Abstract
Gassendi was one of the many philosophers of his time who struggled to extricate themselves from Aristotelianism so that they might participate in the new scientific movement which was gathering momentum in the early seventeenth century. We have seen that scepticism was the chief weapon that Gassendi used against the Aristotelians, and he used it with the aim of undermining the reputation for infallibility which the Aristotelians supposedly enjoyed. We have seen that Gassendi used Copernican astronomy as another weapon for his anti-Aristotelian campaign, although it lost much of its effectiveness as a weapon when Copernicanism was condemned in 1633. Now in this third chapter, the anti-Aristotelian character of Gassendi’s Epicureanism will be explored, and it will be seen that the adoption of Epicurean philosophy was integral to Gassendi’s anti-Aristotelian polemic.
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cf. C-A. Fusil: 1926, “Montaigne et Lucrèce”, in Revue du seizième siècle, 13, pp.256–281.
Cf. C.-A. Fusil: 1928, “La renaissance de Lucrèce au XVIe siècle”, in Revue du seizième siècle, 15, pp.134–150.
Gassendi indicated the date of completion of the work in letters to Peiresc written 1.1.1634 and 13.1.1634; cf. Lettres de Peiresc, IV, pp.406, 414–415.
P. Gassendi, De vita et moribus Epicuri libri octo, G. Barbier, Lyon, 1647.
Gassendi’s Epicurean ethics has recently been studied by Louise Sarasohn; cf. L.T. Sarasohn: 1979, The influence of Epicurean philosophy on seventeenth century ethical and political thought: the moral philosophy of Pierre Gassendi (Ph.D. dissertation presented to the University of California);
L.T. Sarasohn: 1982, “The ethical and political philosophy of Pierre Gassendi”, in Journal of the history of philosophy, 20, pp.239–260;
L.T. Sarasohn: 1985, “Motion and morality: Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes and the mechanical world-view”, in Journal of the history of ideas, 46, pp.363–379.
“Restituitur Epicurus in philosophorum chorum.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, Bk. VII, ch. 7.)
“Cum Epicurus infamis fuisset habitus tota ilia pene saeculorum serie, qua literae bonae sepultae jacuerunt, vix tarnen libros humaniores, pulvere excusso, rediisse in manus ante duo fere saecula, quam omnes pene eruditi symbolum pro eo contulerunt.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, V, p.224a.) Gassendi’s words here have a remarkably similar ring to the following passage from the writings of Louis Le Roy, professor of Greek at the Collège Royal, Paris, from 1572: “During the reign of Tamberlan the restoration of [ancient] languages and all the disciplines commenced… [Petrarch] opened the closed rooms of the libraries and cleared off the dust and filth that had gathered on the good books of ancient authors.” (“Durant le règne de Tamberlan commença la restitution des langues et de toutes disciplines…[Petrarche] ouvrant les librairies pieca fermées, et ostant la pouldre et ordure de dessus les bons livres des autheurs anciens.” (French version as quoted in D.P. Walker: 1972, The ancient theology: studies in Christian Platonism from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century, London, p.77, note 3.)
F. Filelfo: 1480, Epistolae Francisci Philelphi, Venice, Bk. 8, ch. 7.,
and F. Filelfo: 1552, De morali disciplina libri quinque…, Venice, opening paragraph.
Alexander ab Alexandro, 1532, Genialium dierum libri sex…, Paris, Bk. Ill, ch. 11;
Ludovicus Caelius Richerius, Rhodiginus, Lectionum antiquarum, libri XXX, Basle, Bk. XIII, ch. 25.
Raphael Maffejus of Volterra, R. Volaterrani: 1506, Commentariorum urbanorum, Rome, Bk. XV.
Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola. G.-F. Pico della Mirandola: 1520, Examen vanitatis doctrinae gentium, et veritatis Christianae disciplinae distinctum in libris sex, quorum tres omnem philosophorum sectam universim, reliqui Aristoteleam et Aristotelis armis particulatim impugnant, ubicumque autem Christiana et asseritur, et celebratur disciplina, Mirandola, 1520, Bk. I, ch. 2.
Andreas Arnaudus: 1609, Ioci (Epistolae, etc.)…, Paris, pp.215ff.
Marcellus Palingenii stellati: 1552, Zodiacus vitae, hoc est de hominis vita, studio ac moribus optime instituendis libri XII…, Basileae; Gassendi quoted from the section of the poem that concerned Gemini.
Letter of 25.4.1626 in Lettres de Peiresc, IV, pp.178–181.
1563, Titi Lucretii Cari. De rerum natura libri sex. A Dionysio Lambino… loci s innumerabilibus ex auctoritate quinque codicum manu scriptorum emendati, atque in antiquum ac nativum statum fere restitua, et praeterea brevibus, et perquam utilibus commentariis illustrativ Parisiis et Lugduni.
Cf. C.-A. Fusil (1926), p.141; P. de Villey: 1933, Les sources et l’évolution des essais de Montaigne, 2 vols., Fondation Thiers, Paris, I, p. 188;
S.J. Dick: 1982, Plurality of worlds. The origins of the extraterrestrial life debate from Democritus to Kant, Cambridge University Press, p.46.
“Nosti iam quandam a me collocatam Epicuro operam, illam interdum retexere soleo, dum exploro et alia. Meditor nempe, et comparo celebriora quaedam placita antiquorum philosophorum; ac omneis cum suspiciam, singulorum opiniones sic enitor expendere, ut si in cuiusvis transfunderes genium…” (Letter of Gassendi to Jacob Golius, Professor of Leyden, of 8.3.1630, in P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, VI, p.32b).
MS Tours 709, Bks XVIII, XVIX; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.338a-457b. Cf. infra pp.58–59.
Gassendi may thus be cited in support of an affirmative reply to the question in the title of the article by P. Barker and B.R. Goldstein: 1984, “Is seventeenth-century physics indebted to the Stoics?” in Centaurus, 27, pp.148–164.
F. Luillier was a public figure, an Administrator of Public Finances (Mitre des Comptes), and a member of the Parlement of Metz. He was a friend and admirer of scholars and a frequenter of scholarly academies in Paris. Gassendi and Luillier became firm friends; cf. B. Rochot (Ed.): 1944, Pierre Gassendi, lettres familières à François Luillier pendant l’hiver 1632–1633, J. Vrin, Paris.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, V, p. 171.
“Prisci Patres invicti fuere maxime adversus Aristotelem eiusque philosophiam, sectamque exosam habuerunt; ubi vero etiam philosophi fuere qui dedere nomen sacrae fidei, coepere graviores errores seponi, et quod superest, philosophia ita religioni fuit accommodata, ut illi non amplius suspecta, sed quasi ancillans subserviensque evaserit. Quod dico non modo ob Aristoteleam, quae publice etiam foret praelegi, verum etiam ob caeteras, Stoicam quoque ac Epicuream, quarum nulla est quae frugi plurima non contineat, ac adscisci quoque, seclusis confutatisque erroribus, perinde ac Aristotelea, cuius errores oppido graves reiciuntur, non valeat; ut nos certe in hoc negotio affecti comparatique simus, testatum fecimus abunde cum praefati in vitam moresque Epicuri sumus.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, VI, p.5a.)
Letter of Gassendi to Galileo of 20.7.1625 (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, VI, p.5a).
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III, p. 102.
“Et stellis fixis et Soli comparatur quies. Terrae, vero, quasi uni ex planetis, conciliate motus.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III, p. 102.)
“You will readily see that I have been dreaming a little on this subject if you would be so good as to read the preface of the book which I am sending you. There is a brief passage there in which I promise to treat of these questions in Book IV.” “Somniasse quippe me aliquid circa hoc argumentum pervidebis facile, si digneris forte legere quod tribus dumtaxat verbis in praefatione libelli ad te missi polliceor me quarto libro tractaturum.” (Letter of Gassendi to Galileo of 20.7.1625, in P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, VI, p.4b.)
Cf. Gassendi’s letter to Jacob Golius, a scholar who specialised in Arabic astronomy, 8.3.1630 (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, VI, p.32b). Furthermore, Gassendi sent an outline of his Epicurean project to Gerard Voss of Leyden soon after returning from his journey, evidently as a sequel to Gassendi’s discussions with the scholars of Leyden; cf. the letter of Gassendi to Voss of 14.9.1629 (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, VI, p.25).
Cf. supra, p.35.
Cf. J.A. Schuster: 1977, Descartes and the scientific revolution 1618–1634. An interpretation, (Ph.D. dissertation presented to the faculty of Princeton University), pp.23, 572ff.
Cf. supra, pp.36–37.
For evidence of the extraordinary influence of Beeckman on Descartes in the latter’s early philosophical development, cf. C. Adam and P. Tannery (Eds.): 1897–1913, Oeuvres de Descartes, 12 vols., X, pp.162–163.
“Quae omnia et probavit et cum gaudio et admiratione visus est audire.” (C. de Waard (Ed.): 1939, Journal tenu par Isaac Beeckman de 1604 à 1634…, 4 vols., La Haye, I, p.123.)
“Le meilleur philosophe que j’aye encore recontré.” (Letter of Gassendi to Peiresc of 21.7.1629 (Lettres de Peiresc, IV, p.201). There seems to be insufficient evidence to allow a very precise estimate of the influence of Beeckman on Gassendi. It is certainly not too much to say that Gassendi was greatly encouraged in his project to restore Epicureanism by his visit to Beeckman; cf. B. Rochot: 1952, “Beeckman, Gassendi et le principe d’inertie”, in Archives internationales d’historie des sciences, 5, pp.228–229.
Galileo Galilei, Opere, XIX, pp.402–407.
Letter of Gassendi to Galileo of 17.11.1636 (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, VI, p.92a).
“Ea mihi mens est, ut quoties non modo ad graviora ilia capita pervenero, sed etiam quoties quidpiam occurret quod videri possit vel quam minimum fidei sacrae dissentaneum in Epicuram nervos contendam ac eius sententiam quam maximo semper rationis vigore potero convellam.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, V, p.171.)
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.266a-279b, 280b, 375a, 472a-486b; Cf., p.466.
For the doctrines of Aristotle (which are often less than faithfully represented in the Aristotelian manuals), see: Aristotle, Physics 194b.9–10 and Metaphysics 1029a.24–25 (form); On generation and corruption 330a30 – 331b.39 (generation); Categories 8b.25 – 11a.19, and Metaphysics 1020a.33 – 1020b.25 (qualities). Cf. Ivor Leclerc: 1972, The nature of physical existence, Allen and Unwin, London, pp.114–121; A. Mansion: 1946, Introduction à la physique Aristotélicienne, 2me éd., Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, Louvain, pp.240–251. The difference between the doctrines of Aristotle and those of Gassendi on these subjects are discussed in this and the next chapter.
“Videri posse atomos pro materiali rerum principio, primave materia admitte.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.279b.)
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.279b.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.229a-282b, especially pp.232a-b, 259b. Gassendi’s chief sources for the doctrine of Epicurus were Diogenes Laertius, De clarorum philosophorum vitis, dogmatibus et apothegmatibus libri decern, X (G. Arrighetti (Ed.): 1973, Epicuro opere, G. Einaudi, Turin), 38–39, and Lucretius, De rerum natura, I, 215–264. For Aristotle’s doctrine, cf. especially Aristotle Physics, 189b30 – 191a23. It is to be noted that Gassendi was not attempting to argue that the Aristotelian and Epicurean doctrines of matter were equivalent as such: he was rather preparing the ground for his assertion that Epicureanism was an adequate substitution for Aristotelianism because the former explained in its (better) way what the latter attempted to explain. It would appear, therefore, that Gassendi did not deserve the criticism of R. Dugas:
“Why can [the] existence [of atoms] be asserted? First of all, because only atoms can satisfy the conditions exacted by Aristotle of an incorruptible prime matter — a very poor argument indeed for one who did not admit any authority in philosophy.” (R. Dugas: 1958, Mechanics in the seventeenth century. From the scholastic antecedents to classical thought, (Transi, F. Jacquot), Editions du Griffon, Neuchatel, p. 104. Dugas here accuses Gassendi of feeling obliged to answer a problem posed by Aristotle out of respect for Aristotle’s authority. But it is clear that Gassendi considered that there was a need for prime matter, or a permanent substratum through all change, independently of Aristotle’s teaching.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.232b-234a; cf. MS Tours 709, f.216r-v. Cf. the doctrine of Epicurus in Diogenes Laertius, De clarorum philosophorum vitis, 38, and in Lucretius, De rerum natura, I, 150.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.281b; cf. MS Tours 709, f.245v. Epicurus did indeed teach a doctrine of eternal, subsistent matter according to Diogenes Laertius (De clarorum philosophorum vitis, 39) and Lucretius (De rerum natura, I, 215–219). It was less correct to say that Aristotle taught such a doctrine. Gassendi, like seventeenth-century philosophers generally, it seems (cf. Ivor Leclerc, The nature of physical existence, pp.115–117), interpreted Aristotle’s concept of matter as a concept of substance.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.280a-281b.
Ibid., I, pp.279a-280b.
“Quatenus ut omnia conservat, ita coagit rebus omnibus.” (Ibid., I, p.280a; cf.III, pp.466a-467b.) One finds very similar doctrine in the Principia philosophica of Descartes; cf. Oeuvres de Descartes, IX, par.83; cf. also Margaret J. Osler: 1979, “Descartes and Charleton on nature and God”, in Journal of the history of ideas, 40, pp.445–456.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.282b; Gassendi’s allusion was to the third section of the Pars physica, idem., II, pp.193–658.
Cf. infra, pp.94–95; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, II, pp.437bff.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, II, pp.840a-847a; cf. L.T. Sarasohn: 1982, “The ethical and political philosophy of Pierre Gassendi”, in Journal of the history of philosophy, 20, pp.239–260, also 1985, “Motion and morality: Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes and the mechanical world-view”, in Journal of the history of ideas, 1985, 46, pp.363–379.
Cf. also, Leopold Damrosch, Jr.: 1979, “Hobbes as Reformation theologian: implications of the free-will controversy”, in Journal of the history of ideas, 40, pp.339–353.
P. Gassendi: 1646, De proportione qua gravia accidentia accelerantur epistolae tres, quibus ad totidem epistolas R. P. Petri Cazraei… respondetur, L. de Heuqueville, Paris, republished in P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III, pp.564–650.
“Non esse atomorum minus quam Aristoteleae materiae tolerabilem in religione positionem” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III, p.636a.)
“A quality can be defined generically as a mode of a substance.” “Potest quidem qualitas universe definiri modus sese habendi substantiae.” (Idem, I, p.372b; cf. MS Tours 709, f.335r.) Gassendi’s chief sources for the doctrine of Epicurus on qualities were Diogenes Laertius, (De clarorum philosophorum vitis, 54–56), and Lucretius (De rerum natura, II, 333–477, 730–841).
“[A quality is] the condition and state of the commingled principles.” “Sive conditionem ac statum quo principia inter se commista se habent.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.372b.) For the Stoics, physical qualities were generated by the pneuma, the all-pervading substratum, or principle; cf. Plutarch, De Stoicorum repugnantiis (Loeb classical library edition), 1054b; also S. Sambursky: 1959, Physics of the Stoics, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp.1,7.
“[A quality is] that in virtue of which a concrete thing is said to be of such a kind.” “Omne id a quo res concretae denominantur quales.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.372b.) Cf. Aristotle, Categories, 8b25. Gassendi has here given a hybrid definition, part Aristotelian and part Epicurean: note the intrusion of the Epicurean term “res concretae”. Gassendi removed the term when he prepared the Syntagma version.
Cf. Opera omnia, I, p.372b. Gassendi appears to have taken this definition from the scholastic text-book of Eustache de Saint-Paul, a Parisian teacher whom both Gassendi and Descartes used as a reference work for Aristotelian doctrine. The text-book was 1609, Summa philosophiae quadripartita: de rebus dialecticis, moralibus, physicis et metaphysicis, authore Fr Eustachio a Sancto Paulo…, C. Chastellain, Paris. The definition of quality given by Eustache was: “A quality… is described by Aristotle as that by which things are named as to what kind of things they are.” “Qualitas… describitur ab Aristotele, a qua res denominantur quales.” (Idem, p. 117.) Gassendi’s use of Eustache’s text is well documented by Bernard Rochot in his edition of the Exercitationes (Bernard Rochot (Ed.): 1959, Pierre Gassendi. Dissertations en forme de paradoxes contre les Aristotéliciens…, J. Vrin, Paris). Descartes, for his part, wrote a letter to Mersenne praising Eustache’s text for being the best of its kind (letter of Descartes to Mersenne of 11.11.1640,
in F. Alquié (Ed.): 1963–1967, Descartes. Oeuvres philosophiques, 2 vols.).
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.373a. Cf. Aristotle, Categories lb-2a, where ‘quality’ is listed as a category, and Aristotle, Topics 102a-103b, where ‘accident’ is listed as one of the predicables. These two doctrines were not altogether mutually consistent. So, Gassendi had to force Aristotle’s meaning considerably to present accidents and qualities as one and the same in Aristotle.
Idem, I, p.373a-b. Scholars agree that Aristotle implied that there was some flexibility in his theory of categories, such that it was possible to place some items in more than one category. It was the medieval scholastics, it is claimed, who treated Aristotle’s theory as final, exhaustive and inflexible. (See G.E.M. Anscombe and P.T. Geach: 1973, Three philosophers, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp.14–19.) Gassendi had declared his preference for the Nominalist interpretation of Aristotelianism in the Exercitationes (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III. p. 165), and this fact seems relevant, for the Nominalists viewed the categories as logical constructs rather than real divisions in the natural world. This I take to be implied in the following description of the theory of William of Ockham: “Only substance and form are real, together constituting actual being; all the other categories are the attributes of individual being neither inhering in being nor standing for independent essences of things or forms, but merely describing the different ways in which individual things can be said to exist…”
(Gordon Leff: 1975, William of Ockham. The metamorphosis of scholastic discourse, Manchester University Press, Manchester, p.562.)
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.373a; cf. MS Tours 709, ff.278v, 335v.
Idem, I, pp.374a-375a; MS Tours 709, ff.339v-340v.
“Maneat, proinde, quicquid spectatur in corporeis hisce, ac physicis rebus (ipsa anima rationali, quae in homine est, excepta) aut esse substantiam, quae eadem sit materia, et corpus, materialiumve, et corporeorum principiorum aggeries; aut esse qualitatem, quae sit accidens, modusve se habendi eiusdem.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.373b; the passage is not found in MS Tours 709.)
“Maneat, inquam, et vel ipso quidem Aristotele non abnuente, cum solam substantiam esse proprie ens censuit, accidens autem voluit non tarn ens esse, quam entis ens, seu modum se habendi ends.” (P. Gassendi, Operas omnia, I, p.373b; MS Tours 709, f.336v.) Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics 1025a.l4–15, 31–33.
“De motu et mutatione rerum” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.338a-371b).
“Quia mutationes omnes terminantur ad qualitates, et insequens liber instituendum est de ipsis qualitatibus.” (Idem, I, p.371b; MS Tours 709, f.334v.)
Idem, I, 338b; MS Tours 709, ff.298v, 300r. Gassendi here gave an incorrect account of Aristotle’s doctrine: Aristotle attributed a preferential status to local motion (cf. Aristotle, Physics 208a32, 260b22), but he did not reduce all change to local motion as Gassendi claimed. Cf. Leclerc, The nature of physical existence, p.112.
Cf. Aristotle, Physics 225a34; Metaphysics 1069b 9–13.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I. pp.362b-364a, a re-written version of MS Tours 709, ff.289v0301v.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.375a-457b.
Aristotle, Meteorologica 378b10 – 390b21.
Cf. e.g., P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.375a. It should be noted that Gassendi was not consistent in his terminology, or in his explanation of qualities. He consistently treated a number of qualities or accidents as though they were substances, while still referring to them as qualities. (This was particularly the case with the Aristotelian primary qualities, hot and cold, wet and dry.) Thus Gassendi spoke of atoms of heat, cold, fire, light, and also of visible species atoms as being qualities (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, 401b, etc.). He spoke of “real and positive” qualities, by which he meant active qualities, as when he asked whether cold is such a quality or whether it is a mere privation of heat, and concluded that it is a real and positive quality, just like heat and “the others” are (idem, I, 401b; MS Tours 709, f.376v). For Aristotle, to be active was a prerogative of a substance, the source of action being attributed to the substantial form. What is noteworthy about such terminological inconsistency on Gassendi’s part is not so much that he should explain cold and heat in atomist terms, but that he should show no concern about continuing to refer to them as qualities or modes of substances when he understood them as substances in their own right.
Cf. supra, p.55. Aristotle could at most be said to have upheld a theory of eternal matter in the sense that pure potentiality can be eternal: the question of the existence of eternal, substantial, corporeal matter would seem not to have been a concern for Aristotle.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.l62aff. The work of Christianising Aristotelian philosophy in the Middle Ages had required correction of this doctrine; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae (Blackfriars edition), la, q.46, a. 1,2,3. Cf. Anton Herman Chroust: 1978, “Aristotle’s doctrine of the uncreatedness and indestructibility of the universe”, in New scholasticism, 52, pp.268–279, for a discussion of the influence of Aristotle’s On philosophy, a work which now exists only as a fragment but which reinforces the view of Aristotle as the principal and most influential advocate among the ancient philosophers of the eternity of the universe or world.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 162b; MS Tours 709, ff.456rff. Gassendi referred to Aristotle, Physics 251aff., also to a place in the Metaphysics which is at least difficult to identify, to the first chapters of Aristotle, De mundo and De caelo, and to the second chapter of Aristotle, De generatione et corruptione. Since Aristotle’s “world” encompassed both the heavens and the earth (cf. Aristotle, De mundo 391b.9–19); Gassendi’s use of the term was equivocal in this whole discussion. He found the Epicurean doctrine especially in Lucretius, Opera omnia, V, 65ff.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 163a.
Idem, I, p.l70b. Cf. Chroust (1978), p.268.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 171b; MS Tours 709, f.492r. Lucretius, De rerum natura, V, 65ff.
“Docent igitur potius probatiores interpretes non interiturum in nihilum mundum, sed renovatum solum iri, idque non secundum substantiam, sed secundum qualitates. Hoc est, eandem et caelorum et elementorum remansuram substantiam, sed repurgatam ab omni sorde, et proprietatibus illustriorem factam. Videlicet, cum lunae splendor futurus sit qualis iam est solis, et qui nunc est solis turn futurus sit septuplo praeclarior.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 178b; MS Tours 709, f.500v.) L’abbé Cotin, also an Epicurean, may have been one of these “more approved authors”. In 1646, in his work, he linked the question of the non-annihilation of matter with the question of the existence of an All-Wise Providence. Cf. Henri Busson: 1933, La pensée religieuse française de Charron à Pascal, J. Vrin, Paris, p.77. Gassendi explained that he linked the Christian doctrine as interpreted by the more approved authors with the Epicurean doctrine of indestructible atoms eternally capable of recombining.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.139a-162a; cf. MS Tours 709, ff.443r-456v.
Idem, I, pp.l63aff.; MS Tours 709, ff.464vff. Cf. Lucretius, De rerum natura, V, 324–331.
Aristotle, Physics 212a.20; cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.217a 180a.
This was a common (Aristotelian) view, Gassendi observed; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 182a.
Idem, I, 185b; MS Tours 709, ff.l93rff.
Idem, I, pp.216b-220a.
Hero of Alexandria (Bennet Woodcroft, Ed.): 1851, The pneumatics of Hero of Alexandria, 1971 Facsilile edition, Macdonald and Co., London.
Cf. Marie Boas: 1949, “Hero’s Pneumatica. A study of its transmission and influence”, in Isis, 40, pp.38–48.
Cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.l92b-193a, 197a-b, etc:, Hero of Alexandria, The pneumatics (Bennett Woodcroft, Ed.), p.2.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.l98ff. Such machines, however, were widely discussed throughout the middle ages, so it is not necessarily a sign of dependence on Hero that Gassendi should also discuss them. Cf. Edward Grant: 1981, Much ado about nothing. Theories of space and vacuum from the middle ages to the scientific revolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.80–86.
Edward Grant: 1981, Much ado about nothing. Theories of space and vacuum from the middle ages to the scientific revolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Idem, I, p.187a.
Cf. Boas, (1949), p.47.
MS Tours 709, Bk. XIV, ch. 2; cf. Lucretius, De rerum natura, I, 329 – 397.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, pp.l96b-203a.
MS Tours 709, ff.200r-v. Galileo had accepted the same prinple in the Discorsi (G. Galileo: 1638, Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze attenenti alla mecanica e i movimenti locali, Elseviri, Leiden, pp.16–20), which was published in the year following Gassendi’s writing of the MS Tours 709 version of his treatise on space.
MS Tours 709, f.200r.
Idem, f.200v.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.l97a-b.
MS Tours 709, f. 199v.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.l97b-202b.
Idem, I, pp.203b-216b.
Idem, I, p.l97b.
MS Tours 709, ff.209vff. Cf. also P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.220a-228b, III, pp.13lb, 140a, 144b. For Aristotle, place was an accident of bodies (cf. supra, p. 11 of Ch 3); time also was ultimately dependent on bodies, being the measure of change (Aristotle, Physics 218b21–220a26). Gassendi proclaimed place and space to be identical and to be an independent reality with its own incorporeal dimensions (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.216b-220a; cf. MS Tours 709, f.204r), while time became likewise an independent reality measureable in itself.
“κενòν και χώραν και αναφη φύσιν”, “Void or place or intactile nature”. (Diogenes Laertius, De clarorum philosophorum vitis, 40.1); cf. also Sextus Empiricus, Adversus physicos (Loeb classical library edition), II.2; MS Tours 709, f.l93v; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.221bff.
Sextus Empiricus, Adversus physicos, II.219; Diogenes Laertius, De clarorum philosophorum vitis, 72.1 – 73.6; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.221b.
Cf. N.R. Hanson: 1958, Patterns of discovery, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.31–49.
The date attributed to the treatise by Pintard (R. Pintard: 1943, La Mothe le Vayer, Gassendi — Guy Patin. Etudes de bibliographie et de critique suivie de textes inédits de Guy Patin, Boivin, Paris, Ch.3).
“Denique, ut locus dimensiones habet permanenteis, quibus corporum longitudo, latitudo ac profunditas congruat: sic tempus habet successivas quibus corporum motus adaequatur.” (MS Tours 709, f.210v; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.224b.)
“Atque ex his tandem non videtur tempus esse aliquid a motu dependens, aut illi posterius; sed motu solum indicari, ut mensuratum a mensura.” (MS Tours 709, f.211r; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.225a.)
P. Gassendi: 1642, De motu impresso a motore translato epistolae duae, in quibus aliquot praecipuae, tum de motu universe, tum speciatim de motu terrae attribute, difficultates explicantur, L. de Heuqueville, Paris, in P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III, pp.478–563.
Cf. J.T. Clark: 1963, “Pierre Gassendi and the physics of Galileo”, in Isis, 54, pp.352–370.
Cf. N.R. Hanson, Patterns of discovery, pp.31–49.
Aristotle, De caelo 279al2–13; cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.l41b-142a, 186a.
Aristotle, De caelo 276al8 – 276b22. Cf. Edward Grant: 1969, “Medieval and seventeenth-century conceptions of an infinite void space beyond the cosmos”, in Isis, 60, pp.39–60, especially p.39; also Edward Grant, Much ado about nothing, pp.l05ff.
Diogenes Laertius, De clarorum philosophorum vitis, 41.10ff; Lucretius, De rerum natura, I, 951ff; II, 1052–1066. Cf. G.S. Kirk and J.E. Raven: 1957, The Presocratic philosophers. A critical history with a selection of texts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.409–412;
Steven J. Dick: 1982, Plurality of worlds. The origins of the extraterrestrial life debate from Democritus to Kant, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.6–19.
Cf. the account given by Simplicius in his commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo: 1540, Simplicii… commentaria in quatuor libros de celo Aristotelis Guillermo Morbeto interprete, H. Scotum, Venice, f.44v, Ch. 2, as cited in Edward Grant (1969), p.41 note 13; the theory was also repeatedly mentioned in the writings of Chrysippus according to Plutarch, cf. Plutarch, Moralia (Loeb classical library edition), XIII. “De Stoicorum repugnantiis”, 1054.44. Stoic cosmology was widely adopted in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries through the influence of Francesco Patrizi; cf. F. Patrizi: 1587, Philosophiae de rerum natura libri duo… alter de spacio physico, alter de spacio mathematico, Ferrara;
F. Patrizi: 1591, Nova de universis philosophia in qua aristotelica methodo, non per motum, sed per lucem et lumina, ad primam causam ascenditur, deinde propria Patricii methodo, tota in contemplationem venit divinitas; postremo methodo platonica, rerum universitas, a conditore Deo deducitur…, Ferrara. Cf. also, E. Grant, Much ado about nothing, pp.199–206.
Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle: 1686, Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes, Paris; cf. J.S. Dick, Plurality of worlds, Ch. 5.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.14la-144b; MS Tours 709, ff.461r-463v; cf. S.J. Dick, Plurality of worlds, pp.53–59.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.139b, 189ff; cf. MS Tours 709, ff.202v-203r. For the medieval discussions, cf. Edward Grant (Ed.): 1974, A source book of medieval science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp.547–554.
Cf. article 34 of the condemnation by Bishop Tempier in H. Denifle and E. Chatelain (Eds.): 1889–1897, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, Delalain, Paris, 4 vols., I, pp.543–555.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.l89ff; cf. idem, I, p. 139b. In Ms Tours 709, f.l56v, Gassendi made passing reference only to the doctrine of imaginary space.
“This space is… nothing other than the imaginary spaces that most of the Doctors talk about and accept as real.” “Hoc sane… nihil aliud est quam quae pars maxima Doctorum vocat, admittitque spatia imaginaria.” (Idem, I, p. 189b.) Gassendi referred to St. Augustine, De civitate Dei, XI, 5 (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 189b). See also Edward Grant (Ed.), A source book of medieval science, p.562.
See, for example: Conimbricenses: 1602, Commentariorum Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu: In octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis Stagiritae, Bk. VIII, ch. 10, quaestio 2, article IV.
“Non quod non revera seclusaque imaginatione non sint, sed quod eas, quae in ipsis dimensiones spatiales sunt, instar corporearum, quae in corporibus familiare est observare, imaginemur.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 189b.)
“Quare eius dimensiones non iccirco imaginariae dici consueverunt quod fictitiae sint, aut a sola mentis notione pendeant, nec extra intellectum dentur; sed quia imaginamur illas in spatio proportione quadam respondentes realibus ac positivis corporum dimensionibus.” (Conimbricenses, Commentariorum in libros physicorum Aristotelis, Bk. VII, ch 10, quaestio 2, article IV, col. 519.) Evidence that the doctrine was to be specially identified with the teaching of the Jesuits is to be seen in the following extract from a seventeenth-century Jesuit school note-book: “Is God also present in the imaginary spaces? I reply, “Affirmative”. Following which the first among the authors cited in support of the thesis were the Jesuits of Coimbra. (Note-book conserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale, fonds latin, MS 11139, f.209r.)
The Jesuits, and Gassendi following them, presumably, interpreted Augustine as accepting the theory of imaginary space, whereas even the most casual reading of the passage in the De civitate Dei reveals that Augustine was expressing non-acceptance of the theory. (Cf. S. Aurelii Augustine, De civitate Dei, XI.5.)
Conimbricenses, Commentariorum in libros physicorum Aristotelis, Bk. VIII, ch. 10, quaestio 2, article IV; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.l89b.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.190b-191b. Thomas Bradwardine: 1618, De causa Dei contra Pelagium et de vir tute causarum…, J. Billium, London, Bk. I, ch. 5, pp.177–180 (as translated in Edward Grant, A source book of medieval science, pp.556–560). Gassendi was careful to stress that God was not really extended: he referred to God’s “infinity of quasi-extension” (“infinitatem quasi extensionis”) (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 191a).
Cf. Edward Grant, A source book of medieval science, p.559.
Idem, p.553.
Idem, p.556.
Cf. Diogenes Laertius, De clarorum philosophorum vitis, 41.10 – 42.5; also Lucretius, De return natura, I, 329ff.
Cf. the condemnation of 1277 (H. Denifle and E. Chatelain (Eds.), Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, pp.543–555).
Eustache de Saint-Paul: 1609, Summa philosophiae.
Idem, pp.84–85.
G. Bruno, De l’infinito universo e mondi (Giordano Bruno, Opere (1830, A. Wagner, Ed.), 2 vols., Weidmann, Lipsia, 77, pp.1–104, especially p.37). Cf. A. Koyré: 1957, From the closed world to the infinite universe, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp.35–54. Koyré interpreted Bruno’s space as “Lucretian” (idem, pp.47–54), and I have opted to follow this seemingly correct, though conservative judgment.
Frances Yates has argued that Bruno’s view of space was Hermetic (cf. Frances Yates: 1964, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic tradition, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, pp.238ff.),
but her judgment has been strongly contradicted (cf. Robert S. Westman: 1977, “Magical reform and astronomical reform: the Yates thesis reconsidered”, in Robert S. Westman and J.E. McGuire: 1977, Hermeticism and the scientific revolution, University of California Press, Los Angeles, pp.1–91, especially pp.22ff.)
“Cognoscimus praeterea hunc mundum, sive substantiae corporeae universitatem, nullos extensionis suae fines habere. Ubicunque enim fines illos esse fingamus, semper ultra ipsos aliqua spatia indefinite extensa non modo imaginamur, sed etiam vere imaginabilia, hoc est, realia esse percipimus; ac proinde, etiam substantiam corpoream indefinite extensam in iis contineri. Quia, ut jam fuse ostensum est, idea ejus extensionis quam in spatio qualicunque concipimus, eadem plane est cum idea substantiae corporeae.” (R. Descartes: 1644, Principia philosophiae, par. 21, in Oeuvres de Descartes, VIII, p.52.)
Descartes’ Principia was published in 1644, after Gassendi had written his MS Tours version of the treatise on space in 1637, and before he commenced the Syntagma version soon after 1649.
Cf. P. Gassendi: 1644, Disquisitio, seu dubitationes et instantiae adversus Renati Cartesii metaphysicam et responsa in P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III, pp.269–410, cf. pp.300bff; cf. also idem, I, pp.92aff.
Supra, note 130.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.283a; cf. MS Tours 709, f.247r.
Idem, I, p.274a; MS Tours 709, f.248r.
“It seems evident that the efficient cause and cause as such are one and the same thing.” “Perspicuum videtur efficiens et caussam synonyma esse.” (Idem, I, p.283a; MS Tours 709, f.247r.)
Gassendi quoted the Stoic Seneca as a supporting authority for the replacement, cf. Seneca, Epistulae morales ad Lucilium, Ep. LXV; P. Gassendi, MS Tours 709, f.247r.
Cf. supra, pp.58ff.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.338a.
O.R. Bloch, La philosophie de Gassendi, pp.238ff, espc. pp.354–376, 474–481; cf. supra, pp.10–12.
L.T. Sarasohn: 1985, “Motion and morality: Pierre Gassendi, Thomas Hobbes and the mechanical world-view” in Journal of the history of ideas, 46, pp.363–379, espc. pp.369ff.
Idem, I, pp.311aff; III, p.466.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, pp.314b-315a.
Idem, I, p.320a. This is an interesting and somewhat puzzling remark. In the early seventeenth century it would appear that atheism, in the strict sense of unbelief in the existence of God, was considerably on the increase; cf. H. Busson: 1933, La pensée religieuse française de Charron à Pascal, J. Vrin, Paris, pp.16ff. But the meaning of the term “atheist” was rather imprecise at that time; thus Mersenne considered Fludd to be an atheist, while Gassendi did not. It is possible that Gassendi, by underestimating the number of atheists that were abroad, was reacting to Mersenne’s habit of overestimating it;
cf. M. Mersenne: 1623, Quaestiones celeberrimae in Genesim… athei et deistae impugnantur…, S. Cramoisy, Paris, preface, pp.16ff, 24ff.
Opera omnia, I, pp.27a-29b.
Gassendi employed the term “Royal Way” (“regia via”) in his critique of Descartes’ Meditations, when complaining that the latter had abandoned the Royal Way in his third meditation: “It is not right that you should abandon the Royal Way in which the existence of God is proven from his manifest effects in the universe, in order to prove it by the so-called objective reality of the idea.” “Haud jure relinqui regiam viam, qua Dei existentia probatur ex effectibus in Universo manifestis, ut per vocatam objectivam ideae realitatem probetur.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III, p.239b.) Gassendi’s “Royal Way” was the argument from design, a way of ‘proving’ the existence of God from the evidence of ‘manifest design’ in nature. Gassendi’s “Way” differed from the “Fifth Way” of Thomas Aquinas. Gassendi cited the design of the end product as evidence of purposive (teleological) action in the universe: since one finds things without intelligence directed to ends, one infers a directing intelligence outside them. (Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae (Blackfriars edition), la, q.2, a.3, together with commentary in Appendix 1 (p.173) and Appendix 10 (pp.206–208).)
Cf. e.g., P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.l44a-b, 151a-b, 154a-155a, 163a.
Marin Mersenne: 1625, La verité des sciences contre les sceptiques ou pyrrhoniens, T. Du Bray, Paris.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.133b-134a.
P. Gassendi, MS Tours 709, Bk. XX, ch. 1 (opening words).
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.133b-134a.
Cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.27a; VI, p. 137b.
“Scopus Epicuri correctus” (MS Tours 709, Bk. XII, ch. 3); cf. also P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, VI, p. 155a, 122b; V, p.201a-203a.
Diogenes Laertius, De clarorum philosophorum vitis, X, 78.1–82.9, 85.7–10, 142.10 – 143.7; Lucretius, De rerum natura, I, 102–111, 127–131, 146–148.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.130a; MS Tours 709, f.l50v; cf. Seneca, Naturales quaestiones, VI, 4.2.
P. Gassendi, MS Tours 709, f.150v; cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.l25bff.
P. Gassendi, MS Tours 709, f.150v; cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.l28b.
P. Gassendi, MS Tours 709, ff.150v-152r; cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.127b-128a (Gassendi added more au thorites in the Syntagma version).
“De principio efficiente, seu de causis rerum” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.283).
“De caussis, fortuna et fato” (MS Tours 709, ff.247r-255r).
“De Deo Authore et Rectore mundi”. This treatise is now catalogued as Ashburnham 1239. Together with the Liber proemialis of MS Tours 706, it is numbered among the twenty-three articles that disappeared from the Bibliothèque de Tours between 1842 and 1847, and which were sold to Lord Ashburnham in 1847 by Libri (cf. P. Meyer: 1883, “Les manuscrits du Connetable de Lesdiguières”, in Romania, 12, pp.336–342).
“Praeter has caussas agnitum fuisse primam, generalem, divinam” (MS Tours 709, ff,.253r-255r).
Bloch describes and discusses the more significant changes; cf. O.R. Bloch, La philosophie de Gassendi, pp.354–376
For a helpful discussion of Gassendi’s theological voluntarism and its epistemological consequences, cf. Margaret J. Osler: 1983, “Providence and Divine Will in Gassendi’s views on scientific knowledge”, in Journal of the history of ideas, 44, pp.549–560. For a more general treatment of the influence of theology and different forms of theology on the development of modern science,
cf. M.B. Foster: 1934, “The Christian doctrine of Creation and the rise of modern natural science”, in Mind, 43, pp.446–468;
M.B. Foster: 1935, “Christian theology and modern science of nature (I)”, in Mind, 44, pp.439–466;
M.B. Foster: 1936, “Christian theology and modern science of nature (II)”, in Mind, 45, pp.1–27;
E.M. Klaaren: 1977, Religious origins of modern science; belief in Creation in seventeenth-century thought, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. Cf. also,
J.E. McGuire: 1972, “Boyle’s conception of nature”, in Journal of the history of ideas, 33, pp.523–542.
MS Tours 709, ff.251vff; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.280a-b, 282b, 311aff, 333a-334a.
Cf. supra, pp.30–33.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.503a; MS Tours 710, ff.579v-580r.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.633a-634b, 637b. Aristotle, Metaphysics 1073a23–1074bl3; Aristotle, De caelo 292al0–293al4. Gassendi did concede that the Aristotelians could claim that the soul of the heavenly spheres operated as the physical principle or cause of movement as does the soul in an animal; cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, p.634a. He even adopted the Aristotelian terms “form” and “soul” to denote the mechanical principle of motion in his own theory; cf. P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, p.638b.
Idem, I, p.638a.
“Nativam formam, contexturamve, et constitutionem” (idem, I, p.638b).
Idem, I, p.638a.
“Exinde nempe esse potuit non modo circularis motus, sed etiam tenor eius perennis, ob perseverantem compactionem, et texturam globi, perseveranteisque proinde interius circumpulsationis, et circumductionis causas.” (Idem, I, p.638b.)
Cf. P.A. Pav: 1966, “Gassendi’s statement of the principle of inertia”, in Isis, 57, pp.24–34.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.343b, 384b; cf. MS Tours 709, ff.306r, 354r.
“The motive force in composite objects originates in the atoms.” “Vis motrix, quae in unaquaque re concreta est, originem atomis debet.” (Idem, I, p.384b; cf. MS Tours 709, f.354r.)
P. Gassendi: 1642, De motu impresso a motore translato epistolae duae, in quitus aliquot praecipuae, tum de motu universe, tum speciatim de motu terrae attributo, difficultates explicantur, L. De Heuqueville, Paris, in P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, III, pp.478a-563b, espc. p.489b.
“Omnem impressum motum ex se indelibilem esse.” (Idem, I, p.357b; MS Tours 709, f.325r.)
“Vis seu impulsio naturae ex una parte universi in aliam absque ullo termino.” (MS Tours 709, f.l85r.) Cf. Lucretius, De rerum natura I, 1074–1080.
“Vigore quoque ingenito, seu interna illa energia… quaque illas cieri per inane (sic voluit) ut, cum inane sit infinitum et centro omni careat, nunquam cessaturae ab illo suo motu, ut sibi naturali sint, sed in omne aevum in eo perstiturae, nisi aliae aut atomi, aut concretiones occurrerint, a quibus aliorsim flectantur.” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.276b; cf. MS Tours 709, f.l92v.)
Cf. the comments of A. Koyré on this aspect of Gassendi’s expression of the principle of inertia. (A. Koyré: 1939, Etudes Galiléennes, 3 vols. (Actualités scientifiques et industrielles 852–854), Paris, III, pp.144–157.) Koyré was impressed by the fact that Gassendi appeared to eliminate the concept of impetus, but he was mistaken. Gassendi did not refer to his Epicurean theory in his letters De motu impresso a motore translato; had he done so he would have referred to the theory as we have described it.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.274a-276a; cf. MS Tours 709, ff.l89r-191v. Gassendi was echoing the teaching of Epicurus as presented by Lucretius (cf. Lucretius, De rerum natura, II, 217ff), maintaining that, since Lucretius did not leave room for a theory of a natural centre of the world, he did not accept such a theory.
“De rebus naturae universe” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, pp.125–494). In the version of MS Tours 709 this heading is not given, and as a consequence the link between micro-level and macro-level theory is not made so clear.
“Ut motum atomorum… ita in rebus concretis…” (Idem, I, p.344b).
“Quod spectat vero ad motus rectos… sive elementa sint, sive mista…” (Idem, p.345a). This extrapolation has been called “the analogy of nature” (cf. J.E. McGuire: 1970, “Atoms and the ‘analogy of nature’; Newton’s third rule of philosophising”, in Studies in history and philosophy of science, I, pp.3–58). It was an elaboration of Epicurean atomism that was original in Gassendi’s exposition.
“Nativam formam, contexturamve, et constitutionem” (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.638b).
Idem, I, p.638a.
“Exinde nempe esse potuit non modo circularis motus, sed etiam tenor eius perennis, ob perseverantem compactionem, et texturam globi, perseveranteisque proinde interius circumpulsationis, et circumductionis causas.” (Idem, I, p.638b.) It is highly probable that Gassendi was indebted to Isaac Beeckman for this explanation of the circularity of the motion of the heavenly bodies; cf. I. Beeckman, Journal tenu par Isaac Beeckman de 1604 à 1634 (1939, C. de Waard (Ed.)), 4 vols., La Haye, I, p.253, entry dating between 23rd November and 26th December, 1618; cf. A. Gabbey: 1980, “Force and inertia in the seventeenth century: Descartes and Newton”, in S. Gaukroger (Ed.): 1980, Descartes. Philosophy, mathematics and physics, Harvester Press, Brighton, pp.230–320, espc. p.243.
P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p.638a.
E.g. MS Tours 710, ff.624v-653v; P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, pp.615b-630b. The Syntagma version in this instance is made to accord with the decision of the Roman authorities especially by the addition of the following sentence on p.630a: “Consequently, for those whose religion bars the Copernican hypothesis, the hypothesis of Tycho Brahe comes to the rescue, and this is the most plausible of all the hypotheses.” “Adeo proinde, ut quibus tueri Coperniceam hypothesis religio est, Braheana praesto occurrat, quae verisimillima omnium sit.” Cf. supra, pp.37–47.
Copernicanism was condemned by the Roman authorities on June 22nd, 1633; cf. Galileo Galilei, Opere, XIX, pp.402–407.
“De rebus terrenis”, idem, II, pp.9a-658b; the passage referred to is found in idem, II, p.9a.
That is the date attributed to MS Tours 707, the only version we have of this section; cf. R. Pintard: 1943, La Mothe le Vayer, Gassendi -Guy Patin. Etudes de bibliographie et de critique suivie de textes inédits de Guy Patin, Boivin, Paris, pp.39–40.
Lucretius, De rerum natura, V, 449–451. Lucretius referred to the formation of the world by an agglomeration of heavy Earth particles; lighter particles were squeezed out to form sea, stars, sun, moon and the walls of the world. According to Epicurus and Lucretius, however, there was an infinite number of these “worlds” in the universe, a doctrine which Gassendi rejected in favour of the Stoic cosmology. Gassendi did not insist, and in fact he would have realised that he would have found it difficult to sustain this interpretation of the doctrine of Epicurus in the light of the seemingly conflicting Epicurean doctrine of an infinity of worlds. Gassendi had himself declared that the doctrine of Epicurus of a plurality of worlds was against faith and reason (P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, p. 140a-141b).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brundell, B. (1987). Epicurean Anti-Aristotelianism. In: Pierre Gassendi. Synthese Historical Library, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3793-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3793-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-8187-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-3793-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive