, and stars are composite, and by their very nature subject to corruption.’ The passage is from Damascene’s De fide orthodoxa as translated in Saint John of Damascus, Writings, (tr.) Frederic H. Chase, Jr. in The Fathers of the Church, A New Translation (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1958), bk. 2, p. 221. For much the same reason, St. Augustine probably believed in celestial corruptibility, and perhaps also St. Basil. But they were not explicit.
Aristotle, De caelo 1.3.270a. 13–24.
On the different interpretations of celestial matter, see my article ‘Celestial Matter: a Medieval and Galilean Cosmological Problem,’ Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 13 (1983), pp. 157–186.
One of the few who denied that the whole heaven was composed of a fifth element, or ether, was Robert Grosseteste, who, in his De generatione stellarum, argued that the stars were composed of the four elements and were therefore corruptible. The heaven was therefore at least partially, if not wholly, corruptible. See Ludwig Baur, (ed.), Die philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von Lincoln, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Vol. 9 (Münster, 1912), p. 33, pp. 35–36. I am grateful to Dr. Peter Sobol for bringing this treatise to my attention.
In their defenses of celestial incorruptibility, both John Buridan and Galileo concede God’s power to destroy the world. For Buridan, see Iohannis Buridani Quaestiones super libris quattuor De caelo et mundo, (ed.), Ernest A. Moody (Cambridge, Mass.: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1942), bk. 1, question 10 (‘Whether the heaven is generable, corruptible, augmentable, diminishable, and alterable’), p. 46; for Galileo, see Galileo’s Early Notebooks: The Physical Questions. A translation from the Latin, with Historical and Paleographical Commentary, (tr.), William A. Wallace (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), p. 101. William Ockham insisted that because God could destroy the heaven if He wished, the incorruptibility of the celestial region was not absolute. Indeed it was potentially corruptible. For the references and further discussion, see Grant, ‘Celestial Matter,’ pp. 171–172. The passage from Galileo cited above was intended as a rejection of Ockham’s position, which is described by Galileo on p. 94, 6b (Ockham is not mentioned).
See Buridan, Quaestiones super libris quattuor De caelo, p. 46. By adopting a strict Aristotelian interpretation of matter, Buridan was led to deny the existence of matter in the heavens. Thus he stood in opposition to Thomas Aquinas, who assumed a celestial matter that was radically different from its terrestrial counterpart, and Aegidius Romanus (Giles of Rome), who argued that celestial and terrestrial matter were identical. Despite these radically different interpretations of the celestial ether, all believed in celestial incorruptibility. For an exposition and analysis of these different views, see Grant, ‘Celestial Matter.’
See Buridan, Quaestiones super libris quattuor De caelo, pp. 46–47.
Both Albert of Saxony and Galileo adopted the same interpretation as Buridan. For Albert, see his Questions on De caelo, bk. 1, question 17 (quaestio ultima), in Questiones et decisiones physicales insignium virorum: Alberti de Saxonia in octo libros Physicorum; tres libros De celo et mundo; duos lib. De generatione et corruptione; Thimonis in quatuor libros Meteororum; Buridani in tres lib. De anima; lib. De sensu et sensato … Aristotelis. Recognitae rursus et emendatae summa accuratione et iudicio Magistri Georgii Lokert Scotia quo sunt Tractatus proportionum additi (Paris, 1518), fol. 102r, col. 1; for Galileo, see Wallace, (tr.), Galileo’s Early Notebooks, p. 100.
Ioannis de Ianduno in libros Aristotelis De coelo et mundo quae extant quaestiones subtilissimae: quibus nuper consulto adiecimus Averrois sermonem De substantia orbis cum eiusdem Ioannis commentario ac quaestionibus … (Venice: apud Iuntas, 1552), bk. 1, question 17 (‘Whether the heaven is alterable’), fols. 12r, col. 2 — 12v, col. 2.
Buridan flatly denied that internal alterations could occur within a planet, although he allowed that its zodiacal location might play a role in the planet’s influence. As he explained it, ‘a hot planet seems of greater power if it is in a hot sign than if it were in a cold sign because the sign and the planet can [then] simultaneously influence heating and thus a great hotness arises here below. But if the hot planet is in a cold sign, the influence of the sign prevents the influence of the planet from acting because the sign acts in a way contrary [to the planet]; [under these circumstances] the planet appears to possess little power.’ Buridan, Quaestiones super libris quattuor De caelo, p. 46 for the astrologers’ claim and p. 48 for Buridan’s reply.
De caelo, 1.3.270b.13–17.
De caelo, p. 46.
See Aristotle, Meteorologica 1.4.342a.30–33; also 1.3.341a.33–35.
See William H. Donahue, The Dissolution of the Celestial Spheres 1595–1650 (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1972; reprint New York, Arno Press, 1981), pp. 51, 52.
See Donahue, The Dissolution of the Celestial Spheres 1595–1650 and numerous other references on the problem of celestial incorruptibility scattered throughout the dissertation.
Because of its importance, I quote the relevant part of the third opinion: ‘Tertia opinio est dicentium utramque opinionem esse probabilem quia utriusque partis rationes solvi possunt. Unde etiam putant utramque opinionem salva fide ac sine erroris periculo, ac temeritatis ulliusque gravioris censure nota defendi posse, ut patet ex Doctoribus, qui de re tractant inter quos nemo alterius partis opinionem damnat ut censura dignam. Nam licet aliqui ex patribus dicant coelos natura sua esse corruptibiles, tarnen non significant pertinere ad fidem, nec illam deducunt ex principiis fidei, sed ex principiis philosophiae Platonicae …’ Amicus, In Aristotelis libros De caelo et mundo dilucida textus explicatio et disputationes in quibus illustrium scholarum Averrois, D. Thomae, Scoti, et Nominalium sententiae expenduntur earumque tuendarum probabiliores modi afferuntur (Naples, 1626), p. 232, col. 2.
In their commentary on De caelo, the Coimbra Jesuits declared that ‘by common consent, almost all the Peripatetic Schools’ (tota fere Peripatetica schola communi assensu) supported the incorruptibility of the heavens (Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Iesu: In quatuor libros De coelo Aristotelis Stagiritae [Lyon, 1598; first published in Coimbra, 1592], p. 66; the work was actually written by Emmanuel de Goes, S. J. [1542–1597]). Similarly Franciscus de Oviedo declared that ‘almost all philosophers, theologians, and interpreters of Scripture’ (fere omnes Philosophi, Theologi, atque Scripturae interpretes) believed that the heavens are incorruptible (Integer cursus philosophicus ad unum corpus redactus, Vol. 1 [Lyon, 1640], p. 464).
Coimbra Jesuits, De caelo, p. 66; Amicus, De caelo, p. 232, col. 2; Oviedo, Cursus philosophicus, p. 464, col. 1, par. 19.
As examples of external causes, Amicus, De caelo, pp. 230, col. 2–231, col. 1, mentions God, who may preserve incorruptibility by his own power; or He may add a preservative quality to the heavens that makes them incorruptible, just ‘as the bodies of the blessed are said to become incorruptible by the gift of incorruptibility.’
Philosophiae ad mentem Scoti cursus integer primum quidem editus in collegio Romano Fratrum Minorum Hibernorum. Nunc vero demum ab ipso authore in conventu magno Parisiensi recognitus … (Lyon, 1672), question 4 (‘Whether the heaven is corruptible’), p. 617, col. 1. Although the work was first published in three volumes between 1642 and 1645, the section on De caelo was added to the editions after 1648. Poncius, who was a Scotist, assisted Luke Wadding in the publication of the edition of the works of John Duns Scotus. See Charles H. Lohr, ‘Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors Pi−Sm,’ Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 33, no. 4 (winter 1980), p. 665.
Indeed even if celestial and sublunar matter were identical, Poncius insists that the heaven would be incorruptible and the terrestrial region corruptible, as we see in the first conclusion of question 4, where he declares (ibid.) that ‘The heaven could be incorruptible from its very internal nature whether its matter were of the same species as that of sublunar matter or different.’
Amicus, De caelo, p. 235, cols. 1–2.
Amicus, De caelo, p. 235, col. 2.
Amicus, De caelo, p. 235, col. 2.
‘Whether [the heaven] is corruptible as to accidents’ in Amicus, De caelo, pp. 247, col. 2 – 249, col. 1. In support of this distinction, Amicus cites John of Jandun, whose ideas were briefly mentioned above.
In his Questions on De caelo, Galileo declared his agreement with Simplicius, Averroes, and St. Thomas that ‘alteration is twofold: one corruptive and the other perfective. The first is between contraries and involves corruption, and this has no place in the heavens; the other involves no contrariety and is found even in spiritual things — for which reason it is found also in the heavens’ (Wallace, tr., Galileo’s Early Notebooks, pp. 100–101).
According to Johannes Hofer, who wrote on the question of celestial incorruptibility in the early eighteenth century, a great number of peripatetics continued to support celestial incorruptibility. By that time, however, Hofer could report that the authors who thought the heavens corruptible were far more numerous (‘Corruptibiles autem caelos asservant auctores longe plures’). See Promptuarium philosophicum complectens argumenta e nobilioribus philosophiae totius controversiis authore P. Joanne Baptista Hofer, S. J. in Alma Catholica et Electorali Universitate Ingoldstadiensi. Editio tertia (Ingolstadt, 1732), p. 644. Indeed Hofer claimed (p. 646, col. 2) more than 80 supporters of celestial corruptibility comprised of classical authors, Church Fathers, astronomers and mathematicians.
For Pliny, see Natural History, bk. 2, ch. 26 and for Augustine’s statement on Venus, see City of God, bk. 21, ch. 8. I have not located a reference to Spica, which is mentioned by Amicus (De caelo, p. 242, col. 1, where the reference to Augustine is given incorrectly as bk. 21, ch. 10). Although Raphael Aversa (Philosophia metaphysicam physicamque complectens quaestionibus contexta in duos tomos distributa auctore P. Raphaele Aversa [Rome: Apud Iacobum Mascardum, 1627], Vol. 2, pp. 83–84) makes no mention of Spica, he does include correct references to both Pliny and Augustine and adds a few more examples of alleged celestial corruptibility.
Aversa, Philosophia, p. 84.
See C. Doris Hellman, The Comet of 1577: Its Place in the History of Astronomy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 121.
Hellman, The Comet of 1577, p. 130. Tycho wrote two treatises on the comet of 1577, one in Latin, the other in German. The former, De mundi aetherei recentioribus phaenomenis, was first published in 1588 but was begun immediately after the comet’s disappearance (Hellman describes the volume on pp. 337–338). Its wider dissemination began only at the start of the seventeenth century. The German work, according to Hellman (p. 122), was ‘probably written immediately after the disappearance of the comet in 1578 but first printed in 1922.’ Also see Hellman’s discussion in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 2, pp. 406–408.
See Stillman Drake (tr.), Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1957), p. 82.
Drake, Discoveries and Opinions, p. 83.
Amicus, De caelo, p. 242, for the five arguments indicating celestial corruptibility and p. 246 for his rebuttals.
Drake (Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, p. 73) describes Galileo’s attacks against those who sought to subvert his telescopic discoveries by challenging the validity of the instrument.
Amicus, De caelo, p. 243.
Amicus, De caelo, pp. 243, col. 2; 244, col. 2.
Amicus, De caelo, pp. 244, col. 2; 245, col. 2.
Amicus, De caelo, p. 246, col. 1. In one explanation, Amicus mistakenly attributes to Christopher Clavius the opinion that the New Star of 1572 was not real but was rather a regular star that only appeared larger because of terrestrial exhalations that lie between us and the star, just as a coin placed in water appears greater because of refraction. Clavius, however, reported this as the opinion of others (see Christophori Clavii Bambergensis ex Societate Iesu in Sphaeram Iohannis de Sacro Bosco Commentarius, 4th ed. (Lyon, 1593), p. 208. His own opinion, as we shall see below, upheld Tycho Brahe’s judgment that the New Star was really in the heaven.
Clavius, however, reported this as the opinion of others (see Christophori Clavii Bambergensis ex Societate Iesu in Sphaeram Iohannis de Sacro Bosco Commentarius, 4th ed. (Lyon, 1593), p. 211.
Clavius, however, reported this as the opinion of others (see Christophori Clavii Bambergensis ex Societate Iesu in Sphaeram Iohannis de Sacro Bosco Commentarius, 4th ed. (Lyon, 1593), p. 211.
The arguments pro and con, with an ultimate resolution in favor of the sublunar nature of comets, appear in Aversa’s Philosophia metaphysicam physicamque complectens quaestionibus contexta, 2 vols. (Rome: Apud Iacobum Mascardum, 1625, 1627), Vol. 2, pp. 91–100.
For his arguments against locating new stars in the sublunar region, see Aversa, Philosophia, Vol. 2, pp. 85–86.
For his arguments against locating new stars in the sublunar region, see Aversa, Philosophia, Vol. 2, p. 86, col. 2. According to Aversa, Franciscus Vallesius, who upheld this interpretation, invoked Genesis 2.1 and Ecclestiastes 3.14 to show that God would not create a new star. In the former, we learn that God completed the heaven and earth in the latter that all of His works are eternally preserved. It followed that God would not create a new star nor allow one to be generated.
For his arguments against locating new stars in the sublunar region, see Aversa, Philosophia, Vol. 2, pp. 86, col. 2–87, col. 2.
This is the seventh of eight opinions that Aversa describes (For his arguments against locating new stars in the sublunar region, see Aversa, Philosophia, Vol. 2, p. 89, col. 1).
The eighth opinion in For his arguments against locating new stars in the sublunar region, see Aversa, Philosophia, Vol. 2, pp. 89, col. 2–90, col. 1. Because he mustered serious objections to all but the eighth opinion, it appears that Aversa favored it over the others, although he failed to make his support explicit.
Sigismundus Serbellonus seems to agree with Aversa (see his Philosophia Ticinensis, 2 vols. [Milan: ex typographia Ludovici Montiae in Collegio S. Alexandrii PP. Barnabitarum, 1657–1663], Vol. 2, p. 35).
In their joint work, Bartholomeus Mastrius and Bonaventura Bellutus adopted the same opinion, and even mention Aversa and Amicus. They explain that ‘with regard to the stars newly seen, we say that they have occurred from a certain accidental mutation made in the heaven from a certain concourse of stars unknown to us with respect to opacity and diaphaneity, so that the part that was previously transparent (diaphana) emerged opaque. Thus it could reflect light to us and be seen.’ And, on the basis of parallax, they, like Aversa, also placed the new star at approximately the distance of the sun but definitely not among the fixed stars. See Bartholomaei Mastrii de Meldula et Bonaventurae Beilud De Catana Ord. Minor Convent. Magistr. Philosophiae ad mentem cursus in integer. Vol. 3: continens disputationes ad mentem Scoti in Aristotelis Stagiritae libros De anima. De generatione et corruptione, De coelo, et Metheoris. Editio novissima a mendis expurgata (Venice, 1727), p. 500, par. 114.
In the 1590s, Galileo himself had defended celestial incorruptibility with quite similar, but even more traditional arguments, arguments that were representative of the Jesuit theologians and natural philosophers at the Collegio Romano between 1570 and the early 1590s. See Wallace, (tr.), Galileo’s Early Notebooks, qu. 4 (‘Are the Heavens Incorruptible?’), pp. 93–102. Galileo’s relations to the Jesuits at the Collegio Romano are described by William A. Wallace, Prelude to Galileo, Essays on Medieval and Sixteenth-Century Sources of Galileo’s Thought (Dordrecht and Boston, 1981), pp. 281, 308, 309. For a list of the Jesuit authors on whom Galileo may have relied, see Wallace, (tr.), Galileo’s Early Notebooks, pp. 12–21. Of the group, Christopher Clavius is the best known.
Almagestum novum astronomiam veterem novamque complectens observationibus aliorum, et propriis novisque theorematibus, problematibus, ac tabulis promotam; in tres tomos distributam quorum argumentum sequens pagina explicabit (Bologna: ex typographia Haeredis Vitorij Benatij, 1651). Only the first volume, in two parts, appeared.
Book 9 is in the second part (pars secunda or pars posterior) of the first volume, pp. 232–236.
Book 9 is in the second part (pars secunda or pars posterior) of the first volume, pp. 237–238.
Riccioli presents his opinion in the following conclusion: ‘Licet non possit a nobis demonstrative atque evidenter sciri, quaenam sit caeli visibilis substantia et natura, probabilius tamen est illud constare ex materia eiusdem rationis cum elementari.’ Book 9 is in the second part (pars secunda or pars posterior) of the first volume, p. 235, col. 1
For a discussion of their arguments, see my article, ‘Celestial Matter’ (‘Celestial Matter: a Medieval and Galilean Cosmological Problem,’ Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 13 (1983), pp. 157–186).
Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars posterior, p. 235.
‘Probabilius est caelum in quo sunt stelle fixae aqueum; caelum autem in quo sunt planetae igneum esse’ (Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars posterior., p. 236, col. 1).
In ch. 7 (Riccioli, Almagestum novum, pars posterior, pp. 238–244), Riccioli took up the question ‘Whether the heavens are solid or whether, indeed, some or all are fluid’ (‘An caeli solidi sint, an vero fluidi omnes vel aliqui’). At the end of the question, in a ‘unica conclusio,’ Riccioli declares that (p. 244, col. 1) ‘although it is scarcely evident mathematically or physically, it is much more probable that the heaven of the fixed stars is solid, that of the planets fluid.’
The transition from the universally held belief that the heaven was comprised of a large number of solid spheres to a belief that the heaven was entirely fluid is described by Donahue, Dissolution of the Celestial Spheres. (William H. Donahue, The Dissolution of the Celestial Spheres 1595–1650 (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1972; reprint New York, Arno Press, 1981), pp. 51). ‘By the end of the 1620’s,’ he declares (p. 188), ‘the debate over the fluidity of the heavens was very nearly concluded. Although belief in solid spheres was not quite dead, it was, even in the universities, the opinion of a minority of authors.’ Although Donahue mentions a number of scholastic authors, it is by no means obvious whether his judgment would apply to the majority of those who wrote in the course of the seventeenth century, or even after 1620.
Almagestum novum, p. 233, col. 2.
Almagestum novum, p. 236, cols. 1–2.
‘Sequitur caelos hosce esse ab intrinseco et natura sua generationis et corruptionis capaces. …’ Almagestum novum, pars posterior, p. 238, col. 1. When in this question on celestial incorruptibility, Riccioli described the basis for the belief in celestial corruptibility, he declared that ‘the foundation of this opinion is threefold: namely, the authority of Sacred Scripture, the testimony of the Fathers, and the arguments derived from experience concerning spots and torches near the solar disk that were discovered by the telescope and from certain comets that have come into being and passed away above the moon. These changes are more naturally explained by generation and corruption than by other more violent means or by nonviolent miracles’ (Almagestum novum, p. 239, col. 2). Despite the empirical and scientific arguments for believing in celestial corruptibility, Riccioli chose to base his decision on the first two reasons.
George de Rhodes presented similar ideas in R. P. Georgii de Rhodes Avenionensis, e Societate Iesu, Philosophia peripatetica ad veram Aristotelis mentem libris quatuor digesta et disputata. Pharus ad theologiam scholasticam nunc primum in lucem prodit (Lyons: sumptibus Antonii Hugetan & Guillielmi Barbier, 1671), pp. 278–281. Since de Rhodes died in 1661 and his work was first published in 1671, the actual date of composition is unknown. For what it is worth, there is no mention of Riccioli in the sections that I read. De Rhodes argued for the fluidity of the entire heavens, including the sphere of the fixed stars. He specifically refuted the explanations of Vallesius (that new stars are not ‘new’ but are in the heaven all the time and only seen when they become sufficiently dense) and Aversa (that new stars are produced by an accidental generation of opacity; Philosophia, p. 279, col. 1).
Curriculum philosophiae peripateticae, uti hoc tempore in scholis decurri solet. … auctore R. P. Melchiore Cornaeo, Soc. Iesu, SS. Theologiae doctore eiusdemque in alma universitate Herbipolensi professore ordinario (Herbipolis, 1657), p. 489.
In the very next section, Cornaeus rejects the existence of a celestial ether, or fifth element, and suggests that fire is the most probable matter of the heavens (Curriculum philosophiae peripateticae, uti hoc tempore in scholis decurri solet. … auctore R. P. Melchiore Cornaeo, Soc. Iesu, SS. Theologiae doctore eiusdemque in alma universitate Herbipolensi professore ordinario (Herbipolis, 1657), pp. 490–491).
‘Si Aristoteles hodie viveret et quas modo nos in sole alterationes et conflagrationes deprehendimus, videret absque mutata sententia nobiscum faceret. Idem sane est de planetis quos Philosophus septenis plures non agnoscit. At nos hoc tempore opera telescopii (quo ille caruit) plures omnino esse certo scimus.’ Cornaeus, Curriculum philosophiae peripateticae, p. 503.
Riccioli discusses all three corroborating sources and provides a lengthy list of biblical passages and Church Fathers (Almagestum Novum, pp. 237–238).
Because the parallax of the comets placed them below the fixed stars, one could continue to believe, as did Riccioli, that the fixed stars were embedded in a solid sphere (Donahue [The Dissolution of the Celestial Spheres, p. 117] holds that the sphere of the fixed stars was the last element of the old cosmos to go).
Donahue, The Dissolution of the Celestial Spheres, p. 105.
Amicus, De caelo, p. 270, col. 2; Poncius, Philosophiae ad mentem Scoti cursus integer, p. 620, col. 1; Oviedo, Integer cursus philosophicus, p. 462, par. 2.
Oviedo, Integer cursus philosophicus, p. 464, col. 1, par. 17.
Oviedo, Integer cursus philosophicus, p. 462, col. 1, par. 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1991 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grant, E. (1991). Celestial Incorruptibility in Medieval Cosmology 1200–1687. In: Unguru, S. (eds) Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, 1300–1700: Tension and Accommodation. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 126. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3342-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3342-5_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5476-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-3342-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive