From the

Closed World to the

Infinite Universe

by Alexandre KaYlc
From the Closed World to
the Infinite Universe

ALEXANDRE KDYRE, Ph. D., Utt. D.

Ecole Practique des Hautes Etudes, Sorbonne, Paris

Baltimore, Md.; The Johns Hopkin s Press

[1957[

"
• Ii

Fim pub li$hed 1957

Republ i,hed 2008 bV Fo'gonen Book'

www.forgottenbooks,org

,.
 o.

DID YOU KNOW••• ?

You con read an y and all oj our

thousands o[ books online jor

FREE

Just visit:

www./orgottenbooks.org

,.
 0 '"

PUBLISHER'S PREFACE

About th e 800k

"ThiS is a study of the .,.oluIiO<"l 0/ cosmology from antiquity t o mkl-lOth

cenIUI"'!_ Up 10 Ihe renals~nce Ihe wodd .... as IhoughllO be bounded bV'
distant but fi nite sphere, Ihe empyrean huven, beyond which mUll be the
realm of the divine . '" sde nce starte d 10 discover Ihe true nalllre of the
stars, the pl ane ls, and the heavens, natural philo<;oph"rs came up wilh new
mode ls 01 the universe, In the process they h<td to try to " xplain a number
of very olw ious everyday phenomena li ke gravity. force. and mass, and
a,
some n0150 Intuitive, such infinity and relative molion.

ThaI Ihe universe is imme nse is no longer controv,,«i.l. The qU"'lion of

whether it is infinite depe nds on whether space has ze ro, negat .... " Or
po'Sitive curvature, and that i. still !>ein@ tested. Now scie nt ists are
wondering whether the re may be .n infinity of unive"",. Thi' is a gre.t
boo ~ if you .re interested in the hiStory 01 SCience, ast ronomy. or the 'big

quest"'ns' 01 cosmology Or ontology .•

(Quote from socred· Ie Kts. com)

About the Author

Alexandre Koyre 1U!92 -1%41

"Alex.ndre Koyre IAugust 29, 1892, Tagamog - April 28, 1964, Pa,;,I,
sometimes .nglicised as Aleu nder KOire, was a French philOSOpher 01
Russian origin who wrote on history and the philoSQphy of science .

Koyre w.s born in the city of T.g.nrOf! on 29 August 1892 into a Russ i.n
fami ly of Je wish origin. His original n.me was - Alex.ndr Vladimirovich
Koyr.k,kiy. In Ru"ia he stud",d in Tifti, and Ode .... , before pursuing hi.
'tudie , abroad.

In Gottingen, Germ.ny (1908-1911) he studied under Edmund Husserl and

David Hilbert. Husserl did not approve of Koyre', dissertation, where upon
Koyre left lor Paris, to study Irom 1912 under Bergson, Brunschvig, Lalande,
Delbos and Pk~""'t Alter Husser!'s cartesian Meditations, a series 01
lectures gJven in Paris and o ne of the mOre important of Hus,erl's I~ter
works, Koyte met with him repeatedly and influenced his understandi ng of
Galileo.

In 1914 he joined the Foreign Legion in f r.nce as soon a< the war broke
out, and in 1916 volunteered in. Russian regiment fighting on the Russian
Iront, following a cooper.tion agreement between the French and !Iu"i an
government,.

In Paris Koyre taught from 1922 at the Ecote Pratique des Hautes Etudes
IE"HE), and became 3 colleague of Alexandre KOjeve, who eventually
repl.ced him as lecturer on Hegel. In 1931 the [ " HE [fe.ted a Department
of Hi,tory of Rel igiou, Thought in Modern Europe for him to ch.ir. Alter 3
briel 'tay in the Middle-Ea't (Beyrouth and Cairol, he join, the Egypti an
Nationa l Committee of the Free French and leave. for the United State. to
teach as visiting professor at the New School lor Social Research of New
York. From then hi' Career will mo,tly span OVe r [PHE and the USA
(University Johns Hopkins) His conferences at this college wil l lorm the
nucleu, 01 one of hi' beSI known publications "From the closed world 10
the inflnlle univef1;e" 11957) . He b«ame a member 01 the InSlllute for
Advanced Study of Princelon in 1956. He died in P3ri. on 28 April 1964.

Though best known as • philosopher 01 ,cience , Koy re staned out as a

histori.n 01 religion. Much 01 hi, originality lor the period rest, on hi'
ability to ground his .tudies 01 modem ''''cnce on the hi'tory of religion
and metaphysics.

Koyre focused on Galileo, Plalo, and Isaac Newlon. His most famous work is
From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, a ,er ie. of lecture, given al
The Johns Hopkins Univer~ty In 1959 on the rise of early modern science
and Ihe change of scientists' ~rception 01 the world during the pe riod
Irom Nicholas of Cu,a and Giordano Bruno through Newton. Though the
book has been widely hera lded, it was a summation of ~ oyre'. perspect ive
rat he r than an original new wor ~ .

Koyre was sUSjlkiou, of scientists' cI~ i ms to be proving natur.' or lunda·

ment.1 truth. Ihrough their experiments . He argued these u perimenlS
were based on complicated premi~., and Ihat they tended 10 prove the
outlook of these premise" rather th.n anv real truth. He re~'ledlv
 "
critici,ed Galileo's e xperimMts. claiming that Some of the~ experiments
could nOI have ta~en place and brought into question the results Ga lileo
claimed and modem hi,10rl3n5 of science had heretofore .ccepted.

A«:o,d ing to KO'1re, II was nol the experiment., Of empirlc.' nat ure of
Galileo'$ and Newlon's dio;coverie. Ihal made Ihe "Scientific Revolut ion" of
Ihe 17tl> Century, but. 'hift in perspective, " change in the theoretkal
outlook on the World. Koyre strongly crit idled what he called the
·positivi"- not;"n 1hal «;ence should only discover Kivell phenomena,
... la1ion, between them an d est. blish ,enain law, that help de><ribing, Or
better, predicti ng them. FOr My,e s<;(wee waS primary Theory: the
.spiratlon of knowing Ihe truth of the World, of uMolding the e~~nti31
struct..,re~ from which phenomena and the b~sic laws relating them spring.

Koyre was also interested in the correlations between scie ntific di.coveries
and religious and philoSDphic worldyiews. Not dissimilarly from Husserl's
later stud ..... K<>vre daimed that the modem sc"'nces managed 10
overcOme the split inherent to I\ristotelian sc"'nce between the Earth and
the Space, since they were nOw both 5<*n 35 governed by the same laws.
But On the other hand. it created another split, that between the pheno·
men.1 World inhabited by man and the mathemat ic, purely abst ract World
of Science. Koyre's aim was to show how this "first workl ", the world of
human dwelling (personal and historicf. apparently irreleva nt to modern
scie ntific naturalistic research, was by no means irre levant for its very
constitution and development: in his works he shows how scie nt ific truth is
alwaY' discovered in correlation with specific histDrical Of even pure ly
persD"al ci reum.",,,ce •.

Koyre"S wor~ can be thus ~en as a system at ic analysis of the constitutive

achieveme nts that re~ulted In scie ntific knowledge. with a particular
emphasis on historical and specifitaUy hu man circumstances th .t create
the scientist,' phenomenal world and ~rve as the found ation of all
scientific constitutions of meaning.

Koyre Influenced majo, European and American philosophers of science.

mast famously Thom as Kuhn and Pa..,1 Feyerabend. In 1961 he was
awarded the SartO!) Medal by the History of Science Soc ie ty·

(Quote from wikipedio_OfgJ

 CONTENTS

PI IBIISHER'SP8ffACf ""
pREfACf !
INTRODlictlON 4
THE SO ANOTHf HEAVENS 7
THE NEW ASTRONOMY IINa THE NEW METIIPHVSlc S 23
tHE "'EW ASTRONOMY AGAIN ST THE NEW M ETAP HYSIC S 4,
THINGS NEVER SEEN BEfOR E AND THOIIG HT5 NEVER THO! IGHT 66
IND EFIN ITE EXTENSION OR INEINITE SPliCE 8]
GOO AN D SPliCE SPIRIT AND MATTER 91
ABSOIIITf SPACE ABSOI 1m TI M E AN D THEIR BE l ADONS TO GOD II S
THE mVIN ' lATION OF spAer 14!J
GOO AN D THE WORlD SpAC< MATTER ETHER AND SPIRIT l SI
46S01 I!TF SPliCE AND ASSai l lIE I!I>1 E" GOO'S fRAM E Of ACTION !61
THE W OR K_DUGan ANDTHf GOO OF !>IE SARBA!>I 17 1
CON O IISiO N" WE m ytN E ARTIEf); AND THE DIEII EA IN tANJ 198
f NONOTES 101

,.
. .."",.11< Oo~ w.... d '" .h. Inf!ft~. ""........

PREFACE

,ME and ag~in, when studying the history of scientific and philo·

T sophicallhought In Ihe si .reenlh and Ihe sevenleenth cenluries-

Ihey are, indeed, SO close ly interrelated and linlted lC>f!ethe< that,
sep.araled, they become unundefStandable-1 have been forced to
recotlnile, 35 many ()1hers have before me, th3t d uring th is period human.
Or at lea>!. European, minds underwent 3 deep revolution which changed
Ihe very framework ~ nd patlerns of Our thinking and of which modern
science and modern philosophy ' re, at the Same time. the root and the
ifui!.

This revolution or. a, it has been called, this "crisis of European conscious-
ness: has been describEd and e.plained in many d;Herem ways. Thu.,
whereas it is gene rally admitled th3t Ihe development of the new
cosmology. which replaced the 8eo- or even amhropocentric world 01
Greek and medieval aStronomy by the heliocentriC, and, later. by the
centerless un iverse of modern astronomy. pla yed a paramount role in this
process. some historia ns. interested chiefly in the social implicati""s of
spiritu.1 changes. have stressed the alleged convefiion of Ihe human mind
from theoria 10 pr • • is, from Ihe sclenll. contempl.llv. to Ihe scienll.
activa et operativa. which transformed man from 3 spectator into.n owner
and master of natu re; ,orne O1hers have stre ssed the replacement of the
teleological and organismic pattern of thinking and e. planation bv the
mechanical and cau~ 1 pattern, leading. ultimately. to the "meChanisation
of the world·view" so prominent in modern times. espeCially In the
eighteenth century: still other, have simply described the desp~ir and
confusion brought by Ihe "new philosophy" into a world from which an
coherence was gone and in which the skies no longer announced the glory
of God.

As for myself, I have e ndeavored in my Galilean Studies to define the

structural patterns of the old and the new world-view, and to determine
the changes brought forth by the revolution of the seventeenth century.
They seemed to me to be reducible 10 two fundamental and close ly
connected actions that I characterised as the destruction of the cos mos
and the teemetri,.tion of space , th.t i, the substitution for the conception
o he world as a fin ite and we ll-ordCfed whole, in which the spatial structure
embodied a hie ra"h~ of perf""'tion and value, that of an indefinite or even
infin ite universe no longer united by natu ral subordin.tlon, but un ified only
by the identit~ of its ultimate and basic componen'" and laws; and the
replacement of the Aristotelian conception of space- a differentiated set
of innerworldly pl aces - by that of Euclidean geomet"l - an essenlial,.,.
infin ite and homogenous utension -from now on considered as identical
with the rea l space of the world . The ,piri"'al change that I describe did not
occur, of cour"" in a ,udden mutation. Revolution., too, need time for
their accompli,hment; revolution" too, have a histo"l. Thus the heavenly
,phere. that encompassed the world an d held it toeether did not di.. ppear
at once in • mighty explos ion; the world -bubble grew "nd swelled before
bursting and merg ing with the space Ihat ,urrounded it .

The path which led from the closed world of the ancienlS to the open one
of the moderns was. as a mailer of /act. not ve"l long : barely a hundred
years separate the De revalulianibus orbium coelestium of Copernicus
11'>43) from the Princip ia phila,ophiae of DescaMe, (1644); bare lv forty
years t hese Principiae from the Philosophi. naturalis prinCipia mathematic.
11687). On the olher hand. II wa, rather diffiCu lt. lull of ob,tacles and
dangerous road blocks. Or. to put it in simpler language. Ihe problems
involved in the infiniti:ation of the universe are 100 de<!p. the implications
of Ihe solutions too far-reaching and too ImpaMant ta allow an unimpeded
progre ••. Science, philosophV, even theologv, are. all of them. legit imately
intere sted in que.tion, about the nature of 'pace, ,trueture of maller,
panern. 01 action and, last but not least, about the n.lUre, structure, and
value 01 human th inking and of human science . Thus it i, science , philoso·
ph~, and theology, represented a, often as not by the ver; ,arne men -

Kepi/!<" and Newtoo, Oesc.rtes and Leibn iz - th.t join and take part in the
great debate t hat starts with Bruno and Ke pler and ends- provisionall~. to
be sure - with Newton and Leibni: .

I did not deal wOlh these problems In my Galilean Sludies. whe re I had to
de.cr ibe only the step. thaI led to the great revolution and formed, .0 10
,peak, it' pre hist"",. But in mv leeture< at The John. Hopkin, Un ivers ity-
"The Origins of Modem Science." in 1951, .nd "Science and PhilosophV in
the Age of Newton." in 19S2- in which I studied the histor; of thi,
revolulion itself. I had the opporlunity 10 treat 3$ t he~ deserved the
q u e~tlons Ihat were paramount in the minds of its great pro!.ilgooists. It Is
. .."",.11< Oo~ w.... d '" .h. Inf!ft~. ""........

thi' histarv that, under th .. titl.. From t h.. Clo, .. d Warld to th .. Infinit ..
Unive"e, I have endeavar.. d to tell in th .. Noguchi Lecture th.t I had t he
honour 01 giving in 1953; and it is the sell·' ame ,tOI)' that, taking the
histol)' of co'molog~, a~ Ariadne's thread I am retelling in this volume: It is,
indeed, only an expanded ve"ion of my Noguchi Lecture.

I would li ke to ... press my gratitude to the Noguchi Committee for Its kind
permission to expand my lecture 10 ilS pre~ nt dimen'ions, and to thank
Mr<. Je. n Jacquot, Mr<. Janet Koudelka, and Mr<. Willard King for ."i,·
tance in pre paring the manuscript.

I am also indebted to Abelard· Schuman, publishers, for the permi"ion to

quote Mrs. Dorothea Waley Singer's translation 01 Giordano Bruno', Oe
1'lMinita universo et mondi lNew York, 1950).

Ale-and'e Koyre

PRINCETON
JANUARY, 1957

'II ate
 INTRODUCTION

T is gener.lly admitted that the seven(een(h ceMury underwent. and

I accomplished. J very rad ical spi'itual revoluhon of whic h modern

science is at the same time the root and the fruit. ' This revoluhon can
be - .nd was -described in a number of different waY' . Thus. for instance.
SOme historia ns have Seen its mOSt characteristic feature in the se<:ulariu-
tion of conSCiousness. its turning .w;,y from transcendent goals (0
immanent aims. that is. In Ihe repl.cement of the concern for the other
world and Ihe other hfe by preoccupahon with this life and thiS world_
Some olhers have seen it in the disco"" ...... by man's consciousness. of ils
e>sential sUbje<:tJoJ ity and. Ihe refore. in the subst itution of the subje<:livism
of the moderns for the obje ctivism of mediaevals and ancients; still others.
in the change of relationship between (lEwpio and np6\,~. the old >deal of
Ihe vita contemplativ. yieldi", its place to that of the vi(a activa Whereas
mediaeval and ancie nl man aimed at (he pure conlemplation of nature and
of being. the modem one wants dominahon and maste ry_

The,e characteri,ations are by no mean, false. and they cenai nly point out
some rather im portant aspects of the 'pi ritual revolut ion - or cri, is- of the
seventeenth cemury. a'pects that are exemplified and revealed to us. far
examp le. by Montai,ne. by Bacon. by Descartes. or by the general spread
af skepticism and free t hinking.

Vet. in my opinion they are concomitants .nd ,,"pressions of a deeper and

more fund.menta l process as Ihe .esull of which man-as it Is somehmes
said-lost his place In the world. or, more correctly perhaps. lostlhe very
world in which he was living and aboul which he was thinking, .nd had la
tra nsform and replace not only his fundamenta l concepts and attribu te.,
but even the very framework of his thought.

ThiS sclenti nc and philosophical revolution - it is indeed impossible to

sepa'.(e the philosophical f.om Ihe pu.ely scient ific aspects of this
process: Ihev are Interdependent and closel y li nked toget her-can be
descr ibed roughlv as bringin g forth the destruction of the Cosmos. that is.
Ihe disap pearance , from philosophica lly and scie ntifically v.lid concepts, of
the conception of the world as a finite, closed, and hi erarch;cally orde red
. .."",.11< Oo~ w.... d '" .h. Inf!ft~. ""........

whole la whole in which the hierarchy of va lue determined the hierarchy

and "ruUure of being, ri. ing from t he dark, hea"Y and imperfeu earth to
the higher and higher perfe.:tion of the .tar and heavenly sphe res),' and its
replace ment by an indefinite and even Infi n ~e universe which Is bound
together by Ihe identity of its fundamental components and laws, and in
which alilhese components are placed On the same level of being. Th is, in
turn, implies the discarding by scientific thought of all cons iderations based
upon value-concepts, such as perfection, harmony, meani ng and aim, and
fi nally the ulter devalori,ation of being, the divorce of Ihe wofid of value
and Ihe world of facts ,

n is this aopecl of the seventeenl h century revolulion, the slory of the

destruct ion of the Cosmos and the in/initi,ation of the u nive~e that I will
attempt to present here , at least In its main line of de velopment.'

The full and complete hislory of Ihis process would make, indeed, a long,
involved and complicated SIO"1. It would have to dea l with Ihe histO"1 of
Ihe new astronomy in its shift from geocentrical to heliocentrical concep-
tions and in its technical de",,'opment from Copernicus to Newton, and
with that of the new phySiCS in its consistent trend toward the mathemali·
.1O\ion of nature and its concomitant and convergent emphas is upon
experiment and theo"! _ It would have to treat the rev ival 01 old, and the
birth of new, philosophica l d<>ctrines a llied wilh, and opposed to, Ihe new
science and neW cosmological oullook. It W(luld have to give an accounl 01
the lormation 01 the " corpuscular philosophy: that stra nge alliance of
Democritus and PI.,O, and of Ihe struule between the "plenis,," and the
' ViKU;';"" a, we ll as Ihal of the pan isan, and the foes of strict mechanism
and amaction. It would have to discuss the view, and the wOfk of Bacon
and Hobbes, Pascal an d Gassend i, lycho Brah e and Huygen" Boyle and
Guericke, and 01 a great many others as well,

However, in spite 01 this tremendous number 01 elements, discove ries,

theories and polem ics thaI, in Iheir Interconnections, fo,m Ihe comple.
and moving backg,ound and sequel of Ihe great ,e\lOlutlon, the main line of
the g,eat debate, the main $Iep' on the road which leads f,om the closed
world to the infinite universe, stand out dearlv in the worh of a few great
thinkers who, in de ep understanding of its primary importance, ha"" given
thei, full attention to the fundamental problem of the structure of the
W(lrld. It Is with them, and thei r works, t hat we shall be concerned here, a ll

"
,
tile more '0 as they p,,,.ent them,elv", 10 us ill the form of a ,,,,",,,IV
connected d;"u.,klll.

,. ••
. .."",.11< Oo~ w.... d '" .h. Inf!ft~. ""........

THE SKY AND THE HEAVENS

Nicholas 01 Cusa & Marullus Palin,enius

HE conception of the infinity of the uni~el'ie, like e~erything else or

T nearly ever\'lhing el .... orieinates, of course, w~h the Greeks; and it

is certain that the speculat ions of the Greek thinkers about the
Wini,y of space and ,he multip licity 01 worlds have played an impor,an,
par, In , he hiStory we ~all be de aling wl, h,' It seems to me, howe ver,
Impossible to red uce ,he history of t he infoniti,atio" of the universe to Ihe
rediscovery of the world. vlew of the Greek a,omi,t$ which became beller
known through Ihe newly discovered lucretius ' or the newly tran"ate<!
Diogene, laertius,· We mlm not forge. thaI the infin'tis. co nceptions of
Ihe Greek atomists we,e rejected by Ihe ma in trend , Of trends. of Greek
philosophkal and sc ientilk thought - the Epku,ean tradition wa. not a
scientific one ' - and that fo, t his very ,eason, though never lorgotten.
they could not be accep,ed by the med iaevals.

We must not forget moreover. that "influence" Is not a simple, bu, on the
contrary, a very complex. bil.teral rel.'i",,_ We are not Influenced by
everything we read or le.",_ In one sense.• nd perhaps the deepest, we
ourselves determine the influences we .re .ubmitting to; our intellectual
ancestor< are by no meam given to, but a re freely chosen by, UI, At least to
• large extent.

How could we e , plain o,herw ise that, In spite of their 8'Ut popularity,
neither Diogenes nor even Lucreti us h.d, for more than a century, any
influence on the fifteenth ce ntury's cosmological thinking? The first man to
take lucretian cosmology seriously was Giordano 8runo. Nicholas of Cusa -
it is true th .. it is nol certain whether al the l ime when he wrole hi.
Leaflled Ignorance 11440) he knew the De rerum natura-doe. not leem to
have pa id much atte ntion to it. Yet il was Nicholas of Cu ... , Ihe la .. great
philosopher of the dying Middle Age., who lirst rejected the mediaeval
cosmos""nception and to whom, as often as nOt, is ascribed the me,~, Or
the crime, of having as.e"ed the Infinity of the universe,

,.
•
It is indeed in such a w.~ that he was inte rprete d by Giordano Bruno, by
Kepi ... and, 1..1 but not least, by 0..""n"5, who in a well -known letter to
his friend (hanut (Ch anut reports SOme refle<:tions of Christina of Sweden,
who doubted whether, in the indefinite ly e. tended univer"" of Descartes.
man could still occupy the cent ra l position thM. according 10 Ihe luching
of rel igion, waS given 10 him by God in Ihe creation of the worldl \e1l5 Ihe
laner Iha1 .fte• • 11 "the Ca. dinal of Cusa and several Olher Div ines h.""
suppose<llhe world to be infonite, without ever being re proached by the
Church; on the contrary. it is beheve d lh.l10 make Hi, work. appear very
great is 10 honor God .·' The Can.,,;"n inte rpret.tion of the leaching of
Nicholas a' (U'" i. , a1he , pl. usib '" as. indeed . Nicholas of Cusa denies the
fonitude of t he world and i1< enclosu re by the wall. of the h e~v enl y sphere •.
But he does not assert its pOSitive infonity; as a matter of fact he avoids as
ca refull y and ~s consistently as Descartes himself the ~ttribution 10 the
universe of the qualifocaUon "infin ite." which he rese"'es for Goo. and for
God alone . His universe is not infinite linfinitum~ but "interminate"
Iinterminatum). whic h means not only that it is bou nd len and is not
terminated by an outside shell. but also that it is not "te rminated" in its
const ituents. t hat i,. th aI it utterly lack' precision and strict deler mination.
It never reache, the "limit "; it i'. in the ful l sen,e of Ihe word. indeler"
mined . It c~nnot. the refore. be the object of 10131and precise ~nowledge.
bu t only tha t of a partial and conjectural one. 9 1t I, the recognition of this
nece ssarily parhal -and rela tive-character of our knowledge. of the
impossibi lity of building" univocal and o bje ctive representation of the
universe. that con<litutes- in one of its aspects-the docta ilnorantia. the
learned ignorance. advocated by Nichola, of (usa as a mean, of transce nd-
ing the limitations of our rational thought.

The world·conception of Nichol.s of Cu •• is not based upon a critici.m of

conlempOrary astronomical Or cosmological theories, and does not le ad, al
least in hi' Own thin ~ ing . to a revoluHon in science . Nicholas of Cusa.
though it has ohen been so claimed. i, nOt a forerunne r of Nicholas
Copernicus_ And yet his conception is extremely interesting and. In some of
ilS bold assertions-or negations-it goes far beyond an)'lh ing that
Cope rnicus ever dared to think 0 /. to

The universe of Nichol. s of Cu sa i, an e xpression or " deve lopment

(explicatiol. though. of cour .... necessarily imperfect and inadequate. of
God -imperfect and Inadequate because it displays in the realm of
multipli city and sepa ration what In God is pre sent in an indiSsoluble and
 ,
intimate unity (comp licatio), a unity which embrace, not on lv the different,
but even the oppo,ite. qualities or determinations of being. In it. turn ,
every , ingular thing in tne universe repre,ents it-the universe - and tnu.
also GOd. in its Own particular manne r; each in a manner dif fere nt from
that of all others, by ' contractins" (eontt3clio) Ine weaall of the un iverse in
accordance w ith its own unique individualitv_

Sc hnN. huiLIJ pmruIfz diu;Iiollis Sf \"" rUWTI •

'IG\J«, I
T"""",,)9
... «1_
1&"", ,''''
~d""'om"''''' _ ..
of ..... -.,..n', ",,_,,"""I

,. ••
The metaphysical and epi5lemol08kal COflceptions of Nic hola, of (u", his
idea of the coincidence of the oppo.ites in the absolute which transcends
them, as well as the correlati~ e conc<'Pt of learned igno rance as the
intellectua l act that grasps this relationship which transcend. discursive,
rat ional thought, follow and deve lop the patlern 01 the mathematical
parado xe, Invol~ed in Ihe infinlli:alion of certain relations .. lid f(H' finite
object, . Thus, for In,tance, nothing Is more opposed in geomet!)' Ihan
"straighlne,," and "curvilinearity"; and Vel in the infinitely great circ le Ihe
circumference coin tide s wilh the tangent, and in the infi nile ly .mall one,
with the diameter. In both ca,e" moreover, Ihe center loses its unique,
determinate position; it coincides wilh the circumlerence; it is nowhere, '"
everywhere. But "great" and "small" are them.e l~es a pair of opposed
concepts t hat are ~alid and meaningful on ly in the realm of fin ite quantity,
the realm 01 relative being, where there are nO "great' Or ".,..,all" objects,
but only "greater" a nd "'mailer" one" and where, the refore, there Is nO
"grealest" as well a$ no "smallesl" (ompared wilh the infinlle Ihere is
nOlhing Ihat Is grealer Or ,mailer Ihan anything else . The absolule, Infinite
ma ximum does nOI, anV more Ihan the absolute, infin ite minimum, befong
to the series of the great and .m.lI. TheV are outside iI, and the refore , ••
Nicholas of (usa boldlv concludes, they coincide.

Another ... ample can be provided by kinematics . No two thing" indeed ,

are more oppo,ed than motion and reSI . A body in mOlion is never in Ihe
, ame place; "body at rest Is never oUlside II. And vet a body mo~ing wilh
infinite velocity along a Circular palh will alwaj'$ be in Ihe place of il<
departure, and al the same time will always be else where, a good proof
thaI mOlion i, • re lalive conce pt embracing the oppositiOns of ",peedy"
and "' low." Thus it follows that, just as in the ,phere of pu rely geometr ical
quantity, there is no minimum and no maximum of motion, no slowe.t and
no quickest, a~d that the absolute maximum of velocit)' linfinite speedl as
well as its absolute minimum (infinite slowness or rest) afe both outside it
and, as we have seen, coincide .

Nicholas of Cusa I. we ll aware of Ihe originality of his Ihoughl and even

more so of Ihe ralher paradoxical .nd strange character of the conduSion
to which he is led by learned ignorance. "

It i. po"ib le [he '1<IIe,) Ih althose who will read t hing' previou,1y unhea rd
of, and now established bv Learned Ignorance, will be astonished.

" ••
Nicholas of Cu,," cannot help it: it ha., indeed, been established by "'arne<!
ignorance" ... that the uni"""e is triune; and that there is nothing that i.
not a unity of potentiamy, actuality and conn...:tin g motion; that nO one of
these can subsist absolut ely without the other; and that all these are in all
(things) In diHe~nt degrees. SO d~ferent that in the universe no two
(things) can be completely equal to each other In e""rything . Accordingly. if
we consider the di""r,e motions of the (celestial) orbs. (we find that) it is
impo<sibie for the m.chine of the wor ld to have any fi~ed and mot ionles.
center; be it thi' ,en sible earth, or the air. or fire or anything el,e. For there
can be found no absolute minimum in motion, that i" no fixed ce nter,
because the minimum must necessarii-y coincide with the ma. imum] Thus
the centrum of the world coindde. with the circumference and, as we 'hall
see, it is not. physical, but. metaphysical "cent rum: which does not
belong to the world. Thi. · ce ntrum." wh ich is the Same as the "ckeumfe-
renee,' that is. beginning and end. foundation and limit. the "place" that
"contains' it. is nothing other than the Absolute 6eing Or God .

Indeed, pursues Nichola. of (usa, curious;'" reversing a famous Ari'totelian

argument in favour of the limitation of the world:"

The world ha, no circumference, because ;r it had a center and a Circumfe-

rence, and thus had a beginnif1g and end In itsel!. the world would be
limited if1 respect to somethif18 else. and outside the world there would be
something other, and space, things that are wholly lacking in truth. Since.
therefore, it is impossible to endo.e the world between a corporeal
centrum and. circumference, it is (impossible fori our re.,on to have a full
understanding of the world, a, it implies the comprehension of God who is
the center an d the circumference of it.

ThuS ...• ... though the world is not infinite. yet it cannot be conceived as
fin~e, since it has nO limits between wh ich it is confined . The e arth.

therefore. which cannot be the center. cannot be lacking in all motion; bul
it is necessary th.t it mo"" in such a way that It could be moved infinite ly
less. Just as the earth is not the center of the world. SO the sphe re of the
fixed ,tars is not its Circumference , though if we compare the earth to the
sky, the earth appea .. to be nearer to the ce nter, and the .kV to the
circumference. The earth therefore is not the center, ne ither of the e ighth
nor of (anv) other ,phere, nor does the risi ng of the si. ,Ign. (of the Zodiac)
above the horizon imply that the earth Is in the cenle r of the eighth sphere.
For even if it we'e somewhat dl,t.nt from the center and outside the "i$,
which traverse, the pol... , so that in one part it would be elevated towards
one pole, and in the other {partl depressed towards the othe<, neverthe-
Ie,s it i, cI~.r that, being at such a great distance f.om the pole, and the
horilon being just as vast, men would see only hall of the sphere (and
therefore believe themselves to be In Its center) ,

FurlhermOfe the ve"l cente r of Ihe world Is no more Inside Ihe earth Ihan
OU1<ide il; for neither thi' earth, nor any other sphere, has a center;
indeed, Ihe ce nter is a point equidistant from the Circumference; bUI it is
nol po>sible that there be a true sphere or circumference such that a truer,
and mOfe prec ise one, could not be po>sible; a precise equidistance of
divers {object,{ ",nnot be found ou"ide of God, for He alone i, the infinite
equality , Thus it is the blessed God who i'the center of the world; He is the
center of t he earth and of all the spheres, and of aU (the things) that a re in
the world, as He Is at the Same time the infinite Circumference of all.
Furthermore, Ihere are in Ihe sky no Immovable, /i.ed poles, though the
sky of the /i. ed st.rs appears by Its mOllonto describe circles graduated In
magnitude, le<5er than the colure' or Ihanlhe equinoctia l, and also circles
of an intermediate (magnitude!; yet, a< a matler of fact, aUthe parts of the
sky must move, though unequal ly in comparison with the ci rcles described
by the motion of the r"ed sta" , Thus. as certain ,tars appear to describe
the ma , im al circle, so certain [others), the minimal, but there is no star
thM does not describe any. Therefore, as there is no r,. ed pole in the
sphere, it is obvious thaI neither can there be found an e xact mean. Ihat ls,
• point equidistant from the poles. The re i< therefore no star in the eighth
sphe re which by (its) revolut ion would describe a ma. imal cirde, because it
would have to be equidistant from the poles which do not exist, and
.ccordingly {the starlthat would describe the minim.1 cirde doe, not exist
either. Thu, the poles 01 the ,pheres coindde with the center and there i.
no other center than t he pole. that is. the blessed God Himself.

The e , .ct meaning of the conce pUon developed by Nicholas of Cusa Is not
q uile clea,; the tut s th.t ! h,ve quoted could be -~nd h.ve been -
interpreted in many different way. which I will not examine here. As for
mv,elf, I believe tha t we can understand it as expre"ing, and ., mes;ing,
the lack 01 precision and stability in the created world, Thus, there are no
stars exaClly on the poles, or on the equator of t he celestial ,phere . There
" no fixed constant • • i.; the eighth, as we ll as al l the other sphere.,
pedorm thei r revolutions around a. es that continUOUSly Shift thei r
positions . Moreover, these sphe res are by no mean, e .act. m~lhem alical
("true") sphere" but only someth ing which we should today call "spher.,.
id,"; a"ordin~y, they have no cemer, in the precise meaning of th i'term.
~ follows therefore that ne~her the earth, nor anything etse. Can be placed
in this center. which does not exist. and t~at thus nothing In this world can
be completely and absolutely at 'est.

I do not believe we can go fu'the' than that and att'ibute to Nicholas of

Cu.a a purely relat ivistic conception of space, such as. fo' instance ,
Giordano Bruno imputes to him. SUc~ a conception implie, t~e denial of
the very existence of ce lestia l orbs and ,phere" which we cannol a,cribe 10
Nicholas of CUHl.

Yet. in spite of this retention of the sphe,es, there is • good deal of

,elativism in Nic~ol .s of Cusa's world·view. Thus he continue,,"

But we cannot discover mol"", unless it be by comparison wilh someth ing

fi xed. th", is (by referring It tol the pojes 0' the cenlers and assuming them
in ou, measurements of t~e motions las being at rest]; it follows therefrom
that we are alway' ming conjecture " and err in the re mit, lof our
measurements]. And (if( we are surprised when we do not find the stars in
the places whe re they should be according to t~e ancients. (it is l because
we bel ieve (wrongly] t~at they were righl in their conceptions concern ing
the cente's and poles as well as in their measurements.

It seems. then, that for Nichol as of CUHI the lack of ag,eement between the
obseNations of the ancients and those of the moderns has to be explained
bv a change in t~e po,;,;on of the axi, (and pojes), and, perhaps, by a shift
in that of the ,Urs them,el"es.

From all this, that is, from t he fact that nothing in the world can be at rest.
Nicholas of Cusa concludes:

... it is obvious Ihat the earth moves. And because from Ihe motion of the
comets. of the .ir and of fire. we know by e'perience that the e lemenu
move, and (that] Ihe moon (mo"",] Ie•• from the Orient to the Occident
than Mercury or Venus. or the sun, and '0 on, it follow, that the earth
(con'idered a, an elemem) moves less than all the olhers; yet (considered]
as a <lar, it does not describe around the celller or the pole a minimal
circle. no, does Ihe eighth sphere, Or any olhe'. describe Ihe ma . imal, as
has al'eady been proved.

"
You have IIOW to consider .nenHvely what follows: just as the ,t . .. move
around the conjectural poles of the eighth ~here, so also do the e.rth, the
mOOIl and the planets m()';e in various ways and al Idillerelltl distance.
around a pole, which pole we have to conjecture as being [In the place)
where you are accustomed 10 put Ihe cenler . II follows therefrom Ih.t
though the earth is, so 10 speak, Ihe sta, which is nearer Ihe central pole
Ilhan the othersl it >!ill mOlles, and yet doe,lIot describe in lilSl motion the
minimum circle, as has beell shown supra. Moreover, neither the sun, nor
the mOOll, nor any sphere-though to u. it .eem. otherwise-can in li"l
motion deS(;ribe a true circle, becau,e they do not move .round a fixed
b..... Nowhere i. there a true cirde such that. truer one would not be
possible. nor is lanythingl ever at One time lexact lyl as at allot her. neither
does It move in a precisely equ al ImaMerl, nOr does it describe an equally
perfect circle. though we are not aware of it.

It i, rathe r difficult to s.y precisely what kind of motlOIl is ascribed 10 the

eanh by Nichola. of Cusa. In any case , il doe. 1I0t .eem to be any of th!)!;e
thaI Copernicus w.s to .mibute to il: it is ne ither the d.ily rotat ion .roulld
Its a.is, 1I0r the anllu.1 reVOIUtiOIl around the SUII, but a kind of loose
orbital gyrat ion around a vaguely determined alld con.talltlv shifting
center. This motion Is of the same nature as that of all other ce lestial
bod>es. the sphere of Ihe fixed stars included. though Ihe slowest of Ihem
all. th.1 of the sphere of the fi xed star. being Ihe quickest.

As for Nichola. of Cu<a's .«erlions IQurte unavoidable from his e pistemo-

logical premises) thallhere is nowhere . precise circul.r orb or a precisely
uniform motion, they must be ime rpreled as implying imme d;,llely (Ihough
he does not say it explicitl y, ~ is cle.rly enough ",ggested by the context)
that 1I0t only the factual content, but the very ideal of Greek and mediaeval
astronomy, that is. the red uction of celestial motions to a svstem of
interlocking uniform Circul ar ones which would "save" the phenomena bv
revea li ng the permanent stabilitv of Ihe real behind the seeming ir ~ulari.
tv of the apparenl, Is fallacious and mUlt be abandone<t .

Vet Nichola. of Cu.a goes even funher and, drawing the (pellullim. le)
a",elusion from the rel.t;v~ y of the perce ptioll of space (directioll) alld
motion, he asserts Ihat .s the world ·image of a givell obse rver is de ter·
mined by the pla~ he occupies in the universe; a nd as none of these places
can el alm an absolute ly privileged value (for instance. 1hal of being the
center 01 the universel, we have to admit the pDSsible existence 01
different, equiv.lent world-images, the relative-in the lull sense 01 the
word - char3cter 01 each 01 them, and the utter impossibility 01 forming an
objectively valid ,ep,ese ntatiO<l of the universe."

ConsequenHy, If you want to have a better understanding of the motion of

the universe. you mUlt put together the cente r and the pole s, with Ihe aid
of your imaginatiO<l a' far as you can; for if somebody were M the earth,
unde, the arctic pole, and somebody e lse on the arctic pole, then just as to
the man on the eanh Ihe pole will appear to be in the ,enith, 10 the man
on the pole it is the ce nter that would appear to be in the zenith. And .,
the antipode, h.ve, like oursel""., the s.ky above the m, so 10 IhDSe who are
in Ihe poles (in bothl, the earth will appear to be in the ,enith, and
wherever the observer be he will be lieve himself to be in t he center.
Combine thus these diverle imag inatio ns, making the center into the zenith
and vice versa, and Ihen. wilh the intellect. which alone Can practise
le arned ignorance. y<)u will see that the world and ils motion cannOI be
repre,ented bV' figure, became it will appear .Imost as • wheel within a
wheel, and. ,phe re within a sphere, having nowhere, as we have se en,
eit her a cenler or a circumfe rence .

The ancients [continues Nicholas 01 Cusa " I did not arrive at the things
that we have brought fonh. becaule they were deficienl in learned
ignorance. BUI for uS it is clur thallhis eanh really moves, Ihough it does
nol appe.r 10 us 10 do '0, because we do not apprehend motion exce pt by
a ce rtain comparison with somelhing f",ed. Thus if a man in a boat, in the
middle of a stream, did nol know thaI the waler was Rowing and did not
se e the bank. how would he apprehend th.t the boal was moving? ..
Accord ingly, .s it will always .eem to the observer, whether he be O<l t he
eanh, or On the Sun Or On anothe r star, that he is in the qua si-motionless
center and that all the other Ithingsl are In motion, he will certain ly
determine tne poles lof this motionl ln relation to himself; and these poles
will be different for the obse rver on the sun and for the one on the e arth,
and \lill different for those on Ihe moon and Mars, and SO on for Ihe rest.
Thus, Ine f.br it 01 the world (math in. mundil will quasi have its cente,
everywhe,e and its circumference nowhere, becau se tne circumference
and the center are God; Wno is everywhe re and nowhe re.

It must be added t hat this earth is not spherical. as some have said, though
It tends towards sphericity; Indeed. the shape of the world is contrasted In
~, pam, as well .s its motion; but when the infinite line is co",ide.e<! as
colll •• cted in wch a way th.t .•s cont.acted, it could not be mo.e pe.fect
Or mo.e spacious, then it is circular, and t he cOffespOndin8 corpo.ealligure
[is theJ sphe.ical One. For.1I motion of the pa.ts is towa.ds the pe.fection
of the whote; thus hu"Y bodies [move] towards the urth. and light ones
Imove] upwa.d, earth towards e arth. water towa.ds water, fire towards
fire; accordinglv. the motion of the whole lends as f•• • s il can towards the
Circular, and.1I sh.pes towards the sphe rical one, as we ~e in Ihe parts of
animal., in trees, and in Ihe .kV. But one motion i, mo,e tircular and mo re
pedeclthan anol her, and it i, the ,arne with , hape"

We cannot but admire the boldne .. and dept h of Nicholas of Cu ... ·,

cosmological conceptKlnS which culmin.te in the astonishing tr.nsference
to the universe of the pseudo· Hermetic characterization of God: ". sp he re
of which the center Is everywhere, and the Circumference nowhere." ,. But
we must recogn ile .Iso that. without going far beyond him. it is ImpOssible
10 link them wilh ,\!fonomical science or to base upOn them. "reforma.
tion of 'Slfonomv." This is probably why hi. conceptions were So utte rlv
disregarded by hi. conle mporarie., and e ven by hi. mcce"o .. for more
than a hundred yea ... No one. nOt even Lef~vre d'Etaples who edited his
wo.ks, seemS to have paid much attention to them, '" and it was only .fter
Copernicus-who knew the works of Nicholas of Cusa, at least his treatise
on the quad rature of the circle. but does not S*m 10 have been Influenced
by him" - and even Mter Giordano 8runo. who d.ew his Chlelln,piration
from him, Ihal Nicholas of Cusa achieved f.me as a forerunner of Coperni·
cu', and even of Kepler, and could be quoted bV Descal1es as an advocate
oflhe infinity of the world.

It is r.ther tempt ing to f~low the e xample of these illustriou, admirer. of

NiChola, of CUS<!. and to .e.d into him . 11 kinds of .nti cipation. of later
discove ries, SUCh. for in stance. as the flattened form 01 the eart h. the
elliptic trajectories 0/ the planets. Ihe absolute relativity of space. the
,ot.tlon of the heavenly bodies upOn their ..es .

Vel we mU.1 ,,,,ist Ihi. lemp!at ion . A, a matter of f~ct. Nichol.. of Cu.a
doe. not .. ~fI anVlhinll of the kind. He does belie ... in Ihe existence and
also in the motion of he avenly spheres, that of the fixed stars beinll the
quickest of all, as well as in the existence of a cent,al region of the universe
around which II moves as a whole, conferring thiS motion on all "s parts.
He does nOI assign a rotary motion !O the planets, nOI even to th is our
earth. He doe, not a ..ert the perfect unilormity 01 space. Morl'Over, in
deep <>ppo,~ion to the lundamental inspiration 01 the lounde" 01 modern
science and 01 the modern world·view, who, rightly Or wrongly, tried to
assert the pan~rchy 01 mathematics. he denies the very pO$sibil~V of the
mathematical t~atment of nature.

We must now turn our anention to another aspect of the cosmology of

Nicholas of Cusa. historically ~rhaps the mO<t important : his rejection of
the hierarchical structure of the univ""e, and, quite particularlv, hi'
denial-together with its central position-ol the uniquely low and
despicable position ass igned to the earth by traditional cosmology. Alas,
here too, his deep metaphysi",,1 intuition i, marred by so::ienti/ic concep·
tions that W1lre not in advance of but rather behind his time. such as. for
instance. the attribution to the moon, and even to the earth. of a light of
their own. "

The shape of the earth is noble and spherical. and ill motion i, circular.
though it cou ld be more perfect. And since in the world the'e is no
ma ximum in perfection<, motions and figu ,es (as is evidentlrom wha t ha,
already been said) it is not true that this earth is the vilest and lowest (of
the bodies Of the world), lor though it seems to be mOre central in 'elation
to the world. it is alSO. for the Same reason. nearer to the pole. Neither is
this earth a proportional, 0' aliquot part of the world. for as the world has
neither m.>dmum, nor minimum. nelthe' has ~ a moiety, nor aliq uot parts.
any more than a man or an animal (has them); for the hand is not an
aliquot part of the man, though ~s weight see ms to have a proportion to
the body, just as it does to the dimen,ion and the figure. Nor i, the dark
colour (of the earth) an argument for its basen ...., because to an observer
on the sun, it (the ,un) would not appear as brilliant a, it does to us;
indeed, the body of the sun must have a certa in mOre central part. a quaSi
urth, and a certain circumferential quasi·liery lucklity, and In the middle a
quasi.watel)' cloud and clear air, just as this earth has Its elements . "Thus
SOmeone outside the region of fire would see [the earth . s). brilliant ,tar,
ju,t a5 to us, who are outside the region of the sun. the sun appears vel)'
lum inous.

Having thus destroyed the vel)' basis of the opposition of the "dark" eanh
and the "Iuminou," sun by e'tablishing the , imilarity of the ir fundamental
structure, Nicholas proclaims victoriOusly : "

,. ••
The earth i, a noble star, which has a light and" heat and an inftuen<e 01 it,
OWll, different Irom those 01 all other stars; every (star) indeed differs Irom
ever)' other in light, nature and influence; and thu, every ,tar communi-
cate. ~s tight and Inltuence to (every) other; not Intentionally, for st ars
move and gtitter only in order to exi,t in a mOre perfect ma nner: the
participation .ri,es's' consequence; just 35 light ,hines by its own n.ture,
not in order that I may see it.

Indeed , in the infi nitely rich .nd infinitely diver<ilied and org.nically lin~ ed·
together universe of Nichola, 01 Cusa, there i. no center 01 perfection in
""pectto which the rest of the universe wouJd play a subservient part; on
the contrary, ~ i, by being themselve •. and a,serting their own nature.,
that the various componentS 01 the universe contribute to the perfection 01
the whole . Thus the n rth In its way is just as perlect as the sun, or the
f"ed stars. Accord ingly, Nicholas of Cu,. continues: "

It must not be ,aid e ither thai, becau,e the earth Is ,mailer than the sun.
and receive, an influence Irom it, it is also mOre vi~; for the whole retion
of the earth, which extend, 10 the circumference of the fi ,e, is large. And
though the earth i, smaller t han t he sun, as is ~nown to uS from it, shadow
and the eclipses. stili we do not know whether the region of the ,un is
gruter Of" smalier th.n the region of the earth; however. they cannot be
precisely equal, as no star can be equal to another . Nor i, the earth the
smalieSI 51ar, for it is la'ger than the moon, ' 5 we are taught by the
experience of the ec lipse., and eve n, a. some people say, larger than
Mercury, and possibly than some other ,tars. Thu, the argument from Ihe
dimension 10 Ihe vileness is nol conciu,ive.

No' can it be argued that the earth is less perlect than the ,un and the
planets because it receives an influence from them: it is, as a matter offact,
quite possible that it influe nces them in its turn:"

It is dear therefore that it is not possible for human knowledge to

determine whether Ihe region of Ihe earth is in a degree of greater
perfection or b..enes; in re lation to the region. of the other >t.rs, of the
sun, the moon and tile re >t.

Some 01 tile argument, in favour of the relative perfection of the earth are
rat her curious. Thus. being convinced that the world Is not only unlimited
but.l,o everywhere populated. Nicholas of (u •• tells u. Ih.t no condusion
as 1<> the imper(ecti<>n <>( the e.rlh GIn be dr.wn (r<>m the allege<!
imper(ecti<>n <>( it. inh.b it.nts, a ,<>ndu.i<>n that n<>OOdy, as far a. I ~ n<> w ,
ever made, at least nOt in his time. Be that as it may, in any CaSe Nicholas 01
Cus~ a~serts that. " .. . it Glnnot be said that this place <>fthe world lis less
perfect beGl use it Is) the dwelling-p lace of men. and an imals. and vegeta·
bles that ar" less pedect than the inhabitanlS of Ihe region of the sun and
of Ihe olher Slars. fo r although God is the cenler and the circumference of
all the stel lar regions. and although in every region inhabitants of diverse
n<>bi lily <>f nalure proceed from Him, in order that such vast regions 01 the
skie, and <>, the stars ,h<>uld not rema in void, and Ihal not onlv this earth
be inhabited by le"er being'. ,WI it doe, not ,ee m Ihat, ac,<>rding t<> the
<>rder <>( nature, there could be a more noble or m<>re perl""t nat ure than
the inteU""tual nature which dwells here On this earth as in its region, e~n
il there are in the other stars inhabitant. belonging t<> .nother genus, m.n
indeed does not desire anOlher nature. but onlv the perfection of his own.

BUI. of course. we have to admit that in the ~me genus there may be
several different species which embody Ihe same common nature in a
mofe , or I"", perfect way. Thu. it .eem. to Nichola. of Cusa rather
reasonable 10 conjecture Ihat the inhabitants of the sun and the mOOn are
placed higher on the >ca le of perfection than ou .. el~" thev .re mOre
intellectual. more splrilual than we.les. mate rial, less burdened bv fle.h .

And. flnallv, Ihe great argument from change and corru ptibilily to baseness
i. declared bV Nicholas of (usa as having no mOre value Ihan Ihe rest. for "
"since there is one universal wOfld, and ,ince .11 the particular sta"
influence each olher in a ce rtain pmportion," there is n<> reas<>n to suppose
Ihat change and decay occur <>nlv he re, on the eanh, and nol everywhere
in the universe. Nav, we have every reaSOn to suppose-though of cou ' ....
we ca~not know it - that it is everywhere the same, the mOre SO as this
corruption, which is presented to u ••• Ihe particular feature of terrestrial
bel ~g. is bV no mean a real destruction, Ihat i•. tota l ~nd absolute loss of
". ISlenCt . II is. indeed. loss of Ihat particu l ~r form of e ' i\lenC1!.: But
fundamenlally it I, nOI '0 much outright disappearance a, dissolution. or
re,ollltion. of a being into its cOMtitut ive e~ments and Iheir reunification
into ,omething else, a proce<s that may take place - and probablv doe.
take place-in the whole universe just bee.u,e the <>ntologic.1 structure of
Ihe w<>rld is. fundamentally, everywhere Ihe ,arne. Indeed ~ e.pre.se.
everywhere in the same temporal. that is, mutable and c h~ng ing. manner
Ihe immutable and elernal perfection 01 the Crealor .

,
As we ",e, a new spirit, the sp irit 01 the RenaissanU! breathes in the work
01 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. His world is nO long~r the medieval COSmOS .
But it Is not ~et. by any means. the intinite universe of the moderns.

The honor of having .sserted the Infinity of the universe has also been
d.imed by modern hiltorlans for a li xteenth U!ntury writer. Marcellus
Stell.tm Palingenius, ,. author of a widely read and very popular book,
Zodiacm Vit ae, which wal published in Venice. in Latin, in 1534 (and
translated into English in 1560); bUI, in my opinion, with even less rea50n
than in the Gl5~ 01 Nicholas of Cusa.

Palingeoius, who is deep ly inftuence d by the Neopl.tonic reviv.1 of the

fifteenth century and who therefore rejects the .bsolute .uthority of
Aristot le, though, at other times, he quotes him with approval, m.y have
had some knowledge of Nicholas of Cusa's world·view and h,ve been
encoura&ed by his e . ample in denying the finitude of creation. Vet It is not
U!rt.in . since, with the e>eept ion of the rather energetic .ssertion of the
impo<5ibilityof imposing a limit on God', creative action, we do not find in
his teaching any reference to the particular tenets of the cosmology of
NiCholas of Cusa.

ThuS. for Instance. when In dis<:ussing the general structure of the universe
he lells us OJ

BUI some have Ihoughtthal every staffe a worlde we may call,

The earth they count a darkened staffe, whe rea5the least of all.

it i. obvious that it is not Nichola. of Cusa. but the ancient Greek cosmolo -
gists that he has in mind. It is to be noted, moreover, that Pallngenius does
not Share thei r views. His own are quite different. He does not make the
ea"h ~ st.r. On the contr ~ry he maintains consistentl~ the oppos ition
between the terrestri., and Ihe celestial regions; and it Is. just Ihe
imperfection of the former that leads him to the denial of its being the onlv
populated pl.ce in the world.

Ind""d. "

. .. wesee
The Seas and earth with sundry sorts. of crealures fuillo bee.

••
Shall then the heaven. deare be thought, as void and empty made
o rather void and empty mind e., thatthu. yourselve. persuade.

It Is clear that we cannot share the errOrS of these "empty mlndes. ' It is
Clear. too. Ihat "

. __ crUlures doth the skies conlaine. and every Slarre beside

lie heavenly towne, and seate, of Sa ints, where Kings and Commons bide
Not ,hape, and 'hadow, va in of thing' (a, we have present here)
But perfe ct ~ ing, and people eke, .11 thing' are perfect there .

Yel Palingeniu. doe. not • .,ert the infinity of the world . It i. true that,
applying consistently the principle to wh ich Professor LOvejoy has given the
name of princip le of plenitude. "he denies the "oitude of God', creation.
and says: J4

A sorte there are that do s uppose. the end of everylhlng

Above the heavens to conSi't, and farther not to spring.
So Ihat beyond them ooth ing is: .nd that above the ,kie,
The Nature never pow re to clime. but there amazed lie s.
Which unto me appeareth lal.e: and reaSOn does me teach.
For If the ende of all be there, where skies no farther reach
Why hath 001 God created more? Be<;.use he had oot skill
How more 10 make, his cunning staied and bro ken of his will?
Or for because he had not power? but truth both the,e denies,
For power of God hath never end, nor bounds his knowledge lies .
But in the State Diuine of God and Glorious maie stie
We mu.t be lieve is nOlhing vaine .ince Godlie" i, the same:
This God what >0 eve r he could doe assu red'v did frame,
Least that hi' vertue were in vaine, and never should be hid.
But since he could ",ake endles.e things, it never must be thought he did,

Nevertheless he m.int.ins the finitude of the m.leri.1 world. enclosed .nd

encompassed by Ihe eight heavenly spheres: "

But lea filed Aristolle sayth there can no body bee,

Butlhat it must 01 bonde, consi,t: to thi' I do agree,
Because above the sk~. no kinde of body do we piau,
But lighl most pure . of bodye voide. such light as dOlh deface
And farre e>cell our shining Sunne, such light., CQmprehend

••
Our eyes cannet, "nd endl",se ligl>ttl>.t God dotl> from him send.
Wherein t"!lether w~h their ~ ing the Sprites that are mere hie
Doe dwell, the meaner sorte beneath the skies doe alwa;es l;e .
Therefore the reigne and pos~ion Of t he world con sists in three,
Celestiall. Subcelesti all which with limits com past bee:
The Rest no boundes may comprehend wh ich bright aboue the Skye
Doth shine with light mOSI wonde rfull . But here som e wil l replye
Thai wilhO<lt body is no lighl. and so by Ihi' deny
Thallighl can nelle r Ihere be found Above Ihe Heaven, by.

But Palinge nius do"" net accept Ihis theory which ma kes light dependent
on matter an d thus materia l itself. In any case, e""n if it were se fer
natural, physic.llight, it is certain that it.is nOI the case for God's supema-
tural one . Abo"" the starry heavens the re are no bodies . But light and
imma teri.1 be<ng can well be - and are - present in the supernatu ral.
boundless supraceleSli.1 regkln.

Thus it is God's heaven, not God's world, thai Palingenius •• serts to be

infinile .

'Ir ate
 THE NEW ASTRONOMY AND THE NEW
METAPHYSICS

N. Copernicus, Th . Oiues. G. 8runo & W. Gilbert

AUNGENIUS and Cope rn icus are practically comem""rarie s. Inde ed,

P the Zodiacu. vitae and the De rewlutKmibu, orbium , ... Iestium

muSt haW! beiln written at about t he Same time. ¥et they have
nothing, Or nearly nOlh ing. in common. ThO!)' are as far away from each
other as if they were separ ~ ted by centuries .

As a malle< of fact. they are. indeed. separated by centurie s. by all those

ce nturies during which Aristotelian eo smology and Ptolemak astronomy
dominated Western thought. Copernicus. of course, make, lull use 01 the
mathem.tkal techn ics e laborated by Ptolemy- one of the greatest
achieveme nts of the human mind" -and yet, lor his inspir. tion he goes
bad beyond him, and beyond Ari,totle. to the golden age of Pythagora,
and 01 Plato . He quote s Heraclides. Ecphantus and Hi~etas. Ph ilolaos and
Arlltarehus of Samos; Md aceordlng to Rheticus. his pupil and mo<!thpiece,
it is "

. . . fol lowing Plato and the Pythagoreans, the greate st mathematicians of

that divine age, that Ihe ) thought that in order to determine the cause of
the phenomena, circular mot ion. have to be ascr ibed to the sphe rical
earth .

I need not insist on the overwhelming scientific and philosophical im por.

tance of Copernican astronomy. which. by removing the e arth from the
center of the world and placing it among the planets, undermi ned the very
foundations of the traditional cosmic world·order with its hierarchical
structure a nd qu alitative opposition of the celestia l realm of immutable
being to the terrestria l or sublunar region of change and decay. Compared
10 the deep critic ism 01 its metaphySical b;,sis by Nichola. 01 Cu .... the
Cope rnican revolution may ap pear rather hal f· hearted and not very radical.
It was, on the other hand, much more efle<:tiW!, al lea.t in the long run; for.
a. we know, the immediate effect of the Cope rnican revolution was to
spr.. ad sk .. ptic ism and bewild .. rm .. nt " of which th .. lamous v.." .. s 01 John
Donn .. giv .. ,uch a stri king, though somewhat belated, e . pr .... ion, telling u.
that the"

., , new Philosophy call, all in doubt

The Element 01 fire i, quile pul out
The Sun is I()$I, and th'earth, and no mans wit
Can we ll direct him wher .. to look .. lor it .
And freely me n conle,,,, th.t thi' world', 'pent,
When in the Plan ..", and th .. Firmament
They seeke '" many ne w; then ,ee thatlhi,
I. crumbled out again .. to hi, Alomie •.
'TIs all in peeces, all coh.erence gone;
All just supply. and all Re lation.

TO tell Ihe trulh, Ihe world 01 CoperniCus is by no means devoid of

hierarchical features. Thus. if he asserts Ihal it is nOI Ihe sk ies which move,
bUI the eanh, it is not only because it seem, irrational 10 move a tremend-
ously big body instead of a relatively ,mall one, "that which contain, and
locates and not that wh ich is contained and locate<!: but also because "the
condition 01 being at rest is con,ide.e<! as nobler and mOre divine than that
of cha nge and inconSistency; the I."er Iherefore. is more suited 10 Ihe
eanh than 10 the univerS<!" "" And it is on accounl of its supreme perlec·
lion and value- ",urce 01 lighl and of life - Ihat Ihe place it occupies In Ihe
world i, a,Signed to the .un; the ~nlfal place which, following the
Pythagorean Ifadition and Ihu, reversing complele ly the Ari'lotelian and
mediaeval scale, Copemicu, believe, 10 be the best and the most impor'
tam one . "

Thu •. though the Copernican wod d i. no mOre h>erarchically .tructured (.t

lea.1 nOI fully; it has. '" to say, two I><>le. 01 perfection. the 'un and Ihe
sphere of Ihe fi. e<! Slars, wilh Ine pl. nets In belween), it i. still. well·
ordered world. Moreover, II i. st ill a finile one .

Thi' finitene" of the Cope.nkan wo.ld may appe.r illogkal. Indeed, the
only reason lor .ssum ing the existence of Ihe ,phe.e of the fixed st."
being Iheir common motion, Ihe negation 01 th.t motion should lead
immediately 10 t he negation of the v.. ry u istence of that ,phe re; more<>'
ver, 'ince, in the Copernican world, the fo. ed stars must be exceedingly big
., - Ihe smallest be ing large. Ihan the whole Orbi. magnus - Ihe sphe.e of
the fi xed stars musl be rather thick; it seems only reasonable to extend its
volume indefinitely · upward, ."

~ is ralher nalur.llo interprel CoperniC US Ihis way. Ihal is. as.o ad~ocat e
of the infinity of the world. all Ihe more so as he actually raises the
Clues!>on of Ihe possibility of an Indefin ite sp;llial utension beyond Ihe
Slellar sphere. Ihough refusing 10 1reat In31 problem as no1 scientific and
lurning it over to Ihe philosophers. As a mailer of fact. il is in Ihis way that
Ihe Copern ican doctrine was inlerpreled bV Gianbanista Riccioli, by
Hu ygens, and more recentlv by Mr. McColley. "

Though it se<>m. rea.onable "od natural, I do not believe this interp retation
to represent the actua l views of CoperniCUS. Human t hought, e~eo that of
Ihe greatest geniuses. is oever completely coosequent .od logical. We
must not be astonl,hed. therefore. that Copernicus. who belie~d In the
e. istence of material planetary spheres because he needed Ihem in order
10 explain the molion of the planets. be lieved al5(lln thaI of a sphere of t he
fi xed stars which he no longer needed. Moreo~r. though its e.istence dOd
not .. xplain anything, il still had ,ome u,efulne,,; the stellar sphere, which
"embraced and contained e~erything and itself; held the world together
and. be.ides, e nabled Copernicus to as,;gn a dete rmined positioo to the
sun.

In anv case. Copernicus tells us quite clearly that "

the universe is spherica l; p;lniV because this form, being a complete

whole. needing no joints, is the most perfect of all; p;lnly because it
constitute, the most ,pacious form which isthu, best ,uited to contain and
retain all thing.; or also because all discrete pans of the world, I mean the
suo, the moon and the planets, appear as spheres. True, he rejects the
Aristoteli.o doctrine .ccording 10 wh ich "outside the world the,e is no
body. nor place. nor empty space. in fact that nothing al a ll e .i sts· because
it seem, to him" rea lly ,trange Ihat someth ing could be enclosed by
nothing" and believes Ihat, if we admitted that "Ihe heavens were Infin ite
and bounded only by their inner concav ity; then we should ha~ beller
reason to assen "that there is nothing outside Ihe heavens, because
everything. whatever its size, is withio Ihem; .. in which case. of course,
the heavens would have 10 be motiOl>le,, ; the infinite. indeed, cannot be
moved or Iraversed .

,. ••
Yet he never tells us that the visible world, the wodd of the lixe<! stars. is
inlinite, but onl y lhat it i. immeasurable limmen.uml, that ~ is '0 large that
not on ly the earth compare<:! to the sk ies is "as a point" lth is, by the wav,
had .lreadv been .sserted bv Ptolemy), but also the whole orb of t he
eart ~"s aMual circuit around the sun; and that we do not and caMot know
the limit. the dimension of the world. Moreover, when dea ling with the
famous objection of Plolemy aceo,ding 10 which "Ihe earth and all earlh,.,.
things if sel in rOlalion would be d;s..olved by the .ction of nalure,' Ihal is,
by Ihe centrifugal force, produced by Ihe ""rv great 'pee d of it, revolut"""
Copernicu, repl ie, thaI thi' disrupli"" effect would be SQ much 'tronger
upon the heaven, a, their motion i, more rapid than that of the e arth, and
that, "if this argument were true, t he e xtent of the hea",,", would become
infinite, " In which case, of course, they would have to stand st ill, which,
though finite, they do,

ThuS we have to <>eImil that, even if oulside Ihe world the'e were not
nOlhing bUI space and even maller, nevenheless Ihe world of Copernicus
wO<Jld remain a finite one , encompa"ed by a mater",1 sphere or orb, Ihe
,phe re of the fixed stars- a ,phe re that ha, a centrum," centrum occupied
by the sun, It seems to me that the re ;s no other way of interpreting the
teachi ng of CoperniCUS, Doe, he not tell uS that "

... the first and the supreme of all (spheres) is the sphe'e of the fixed s,"rs
which contains everyth ing and Itself and which, therefore, Is at reS! .
Indeed , it is the place of the world to which are refetred the motion and
the poSition of all othe r st.rs. Some [a'tronome rs) indee<!. h""e thO<Jghl
thaI , in a certain manner, thi, sphe re i, al,o subjected to change : but in our
deduction of the terremial motion we have de term ined another cause why
~ appears SQ , [After the sphere of the fixed stars) come. Saturn, which

performs its circuit in thirty years, After him, Jupiter, which mOVll. in a
d uedecennial , evolution. Then Mars which circumgirate. in two ye~r •. The
lourth place in this o, de' Is occupied by the annual 'evolution, which, 3. we
h3.e saki, contains the Earth with the orb of Ihe Moon as an epicycle. In
the fifth place Venus revolves In nine monlhs. Fina lly, the ~ixlh place is held
by Mercury, wh ich goes around in the space of e ighty days,

BUI in the ce nter of all reside, the Sun. Who, indeed, in thi' most magni/i·
cent temple wou ld put the light in another, or in a beller place than that
one whe~lfOm It could at the S3me time illuminate the whOle of it1
Therefo'e ~ is nOI impropertv Ih31 some people call It Ihe lamp of Ihe
world, others its mind, others its ruler. Tri,megistu, [GIlls it [ the visible
God, Sopho<l"" Electr •. the AII· Seeing. Thus, assuredl y, as re.iding in the
roya l see the Sun governs the sur<ound ing family of t he stars.

We have 10 admit the evidence: the world of CoperniCus is lin ite . Moreo·
ver. il seems to be psy<hologically quite norma l lhal the man who took Ihe
~"I ,tep. Ihal of arr"sting Ihe mOlion of the sphere of Ihe ~ .ed st ars,
hesit.led belore laki ng Ihe second, that of dissolving it in boundless ",ace;
it was enough for one man 10 move the e.nh and 10 enlarge the world so
as to make il imme.surable - immensum; to ask him to make it infinile is
obviously a. kins too much .

Greal imponance has been attributed to the enlargement 01 the Coperni-

Can world as compa red to Ihe mediaeva l one - ~s diameter i. at leasl 2000
times greate' . Yel. we mUSI nOllorgel, as Prolesso' lovejoy has already
pointed oul, " th.t even Ihe Aristotelian 0' Ptole maic wo,ld waS by no
means Ih'l snug lill ie thing Ihat we see 'ep'erented on Ihe minlalu'es
adorning tne manuscriplS of the Middle Age. and of wh ich Sir Walle'
Raleigh gave u. ,ucn an e nchanting de,cription . .. Though rathe r ,mall by
our astronomical stand.rd" and e""n by those of (opernicus, it was in
itself sufficiently big not to be fe ll as built to man's meaSure: abOUI 20,000
te"",Vial ' adi i, such waS the accepled figu re. Ihat is. about 125.000.000
mile s.

let u. not forsel, moreover, that, by compari,on with the infinite, the
world of (opernicu, is by no me ans greater than Ihat of mediaev. 1
astronomy; the y are both as nOlhing, b""ause inter finitum et infinitum
non est proportio. We do not approach the infinite univerre by increas ing
the dimen.ions of our world. We may make it as large as we want: that
does not bring uS any nearer to it. ..

Notwilhstanding this, it 'ema ins clea' that it is somewhal usie,. psycho·

logica lly if nol logically. 10 pass from. very large, immeasurable .nd eve r·
s,owing world to an infinite one Ihan 10 ma ke thiS jump st.rtlng wilh a
ralher big, bUI still determ inably limited sphere ; Ihe world-bubble has to
,well before bursting . It i. al,o d e ar Ihat by hi' reform, or revolution, of
astronomy Copernicus remo""d one 01 the most valid scientific obje clions
against Ihe infinity of the univerre, based, prec isely, upon the empirical,
common·sense faa 01 the motion of Ihe celestial sphe'es.

" ••
The infinite cannot be traversed, argued Aristotle; now the stars turn
around, therefore ... But the stars do not turn around; thev stand .till.
therefore It is thus nOt surprisine that in a rather short time after
Copernicus SOme bold minds made the step that Copernicus refused to
make. and asserted that the celest",1 sphere. that is the sphere of the fi . ed
stars 01 Copernican astronomv. doos not e' ist. and that the starry heavens.
in which the \Iars are placed at diflerent distances from Ihe eanh.
"extendelh itself infinilely up."

It has been commonly assumed until recent times thaI it was Giordano
Bruno who, drawinK on lucretius and creative",. misunderstanding both
him and Nicholas of Cu.a, '" first made th is decisive step. Todav, after the
disco~ry by Profesror JOhnron and Or. Larkey" - in 1934- of the Pert~
Description of the (aelest iall Orbes according to the most aunciene
doctrine of the Pythagoreans lately revived by CoperniCUS and by Geometr·
icall Demonstrations approued. which Thom.s Digges. in 1576. added 10
the Prognostication everlasting of his father leonard Digges. Ihis honor. at
least paMially, must be ascribed to him . Indeed, though different interpre·
tations may be given of the text of Thomas Digges -and mv own d iffers
somewhat from that of Profe.ror Johnron and Dr. Larkey - it is certain. in
any case. that Thomas DiU'" was the first Copernican to replace his
master's conception. th.t of a closed world. by tnat of an open one. and
thM in his Description. where he gives a fairly good. though rather free.
Ifanslation of the cosmological part of the De revolutionibu, orbium
"'ele"ium. he makes some rather striking addrtions. f irst, in his description
of the orb of Saturn he inserts the clause that this orb is "of all others next
vnto that infinite Orbe immouable, garnished with lights innumerable ";
then he substitutes for the w~l l ·known Copernican diagram of the world
another one, in which the sta .. are placed on the whole page, above as
well as below the line by which CoperniCUS re presented the ult ima .phaer.
mundi. The tc ot that Thomas Diggcs adds to hi. diagram i. very curiou •. In
my opinion. it eopresse. the hesitation and thc uncerta inty 01 a mind-.
very bold mind-which on Ihe one hand not onlv accepted the Copernican
wQfld·view. but even went beyond It, and which. on Ihe other hand, was
$Iill dominated by the religious conception-or image-of a heaven Iocaled
in space. Thomas Digge. begin. by lelling u, that:

The orbe of the sta(fes fixed infinitelv up e1<lendeth hit self in altitude
sphericallye. and the refore immouable. Vet he adds that this orbe is

'Yr ate
r, ... tho 00 .... w <H1d t<J ,h. ,nflnH. ",,1ft,..

the pallace of felidtye garni,hed with perpetuall 'h ininge gloriou. lightes
innumerable. farr e~ce ll i ng our sonne both in quantity and qua litye, And
that it i,the Court 01 the great God. the habitade 01 the elect. and of the
coele stiall angelles,

..'
•
'IG\J«, 1
, _ _ ' , _......... w_'-"'<>n .........
(',""' ......~ 0.""01""" .... ~ ....""" 0<1><,. IS'"
The text accompanying the diagram develop. th is idea:"

,.
H.... rein can w.... never ,umdent ly admire thy! wonderfull and incompre'
hemible huge fra me of goddes woorke proponed to our ..,mes, ,einge fim
the baull of ye earth wherein we moue, to the cOmmOn sorte ..,erneth
grute, and vet in re,pecte of the Moone. Orbe I, ve>'l 5m~II, but compared
with the Orbis magnus wherein it Is ca rried, it scarcely retayneth any
..,nsible proportion, SO merueillously is that Orbe of Annua ll motion
greater than thi,littie dar ke starre wherein we liue . BUllhol Orbls magnus
beinge as is before declared but as a poynct in re.pect of the immensito,' 01
thaI immoueable heaven, we may ea,,1y consider what little ponion of
gods frame, our Elementare corrupt ible worlde is, bUI neuer suHiciently be
able to admire the immen,ity of the Rest. Espedally of that fixed O,be
garnished with lighle. innumerable and reachinge vp in Sphaericall altitude
without ende. Of which lighles Celestiall it is to bee thoughte that we only
behoukie sutch u are in the Inlerioure pane. of the Sam e Orbe. and as
they a ' e hvgher, so seeme they of lesse and lesser quantity. even Iyll our
syghte beinge not able farder 10 ruche or conceyve, the greatest part rest
by reason of their wonderfutl di5lance inulsible vnto v,. And Ihis may well
be thought of vs to be the glorlouse court of ye great g<:Id, whose vnserche-
able work> inuisible we may partly by these his visible conjecture, to whose
infinit power and maiesty such an infinit place surmount inge all other both
in quantit'l and quality only Is conueniente. But because the world hath so
Ionge a time bin carried with an opinion of the earths stabllitye, as the
contrary cannOI but be nowe very imperswasible.

Thus, a. we see, Thoma, Digges puIS his .Iars into a theological heaven;
not inlo an .stronomical ,kyo A<,. mailer of fact, _ are not very far from
the conception of Pal ingenius-whom Digges ~nows and quotes-and,
perhaps, nearer 10 him than to Copern icus . Palingeniu" it i. true, place. hi'
heaven a bO'o'e the ,tars, whereas Thoma, Digges puts them into it . Yet he
maintain, the separation between Our world - the world of the Sun and the
planets - and the heavenlv sphere, the dwelling.place of God. the ce lestial
angels. and the saints . Needless to sav. there is no place for Paradise In the
Jstronomical world 01 CoperniCUS.

That is the reason Why, in spite 01 the very ab le defence of the priority
rights 01 Digges made by Professor John<on in his euel lent book, Astro-
nomical Thought in Renaiss.nce England, I stil l believe that it was B,uno
who, for the first time, presented to u, the ,kelch, or the outline, of the
cosmologV that became dominant In the last two centurie s. and I cannot

ry' d
but agre<' with Professar Lovejoy, who in hi' cla .. k al Great Chain of Being
tells u. t hat, "

Though the element. 01 the new co~ography had, then, found earlier
expreSSion In ,everal quarte's, it is Giordano Bruno who must be regarded
a,t he principal representative of the doctrine of the decentralised, infin ile
and infinitely P'lpuloos universe; for he nol only preached it Ihroughoul
we,tern Europe with the feNour of an evangelist, bUI a l'o first gave a
thorough stalement of Ihe ground, on which it was to gain aceeptance
from the general public. Indeed , never ~fore has the essential infinitude
of space bee n ..." ned in ,uch an outright, definite and con",iou. manner.

Thus, al ready in the La Cen. de Ie Ceneri. ,. whete . by the way. Bruno gives
the be.t discussion. and rc/utation, of the clas,;cal - Ari,totelian and
Plolema ic- ob)eaions against the motion of the earth that we'e eve'
w.itten befo'e Galileo, .. he p'odalms that ... ·the world is Infinite and Ih.t.
Ihe'efore. there Is no body In it to which It would pertain ,implicite' to be
in Ihe center, o. on the center, o' on the pet iphery, or between Ihe'" two
extremes" of the world (which, moreover, do not exist), but only to be
among other bod ies. As for the world which has its cause and its origin in
an Infinite cause and an Infin ite prinCiple. it must ~ infi nitely Infin ite
iceordi"! to it. corP'lreal necessity and its mode of ~ing. And Bruno adds:
"
. it will never ~ po .. ible to find an even ha~-prob.ble
It is ce rldin thaI
rea,on, why there ,hould be a limit to th is corporeal universe, and ,
consequently, why the stars, which are contained in its space, should be
finite in number.

But we find the clearest. and most forceful, presentation of the new gospel
of the unity and the Inf,n ity of the wo.ld in hi. vernacular d ialogues De
l'lnfinit(> univer", e mondi and in his latin poem De immen,o et iMumera·
bllibus ....

There is a single general 'pace, a single vast immen,ity which we m.y

fre ely call Vokf : in it are innumerable II i0bes like th is on whk h we live and
IIfOW; this space we dec lare to be infinite, , ince neithe r reason, conven i-
ence, sense-perception nor nature a"ign t" it • limit . r "r there is no
reason, no, delect 01 nature·, gifts, eitner 01 act ive o. paSSive power, to
hinder Ihe e xiste nce of other w(>rld, throughout 'p;lce, wh ich is identic~ l l n
natural chara«er with our own 'pace, that i. everywhere fi lled with matter
or at lea.t ether. ..

We have. of course, heard nearly similar things from Nic holas of Cusa . And
yet we cannot but recognize the dlHe~nce of accent. Whe~ Nicholas of
Cusa simply stales the Impossibility of assigning limits to Ihe world.
Giordano Bruno aSle rll, and rejoices In. itS infin ity : the superior delermina·
tiM and clarito,' of Ihe pupil as compared to his master is "'iking. '"

To a body of infinite size Ihere can be ascribed neither center nor boun·
dary. For he who speake lh or e mptiness. the void or the infi nite ethe r.
ascribet h to it ne ithe r weight nor lightness, nor motion. nor upper, nor
lower, nOr intermediate regions; assuming mOreOVer thai there are in this
sp<lce those countless bodies such as O\.Ir earth and other earths, Our Sun
and other suns, which aU revolve within this infinite space, Ihrough finite
and de term ined spaces or around their own cenlres. Thus we On the earth
say Ihal Ihe earth is In the centre; and all the philosophers ancient and
modern of whatever sect will proclaim without prejud ice to their OWn

•.
prinCiple s 1hat he re is indeed the ce ntre .

,
Just as we say Ihal we are .1 the centre of that luniversally) equidistanl
Circle. which Is Ihe greal hori.on and Ihe limit of our OWn e ncircling
et heteal region, so doubtle ssly the inh.bit.nts of the moon believe
them",lvel atlhe cenlfe [of a great hori,on) that e mbraces Ihe eann, the
.un and the other stars. and i. the boundary of the radii of their own
hori.on. Thu. the <!anh no more than any other world i. at the ce ntre ;
moreover. no point. constitute determined celesti"1 pole. [or our earth.
just as she hef'Self is not a delioite and delermiMd pole to any other pOint
01 the ether, Or 01 the wo,ld·sp.ce; and the same Is true 01 all other bodies.
From various points 01 view these may all be regarded e ither a5 centres, or
a5 pOints 00 the Circumference. as pole s, or 'eniths and"" I"nh . Th\ls the
unh is not In the centre 01 the Univer",; it i~ central only to our surround·
ing space.

Professor LovejoV, in his treatme nt "I Bruno. inli"s on the imporlance I"r
the laner of the principle of plenitude, which govern. hi. tho ught and
dominate~ his metaphysics. " Profes""r LovejOV is perfectly right. of
course : Bruoo uses the principle of plenitude 10 ao ullerly ruthless maoner.
... ject ing a ll the r"'trinions by which mediaevalthin ke" tr ied to limit its
applicability and boldly drawing from it.1I the consequence, that it implies.
Thus to the old and famous questio disputat. : why did not God create an
iMinite world?- ~ que,tion to wh ich the med iaeval schola'tics gave so
good an answer. namel y, denying the very possibilit y of an infin ite
creature- Sruno simply replie •. and he is the fi,,1 10 do it : God did . And
even : God could not do otherwise.

Indee d, Bruno', God, the somewhat misunderstood inronita, com plicat > of
Nicholas of Cusa, could not but explicate and express himself in an infinite,
infin itely rich, and infinitely e xtended wor ld . .,

Thus is the excellence of God magnified and the great ness of his kingdom
made manifest: he is glorifi ed not in one. but in countless suns: not In a
single earth. bul in a thousand. I say. in an infinity of world •.

Thu, not in vain Ihe power of the intellect which ever seekel h. yea. and
achieveth Ihe add ilion of space 10 'pace . mass to mass, unity 10 unity,
number 10 number, by the science Ihal dischargelh us from the fellers of a
most na rrOw kingdom and promoteth uS to the freedom of a truly august
realm, whic h freelh uS from an imagined poverty and ,t'a inelh 10 the
possession of the myriad rich", of so vast a space, of so worthy a fie ld of so
many cu ltiv. ted worlds. Th is science does nOI permit Ih.t the arch of Ihe
horl:on thai our deluded vision imaglneth over the Earlh and Ihat by our
phantasy is feigned in the ,pacious ether, 'hall imprison our 'pirit under
the cunody of a Pluto or at the mercy of a Jove . We are 'pared Ihe thought
of so wealthv an owne r and subsequently of so miserly, ",rdid and
avaricious a donor .

~ has ofien been pointed out - and rightly. of course- that the destruction
of Ihe cosmos. the loss. bv the earth, of it, ce nlral and thus un ique (Ihough
bv no means prNilegedl situation. led ine.. it ab ly to the loss. by man, of his
unique and privileged position in Ihe theo-cosmic drama of the <reMion. of
which man was. until then, both Ihe cenlral figure and the Slake . AI Ihe
end of the development we find Ihe mule and terrifying world of Pastal ',
"liberlin ." " the sen seless world of modern scientific philosophy. At the
end we find nihili,m and d",pair.

Yet thi, was not so in the beginn ing. The displacement of the earth from
the ce ntrum of the world was nol felt to be a demotiOn . Quile the contrary :
~ is with ,atislanion th.t Nichola, 01 Cusa a"erts i" promot;"n to the rank
01 the noble stars; .nd, a, lor Giordano Bruno, it i. with ~ burning
Mthusiasm - that of a prisoner who se<!s the walls 01 his jail crumble- that
he announces the bursUng of the sphere, that "'!><Ira ted uS from the wide
open spaces and ineohaustible treasures of the ever·ch~nging, eternal and
infinite universe . Ever·changingl We are, once more, reminded of Nicholas
of Cus., and, once more, we h~ve to state the dilference of their funda.
mental world views-or world feelings. Nicholas of Cusa Slate, th.t
immutability can nowhere be found in the whole universe; Giordano Bruno
goes far beyond this mere statement; lor him m01ion and change are signs
01 perfection and not 01 a lac k 01 ~. An immutab le universe would be a
dead universe; a living one must be able to move and to change."

The re are no end., boundari es, lim its or walls which can defraud Or deprive
uS of the infinite muUitude of things, Therefore the e~rth and the ocean
thereof are fecund; therefore the sun's blaze is everlasting, SO th.t
eternally fuel is provided for the voracious Ilres, and moisture replenishes
the a1tenuated seas. For from infinity is born an ever fre'" abundance of
maUeL

ThuS Oemocritus ~nd Epicu,us, who maintained that everything throughout

infinity suffereth renewal and restorat ion, underslood these moue .. more
truly than those who at all costs maintain a belief in the immutability of the
Un iverse, alleging • conS1ant and unchanging number of particles of
identical materi.1 that perpetuallv undergo transformation, one into
anolher.

The importance lor Bruno', thought of the principle of plenitude cannot be

oW!rvalued . Yet there are in it two other future. th~t seem to me to be 01
as great an importance as this principle. They are: (a) the use of a prinCiple
thM a century later Leibnlz- who certainly ~new Bruno ~nd waS Influenced
by him-was to call the principle of sufficient reason, which supplements
the principle of plenitude and, in due time, superseded it; and ~b) the
decisive shift ~adumb rated Indeed by NICholas of Cusa) from sensual to
intellectua l cogn~ion in its relation to thought (intellectl. Thus, .t the ver;
beginning of hi. Oialogue on the Infinite Un iverse and the Worlds, Bruno
IPhilotheol ...en, that sense'~rcept i on, as such, i. confused and
erroneous and ca nnol be made the b.,i. 01 .dentilic and philosophical
knowledge . Laler on he explains thaI whereas for sense·perception and

, ,
imagination infinity is inacce"i ble and u",epresentab"'. II.. the intellect.
on the contrary. it i. il< primary and most certain concept . ..

Philotheo- No corporea l sense Can perceive the infinite . None of our

senses Can be expected to furniSh this conclusion; for the infinite cannot be
the object of sense'perception; therefore he who demandeth to obtain this
knowled&e through the .en.es Is like unto one who would desire to see
with hi. eves both sub.tance and e.sence. And he who would denv the
existence of a thing merely becau,e it cannot be apprehended bV the
sense" nor i, vi,ible, would pre,entlv be led to t he denial of hi, own
substance and being. Wherefore t he re must be some mea,ure in the
demand for evidence from our sense·perception, for this we un accept
only in rega rd to ... nsible objects. and even there it is not above a ll
suspicion unless it cometh before the court aided by good judgment . It is
the part of Ihe intellect 10 judge vielding due we ight to factors absent and
separated bv distance of time and by space Intervals. And in thiS mailer our
... n ...·perception doth suffice U5 and doth vie ld us adequate te st imony,
since it is unable to gainsay us; moreover it adveftiseth and confe"eth Jts
own feeblene" and inadequacy bV the impre<sion it giveth us of a fin ite
horizon. an impression moreover wh ich Is ever changing. Since then we
have experience that ... n ...·perception deceiveth us concecnlng the suriace
of thiS globe on whic h we live. much more should we hokl .uspect the
Impression it giveth u. of a limillO Ihe starry sphere.

flpi no - Of what u ... are the ... n,es to us? tell me t hat.

Phil.-Solely to stimulate our reason. to occu .... to indicate. to testifv in

part ... truth i. in but a very .mall deg r"" de rived from the sense. as from
• frail origin. and doth by no meanS reside in the senseS.

Elp .- Where the n?

Phil. - In Ihe .ensib", object •• In " mirror; in reaso n. by process of

argumenl and discussion. In the intellect, eilhe r through or igin or by
conclUSion. In the mind, in its proper and vital form.

As for the principle of sufficient reason, Bruno applies it in hi' discussion of

space . nd of the spalially eXlended universe . Bruno'. space. Ihe .pace of
an infinite universe and al tMe same time the (somewhat misund erstood)
I nfin~e ·void" of Luc relius. is perfectly homogeneous and similar to itse lf
3,,1 013~Ue1SIS3J e 3Soddo 10UUel 'UOlld3lUOllellleW341eW AI3,nd e 3Ul3q
;~lejJns '~UUI " Sl41 le,,1 punOJS snope ll"} Am~J'~ i'll uo II S\l~(~' a"

'l' !xa IOU PI""""

i JUinb",uoJ u! pue 'iJeld Aue 'ou ' i Jed, U, UO'I!'OO ou AdnJJO PI""""
pue4 ~41 'ua~e~" JO a'~4d, xa~uo~ 3,,1 puoA<>q pue4 '14 Ino 4JI~'IS PIIlO'"
uou"d" Jlle,,1 ",ol l"J "'11 01 Aida, I!nW "uo 1"41 ~u' 411 AIU,eU")-oo'P'r\l!

.. '(~IIOI'''\'' JO "'~I~ JO Wlod "'II wo'}1 ,~""ue ):>aJJOl Alleau •

uOII,anb 'I'll 01 ,;>AlB 34 411n041 pU>;! ".: uaA034 a,,1 10 iJej,n, a41 411nO'41
pue4 S!4 pi4Jli')' ApOqiw~ j! u~de4 Plno'" le4'" :UOIP<'!qo leJ!"ep
34) Heada, 34 ,n41 "a4~01!4d ~aa'9 a41 10 WnnU!IUOJ_iJeld 34) 'OJ
. aJed • • le'!J)3w0311 e '3)nl!l<qn, pue W!4 puel"apun IOU . ~ op 3(.1 -lIuo,,,,
'",moo jO "~I [e,n) jO , eI04J!N )0 \e41 "~!II " 110)'!'>;! jO W'P !IU' ',oun'9

.-'i 4Ii. 'II'''' Pill!j aq II!'" I! ~.P'Oh. iq IOU II!'" ',mo '" Im( '~Jed, '141 pU>;!
-iJ.d. <>q II '''' PI'o", "'II . "p.slno. -I' "u,Sew, u,,'" ,0 'W'41 ue' Apoqou
Ina -WMleh 'au wnu"ld l~u :3U'410U so a'341 PI'o'" "41 ip"lno le41
PU" 'lIuI"q II" S<><0PUi PIlO'" "'II 1",,1 'S:KIp inOI'''\'' s. 'pual3Jd uel iM

"i'a41 aq P09 4Bn041 Uaha 'aled, A\dwa Jou 'Apoq 'i4)!au.! 4'!4'" puoA<>q
'I!W!I '0 Iuepunoq 'a,ejJn, e 'I,m 4NI'!U a'~41 le41 )J~"e Ju!ue~w
"nJI Aue 41'''' uel I le,,1 alq ,s<odw, 'Ae< I "11' '(' ''!'"IUej ,nOueh pue ''''ua.
'no,,", "q hew a'''41 48n041 uaAal AselUej ,0 a,uiS Au! u. 1",,1 ilq.ssodw,
"l104'" '111'OJ -NlInD41 ,nO)O )Jed W,Oj louuel 4"4'" .i.n"3 pue 'pJO'"
i ,3w i,e a.341 JOJ -P3!/'II"' 3q "'!'" OU U! 11"4' I I:M 'iPISlno ,OU 'puohaq
jO JOU 'a,ed, U! UO!II'od jO VO!I'anb ou a-q u~ ,ua41 '4Ial,!Xi lIU!410U
pue 'S! 14Bnoo iJa4'" le4) lIU !)J;l"e Aq IIa$<l41 i,n"a II!'" n041 )1 - "1!4d

"lIU!410U u! aq II!'" lIU!4W3Al "3,a4"'ou 3q II!'" ua,,\ Pllo", a41-o,ol,.,e'J

"p au.eIUOJ 14Jnou Aq '! J"U'"IUOl lew(Jd

3,,1 "Ou!aq "J!"", ',,'eds 1""" lIIun " ua~ea4 lew!"l ""I jO a,ej,nS X"hUOC>
a"l -llaSI' UI S. I' :4Ialld<IJ ~lloISI'\" I;"SJ~Al un ~"I " ",a4M I;PiJO'" ~41
"3.>34'" noA ~.e I 'puo Aa-q $1 8u'410U II pue il!U!) " Pi ' O'" a41 jI-""4101'4d

.. 'p,n'qe $! 11 'a'lej "lUO IOU $1 ",ed. AIPI'O""~uuI p~,op ~)O L10!1

-daluo, uellaIOI$!'V ~41 '",a!A jO )U!od S,00"'9 wOJj 'AI~UIP'Onv liIIU!IU!
pue pal!w!lun )oq 8u! 4iAu e 3q . P!OA. w,ollun a41 Plnol "'04 'e<,aA aliA '0
_w,ol!un Inq 8u!4lAue <>q 3led, .P!OA. 341 Plno] "'04 'pa3pU! '3,a"MAJaAa

l,o·'~""""'"."'OJ
~ "
mot"", of a real body. Furthermore, even if it did, the problem of what is
beyond it would remain unamwered: "

Philotheo - Thu •. let the sunace be whal it will, I must always put the
questOon : what Os beyond? If the reply is : not hing. then I call that the VOid.
or empty-ness. And such a Void or Emptiness hMh no measure nor outer
limit. though it hath an inner; and thiS 1$ hard er 10 Imagine than is an
infinite or immense universe. For if we Insist on a finile universe, we cannot
escape the void. And let us now see whether there can be <uch. space , in
whkh is nought. In this infinite .pace i. placed our univer", (whether by
chance, by necess ity or by provide nce I do not now consider). I ask now
whether this '1>iIC<! which indeed conta ineth the world i. better fitted to do
SO Ihan is anotl1er space beyond?

Fr",asto<o - it certainly appeareth to me not so. For where there 1$ noth ing
Ihere can be no diffe rentiation: where Ihere is no differentialion there Is
no destruction of qua lily and perhaps Ihere Is even less of quality where
Ihere is nought whatsoeve<.

ThuS the space occupied by Our world, and Ihe space outside it. will be the
same. And if Ihey are Ihe same. ~ is impoSsible that ' outside' space Should
be treated by God In any different way from that which is ' Inslde" We are
Iherefore bound to admil thaI not only space. bul a lso being in space Is
everywhere constilu ted In the same way. and thaI If in our part of the
infinite space Ihere is a world. a sun-<;Iar surrounded by planets, il is the
",me everywhere in the unille rse . Our world is not the un ive"e, but on ly
Ihis machina, surrounded by an infinite number of other similar or
analogous "world." -the world. of sur·suns scattered in the etherk ocean
of the . ky. ,.

Indeed." it was. and i., pos';ble for God to crcate a world in this Our so",e.
it Is. and It was. just as possible for Him to create It elsewhere. But the
uniformity of space-pure receptacle of be ing-deprives God of any reuon
10 creale it here. and not e lsewhere. Accordingly, the limitation of God',
creatille action is unthinkable. In this case, Ihe poSsibility impli'" actuality.
The infinite world can be; Ihe refore il must be; therefore it is. "

For jun as i1 would be III that this our .pace were not filled, thaI is our
world were not to e . is\. then. since the spaces are indisti nguishable. It

,
would be no Ie" ill if the whole of space were not fil"'d. Thu. we see that
the uniV<!"e i. of indelinite si,e and the worlds therein without number.

[!><Irag raph continues) Or. as the Aristoteli~n adve".'Y 01 8runo. cl pino.

now conV<!rted to hi. views. formulate. It : "

I declare that wh ich I cannot deny. namelv. that within Infinite space either
the'e m.v be an infinity of wo,lds simil., to ou, own; 0' thai thiS un ive'",
may have extended il' capacity in order to contain many bodie, ,uch a,
those we name 51a,,; or again that whethe , the se wo,ld, be ' imila, or
dissimila, to ane anothe,. it mav wilh no less ,easan be well that one, than
that anothe, shauld u is!. F<If Ihe existence 01 ane i. na less ,easonable
than that al .nathe,; and the e xistence 01 many no less ro than alone ar 01
the ather; and the existence al an infinity 01 them na less ro than the
e _lstence of a large number. Wherefore. even a. the abol ition and non·
e_lstence of this w<lfid would be an evil. so would it be of innumerable
other •.

Mo,e concretely: ,.

(Ip. - There are then innumerable suns. and an Inlinite numbe r 01 earthS
revolve around the.e suns. just as Ihe seven we Can observe revolve
around this sun which is close to us.

Phil. - $o it i•.

(Ip .-Why then do we not see the other bright bodie, which a,e the earths
circl ing a,ound the bright bodie, which are .un.? For beyond the.e we can
detect no motian whatsoever: and why do all the other mundane bodies
appear always lexcept tha", knawn as camets) In the same order and al
the Same distance?

(lpi nO'S question is rather good. And Ihe an,wer given to It by Bruno is
rat her good. too, in spite olan optical errOr of believing that. in order to be
.een, the planelS must be formed on the panern 01 spherical mirrors and
po"",,s • polishe d, smo<lth, "wate'Y" suri. ce, for Which, mor""""r, he is
not responsible as it was common beliel umil Galileo: "

Phil .- The reaSOn Is that we di.cern on .... the largest suns. Immense bodies.
But we do not di~ern the earlh. because, being much smalle' they are
invisible to u •. Similarly, it i, not impo.,ible th.t other e arth, revolve
around our ,un an d are invisible to us either on account 01 greater distance
or smaller si,e, o r because they have but little watery surl.ce, Or because
such w.tery surlace Os not turned tow.rd u. and oppOsed to the sun.
whereby it would be made visible 3. 3 crystal mirror which rece iveth
lum lnou, rays; whence we p.erceive that it i. not m3"'e llou. or contrary to
nature Ihat often we hear thai the sun h3s been partially eclipsed though
the moon hath not been interpolated between him and our sight. There
may be innume r.ble watery luminous bodie' - th.t i, earth, con'ist ing in
part 01 watercirru l.ting around the 5un, be,ide, those vi,ible 10 u.; but the
diHere nce in their orbits i, indiscernible by U5 on account of the ir great
distance. wherelore we perceive no diHerence in the ""ry slow motion
discernible 01 those visible above Or beyond S.turn; ,till less dot h the re
appear .ny order in the motion of all . round the centre. whether we place
our earth or our sun as that cenl re .

The question then arl,es whelhe r the fixed stars of the heaven, are really
suns. and centers of worlds comp. rable to ours. "

[Ip .- The refore you consider that if t he sta.. beyond Saturn are really
motionless a. Ihey ap pear. then they . re those innumerable .uns or lire.
more or less vi,ible to uS 3round which travel Ihe ir own ne ighbouring
earth, which are not discernible by us.

One would expect a positive an,wer. But for once Bruno i, prudent : to

Phil.-Nol '0 lor I do nol know whether all or whether the majoriW i,
wilhout motion , or whe the r ,ome circle .round othe rs, since none h.th
obse<ved them , Moreover they are not easy to observe, for it i. not easy to
detect the motion and progress of • remote object, si nce at • gre at
di,t.nce ch.nge 01 pOsltiO<\ c~nnOI usily be detected. as h.ppeneth when
we would observe $hip, In 3 high ,e~ . BUI however IhM may be. Ihe
un "e~e being Infinite. Ihere must be ullim3le lv othe r suns. For it is
impos,'ble thai heal and light from one ,'ngle body \hou ld be d i ffu~ed
throughout imme n'ity, as was ,upposed bV Epicuru, if we may credit what
others relate of him , The,efore it fol loweth thalthe,e must be innume rable
,un" of which m.ny .p~ar to u, as ,mall bodie,; butth.t ,tar will appear
smaller which is in fact much larger than th.t whic h appearet h much
greale r.

,. ••
The infinity of the universe thus seems to be perfectl y assured . But what
about the old object ion that the concept of infin ity can be applied on ly to
God, that is. to a pure lv spiritual, incorpore al Being, an objection which led
Nicholas of Cusa - and later Descartes- to avoid c.lIi~g theic world.
"i nfinite: but only "interminate." Or "indefinite"? Bruno , eplles th. t he
does nOI deny. of course, the utter difference of Ihe intensive and perfectly
simple infinit'! of God from the eotensive and multiple Infin itv of Ihe world.
Compared to God, the world is as a mere point. as. nothing. "

Philo - We are then at one concerning Ihe incorporeal infinite ; but what
prevemelh t he similar a«eplabilit'! of the good, corporeal and infinite
being? And why ,hould not tha t inli~ite which is imp licit in the utterly
Simple and indivisible Prime Origin rather become explicit in his Own
Infinite and bound less image able to contain innumerable world., than
become explicit within such narrOw bou nds? So thaI ~ appearet h indeed
shameful 10 refuse 10 credit thaI this world which seemeth to uS 50 vast
may nol in Ihe divine regard appea r a mere polnl, even a nUllity?

Yel it is jUst that "nu llitv· of Ihe world and of alilhe bodies Ihal const~ute
il that implies its infin ily . There is no reaSOn for God to create one
partic ular kind of beings in preference 10 a nal her. The principle of
suffiCient ruson reinforces Ihe principle of plenitude. God's crealion, in
order to be perfeCI and worthy o f Ihe Crealor, must therefore contain aU
Ihat is possible, Ihat Is, innumetable individual beings, innumerable earths,
innumerable stars and <4Jns- thus we could say that God needs an infinile
space in order 10 place in it this infinite worid .

To ,um up:" Ph il.-Thi. indeed i. what I had to add ; for, having pro-
nounced that the Universe mu,t itself be infinite beca use 01 the ,"padty
and aplness of iMin ile space; On accounl a lso 01 the possibility and
convenience 01 3CCepting the exi,lence 01 in numerable worlds like 10 Our
own; il remaineth still 10 prove II . Now bolh from Ihe circumstances of Ih is
effICienl c.use which must h,ve produced the Universe such . 5 il is, or
ral he r, mUSI ever produce ~ such as it Is, and . Iso from the condilions of
our mode of undemanding, we may ea'ily ",sue that infinite space i,
similar 10 Ihi. which we see, ralher Ihan argue Ihat il i. Iha t which we do
not see either by example or by similitude, or by proportion, or indeed, by
a~y effort of imagination which doth not finallv de.troy i"elf. Now to
begin. Why should we, o r could we imagine that divine power were otiose?
Divine goodness can indeed be comm unicated 10 infinite things and can be
infin itely diHu,ed; why then ,hould we wi,h to assert that it would choo,e
to be scarce and to reduce it,eJf to nought - for every finite thing i, .,
nought in relation to the infi"ite? Wny do you desire th.t CM"e of d;';in ity
which Can IiI one may so e ' pres, it) utend indefinitely to an Infin ite
sphere, why do you desire that it should remain grudgi"gly sterile rather
th." extend itself as a father, fecund, ornate and beautiful? Why should
you prefer that It should be less, Or Indeed by no means communicated,
rather than that it should fulfil tne scheme of its glorious PQwer and being?
Why should infinrte amplitude be frustrated , the PQssibility of an infinity of
world, be defrauded? Why ,hould De prejudiced the excellency of tne
divine image which ought rather to glow in an unre ,trkted mirror, infinite ,
immense, according to the law of it, being?" , Why wouldst thou t hat God
should in power, in .ct and in effect Iw hich in him are identicall be
determined as the limit of the convexity of a ,phere rather than tnat he
should be, as we may say, the undetermined lim it of the boundless?

let us not, adds Bruno, be embarrassed by the old obJ~tlon that the
infinite is neithe r access ible, nOr understandable, It is the 0pPQsite that is
true : the inf,nite is n~essary. and is even the first thing that naturally cadit
,ub intellectu"

Giordano Bruno, I regrel to say, " not a very good philosopher . The
blending togelher of l ucretius and Nicholas of Cu ... does not produce a
very consistent mixture; and though, as I have a lready said, his treat ment
ollhe traditional obj~tion ' against the motion of the earth is rather good,
the best BOVe n to them belore Ga lile o, he i, a very poor scie ntist, he does
not understand mat hematics, and hi' conception of the celest ial motion, is
rather 'trange , My ,ketch of hi' co,mology i" indeed, somewhat unil.teral
and nOt quite complete , A, a matter of !act, Bruno', world-view is vrtalistk,
magkal; his planets are an imaled beings that move freely through space of
thei, own ~ccord like those 01 Plato Or of PattnZli , Bruno', i, not ~ modern
mind by any means_Yet hi' conception is so powerful and so prophetic, so
reasonable .nd so poetic that we cannot but admire it and him_ And II
has - at least in its formal featur~ -so deepi'y influenced modern sc~nce
and modern philosophy, that we cannot but 3s<ign to Bruno a very
important place in the history of the human mind ,

I do not ~ nowwhether Bruno had a great influe nce on his immed iate
contemporari~, or e~n whether he inlluenced them at all . Personally, I
doubt it very much _ He was, In his teaching, lar .head 01 his time . ,. Thus
hi' inlluence seems to me to have been a delayed one. It was only alter the
greattel .. scop ic dis<;overies 01 GaWeo that it was accept .. d and became a
la'tor, and an imporlant one, of the seventeenth century world·view,

Kepler, a. a mailer 01 fact lin~. Bruno w~h Gilbert and seem. to ,ugge.t
11'131 il w •• from the former 11'131 the greal Br~ i,h scientist recei ... ed hi.
belief In Ihe infinltv of the univerw_

Thi, is, of course, Quite possible: Ihe thorough criticism of Ihe "'ri"otelian
cosmoklgv mav have impressed Gilbert. Yet it would be Ihe only point
wher .. the t .. aching 01 the Italian philosopher w.,
acc .. pt .. d bV him. There
is, indeed, not much .imiladty lbeside. the animi .m, common to bothJ
between the "magnetic philosophy" 01 William Gilbert and the metaphysics
01 Giordano 8runo. Prolessor John,on beli"",e. that Gi lbert was loftuenced
by Digges, and that, having asserted the indefinite extension 01 the world
"of which the limit I. 001 knowo, and cannol be known." Gilbert, "to
enforce hi. point, adopled wilhoul quali/icalioo Digge,' Idea Ihat Ihe star,
were infinite io number, and located at varying and infinite distances from
the center of the Unive"e." 00

This is Quite possib le, too. Vet, if he adopted this Idea 01 Digge., he
completely rejected his predece55o,', immers ion of the celestial bodies
into the theological he ....ens: he ha. noth ing to tell u, .bout the .nge l, aod
the saints_

On the other hand, ne ilher IIruno nor Digge, .ucce eded in peJluad ing
Gilbert to accept, in its entirety, the ••tronomicaltheory of Copernicus of
which he ..... m' to hav .. admitted only th .. I... st importa nt part, that is, the
diurnal motion 01 the earth, and not the much more important ann ual one.
Gilbert, it is true, does not reject this latter: he 'imply ignores it, whereas
he devote. a number of very eloquent pages to the deleoce and explan • .
tion (on the basis 01 1'1 .. magnetic philosophy) of the daily rot3110n 01 the
eaMh on il$ "xis "od to Ihe refutation of the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic
C(loceptlon of the motion of the celestial sphere, and also to the denial of
it, very ",i'tence.

As to this latter point, we must not forget, however, that the solid orbs 01
d .... ical-.nd Copernican- astronomy had, in the m .. antim .. , been
"destroyed" by Tycho Brahe . Gilbe't, the refore, io cootr3distinction to
Copernicus himself, can so much more ea,lIv dl,pen~ with the perlectly
u ... less spnere of the fixed 51a .., a, he do"" not have to admit the
existence of the potentially u ... ful pl anetary O<le •. Thus he tell. us:

But in the first pl~ce, it i, not likely thai the hlghesl heaven and all Ihese
visible Sple<1d<)<lrs of Ihe fixed ,lars are Impelled alo<1g Ihat most rapid and
u ... less course . Besides, who is Ihe Master who h35 ever made out that the
sta" whk h we call fo xed are in one and Ihe ... me .phere. or has establl.hed
by any rea,oning that there are anv real, and, as il were, adamantine
sphere s? No O<le ha, ever proved this a, a fact; nor is Ihe re a doubt but
that jU51 as the planets are at unequal d istances from Ihe earth, so are
those vast and multitudinous lights se parated from the ea rth 1>'1 vary ing
and very remote altitude.; they are not ..,t in any sphaerkk frame of
firmament las i,feigned), nor in any vaulted body; accordingly Ihe intervals
of Some are, from thl:<r unfathomable distance, matter of opinion rather
than of verification; others do much exceed them a<1d are very far remote.
and Ihese being located in the heaven at varying distances, either in the
Ihlnnesl "ether. o r In thaI mosl subtle quinte .... nce. or In the lIOid; how
are they to rema in in Iheir po.ition during such a mighty swirl of Ihe vast
orbe 01 ,uch uncertain .ubstance ...

Astronomers have observed 11)22 stars; besides these innumerable other

stars appear minute 10 oUr senses; a. regards still others. ou r sight grows
dim. and Ihey are hardly dis<:ernible save by the keenesl eye; nor is there
any po.se.s ing Ihe best power of vision thaI will nol, wh ile Ihe moon i,
below Ihe hori ,on and the atmo,phe re is clear, fee l Ihatthere are many
more , indelerminable and vacillating by re ason 01 Iheir faint lighl, obs<:ure d
becaus.e ollhe distance .

How immea,urable then muSt be the space which Stretches to tho ....
remotest of the fi . ed starsl How vast and immense the depth of that
im~ginary spherel How far removed from the e arth mu,t the mo,," wide ly

separated .tars be and at a distance transcending all .ight, a ll skill and

thoughl' How monstrous Ihen such a mOlion would bel

It is evident then Ihat all the heavenly bodie., set as if in a destined place ,
are Ihere formed unto sphere., thatthev te nd to Ihe ir own ce ntre . and
that round them there i, a confluence 01 all their pans. And ilthey have
motion that motion will rathe r be that of each round it. own centre, as that
of the earth is. or a forwa rd movement of the cenue in an orbit a. that of
the Moon.

"
But there ""n be no movement of infi nity and 01 ~n infinite body, and
the,efore no diu,""1 revolution of the Prim"m Mobile, ..

,. ••
 THE NEW ASTRONOMY AGAINST THE NEW
METAPHYSICS

Johanne. Kepler's Rejection of Infin ity

HE conce ption of the infinity of the univer", is, of cou"e, a pure ly

T metaphy.kal doctrine that may we ll-a . it did-form the ba.i. of

empirical .dMce; it can n","er be ba",d on empiricism , Thi. waS
V<ery well understood by KepJer who rejects it therefore- and this is ~ery
intere.ting and in.tructiV<e- not only for met"phy,kal, but also for pure ly
scientific reasons; who ","en, in anticipation of some present·day episte·
mologies, declares It scie ntifically muningle ss_"

A. for the metaphy.ical rea,ons for which Kepler den ie, the infinitv of the
univer"" they are derived chie ny from his religious belief •. Indeed, Kepler,
a devout though somewhat heretka l Christian, ",es in the world an
expression 01 God, symbolizing the T"n ity I> and embodying in its "ruclUre
a malhemaliCilI order and harmony_ Order and harmony that can not be
found in the infinite and there fore perfectly formless-or unlform-
un"'erse of Oruno.

Yet rt is not th i' conce ption of God 's creative action, but a conception of
astronomical science , as ba",d upon, and limited by, the phenome na that
Kepler o ppose, to Bruno and to tho,e who .ha re hi' view,. Thu" discuss ing
the interpretation 10 be given to the appearance of a new star in the foot
of the Serpent " riu., Kepler ral",. the question whether this amaling and
striking phenome non does not impl y the Infinity 01 the universe. He doe.
nOlthink so, yel he knows, and tells uS that. ..

. . . the re is a ,ect of philosophers, who (to quote the judgment of Ar istotle,

unmerited however, aboUlthe doctrine of the Pythagorean. lately revived
by (Ollernku.] do not "art their ratiocinations wrth ",n"'-perception Or
"'commodate the causes of the thing, to experience; but who immediate ly
~nd as If Inspired (by some kind of enthusiasm) conceive and develop in
Iheir heads ~ cer1ain opinion about the constitution of the world; once they
h""e embraced it, they stick to it; and they drag in by the ha ir Ithings)
which occur and .re experienced e""fY day in order to accommodate them
to thei, ax ioms. The ... people want t h;' new ,tar and all others of its kind
to descend l~tJe by I~tle from the depths of n.ture. whiCh, they assert,
e xtend to an infinite altitude. until according to the law. of optics it
becomes vefY large and attract. the eye. of men; then it goes back to an
infinite altitude .nd every day )be<:omes) so much smaller as it moves
higher .

Tho", who hold this opinion consider that the nature of the skies con forms
to the I.w of the circle; therefore the de,cent is bound to engender the
opposite .«ent,'s is the case with wheels.

But they Can e.sily be refuted; thev indulge indeed in their vision, born
with in them. w~h e ves closed, and their idea. and opinion. are nOt
received by them )from valid experience) but produced by themselves,

ThiS general criticism mav be ,ulfic>enl. Yet Kepler d~s not content him ",II
with it and continue<; "

We shall show them that by adm~lIng t he infinity of the fixed stars they
become involved In inextricab le labyrinthS,

furthermore we sh.lI. if possible. I3ke thiS Immen"ty away from them:

then. indeed. the assertion will fall 01 Itself.

Kepler knows quite welltha! this panicular opinion con",rning the infin ity
01 the world goes back to the ancie nt heathen philosophers. critici,ro-
rightly. according to him- by Aristotle ...

This particular school of the .ncient heathen philosophers is ch iefiv refuted

by the argument by which Aristotle demonstrated t he fi nitude of the world
from motion.

AS for the moderns. he tells us that the inf,nlty of the world 11

, , . was defende d bV the unfortun.te lord. B,uno. It was also assened in a

by no means ob«ure w.y, though he expressed himself as il he doubted it.
by WiIIi.m Gilbert in the otherwise mo,t admirable book De m.gnete.
Gilbert's religiou. feeling was so strong thaI. accor-ding to him. the infinite
power of God cQUld be under>tood In no other waV than by attribut ing to
Him the creation of an infinite wOfld . But Bruno made the world so infonile
thai (he po,its) a, many world, a, there a re fixed stars. And he made this
our region of the movable (planets] one of the innume rable worlds scarcely
distinct from t he othe rs whkh surround it; SO that to somebody On the DOg
Star (as. lor instance. one 0/ the (ynocephals 01 Lucian) the world would
appear from there just as the fixed Slars appear to uS Irom our world. Thu,
according to them. the new Slar was a new world.

Ne ither Bruno', enthusiasm for the infinity 01 the universe, nor e ve n

GHbert', de sire to enh.nce God's inlinite power, is shared by Kepler. Quite
the comrary, he feel.th.t"

Thi, very cogitation carries with it I don 't know what ',,",ret. hidden ho"o<;
indeed One fondS oneself wandering in this I mmen'~y, to which are denied
limits and cenler and Ihere/ore also all delerm lnate places. From Ihe
purely religious poinl of view. ~ wou ld be ,,,ffiCient. perhaps. to make an
appea l to Ihe authorny of Moses. Yet the question we are discuss<ng 1$ not
a dogmatic one; it has to be dealt with not by reCOUrse to revelation. bill by
scientific reasoning, ..

But because this sect misuse. the authority of (opernicu, a5 wel l a. t hat of
astronomy in general. which prove- particularly Ihe Copernican one - thaI
the fixed stars a re .t .n Incredible altitude : well then we will seek the
remedy In astronomy itself. Thu, by Ihe same mean, which seem to those
philosopher, to enable the m to break out 01 the li mit, of the world into the
immensity of infinite space, we will bring the m back. "It is not good for the
wanderer \0 stray in th.t infinity."

Kepler'. refulation of the infinitist conception of the universe may appear

to the modern reade< unconvincing and even illOgical. Yet. a •• matter of
faCl. it Is a perfectly con.;,tent and very wel l·rea,oned argument . It is
b",e(! on two premises. which. by the way. Kepler shared with his
opponents . The first one is • direct consequence of Ihe principle of
sufficient reaSon and consists in admitting that. If the world has no limits
and no particul.r, determined. ",uc\Ure, Ih.t i" if the world·space i,
infin ite and un iform, the n the distribution of the fi.ed "ars in thi' universe
mu" be uniform, too . .., The second premi,e concerns the science of
astronomy .s .uch. It postulate. its empirical character; it tell, us th.t
astronomy. as SUCh. has to dea l with obser~3ble data. that Is. with Ihe
appea r.nces (<t>(IlV61.l£VCI); that il has to adapt it~ hypotheses-fo,
instance, tile Ilypotlleses concerning tile ,ele >lial motiom-to til"'''
appearance., and tllal it Ila. no rigllt 10 transcend tllem by positing tile
existence of things that are e itller incompati ble with them, or, even worse,
01 things t~al do nOI and cannOI "appear." Now these "appearances" - we
must not forgel thaI Kepler Is writing In 1606. that is. before the enlarge·
ment of the observable data by the discovery and Ihe use of Ihe tele·
scope-are Ihe aspects of the world Ihal we see. ~tronomy there/Ofe Is
closely relaled 10 sighl. Ih.1 is. 10 oplics. II caonOI admil Illings Ihal
coOlradict oplicallaws.

let us now lurn back 10 ~ "pler: "

To begin with. it Can most cert ainly be le arnt from aSlronomy thaI the
region of the fixed stars is limited downwardS; . .. mOreOVe r it Is not Irue . .
. that this inferior world witll its sun differs in nO way in its aspect from any
one of Ihe fo xed Slars; I~al Is, (that Ihere Is no difference1 of one region Or
place from anOlher.

f or, be il admitted", a principle Ihallhe fixed >lars eXlend Ihe m,elve , in

infinitum. Nevertheless it is a fact Illat in their innermost bosom there will
be an imme nse cavity, distinct and different In its prOpo<"\ions from Ihe
spaces Ihat are between Ihe fi xed stars . So thaI if II occurred 10 somebody
10 e • • mine only Ihis cavity, even [if ~e we'e( ignoranl of Ihe eighl small
bodieS which fly around Ihe ce ntrum of I~is space al a verv sm all d istance
from it. and did no1 know whallhey are, or how many; nevertheless f,om
tile sole comparison of Ihi' void with the ,urrounding sphe rical region,
filled wilh stars, he certainlv would be obliged 10 conclude Ihallhi, i, a
certain partkular pl ac" and Ihe main cavity of th" world. Indeed, let us
take, for instance, three ,ta" of the ..,.;ond magnitude in tile belt 01 Orion,
distant from eac h other by 81'. being, each one, of at least 2 minutes in
diameter. Thus, If tlley were placed on the same sp he rical surface 01 whic~
we are the center, the eye located on one 0/ Ihem would see the other.5
ha.ing I~e angul.r magnllude of abOUI 2\("; [a magnitude11 ~at for us on
I~e eart~ would nOI be occupied bV five sun, placed in line and louchlng
each olhe r. And vellhe,e fixed stars are by no mean. IIl",e IIla1 are Ihe
nearest to each other; for Ihere are innumerable ,malier one . Ihal a re
interspersed (belween the m). Thu, it ,omebody were placed in thi' belt 01
Orion. having our .un and the center olthe world above him, he would ,ee,
first. on the horilon, a ~ind of unbro~en sea of immense stars quasi·
touching each olher. at leasl 10 Ihe sight; and from Ihere, the mo'e he
rai,ed hi. eve<;, the lewer ,tars would he see ; moreover. the "ars will no
longer be in contact, but will graduallv (a pl>"ar to be] more ra ". and more
diSl>"rsed; and looking straight upward he will see the ,ame ('Urs] as we
see, but twice as small and twice as near to each other.

Kepler'S reasoning is, of C<)<Jr,e, erroneous . But only be<:ause the data
available to him are faulty _ In Itself it Is quite correct. Indeed, II we assume
that t he lixed >lars, Or ot lean the equally bright one" are at an approx-
imate ly equal dinance Irom us, if we assume, moreove r, tha t their vi,ible
diameter corresponds to the ir real ()(le, we are bound to admit that the
two big stars in Ihe be lt 01 Orion, separated bV the angular distan~ 01 81 ',
will be seen Irom each other as covering more surface 01 the sky than five
sun. put together; the Same will be the case lor a great number 01 the
other fixed stars, and therefore the visible aspect of the skv will be, lor the
obse"'er pl aced on the r. , ed stars. quite diHere nt from It, aspect for us.
This Implies, of course, a variation in Ihe pattern of the real distribution of
the fixed sta" in space, that is, the negation of the homogeneit'/ and the
unri"ormily of the universe . Once more, let US nol lorget that Kepler wrote
before the invention of the te lescope and did not- and eve n could nol-
know that the visible diameter 01 the lixed stars is a pure optkal illu,ion
that gives u' no info,mation about their size and distance . Not knowing it.
he was entitled to conclude :"

FOr us the fact 01 Ihe sky is quite diffe rent . Indeed we see evel"'fo"he re star,
of different magnitude, and (we see them ] also equal;'" distributed
everywhere. Thus around Orion and the Twins we Sff many 01 them biS
and doselv packed toilet her; the eve 01 the Bull, the (apella, the heads of
the Twi ns, Ihe Dog, the shoulde rs, the belt and the loot of Orion. And in
the oppo,~ e pan 01 the , ky the,e are equ ally larse ones: the Lyre, the
Eagle. the heart and the brow of the Scorpion, the SerpentariuS, the armS
of the 6alance; and before them Arcturus; the head of t he Virgi~; also alter
them the last star of the Water Bearer and so on .

I have jUst pointed out thaI Kepler's discussion 01 the a,,,onomical data
that en.bled him to a"en the panicular. unique structure of our site in the
world-'pace was based 00 the assumption 01 the equidistance - Irom us -
of the fixe d sUrs . Couldn 'tthi, conclu,ion be avoided il we admitted that
the sta" a,e so lar aw av from us- and therelore Irom eac h othe r- that,
seen from each othe r. thev will not appear a, big as we have calculated? Or
cou ldn't we 80 e_en farther and adm it thai ou, fundamental assumption
could, PD"iblV, be incorrect and that ,ta" which appear to be near each
other could, in point ollact. be separated by an enormous dist ance, the
One being near uS and the other exceedingly lar awayt As we shall 'e<!,
even i' it were so, ~ would not change the fundamenlal f~ct of the
singularity 0/ our world·s pace. 6ut the object ",n has to be dealt wilh .
Kepler. there/ore. proceeds : "

When, some time ago, I advanced lhese views (just developed ] some
people, 10 Iry me, vigorously defended Ihe cause 0/ infinity, which Ihey had
laken from the above·mentioned philosophe " . They asserted Ihal,
granting inf i n~ v, it wa, easy lor them to separate the pairs 01 fixed stars
(whic h we on the eanh perceive as being very near each other) Ir; as great
a dislance as thai which separates uS from them . Yel th is is impOSSible.
Even ad m~ting Ihat you can arbitrarilv elevate " the doubl e fixed stars
[that a re) equally distant from the center of the world. it must be remem·
bered thai. if we elevate Ihe fixed Slars. the void which is in the middle.
and al,o the Circular envelope of the fixed stars. increa,e althe same time.
Inde<!d . (Ihese Pl'<'ple) assume thoughtl"",ly thai, the fixed sta" being
elevate d. the void will remain the same. A, ~ will nOl , the si ngular
character of Our site will be maint.iMd."

But wh3l. they say. if. of the two stars of Ihe bell of Orion. we assume one
to remain in its sphere. because Ihe Iheory of paraU..e, does not admil an
inferior position . .. and the other to be highe r Ir; an infinite distance? Shall
we nOI . in this way. obtain thai, seen from each other, thev appear as small
as they appear to us , and that the re wi ll be a distance between them, void
of sta", equal to the distance, between us and them"/

I anSWer that, per haps, one could use Ihi. melhod if there were only two
star,. Or only. few 01 them, and if Ihey were not dispe~d and dissem i·
nated in a circle. Indeed. you either alternately remOVe the Slars to a
grealer di,tance and let them stay where t hey are or (you remove them) all
togelher, If alle rn3lely. you do nOI solve t he problem. though you decrease
somewhal Ihe difficulty. For. <once<nlng those that will re mai n near. the
affirmalion (made by us] will ,till be just as valid. The pai" of stars will be
nearer 10 e ach other tnan 10 the sun, and the ir diamete", as ,een from
e ach other, larger (than thev are as seen bv u, ]. But those that are
removed higher will, of cou"e, be more d istant [from each other). yet
nevertnel"'" I he~ wi ll be comparatively large [as seen from each other)_
And I wou ld even easi lv COncede. withoul endangering my cause. thai all
the fi. ed stars are of the .ame magnitude; and that th",e which to us
appear large are near to U', and tho.e [which appear ,mall] are", much
larther. As Sings Manilius:" 'Not because less bright, bUI because thev are
removed to a greater altitude."

I saV ' I will concede not: I will assert. For it is just as easy to believe that
(the ,tars] dilfer realty In brightness. in color and also in magnitude . And it
i, pos.ible that both [opinions] are true, a. is the case with the planets. 01.
which ",me are reallv larger than others, whereas some others onlV appear
to be larger though in them.elve, thev are ,malle r, namelv because they
are nearer to u •. The consequence, of the.e hypothe,e. will be .een late<.
for the moment we have to discuS5the implication. lor the <1>0'''011<''<1 01 a
really uniform distribution 01 the fi . ed stars in the world, space. that is, 01 a
distribution according to which they would be sep<lr"ted from each other
by equal distances, namelv by the same distance that separates them from
us . ..

But let us pass to the other member [of the argument]. and sav what would
re.ult if all the stars were separated from each other by the same distance ,
in such a wav that t he nearest OneS would retain the propinqu ity which
astronomy imposes as a lim~ 10 all (stars), nol allowi", anyone to be
"eare r, a"d all the others would be elevaled In respect to it. and removed
to an altitude equal to the distance of the nearest one to us.

A, a matler of fau nothing will re.ult from all this. It will neVer be the Ca,e
that the [starry heavens] would appear to tho.e whom we may imagine
ob.erving them from the.e stars as they appear to us. From which it
lollow. that thi' place, in which we are, will alway. have. cenain peculiari'
ty that ,"nnot be attributed to any other pt.,e in all this infin i\"i .

Once more. in order to understand kepler's rea,oning. we have to

remember \h.1 we are not discussing Ihe abstract possibility of • certain
distribution of stars in the world·Sp<lce. but the concrete distribution of
stars 'orrespo"ding to the appearance of the ,"V; that I~, we are de~lInB
with the distribution of visible stars, of those that we actual ly see. It is their
distance from u. that i. in Questi,,", and it is for them that the possibility of
a uniform distribut ion, which would pl.ce most of them at ""fY great, and
reBularly increa.ing, di.unce, from U'. i. denied. !>O

,. ••
For, if tile stale of affair> were ,uch as ha, b.... n said, it is ce rtain 11l3tlhose
stars Ih31 ar.. l wo, Ihre .. , a hundred lime, higher will .1'0 be IWO, t hree , a
hundred times larger. Indeed, let a sta r be.s ele~ale<l as you wish, you will
ne~er obtaio thai it would be seen by uS as having a diamete r of two

minules. 1011 Thus the di ameter will always be two thousandth, one
thousandlh. or 50 of the di5t.nce from U5; but Ihis di.meter will be. much
larger parI of Ihe mutual dill. nees belween IWO fixed ,ur, (,Inee Ihese
distance, are much smaller IhM their di,tance from u,). And Ihough from a
star near u, the face of Ihe skVwill appear nea rly tile <ame a, il does to us;
yet from the other st." Ihe aspect of tile world will be different, and all
the more differe nt in that Ihey . re farther. Indee d, if the interval. of the
pai" of st ars (whkh to us .ppear a, neare,t .. ach oth .. r) rema in constant,
their aspects (dimensions), as seen from each other. wil l increase (with
their distance from us). For t he mOre you remOve the stars to an infinite
altitude, the mOre moostrou. you imagioe their dimens ions. such . s a re
not seeo from Ihis place of ""r world_

An oMerver ,t.ning from the earth and moving upwards to tile outer
spaces would, the refore, find the "appearance" of the world constantly
changing. and the fi xed stars alwa ys increasing in their real as well as visible
dimensions . Besides, '"

The same must be <aid concerning the space that for sucll a travele r
increases continuously, every time he Iran5fe .. Ihe st a .. from one order to
tile next .nd move, them higher , You may <ay that he is building the .he ll
of a .nail, which becomes ever wider towards the exterior.

You cannol, inde ed, sepa rate the .tars (by moving them) downward; the
theory of the parallaxe, does not allow it t>ecause ~ puts a certain limit to
the approximation; you car,"ot sepa rate them skleways, as they possess
alread y their places determined by sight; it re ma ins thus to separate the
st.rs by moving them upward. but In this Case the space that surrounds uS
and In whkh are found no sta .. whatever ,,"ce pt Ihe eighl sma ll globes in
Ihe very cent re of thi, void, grows at Ihe ,arne time .

Thus it is obvious Ihat we may assume tile world 10 be as large as we like;

still the di,po,ition of Ille fi xed st.rs as ,een bVu, will be ,uch thatthi, our
place will appear as possessing a certain part icul arity and as Ilaving a
certain manife sl property (the absence of fixed sta .. in the vast void) bv
which it Is distinct from all other places_

,
~e pler i. perfectly right. We c~n m~ke the wpdd as big as we wi.h, an d yet,
if we have tp rest"cI its Cpntents to the visible sta<s, whkh mOreOVer
appear to uS as finite, me asu rable bod>es- not points 01 light - we will
never be able to assign to them a uniform distribution that would "save"
Ihe phenomena_ Our world will alw.ys be disting uished by a part icu l.r
structure_ "',

n i, ceflain thaI, on the inside, toward the sun and the planets, the world is
fi nite .nd, so to say, excavated. What remains belongs to metaphys ics. For,
ifthere is such a place (as pur world] in thi, infinite body, then thi, pl ace
will be in the center pf the whple body. But the lixed sta" whk h ,urround
it will not, in respect to it, be in a pOSition similar (to tll.t 01 Our sun] as
the y should be if there were everywhere worlds similar to OurS. But they
will form a closed sphere around this (void]. This is most obvious In the
case of the Milky Way whkh passes through (the heavenly sphere] in an
uninlerrupled circle, holding us in the middle . Thus bolh Ihe Milky Way and
Ihe fixed sta" play the role of extremities. They limillhis our space, and in
turn are limited on the exterior. Is it, indeed, cred ible thaI, havini a limrt on
this side, thO!)' ... tend on the other side to infinity? 1i0W can we lind in
infin ity. centrum which, In infinity, Is everywhere ? For every point ta ~ en In
the infinity is equa lly, that I., infinitely, separated from the e><lremities
which a re infin itely distanl_ From which it would (<!Suit Ih.t the same
(place] would be the ~nter and wo uld not be (the centerl, and many olher
contradictory things, which most correctly wi ll be avoided by the one who,
as he found the sky of the fixed ,tars lim iled from inside, also limits it on
the outside .

Yet, can we npt aSSume that the regipn of the r..ed Sta .. is boundless and
thaI st ars lollow upon st ars, t hough some, o r even most of them, .re so far
~way that we do not see thcm? Assu redly we can, But it will be a pure ly
gratuitous assumption, not based on experience, that Is, on sISM_ These
invisible stars are nOI an object of JSlfonomy and the ir existence cannol in
any way be demonstraled,

In any case there c~nno l be st~rs - e,pecia l l y visible one, - at an actually

infin ite distance from us. Indeed, t hey , hould necessarily be inf i n i t~ v large.
And an infinitely large body i, ullefiy impp"ible because it i, contradictpry,

'I' ate
Once more Kepler" right. A visibJe st~r c~nnot be at an infinite distance;
nor, by the way, can an invisibJe one : tOJ

If there were an Infinite .Ititude of the sphere of the fixed st~r., that Is, if
some fixed stars were infin itely high. they would also be in themselves of
an Infin ite corporeal bu lk. Imagine. indeed .••tar. seen under a certain
angle, for instance, 4'; the amplitude of such a body Is always a thousandth
part of it, distance . as we know from geometry. Consequently if the
distance i< infinite, the diameter of the star wil l be the thousandth pan of
the in fi n~e . But all the aliquot pam of the infinite are in fi n~ e . Yet at the
, ame time it will be finite. because it has a form: all form i, circumscribed
by cen~in bounds, that is, [all /orm[ is fin~e or limited . But we have g;""'n it
a form when we haW! pos~ed it as visible under. certain angle .

The impossibi lity of a visible star'S being at an infinite distance thus

demonstr3led, there remains the case of an invisible one. 104

8!Jt what, VOU will.sk. if it were so small as not to be seen? lan'wer that
the re,ult is the same . It is nece,sarV, indeed, that it occupy an al iquot part
01 the circumference that passes t hrough it. But a circumference 01 which
the d i ~met er is infinite Is itself infinite . Thus ~ follows th.t no st.r. e~her
visible, or having vanished because of its smallness. Is separated from uS by
an infinite distance.

It remain, only to ask ourselves whether an infinite space without stars can
be po,ite d. Kepler replie, th.t such an .ssenion is utterly meaningle",
, ince wherever vou put a star you will be .1 a linite distance llrem the
earth) and if you go bevond . you cannot ,peak of. di.unce. ""

Finallv. even if you extend the place wit hout stars to infinity, it is certain
thM whe reW!r you put a star into it. vou will have a finite interv.1 and a
f,nite Circumference determined by the star; thuS, those who say that Ihe
Sphere of Ihe fi xed st.rs is Infinite commll a contradiction in adjeClO. In
truth, an infinite body cannot be CQmprehended bV thought. For the
CQncepts of the mind concerning the infinite are either about the meaning
of the term " infinite ." Or aboll! ,omething which excee ds all conce ived
numerical, vi,ual, tactual measure: that is, something which i, nol infinite
in .ctu, as an infinite mea,ure can never be thought of.

,. ••
Keple" once mo,e, is perfectly, 0' at least pani ally, 'iKht. It i. quite cenain
that whe,e .... , you put. st., you will find yourse lf.t. finite distance f,om
your staninK pOint, a. well as f,om all othe, sta,s in the universe. A ,eal ly
infin ite distance between two bodies is unthinkab le. ju st as an Infinite
integer is unthinkable: all integers that we Can reac h by counUng (or any
Olher arithmetical operation) are necessaril y finite . Vet il Is perh.ps lOa
rash to conclude therefore that we have no concepl of the infinlle; does il
not mean pr~isely-as Kepler tells us himself-that it is what is "~yond "
all numbe, and al l me",ure?

Funhe,mo,e, just ., in ,pite of-a' becau,e of-the finiteness of all

numbers we un go on counting without end, can we not al,o go on putt inK
st ... in space. a ll, of course, at finite distance., without ..... e' coming to an
end? Cenainly we un. p,ovided we abandon Keple"s em pirica l. thai is.
Aristotelian or semi·Aristotelian. epistemology whic h precludes Ihis
oper.tion, .nd replace il by another: an • priori Plalon ic or al lust semi·
Platonic one.

In my an.lysis of Keple,' , obje ction, to the infinity of the world I have

pointed out that they we,e I"rmulated several yea .. before the g,eat
astronom ical (telescopical) disco-;erles of Galileo. These disco-;eries, which
so tremendously enlarged the field of observable stars .nd SO deep ly
modified Ihe aspect of Ihe celestial v.ult. discoveries ..... hich Kepler
accepled and defended wilh joy, and which he supported not only with the
weight of his undisputed authority but also by establishing the theory of
the inmument -the te le scope-used by Galileo, obliged him, of course, to
modify some of the views he had expressed in hislfeatise on the new sta,.
However, and this seems to me e<lremely inte,esting and ,ignificant, they
did not lead him to the a"eptance 01 the infiniti,t cosmologv . On the
cont raf'!, they seemed to him to confi,m his own liniti"ic world·v iew and
to bring new data in lavor 01 the unicity 01 the solar system and 01 the
essential distinction of our moving world and the motionless congerles of
the fi. ed stars .

Tho. in hi< famous Oisseflatio tum nuntio 'ide'eo he tells us that at first,
befo,e having in hand the publication of Galileo, he was somewhat
distu,bed by the wnflktin8 , epo'ts about the latte,', disco-;e,ies, namely,
whethe, the new sta .. we,e new planets moving a round the sun, new
"moons" accompanying Ihe solar planets. or, as his friend Mallheus
Wackher believed. planets revolving around some fi . ed stars: a strong
argument in favor of Bruno', conception of the uniformity of the world . In
thi' u,e, indeed, t OO

.. . nothing could prevent u. from believing thai numberless others would

be discovered later on. and Ih31 either Ihis Our world were Infin ile as
Melissos and t he autho' of magnetic philosophy. Wil liam Gilbe't. held. or
thatthe,e was an Inf,n lty of worlds and eaflh, (besides this one) as wa,
believed bV Democritu. and leucippus and . among the modern" by Bruno,
BHltm, Wacheru, and , possibly al,o, by G.liN.o.

The peru",1 of the Nuntiu, tranquilli,ed Kepler. The new 51ars were not
plane", thev were moon" Jupiter'. moon> . Now. if the di"overy 01
planets - wheth .... revol";ng around fixed starS Or around the sun - would
have been e xtremely di"',reeable lor ~ e pler, th e discove ry of new mOOnS
did not alfect him a\ all. Why, indeed, ~hould the earlh be the only planCI
to possess a moon? Why should Ihe olhe' ones nOI be s imila,ly endowed
with satellite,? The'e is no reason why the earth should have Ihls privilege.
Nay, ~epler thin~' that the'e are good reasons why all the planets - with
the e ' '''ption perhap, of MereuI)', too near the ,un to need one - ,hould
be surrounded with mOOn' .

It could be said, of course , that the earth has a moon because it is

inhabited. Th us, If the planets had moons, they should be inhabited 100.
And why shouldn't they be? There is, according to Keple,- who, for our
wo<ld, accepts the teachings of Nichol., of ( usa and Bruno - no reason to
deny this possibility.

A. lor Ihe olher di5Coverie. 01 Galileo, namelV, tho ... concerning the fi.ed
,tar., Kepler points out thaI they enhance the difference betwee n t he .tar>
and the planets. Whe reas the latter are strongly magnified by the telescope
and appear as well ,de fi ned di"', the former hardly increase their
dimensions /0', ... en through the telescope, they a re deprived of Ihe
luminous h.,e thaI surrounds Ihe m, 101 a f.ct 01 tremendo us Imponance
because it showl Ihat this ha,e belongs not to Ihe seen lIars bul to Ihe
,eeing eve, in Qlher words, that it is not an objecti"", but a subjective
phenomenon and that, where., the vi, ible d imension, of the planets have
a determina te relation to their real one" Ih;, is not the u,e for the lixed
.tars. Thu. we can calculale the dimens ion, of the planet., but we cannot
do II. at least not as easily, fo' t he fi . ed stars.

'I' ate
The explanat ion of thi' fact i, ea.y: whereas the planet' 'hine by the
... fleeted light of the .un, the fixed .1<1 . . . hine by their own, like the ,un.
But if so, are they not really suns as Bruno has asserted? By no meanS. The
very numbe r of the new stars d iscovered by Galileo pro"'"'. th~ the fixed
stars. generally speakln!',. are much sma ller than the wn. a nd that there is
in the whole world nol a single one which in dimensions, .s well as in
luminosity. Can be equal to our sun. Indeed. if our 'un were not incommen·
sura bly brighter than the fixe d stars. or the.e so much less bright than it,
the ce le stial vault would be •• Iuminou. a. the .un.

The very existence of a tremendous number of fixed .1<Irs which we do not

see, but which observe .. placed upon one of them would. i. a proaf,
according to Kepler, that his fundamental objection to the infinitist
cosmology. namel y, that for no observe r In the world would the .spect of
Ihe sky be the Same.s it is for us. Is e.en better grounded in the facts Ihan
he had Imagined. Thus Ihe conclusion formerly drawn from the an.lysis of
the phenomena accessible 10 the unaSSisted eye finds Itself confirmed by
the adjunction 10 Ihe m of the phenomena revealed by the lelese<:rpe: our
moving world, wit h it •• un and planet., is not one of many, but a unique
world, placed in a unique .oid, surrounded by a unique conglomeration of
innumer.ble fixed - in the full sense of the term - st'rs.

Kepler thus maintains his position . Of the two possible inte rp retations of
the telescopic disco",",rle. of Gali leo. that Ihe new (flxedlstor, are not.een
by the una.sisted eye because they are 100 far, and thalthev are not .een
because they are too smail, he resolutely ad opts Ihe second.

He i, wrong, 01 course; and yet, from the point of view of pure empiricism,
he i, blameless because there .re. for him. on the one hand. no meanS of
determining the intervals that sepa rate uS from the stars and no reaSOn
therefore to assume that they are not very diffe rent In Size; all the mOre SO
as there are. on the other hand. ~ome e . amples-the ' Medicean" planets.
in fact-of ce l e~tial objects imperceptible because !he~ a re too smali to be
seen.

let u. turn now to the Epitome a'tronomi.e Copernicanae, the last, and
the mOst mature, gre at work of Keple r. We shail find the rejeetion of the
infin ity of the world pre.ented jU<1 .s vigorou.ly, or perhaps even mOre
vigorously. than ever before. To the question 101

,. ••
What is to be held conceming the shape of the skV?

Though we ca nnot perceive with our eves the matter of the etheric aura,
there is noth;nlL howe~r. to prevent uS from believing that It Is spread
throug h the whole amplitude of the world on all sides surround ing the
elemental)' ,phere. That the army of the "ar, completely encir< les the
eanh and thus form, a certain qua'i-<:ir<u lar vault i, clear from the fact
that . while the earth is round. men. wherever they go. ,ee the "ars above
their heads. as we do.

Thus if we turned around the earth, or if the earth turned around w~h us,
we would ree the whole troop of the stars .rranged In a dosed dr,uit. 6ut
that Os not an answer to the question asked, as nobody doubts that the
earth is surrounded by sta rs_What we have to find out is something quite
different, namely, whether thiS quasi vault 1$ mo.e Ihan a simple appear·
anee, that is whether lOt the centres of the stars are placed on the same
,phe rical SIldace. 4tthi' 'tage of the discussion Kep ler doe, not want to
commit himself. Thus he gives a rather cautious anSwer:

ThiS is rather uncertain . As some of them are small , and others big, it is not
impossible that Ihe small ones appear such because they are far away in
the high ether. and the large [do so1 because they a re nea rer to us_Nor is it
absurd thai two fixed [stars1 of different apparent magnitude be distant
from us by the same interval.

A, for the pl. nets, it is cenain that they .re not in the same spherlc. 1
sudace a, the fixed stars; indeed they edip,e the fixed stars but are nOt
eclipsed by these . But in this use, that is. if we 'an neither determine the
Intervals that separate uS from the fixed stars nOr decide whether thei r
apparent magnitude is a function of Iheir real size or on ly of their distance,
why should we not admit that Ihei' "region" is unlimited or infinite?
Indeed. nO

If there i, no more eenain knowledge concerning the fixed <tars. it would

seem that Iheir region is infinite; nor wili this our ,un be anyth ing other
th.n one of the fixed " . ... larger and ""ne r seen by us. because [it is]
nearer to uS than the f;. ed stars; and in this case around anyone of the
fixed >lars Ihere may"" such. world as the re is around us; or, which Is
ex.ctly the same , amonK the innumerable pl.ces in that infinite a,sembl~
of the fixed >lars our world with its sun wHi be one (place] in no w.y
differMt from oth...- places a round ot her fi xed stars, as (repre sented( by
the adjoined figure M.

The supposil ion seems reasonable or. al least. admis5oible. Vel Keple'
rejects it. and does so fo' the same 'ea.on. he had twelve years befo'e :
from the hypothe'>i. of infinity. that i', of a unifo,m dimibution of the fi>ced
st ... in 'pace, would fol low an aspect of the ,ky that i, not in aceordance
with the phe nome na. f or Kepl...-, indeed , the infinity of the world nece.sar·
ily im plies a perfe ct uniform ity of its , tructure ilnd colllellls. An irre gul.r,
i".tional "'.tteri ng of fixed ,tars in space i. unthin kable; fi nite or infinite,
the world must embody a geometrical pattern . But where •• for a finite
world it is rusonable to choose a particul' r pattern. the p'lnciple of
sulfocient reason prevents the geometriolly minded God of ~ e ple' from
doing it in an Infinite one. As al'eady e xpl ained by B,uno. the'e is no 'eason
(or even possibility) for God 10 make a distinction between 1he ·place,· of
a perfectly homogeneous 'pace, and to treal Ihe m in a d ifferent w.y.
Kepler thus ,late<: '"

This (the infinity of the worldl lndeed (was asserted] by Bruno and >Orne
others. But levenl if Ihe centers of the fixed stars are not on the same
,pherical surlace. It does nOI fol low thaI the ,egion In which Ihey are
dispersed is everywhere ,imilar 10 itself.

A. a m.tter of facI, in Ihe midst of il (the region of Ihe fixed 'I''') Ihere i,
assuredly a ce rtain immen,e >'Oid, a hollow cavil';, ,urrounded in do",
order by the fixed star<, endosed and circumscribed as by a wall or vault; it
is in the bosom of thi. immMse cavity that ou r e arth with the ,un and the
movinKstar. (planets( is situated .

In order to demonstrate this assertion. Keple' gives us ~ detailed descrip.

tion of Ihe aspect. 1hal Ihe sky would have In Ihe case of a uniform
distrlbulion of Ihe fixed ~Ia r~ (which, moreover, in Ihls case would have 10
be assumed as being, all of them. of Ihe same si' el. and "PpMe, Ihi'
hV\>othetical pictu,e 10 Ihe actua l one . '"

'I' ate
 'oGu"E)
.... """... of ........
II'om .... ""•..". ..., _, ' - _ . ,.,"
If the region 01 the fi ~ed st~rs we'e everywhe'e simll~rly sel wilh SI~'S,
even in Ih~ vicinilV of our movable world, '0 Ihal lh~ region 01 our world
and of ou r sun had no pecu liar ouli ine compared 10 Ihe olhe r regions, Ihen
only a few enormou, fixed "a" would be , e en by U', and nol more Ihan
Iwelve (Ihe nu mber 01 Ihe angle, 01 Ihe ieo,a hedron) could be allhe ,ame
di,tance fro m u, and 01 Ihe ,a me (vi, ible ) magnitude; Ihe following one ,
would be " a"e ly more nume rou., yet they would be twke a. di.tant a,
the ne.re.t ones; the nut highe r would be three time. as faf, and.o on,
always increa.ing thei r distance lin the Same manner).

Bul as the biggest 01 a ll ~ppear so small thai they can hard ly be noted or
mea,ur~d by Instrume nts, those Ihal wou ld be IWO or Ihree limes lanher
off, if we assum e Ihem 10 be of Ihe , ame true magnilude, would appear
Iwo or Ihree limes .ma ller, Accord ingly we .hould quickly arr ive .1 Iho, e
wh ich would be complelely impefce pl ible . Thu. very few stars would be
seen, and Ihey wou ld be very diffefent lrom each olher.

,
"
But wh.t is seen by us in fact is quite different . We ''''', indeed, fixed st."
of the !HIme appare nt magnitude packed together in a ""ry great numb.,...
The Greek .mOnOme" counted a thousand of the biggest, and the
Hebrews eleven thousand; nOr is the difference of their apparent magn i·
tudes very grut. Al l these stars being equal to the sight. it is not ' easona'
ble Ihat they should be at very unequal distances from us.

Thus, as the general appearance of Ihe fixed ,tar, is everywhere nearly the
same in ''''peel to their number and m.gnitude, the visible ,ky is .Iso
everywhere rai",d above us by nearly the ,arne di'tance . There is the refore
an immen ... cavity in the mid't of the region of the fi xed ,tars, • vi, ible
conglomer.t ion of fixed ,ta rs around it, in whkh enclosure we .re.

In the belt of Orion there are three big st.rs which a re distant from each
other by an Interval of g3'; let uS suppose the "; sible ... midi.meter of each
10 be only of one minute; accordingly it will appear to Ihe sight as being of
83'. that is. nearly Ihree times Ihe breadth of the sun. and a, for Ihe
,urface, it would be e ight times larger Ihan the sun itself. Consequently the
appear.nce of the fixed ,tars as ... en from each other is not the same as it
is from Our world. and accordingly we are farther away from the fi, ed st.,s
th.n the ne ighbouring fi, ed.ta" .,e from e.ch other.

As we see. the telescope did not change the pattern of Kepleri3ll rusonlng:
it only made him diminish somewhat the visible dimensions of Ihe fixed
stars. And. of course, as long as Ihi' vis ible dimension is nol complete ly
removed from the objective sphe,e to the ,ubject ive one, Kepler',
deduct ion GIn be upheld .

Yet, it may be objected, its >econd premise, that of t he uniform size of the
fi xed st.rs. is gratuitous. It seems that. '"

The st'ength of this argument can be weakened by assuming that the stars
are so much larger as Ihey are higher (farthe r) from the ea rth . For. If
among Ihe so numerous stars that are seen uncier nearly the same angle.
some were assumed to h.ve small bodies. a nd others enormous one<, it
would follow that the former are ne.r us and the I.tter e xceedingly far;
and thu" in thi' ca>e, stars which .re seen by us as very ne.r [to e.ch
other) could in point of fact be very distant.

,. ••
Thi' i, a po"ible .ssum ption, but, as we know, a rather improbable one,
, ince it would imply an extremely unlikely ,tar distribution, a distribution,
moreO'o'er, <ompletely incompatible with our fundamental assumption of a
homogeneou s, uniform un iverse : 11.

In this case, Ihis re gion would be conspicuouS if not by lIS vacuity Ihen by
Ihe smallness of the stars in Ihe neighbourhood of our moving world, and
Ihus the very minuteness of the SI.rs would present" kind of void,
where., Ihe increasing magn ilude of the SI . " on Ihe exterjor would pl.y
Ihe role of Ihe vaun.. In the universe there would be Ie" stel lar mailer in
Ihi. cavity in which our moving world is "".ted. and more matler in the
circumference which contain. and limit. it. Thus it would ,till remain true
that this place is singula. and notable compared to.1I the remaining part.
01 the region of the fi, ed surs.

Moreover. it is more probable that those (Slars) that are nearly of the .."me
sensible magnitude are se paraled from uS by nearly Ihe same diSlance. and
Ih.l . kind of hollow spher .. is formed by Ihe packing closely togelhe r 01 so
m.ny st...,

The a<gumen" a lready developed a re more than sulficient to enable uS to

maintain the unicity of this our moving and sun-centered world, and to
oppose it to the rulm of the ro . ed stars . We can. however, supp lement
Ihem by more direct ones, and show thallhe phenomena clearly poinl out
our Ithe sol., system's) cenlral position in the midst of the peripheral
acCUmUlalion of stars . The appear. nce of Ihe Mil ky Way - in sprte of il<
re,olulion by G.lileo into an innumerab le multitude of stars-'Iill ,ee ms 10
~ eplef to preclude .ny olher conclusion . Thus, elaborating the demonstra-

tion out lined in the De ste lla nova, Kepler continues: '"

Do you have any other argument demonstrating thaI this place in the midst
of whic h are the earth and the planelS is particularly distinguished in
respect to all other places in the region of Ihe fi . ed "ars1

The w.y c.lled by the Greeks the Milky W.y .nd by us Ihe Ro.d of St . Jacob
is spre<td .round in Ihe middle of the orb of the roxed stars las the orb
appears to U,), dividing it into Iwo .pparent hemispheres; .nd Ihough this
cirde i, of unequal breadlh, still it is, all around, not ver; di"imilar to itself.
Thus the Mil ky Way conspicuously determines the place of the earth and of

ry' d
the moving world in rel.t ion to all other pl.ces in the region of the f",e<I
st ....

For if we assume IIIallhe earth is on one .ide of Ihe sem idi~meler of Ihe
Milk'! Way. Ihen this Milky W~y would appear 10 it Ithe earlhl as a sma ll
circle or sma ll ellipse . .. it would be visible at one glance, whereas now not
mote th.n half of it can be seen .t anv moment . On the other hand. If we
assumed that the earth were indeed in the plane of the Mil ky Way, but in
the vicinity of its ve ry circumfe rence : the n this pan of the Milk'! Way would
appear enormous, and the opposite pan , narrow.

Thu. the sphere of the fi xed st . .. is limited downwards, towards U', not
on,., by the ,te llar orb but also by the circle of the Milky Way.

Still. In spite of being Ihus limiled "downwards." the sphere of Ihe fixed
st.r, couid nevertheless e. tend Indefinitel y · upwards· ; the walls of t he
world-bubble could be indefi nitelv. or Infinitely, thick. Once more we see
Kepler reject this supposition .s groundless .nd perfectlV unsc~ntif~.
Astronomy, inde ed, is.n empirical science . Its field is coextensive with that
of observable dala. Astronomy has noth ing to say about Ihi ng. that are
not a nd c.nnot be Seen. '"

But then is not the region of tile fixed stars infinite upwards? Here
astronomy makes no judgment, beca use in such an altitude it is deprived of
the Sense of seeing. Astronomy teaches only this: as far as the star<, even
the least ones, are "",n , space is finite .

Kepler does not mention Galileo in this discu.,ion, and we ca n understand

why: the tele5<op<, doe. not change the situat ion. It a llows uS to See more
Slars than we did before its invention: it enables u, to transcend the factual
limitation of our senSe of seeing; but it does not ,emove its essential
struct ure. Witll as without the te leloCope, things at an infinite distance
cannot be seen. The optical world is finite.

Thus to the question: '"

But ;s it not possible for some of the visible sta" to be separated from us
bV a n infin;te distance 1 Kepler replies: No; bec.use eve ""thing that i, seen,
is seen by its e. t'emities. Consequentlv a visible st ar nas limits aU around .
But If the star receded to a really Infinite distance, these limits too woukl
be distant Irom one anoth .. r bV an infin~e 'pace. For everything at one .. ,
that is, the whol .. body olth .. ,"'r, would participate in th .. inlinity 01 this
altitude . Therefore, il the ang le 01 vision re"",ined the same. the diameter
01 the star. whOeh is the line between its limits, wouk! be increased
proportionally to the distance; thus the diameter of a [star l twice as di,tant
wil l be tWOee as large as the diameter 01 the nurer one. the diameter 01 a
[starl diSlant by a finite space will be lin~e. bul whe n a body is assumed 10
acquire an inlinitelv increased distance (its diameter1 also becomes
infin itely greal.

Indeed, to be infinite and to be limited is incompatible , just a. it i,

incompatible to be infinite and to have a certain, that il. determinate,
proportion to something finite. Consequently, nothing that is visible is
separated Irom uS by an infi n ~ e distance .

So much 1<)( the visible world. Bul can we nOI assume that oul5ide and
beyond Ihe wo.ld. or Ihe part of Ihe w<)fld that is seen by us. space. and
".r, in space. conlinue to e.ist wilhoul end? II may be meaningles< from
the point of view of amonomy, it may be metaph)"i« . . .. BUI is il. good
one? Not according to ~epler. who held that this concept - that of modern
science- is bad. a, a reallv Infin~e number of finite bodies is something
unthinkable. even contradictory: u a

ikJI whal if there we'e In reality stars, of finite body. scauered upwards In
the infinite space s, (<1a«1 wh ich. because of so great a distance. were nOI
seen by 0<1

First, ilth .. y are not ..... n. they in no way con~ .. rn a"'onomy. Then. if the
reg ion Ollhe fix .. d stars is at all limited, namely downward,. toward, our
mobile world, why should it lack li mits upwards? Thi rd. though it cannot be
denied that there Can be manv ,tars whOeh, e it her because 01 their
minuteness Or because of their very great distance, are net seen, neverlhe_
less you cannot ~au se of Ihem assert M inf,nile space. For If they are.
individually. of a finite size. they must, all of Ihem. be of a finite number.
Othe rwise, if they were of an infinite number, Ihen, be they as small as you
like , provided the y are not infin itely so, they would be able to constitute
one inlinite (star1 and thus there would be a body, 01 three dimensions,
and nev .. nh .. I.." inlinite, which impl>el a contradiction. For we nil infinite
what lacks l; m~ and end, 3nd therefC>r"e also dimension. Thus 311 number of
things is actually finite for the very reason Ihat il is a number; conseq~en\ly
a finite number of finite bodies does not imply an infinite space, as if
engendered by the multiplkation of a multitude of finite spaw •.

Kepler·. objection ~g~;rlst infinity is, of course. not new: it Is essentially that
of Aristotle. Yet it is by no mUnS negl igible. and modern science seems
rather to have discarded than to have sONed the problem . '" Now. even if
we deny that thefe is an infinite number of stars In space. there \1 ill
remains, for the infinitist, a Ian possibility : that of asserting a finite work:!
immersed in an infin ite 'pace . "" Kepler does not accept thi', either, and
hi. rea""n, for reje cting it reveal the ultimate me taphy,ical background of
hi. thinki ng: III

If you are speaking of void space, that is, of what is nothing.. what neither
is, nOr is created. and cannot oppoSe a resistance to anything being there.
you are deal ing with quite another question. It is etea r that (this void
space). wh ich is obviously nothing. cannot have an actual u istence . If.
however. space exists because of the bodies located In it (it will not be
infinite as) it is already demonstrated that no body that can be located i.
actually infinite. and that bodie, of finite magnitude cannot be infinite in
number, It is therefore by nO meanS necessary that space be infinite on
~ccount of the bodies located in it. And It I. a lso impossible that between
two bodies there be an actual ly inf inite line. I'or It is Incompatible to be
infinite and to have limits In the two ind;"idual bodies or points that
con stitute the ends of the line.

Space, void space, is jUst "nothing," a non-ens, Space, a, such, neither i,-
how, indeed, could it be if it i. noth ing?-nor has it bffn created by God,
who assuredly ha , ,reated the world out of noth ing, but did not start by
<reating "nothing ." '" Space exists on account of the bodieS; if there were
nO bodi es. there would not be sp<oce, And if God Should destroy the world.
there would be no void space left behind . There would be Simp ly nothing.
just as there waS nothing at a ll before God created the world .

All thaI Is not new. nor speedi, to Kepler: it i. the traditional teaching of
Aristotelian ;cholastici,m. Thus we have to admit that Johanne s Kepler, the
great and truly revolutionary thinker, was, nevertheless, bound by
tradition. In hi' conce ption of being, of motion, though not of science,
Kepler, in the last analy,i., remains an Aristotelian.

,. ••
 THINGS NEVER SEEN BEFORE AND THOUGHTS
NEVER THOUGHT

THE DISCOVERY OF NEW STARS IN THE WOR LO SPACE ANO TliE

MATERI ALIZATION OF SPACE

Galileo & Oe.ca rte.

h.ve al ready ment ioned the Sidereus Nuncius '" of Galil/!(> Galile i, a

I work of whic~ the Influence- and the import~nce - cannot be

overestimated, a work whic h announced a series of disc~ries more
strange and more signifi cant Ihan any that had eve r been made before.
Readin~ it today "Ie can no longer, of course, experience the imp act of the

unheard-of me"age; vet "Ie can .till feel the e xcitement and pride glowing
beneath the cool and ,obe r wording of Galileo', report: ,,..

In this little trutise I am prese nting to a ll .tudent, 01 nature grut things to

obse"'e and \0 consider , Great as much because of their intrinsic e xcel-
ience as of Iheir absolute novelty, and also on account of the Instrument by
Ihe aid of wh ich Ihev have made them.elves accessible !oO\Jr senses.

I! is a"uredly importanl to add!o the greal number of fixed "a" tha t up

to now me n have been able to see by their natural sight, and to set befo re
the eve, innumerable others whkh have never been ,een before and
which surpass the old and previous lV known [st.,,[ in numbe r more than
ten times.

It is most beautiful and most pleasant to the sight to see the body of the
moon, distant from uS by nearly sixty semidlame!e rs of the earth, as near
as if i! were al a distance of only two and. half of Ihese measures. So that
Anv one can know wilh the certainly of sen"'-perception Iha! Ihe moon is
by no means endowed wilh a smoolh and polished <urface, but with a
rough and uneven one, and, Just like the face of the earth itself, i.
everywhere fu ll of enormous swellings, deep chasms and sinuosities.

,.
Then to have ,euled disput", about the Galaxv or MilkV Wav .nd to have
m.de it. e .... nc .. m.nifest to the ,enses, and even mor.. to the intellect,
seems bv nO meanS a matter to be considered of sm.1I importance; in
addilion 10 this, to demonstrate directly I~e substance of Ihose stars which
ali aSlronomefS up to this time have called nebulOUS, and to demonstrate
that It is very differenl from what has hilherto been believed, will be very
pleasanland very beautifu l.

But what by far surpa"es all admiration , an d what in the fim place mO\led
me to present it to the attention of astro nome .. and philosophers, i.this:
namely, that we have discO\Iered four planets, neither known nor ob",rved
bV any on .. before U', which have th .. ir periods .round a c.. rtain big star of
the number of the previOUSly known ones, like Venus and Mereu,,! around
the sun, wtlich sometimes precede it and sometime. follow it. but never
depart from it beyond certain limits. All this w.s diSCO\lered and observed a
few days ago by means of the persplc illi invenled by me through God's
grace preliiouslVilluminating my mind.

To <um up : moum ain. 011 the moon, new "planets" in the .kV, new fixed
st ... in tremendous numbe,s, things thaI no human eve had eve, seen,
and no human mind conceived before. And not on ly this: besides these
new. ama~ i ng and wholly unexpected and unfo,eseen facts, there was also
Ihe description of an astonishing invention, that of an instrumenl - the r",1
scientific instrument - the perspicillum, which made .lIth"", discoverl'"
possible and enabled Galileo to transce nd the limitation imposed by
nature - or bV God - on human ,en.e< and human knowledge, '"

No wonder tha t the Me ...ge of the St . .. was, at first. r""eived with

misgivings and incredulitv, and th at it played a deci.ive part in the whole
subsequent deve lopment of .stronomical science, which from nOw on
became so closely linked tOgether with th.t of its instruments that e_ery
progress of the one implied and involved a prOgress of the other. One could
e_en s.a~ Ihat not onlv astronom V. but science as SUCh, began, with
Galile<)'S In_en(ion, a new phase of Its development, the phase that we
might call the in,trumental one.

The perspicilli not onlv increased the number of the fi .ed, and erram, .tars:
thev changed their .spect. I have alrudy dean with t~ i. elf""t of the use of
the telescope. Vet it Is worth while quoting Galileo himself On this subject:

,
First 01 all, thi' is worthy 01 conside.ation, nam~ y that ,tars, a, wellli.ed
., err.nt, when they a.e ,een th.ough the perspidllum, a.e neve. seen to
increa'" their dimen,ions in tht same p.oportion, in which other objects,
and the mOOn itsell, in,.ease in size . Indeed in [the ca.e off the sta.s this
inc rease appears much smaller. SO Ihat a pe.spicillum which. 1o. instance.
" powerful enough 10 magnify all other objects a hund.ed times will
sca.cely .ende. Ihe sta.s four o r five times la'ge •. BUlihe 'ea,on for ills
this; name ly the stars. when seen by ou. f.ee and nalu'al eyesight, do nol
pr",ent Ihem,elve s 10 us with their .eal and, '0 to say, na ked si,e, but are
,urrounded by a certain halo and fringed with ,parkling "Y', pa.ticu la.1y so
whe n the night i, .I.eady advanced; the .elore they appea. much large.
than [they would) if they were .t.ipped 01 these adventit ious fringe.; lor
the angle 01 vision is dete.mined not by the p.imary body of Ihe ,ta.; but
by the b.lghtness that surround. it.

According to Galileo, this "adventitious" and "accidental" cha ..,te. of the

halo surrounding the liars is dea.ly demonstrated by the faC! Ihat, whe n
they •• e seen .1 dawn. stars. even of Ihe fom magnitude, appe •• quite
,mall; and even Venus, if seen by daylight, is hardly la.ger Ihan a sta. of Ihe
last m a gn~ude . Daylight, so to sa y, cut, off their luminous I.inges; and not
only light. but diaph.nous douds 0. black veils and colored gla.. have the
same effect. 120

The pe.spicilium acts in the same way. first It 'emoves f.om the stars Ihe
acCidenta l and advenlitious splend<)<J", and [only) then enlarge, their true
globe. (if indeed Ihey are of a round ,hapel, and therefo.e they appea. to
be magnified in a ,malle. proportion (than other obje",), Thu, a sta.let of
the filth a. the .ixth magnitude ",e n th.ough a perspicilium i, ,hown onl y
a, 01the first magnitude.

Thi" indeed, i. e xtremely important as it dest.oys the basis of Tycho

Brahe', mOSI imp,essive - for his contempo,a.ies - objection to helioce n·
Ifi, astronomy. according t o which Ihe fixed stars - if the Copernican
wQfld ·system we .e t.ue -.hould be as big. nay much bigge., Ihan Ihe
whole orbi, magnu, of Ihe annual circuit of Ihe earth , The perspicillum
.educe, Ihei. vi,ible diameter f.om 2 minllIe. to ; .econd, and Ihus
di,pose, of the ne<:essity to increa,e the ,i,e ollhe fixed stars beyond th.t
01 the .un. Yet the decrease in .i,e i, mo.e than compen.ated by an
inc rease in number: '"

,. ••
 , • ,,
,
•
•• ,"
•
•
,•
,

•• • • :~ •
• ",'I<
•
•

•
• • •
•• •
•
.' • ,
••
• ••
•
• •
•
.' • • ,• •

• •
•
•
•
• ••• •

•• ••
. •

•
• • ••
•
- •

f1G U"! •
G
"""", ,,,,.oi<1... of .... "'.,'" .... .-.I of Orioo
(1"'''' ,,,. -..., _""""'" '~ l OI
The difference between the appearance of the planets and of the fixed
st." ,ee ms equally worthy of notice . Planet. indeed present thei. di=
perfectlv round and exact lv delimited, and appear as .mall moon,
comp Jetely illuminated and globula.; but the fixed stars .r.. not se en .,
bounded by. cireul.r pedpherv, but like blazes of lighl. sending out rays on
311 skies and .ery spar~ ling; and with the perspicilium thev appear to be of
the S~me , I\ape as when viewed b~ the natural sight, and so much bigger
thai ~ $t~rlet of the fifth or sixth magnitude seems to equal the Dog. the
largest of all the fi . ed stars. But below the liars 0/ tile sl oth magnitude. you
will see through the pe'splCillum so numerous a herd of other stars that
escape the natural sight as 10 be almo't o..yond belief; for yOu may see
more than ,ix other difference , of magnitude ; of which the largest, those
that we may call stars of the seventh magnitude o r of the fim of the
invisible one . , appear w ~h the aid of the pe .. pidllum larger and brighter
Ihan stars of the second magnitude see n by natu ral sight. Sut in order that
VO" may see one <X two e .ample, of their nearly inconceivable numbe r, we
decided to ma~ e out two ,tar-picture" so that from th"'" e • • mpl", you
may judge about the r",t . At first we determined to depict the entire
con,tellation of Orion, but we were overwhelmed by the enormOuS
mu ltitude 01 5t.r, and by lack of time, and have deferred thl, anempt to
another occa,ion; for Ihere are adjacent la, Or scanered around, the old
ones more Ihan five hundred (new ones) with in Ihe limits of One or two
degrees.

As a second e.ample we have de picted the si. sta" of Taurus, caHed the
PI"; ade, (we say 'i', because the seventh is scarcely ever visible), which are
endosed in the sl<y within very nanow boundaries. and near which a re
adjacent more than forty other visible one" none of which is more than
hall a degree distant from the aforesaid 5i •.

We have already Seen that the invl,ibility for the human eye of the fi. ed
stars d iscovered by Gal ileo, and, accordingly. the role of hi, pcrspicillum in
revealing them. could be interpreted in two different waVS : it could be
explained by their being fal too small to be seen, (b) too far away. The
pefSpicilium would act in the first case as a kind of <.elesti"1 microscope, in
enlarging, 50 to ' ay. the stars to perceivable dimensions; in the second it
would be a • telescope ' and. so to say. bring the stars nearer to us, to a
distance at which they become visible. The second interpretation, thaI
which makes vl, ibillty a fUnction of the distance. appea .. to uS now to be
the only One possib le. Vet thiS was not the case in the seventeenth ce ntury.
As a matlet of fact both interpretations lit the optica l data equally well and
a man of that period had no SCientific, but only philosophical, reasons for
choosing between them. And it was for philosophical reason, that the
prevailing trend of seventeenth century thinking rejected the fim
interpretat ion and adopted the ,econd.

There is no doubt whatever that Galileo adopted it too. though he very

seldom asserts it. As a matter of fact he does it only once, in a curious
passage of his leUer to Ingoli where he tells the lauer that: '"

If it is true, as is commonly held, ,,. that the highest parts of the un iverse
are re,eNed for the habitation of substances more pure and perfect (than
ourse lve,) they (the fixed 'tars) will be no less lucid and resplendent than
the sun; and yet their light, and I mean the liaht of all 01 them taken
toget her, does not come up to Ihe tenth part of Ihe visible magnitude and
of Ihe light that is communicated by the sun; and of the one as well as of
the othe, of these effects the ,ole ,e.",n i, thei, 8'''"t distance, how 8,e.t
the,efo,e mu,t we not bel ie"" it to be?

Ipa,ageaph continue, ) Indeed , In the de bate about the ' initenes, 0' the
infinit"/ of the uni"",se, the g,."at Flo,enti ne, to whom mooern science
owes pe,haps more Ih.n 10 any othe r man, t"~ eS no par! . He ne.er tells uS
whethe' he belie"", the one 0' the othe,. He seem, nOlto ha.e made up
his mind, or even, thO<lgh indin ing towards infinitv, to consider Ihe
questOon a, being insoluble. He doe, not hide. of course, that in cont,adi,·
tinction to Ptolemy, Copern icus a nd Keple" he doe, nol admit the
limitation of the wOfld 0' its ""c lo,ure by. ,e.1 ,phere of fixed ,tars. Thu,
in the lette, to Ingoli already quoted he te ll, him: 110

You suppose that the Slar, of the firmament are, all of t hem, placed in the
same orb: lhM is something Ihe knowledge of which is ,0 doubtful th.t It
will ne.er be proved either by you or by anybod y else; but If we restrict
ourselves 10 conjeclure, and probabil ities I shall "'V that not e\len four of
the fo xed stars . are at the ",me di>!.nce from whichever poinl of the
un .... erse vou may want to choose. And, what i, mo,e, not only i, it not
proved that they are a""n~d In a sphere but neithee Ingoli himself, U1

.. . nor anyone in Ihe world, knows, nor Can po~,ib l y know, not onl y what
Is Ihe shape lofthe fi rmament) but even whethe r It has any fogure 3t all .

Consequently, once more in oppo'ition to Ptolemy, Copernlcu, and Kepler,

and in acco,dance with Nichola< of Cusa and GOordano Bruno, Ga lileo
rejects the conce ption of a cente, of the un ive,se whe,e the earth, or the
' un, ,hO<lld be placed, "the cente, of the unive"" which we do not know
where to lind or whether it exist, at all ." He ""en te lls uS th.t "the fi>;ed
stars a,e so many suns, " Vet, in the se lfSo)m e DialOgue On th e Two G,eatest
World·System, f,om wh ich the la,t two quotation, are taken, discussi"g ex
professo the distribution of the fixed st." in the universe, he does not
a~sert Ihatthe stan are "~!1ered In space withoul e"d: ,J>

Salv.- Now, Simplici"" what 'hall we do with the fixed stars? Sha ll we
,uppo,e them "alte red through the immense .by,se, of the universe, at
differe nt distances from one determin.te point; or e l,e plaeed in a .urface
,phe,;cal"" d istended .bout • ce nter of it, own, '0 th.t each of them m.v
be equidist3"! from Ihe said cenler?

,. ••
Simp.-I would r.ther take a middle way and would a"ign them. circle
descdbed .bout a determinate cemer .nd compri ... d with in two spherical
surfaces, to wit, one ~ery high and concave, the other lower and COn~e x
betwixt which I WQUld con stitute the innumer. ble multitude of st .rs. but
yet at diverse altitudes. and this might be catled the sphere of the universe.
containing within illhe circ les of Ihe planets already by uS described.

Salv. - But now We haoe all thiS while, $implicius, di,po,ed the mundane
bodies exactlv according to the order of Co!Iernicu,.

We can assuredly e.plain the moderation 01 Salviat i. who doe, not critici,e
the conception pre,ented by Simp licio-though he do ... not ,hare it- and
who .ccepts it, 10' the purpOse 01 the discussion .• s agree ing perfectly with
Copernican astronomy. bv th e very nature of the Dialogue: a book intended
10' the "general reade,." a book which aims at the d... truction of the
Aristotelian world·view in faoo' 01 1hat of Copernicus. a book which
p'etends. mo'eo",~r. nOI to do It. and where. the'efo' e. subjects bQlh
dilficultand dange'ous are obviously to be .voided.

We could even go as far as to discard the outright negation of the infinity 01

sp<lce In the Dialogue - which had 10 p." the cenSQ~ l p of the Church -
and to oppose to it the p.".ge 01 the lette, to IngGli wnere its pO"ibilitv is
ju~ as strO"ll1v a, ... rted. In the Dialogue. indeed. Gal ileo 1ells us. just .s
Kepi.,.. do .... that it Is: '"

... absolutelv impossible th3tthe re .... ould be an infi nite 'pace ,uperior to
the fi xed 51ars, lor there is no ,uch place in t he wmld; and il there were,
the star there , itualed would be impefCeplible to us.

Whereas in the letter 10 Ingol i he writes: ' '''

Don 't you know that it is as yet u"decided (and I belie.e tnat it will ever be
so fo' hum3ll knowledge) whethe, the universe Is fin ite or. on Ihe contrary,
Infinite. And, given that It be tJ"(J1y infinite. how would you be able to say
that the magnitude of the ste llar ,phere would be proportionate to that of
the orb;, mag num, if this one, in re'!'ect to the univene, were rather
sm.ller than a grain 01 mil let in respect to It? We must not lorge l, however,
thaI in the ... lfsame Dialogue where he so energe l ic ~11y den i ~ d the infinity
of space, he makes Salvlali tell S;mpliCiO- just as he himself had IGl d
Ingoli - that: ",

ry' d
Neither ~ou nor an~ one el ... has ever proved that the world is finite and
figurate or el~ infinite and interminate . Moreover, we c.ilnnot reject the
tes t i mon~ of Gal ileo's Letter to Liceti, where, coming b a c ~ to the problem

of the fi niteness and the infinity of the world, he writes : ,,.

Many and subtle reasons are given for each of these views but none of
them, 10 my mind: leads to a nece ..ary conclusion, So that I remain in
doubt about wh ich of the two answer< i, the true one , There i, only one
particular argument of mine that ineiine<; me more to the infi n ~e and
interminate than to the terminate (note that my imagination is of no help
here , ince I cannot imagine it either finfle or infinitel: I feel that m~
incapaCity to compre hend mi8ht more properly be referred to incompre-
hensible infinity, rather than to fin ite ness, in which no principl e of
Incomprehensibility is required , Bullhis is one of Ihose questions happily
Inexplicable to hum an reason, .nd similar perchance to predestination,
free _will and such other< in which onl y Holy Writ and divine revelation can
give an a nswer to our reverenl remar ks.

II is pOSsible, of cour~, tnat all th e pronouncements of Ga lileo have to be

taken Cum grano sali' , and Ihal Ihe fate of Bruno, t he condemna tion of
Copernicus in 1616, his own condemn'lion in 1633 incited him to practise
the virtue of prudence: he never me nlions Bruno. eithe r in his writings or in
his le iters; yet it is al~ possible - It is even quite probable - that thl'
proble m, like, generally speaking, the problem, of co,molosv or even of
celestial mechaniCS, did not interest him very much , Indeed he concen-
trate, on tne question; a quo moven"'r proje ct a ? but n""er ash: a quo
moventur planelae ? It may be, therefore, tna!, like Copernicus himself, he
never took up the question. and thu~ neVilr made the decision - though it is
implied in Ihe geometrization of space of which he was One of Ihe foremost
promoters - to make his world infinite, Some featu res of his dynamics, the
fact that he ne_er could completely free himself from the ob~ssion of
circu larity- his planets move circul.rlv around Ihe su n without de_elop ing
any centrifugal force in their mot ion- =m to ,ugsest that his world WaS
not infinite. If it was not finite it was probably. like the world of Nichol a, of
(U<3. indete rminate; and it i'. perhaps. more tnan a pure continge nt
coincidence Ihal in his letter to Liceti he use, the exp ression also employed
by Cusa: interminate ,

,. ••
Be this a. it may, it i.not Galileo, in any ease, nor Bruno, but Descane. who
clearly and distinctly formu lated principle. of the new .cience, it. dream de
reductione scientia .. ad mathematieam, and of the new, mathematical,
cosmology. Though, as we shall see, he overshot the mark and by hi'
p,emature identification of matte' and space deprived himself of the
mean. of gNing a correct solution to the p(oblems that .eventeenth
centurv science had placed before him .

The God of a philo"'!'her and his world are correlated. Now Descartes'
God, in contradist inction to most previous Gods, is not svmbo lized by the
things He created; He does nol express Himself in t hem. The,e is no
analogy between God and the world; no imagines and ve.tigia Dei in
mu ndo; the o nly exception is Our $Oul, that is. a pure mind, a being, a
substance of whkh al l e.renee consist. in thought, a mind endowed wit h
an intelligence able to g(a.p the Idea of God, that Is, of t he infinite Iwhlch i.
even innate to it), and with will. thaI i., with inf,nite f'eedom. The
Cartesian God gives u. $Orne clea( and diSlinct idea, Ihat enabte u. to find
out the truth. provided we 'lid to the m and ta ke care nOlIO fall into error.
The Cartesian God is a trulhful God; Ihus Ihe knowledge aboul the world
created by Him that Our dear and distinct ideas enable uS to reach is a true
and authentic knowledge . As for this world. He created it by pure will. and
even if He had .ome rea.on. fo' doing it, these reason. are on ly known to
Himself; we have not, and cannot ha.e, the slightest idea of them. It i.
Iherefore nOI only hopele.s, but even preposterous 10 trv 10 find OUI His
aim •. Teleological conception. and e xplanations have no place and no
value in physical SCie nce, jUst a. they have no place and no mean ing in
mathematic. , a ll the more $0 a. the world created by t he Canesian God,
thaI is, the wor ld of Oescane s, is by no mea ns the colorful, muniform and
qualitative ly determined world of the Aristotelian, the world of our daily
life and e. pe rien<e - that world is only a subjective world of unstable and
incon.istent opinion based upon the untrut hfuttestimony of confuse(! and
erroneous sense ,perception- but ~ strictly unif(>rm mathem~tic~1 world. ~
world (>f geomet"1 made , ... 1about wh;ch Ollr clea( 3Ild distinct ideas give
us a ce'tain and evident knowledge. There is nothing else in this world but
m.lter and motion; or, matter being identical with 'pace or extenSion,
there i, nothing e l,e but extension and motion.

The famou, Carte sian identifkation of e"en.ion and matter (that i., the
asse(tlon that "il is not heaviness. or hard ness, 0' color which con.titutes
the n3lure of body but only extenSion: '" in other wards, that "nature of
body, ta ken generally, does not consist in tne fact that it i. a nard, or a
heavv, or a colored thing, or a th ing tnat touche. our semes in any other
manne r, but only in that it i, a substance e . tended in lengtn, breadth and
depth; and that conversely, e. tenslon in length, breadth and deptn can
only be conceived - and therefore ca n only exist- as belo<1ging to a
material substance) Implies very f..,reachins conseque<1ces, the fi rst be i<1S
the negation of tne void, which is reje cted bV Descartes In a maMer even
more radical than by Aristot le himself,

Indeed, tne void, aCCOfding to o.,scartes, is nol onlv phvsically impossible ,

it is e ..entia lly impossible, Void space - if there were anything of tnat
kind - wou ld be a contradktio in adjecto, an e . isting nothing , Tho,e who
assert its e . istence, Oemocritus, lucretius and their followers, are victims
of false Imagination and confused thinking, Tney do not realile tnat noth ing
can have <10 propert;es a<1d therefore no dimensions, To speak of ten feel
of void SIlace separating two bodies Is meaningless; If there were 3 void,
there would be no separation, and bodies separated bV noth ing wou ld be
in contact, And if there is separation and distance, th i. distance is not a
length, breadth Of depth of nothing but of something, that i', of substance
Or matter. a "subtle" matter, a matter that we do not sense - that is
prec isely why people who are accustomed to imagining instead of think ing
speak of void space-bul nevertheless a matter just as real and a5
"malerial" (Ihere are no degrees in materiality) as the "gross' mailer of
which trees and stones are made,

Thus De,earte, does not content him,elf witn staling.. a, did Giordano
Bruno and Kepler, that tnere is no rea lly void space in the world and that
the world·.pace is everywhere filled with "ether, " He goe. much farther
and denies that there is .uch a th ing at all as ' space," an entity distinct
from "matter" that "fills" it. Matter and space are identical and can be
distinguished on ly by abst raction, Bodies a re not in space, but only among
other bodies; the space that Ihey ·occupy" is not anything different from
themselves: n.

The space or the interior locus, and Ihe body which is comprise<! in thi'
'pace are not distinct except in our thought , for, a, a maner of fact, the
same eXlen,,,,n in length, breadth and depth that constitute s 'pace,
comtitutes also body; and the difference between them comin, only in
Ih is, thaI we att ribute to body a particula r extension. which we conce ive 10
change place with it every time that it is transported, and that we an,ibute
to 'pace an [exten,ion) so general and '0 vague , that after having removed
from a cenain space the body which occupied it, we do not think that we
ha~ a lso tr.nspone<! the e xten,ion of that space, because it seem, to uS

that the Same e . tenslon remains the re all the time, as long as it Is of the
same magn il ude, of Ihe same figure and has nOI changed Its situal ion in
re Sllect to the extern.1 bod ies by me.ns 01 which we determine it. Butthat,
01 couO'e, is an error . And, ,M

... it will be ea,y to recognile thaI the same eXlension Ihat constitules Ihe
nat ure of ~y conslitutes also t he n.lure of space so Ihat Ihey do not
differ in any othe r wa y t han the nature of Ihe gender or of the spede s
differs from the nature of the individual. We ca n, indeed, d i~ot and
deprive any given body of all its ,ensible qualities and ,..

. . we shall lind thM the true idu we have of it consists in Ih is alone. that
we perceive distinctl y that II is. substance e xtended in lenglh, breadth and
deplh. Bul JUSl lh.1 is comprised In Ihe idea we have of space, nOI only of
Ihal which is full of ~ies, bUlalso Ihat one whic h is called ""id. Thus. ,.,

.. the words "place " and "space" do nOt ,ignify anything which differs
rea lly from the body that we ><ty to be in SOme place. and denote only its
magnitude, Its figure and the manner In which ~ is sit uated among Olher
bodies.

Consequently, ,.,

... Ihe re cannot b<> any void in t he sense in which philosophe rs take Ihi,
word, namely a. de noting a space where there i. no subotance , and it is
evidMl that there is no space in the un i ~rse thaI would be . uch, because
the eJ<te nsion of space Or of the interior locu, i, nOl d~lere nt from Ihe
U lension of Ihe body. And as Irom th is alone. Ihat a bod y is e . te nded in
length, brea dth and depth, ~ have ruson to concl ude that It is a
subslance, because we concei ve Ihat it is nOI possible Ih.lll>at which is
nOlhing should have an exle nsion. we mUSI conclude Ihe same aboul lhe
space SUppo<e<! IO be void; namely Ih.t, as there is in il some exte nsion.
there i. nece ssarily also some substance .

The second important con ... que nce of the identification of e",emion and
ma(ler consists In Ihe reject ion no( only of (Me linitene ss and limiUl io n of
space. bUI also th.1 of Ihe 'eal malerial world . To assign boundaries 10 il
become, not onl v talse, o. even ab, u.d, but cont.adkto.v. We Glnnot p",it
a limit without tra nscending it in this very act. We have to acknowledge
the.efo.e that the rul world is infinite, Or .ather - Descartes. indeed.
refuses to use this term In connection with the world - indefinite.

It Is dear. of course. that we cannot limit ("elidean space. Thus Des<:a"es i,

pe. fe ctly .i ght in pursuing: ... ,

We reCOgnile mo.eove. that th is world. o. the entirety of the (o.poreal

substance. has no limi" in its extension . Indeed. whe.ever we imagine such
limit., we a lways not onjoy imagine beyond them some indefinitely
e. tended ~aces. but we even perceive them to be truly im agin able, that is,
real; and therefo.e to contain In them also the indefinitely extended
co.poreal substance. This because. as we have already suHlcientjoy shOwn.
the idea of this extension wh ich we conceive in such a space Is obvious ly
identical with that of the corpo.eal ,ub,tance itself.

There is no longe. any ne ed to di..:u" the Question whether I.. ed stars are
big Or small. far Or near; mOre exactly this problem becomes a factual one.
o problem of astronomy and obse",atlonal teChnics and calculation. The
Question no longer has metaphysical mean ing since It is perfect joy certain
that. be the $lars far or near. they are. like ourselve, and our sun. in the
midst of other stars without end. It is e.actly the ~me concerning the
problem 01 the con,titution 01 the stars. This, too, becomes a pure ly
..:ientific, factual question. The old opp"'ition of the eaMllly world of
change and decay to the changeless world of the skies which, as we have
seen, was not abolished by the Copernkan revolution, but persisted as the
opposition of the moving world of the .un and the planets to the motion ·
less, fi xed stars, d i~ppears without trace. The unification and the
uniformizatlon of the universe in its contents and laws becomes a self·
evident fact '''_"The matter of the sky and of t he earth is one and the
same; and there cannot be a pluralltv of worlds"-atleast if we take the
term "world" in Its full ~ense, In which It wa~ used by Gre ek and mediaeval
tradition. a~ meaning a complete and .elf-<:entered whole. The world i. not
an uncon nected multiplicity of ,uch wholes unerlv separated from each
other; it i. a unity in which-just a. in the universe of Giordano Bruno (it i~
a pity th.t Descane. does not use Bruno's terminology)-there are .n
Infinite number of subordinate and interconnected systems. such as Our

,
system with its sun and planets. immense vortices of maUer eVi'rywhere
identical joining and limiting each other in boundless space. '"

It Is e asy to deduce that the m~tler of the sky is not different from that of
Ihe earth; and generally. eVi'n if t he worlds were Infinite. it Is Impossible
Ih31 they should not be constituted from one and the same mailer; and
thereiore. they cannot be many. but onl'( one: because we understand
dearly that this maUer of which the whole of nature conSists. being an
extended substance. must already occupy completely all the imaginary
spaces in which these other worlds should be; and we do not find in
ourselve. the idea of any other maner.

The iMinity of the world SeemS thus to be established beyond doubt and
beyond dispute. vet ... a matter of fact, De=rtes never use". it. like
Nicholas of Cusa two centu,ies before him, he applies the te,m "infi nite" to
God alone . God is infinite. The world Is onl'( indefinite.

The idea of the infinite play' an important part in the philo<ophy of

De"artes, so important that Cartesian-ism may be UIOside,ed as being
whol"" based upon that ide a. Indeed. it is only as an ab<olutely infinite
being that God can be conce ived; it is only as .uch that He can be proved to
eolst; It is only by the possession of Ihis idea Ihat man'S very nature-that
of a finite being endowed with the idea of God-can be defined.

Moreover, it is a very peculiar. and even unique, idea; it is ce rtainly a clear

and positive one-we do not reach infinity by negating finitude; on the
contrary. it is bVnegating the infinite that we conceive finiteness. and vet it
i. nol distinct. It <0 far surpa.se. the level of our finite undemanding that
we can neither comprehend nor even analy", it completely. De"arte. thus
rejects as perfectly worth less all the d i"ussions about the infin ite.
espeCially those de compositione continui. <0 popular in the late Middle
Ages. and al<o in the . viith century. He tells uS that: ,,'

We mu~t never dispute about the Infinite, but only hold those things to
which we do not find any limit, .uch as the extension of the world, the
divisibilitVof the pans of matter. the number of <lars, etc., to be indefinite .

Thu. we 'hall never burden ourselve, with di.pUle. about the infin ite.
Indeed. as we are finite, il would be absurd for uS to want to delermine
anything about it. to comprehend- it. and thuS to attemptt" make It quasi.
finite, Therefore we ,h.1I not bother to answer those who would inquire
whether, if there were an infinite line, it. half would al,o be infinite; or
whethe< an infinite number would be ~ven Or odd; and such like; because
about them nobody seems to be able to think except those who believe
\h.t their mind Is infinite , As for us, in reg.rd to those [things) to which in
some respects we are not able to assign any limit. we shall not assert that
they are infinite, but we shall consider them as indefinlte_ Thus, because
we cannot imagine an extension so great that a still greater one could not
be conce<ve d, we .hall say that the magnitude of possible thing. is
indefin ile. And because a body cannot be divided into '0 many parts that
further divi,ion would not be conceivable, we shall .dmitth.t qu.ntity i,
indefin itely divisible. And because it is impossible to imagine such a
number of sta~ that we should bel ieve God could not create still more, we
shall assume that the ir number is Indefinite ,

In this way we shall .void the Keplerian objections based upon the
absurdity 01 an actually infinite distance between oucw lves and a given
liar, and .1.0 the theologica l objections against the possibility of an
actua lly infinite creature , We shall re str ict our ... I"". to the a.sertion that,
just as in the series of numbers, so in world ·eJ<tension we can always go on
without ever coming to an e nd: '"

All the ... [things) we shall call indefi nite rather than infinite : on the one
hand that we may reserve the concept of Infinity for God alone. because In
Him alone we not only do not re c"lIni'e any limit, whatsoever, but also
understand positively that there are none; and on the other hand because ,
concerning these things, we do not understand in the same positive w.y
th.t, in ce ruin r"'pects, they h.ve no limits, but on ly in a ne gative way
th.t the ir limits, if they had any, cannot be found by us.

The (.artesian distinction between the Infin~e and the indefinite thus
seems to correspond to the traditional one between actual and potenti.1
Infinity, onc Des.cartes' world, therefore, seems to be only potentially
infinite. And yet _ _ what Is the exact meaning of the 3ssertion that the
limit, of the world cannot be found by u.? Why can they not? Is it not, in
.pite of the bct that we do not understand it in a positive way, .imply
because there are none ? De",art"', it i, true, tell, u, th.t God alone is
clearly understood by us to be infinite and infinite ly, that is absolutely,
perfect_As for other things:'"

,. ••
We da nat re<<>!!nize them ta be sa absolutely perfect, because, thaugh we
sometimes abserve in them propert;"s that seem ta us to have na limils,
we do nOt f. il to re<ogni,e that th is proceeds f,om the defect of Our
understanding and not from their nature.

But it is hard to admit that the impossibility of conCe<ving a limit to space

mUlt be explaine<! as a result of a defect of Our understanding, and not as
that of an insight into the nature of the extended ,ub,tance itself. it i. eVen
harder to believe that Descarte, him,elf could ,eriou,ly e,pouse thi'
opinion, that is, thai he could real ly thin k that his inability ta (once;"e, ar
even imagine, a finite world could be exp lained in thi' way. This i•• 11 the
mare '0 as somewhat farther on, in the beginning af the Ihird p.arl of the
Principia Philosophiae, from which the passages we have quoted are ta ~ en,
we lind Descartes telling uS that in order to avoid error. ,..

We ha~ to observe two things carefully: the fi rst being that we always
keep before our eyes th.t God', power and goodness are inllnite. In order
that thiS .hould make us understand thaI We must not fear to fail in
imagin ing Hi. work' too great, too be.utiful or too perfect; but th.t, on the
contrary. we Can fail If we su ppOSe in them any bounda ,;", Or lim its of
which we have certain knowledge.

The second of these necessary precautions is that, ""

We must alwa".. keep before our eye. that the capacity of our mind is ""I)'
mediocre , .nd that we must not be so pre sumptuous as it seem, we ,hould
be if we supposed that the uni"" rse had any limit', without being .\lured
01 it by divine reve latian or, at lea<1, by very evide nt nalur.1 reason,;
because it would (mea n] that we want Our thoughts la be able to imagine
something beyond tha t to wh ich God', power has eJ<tended itself in
cre aUng the warld ....

whiCh See ms to teach uS thai the limitat ions of our re .son manifest
themselves In assigning li mits to the world, and nOI In denying outright
their existence . Thus, in .pite of the fact that Descartes, as we .hall see in a
mome nt, had really ""ry good rea,on, for opposing Ihe "infinity' of God to
the "indefiniteness' of Ihe wodd, the common opin ion of his time held th.t
it was a pseuda·dininction, made far the pur pose of placating the
theologians.

,. ••
That i•• more or I", •• what Henry Ma,e. the famau. Cambridge Platoni't
and friend of Newtan. was ta tell him.

,. ••
 INDEFINITE EXTENSION OR INFINITE SPACE

Descartes & Hen ry Mo re

ENRY More was one of the firSI p;lrtisans of Descartes in England

H even Ihough, as a mailer ollact, he neW'r was a Carlesian and laler

in Iile turned agaiMI Descanes and even accused Ihe Cartesians of
being promoters of atheism. ' >1 More exchanged with the French philoso-
pher a series of e . tremely intereSting letters wh ich throws a vivid light on
the respective pos itions of the two thinkers. '"

More slans. nalurally, by e xpressing his admiration lor the greal man who
has done so much to e "ablish truth and diss ipate error, conlinue , by
complaining aboul the difliculty he has in understanding some of his
le.chings, and ends bV preseming some doubts, and even some objections.

Thus. it See m' 10 him difficull to under.land Or to admit Ihe radical

oppOsition estab lished by Descane, between body and soul. How indeed
can a pure ly 5pirltu31soul. that is. something which. according to Descartes.
has no e . tension wh.tever. be joined to. purely materi.1 bo<!y. Ihat is, to
somelhing which Is only and solely ext ension? Is It not better 10 .ssume
Ihal the soul, though immalerial, is also exte nded; Ih. t everything, even
God, is extende d? How could He olherwise be presenl in the world?

ThuS More w r~es: m

First, you establish a definition of mailer. o r of body. which is much too

wide . It see ms, indeed, Ihat God Is an ext ended thing (res), as well .s Ihe
Angel; and in general everything th.1 wb' ists by ilse ll. so Ihat it appears
thaI extension is endosed bv Ihe same limits .s the absolule essence of
things. which however can vary according 10 the var ;"ty 01 these very
essences . As lor mvse lf, I beHeve il to be clear that God is e xtended in Hi,
manner ju.t becau,e He is omnip resent and occup;", intimately the whole
machine 01 the world a. weli a. its singular p;lrticle •. How indee<! could He
communicate motion to matter, which He dki once. and whkh, according
to you, He does even now. If He did not touch the matter of Ihe universe in
practically the closest m.nner, or .1 least had not touched It at a ce n.in
time? Which certainly lie would never be able to do if He were not pre",nt
everywhere and did not occupy all the spaces. God, therefore, extends and
expands in this manne r; and Os, therefore, an e otended t hing iresl.

liavlng thus established that the concept 01 e xtension cannot be used for
the definihon of maner since It Is too wide and embraces both body and
spirit which both are extended, though in a different manner Ithe Cartes ian
demonstration of the contrary appear, to More to be not only fal", but
even pure sophimyl, More suggests secondly tha t matter, be ing necessari-
ly ",nsible, should be defined only by its relation to sense, that is, by
tangibility . But if Descartes insists on avoid ing all reference to sen""
perception, then matter should be defined by the ability of bodies to be in
mutual COntact, and by the impenetrability which mailer pOssesses in
cont radistinction to spi,it. The laller, though extended, is free ly penetrable
and cannot be touched. Thus spirit and body Can co·e xist in the Same place.
and. of cour",. two-or any number of-spirits can have the same identical
location and "penetrate" each other, where"s fQf bodies thiS is impossible .

The rejection of the Canesian identification of extension and matter leads

naturally to the rejection by Henry More of Descartes' denial of the
possibility of vaCuum. Why should not God be able to destroy all mailer
conta ined in a certain vessel without-as Descartes asserts-its walls be ing
obliged to come together? Descartes, indeed, explain s that to be separated
by "nothing" is contradictory and that to a\tribute dimensions to "void"
space is e xactly the same a. to attribute properties to nothing; vet More is
not convinced, al l the more so as "learned Antiquity" - that is Oemocritus,
Epicurus, Lucretius-was of quite a differe nt opinion. It is possible, of
course, that the wall' of the ve,,,,1 will be brought together by the pressure
of matter outside them. But if that happens, it will be beuu,e of. natur.1
necessity and not because of a logical one . Moreover. thOs void spa~e will
not be absolutely void. lor It will continue to be filled with God 's e xtension .
It will only be void of maller, Or body. properly speaking.

In the third place lienry More does not understand the "singular subtlety"
01 Descarte,' negation of the existence of atoms, of his assenion of the
indefin ite divisibilrty of matter, combine d with the use of corpuscular
conception, in his own physics. To say that the admission of atoms i,
limiting God', omnipotence, an d that we <" nnot deny that God could, if He
wanted \0. di";de the atoms into parts. is of no ••• iI: the indivisibility of
atoms means their Ind ivisibility by any cre ated power, and that 15 some·
thing th.t is perl~tly comp.tib'" with God's own power to divide them, if
He wanted to do '0. There are . greal many th ing' thai He could h.ve
done, but did not, Or even those that He ca" do but does not. Indeed, if
God w.nted to prese",e hi, omnipotence in its absolute, stat us, He would
never create m.tter at all : for, as matter is always divisible into parIS \hal
are themselves divisible, it is clear Ihat God will never be able 10 bring thiS
division to its end and th3t Ihe'e will always be something which evades
His omnipotence ,

Henry More is obviousl V right and Descartes himse lf, though insisting on
God 's omnipotence and relusing to ha ..... it limited ilnd bounded even by
the rules 01 logic and mathematics, cannot avoid dedaring that the re are a
great many things that God cannot do, eithe r because to do them would
be, or Imply, an imperfection (thUS, lor instance, God cannot lie and
deceivel, Or because It would ma ke no sense. It " just be<:ause of that.
Descartes asserts, that even God cannot ma ke a void, Or an alom . True,
",cording to Descartes, God cou ld h .... e created quite. dille,ent world and
could h .... e m. de Iwice two eq u. 1 to five, .nd not to lour. On the other
h.nd, it is equ.lly Ifue th.t He did n,>\ do it . nd th.t in this world e ... e n God
cannot ma ke twice two equal to anything but lour.

F'Om the genera l trend of his objections it Is clea' that Ihe Platonist, or
"'Ihe r Neoplatoni", Mo'e was deeply Influenced by Ihe Ifadilion of Greek
alomism, wh ich is nOI surprising in ... iew of the 13ctth.1 one of his ea,liest
wo<k, bears the reve.ling title, Democritu, Platoni«an,... ".

What he want, is just '0 avoid the C. ne,ian geomelfi,ation 01 being, and
to maintain the old distinction between span' and the thing' that are in
space; thai are moving in space and not only relal;"'ely to each other; that
occupy space in virtue 01 a special and proper quality Or forc/! -
Impenetrability- by wh ich they resist each other and e .clude each other
f'om Ihe i' ·places·

Grosso modo, these "e Democritlan conceptions .nd that e'pl.lns the !ar-
re.ching similarit y of Henry More', objections 10 Descartes to 1hose of
Gassendi, the chief represent.tive of atom ism in the XVllth century. ,,,, Yet
Henry More is by no me. ns a pure Democrit"n . He does not reduce being
to matler. And hi. 'pace is not the infinite void 01 Lucreti us: ~ i. full, and
not full of "ethe r" like the infinite space of S,uno . It is full of God, and in a
certain sense it is God Hi mself as we sh.1I see mo'e clearlVhereafter.

,
let us now come to More', lourth and most important objection to
Descarte.: " .

Fourth, I do not unde"tand your indefinite e xtension of the world. Indeed

this indefinite e"ension is either simpliciter infinite, or onty in (espect to
us. tf you understand utension 10 be Infinite simpticiter, why do you
ob"ure your Ihought by too low and too modest words? If rt is infinite on ly
in respect to us. exte nsion, in realrty, will be finite; for our mind is t he
measure ne ither of Ihe things nor of truth. And therefore, as there i,
another simpliciter infinite up.ansion, that of the divine e"ence , the
matter of your von ice. will recede from their centers and the whole fabric
of the world will be dissip.ated into atoms and grains of dust. '" Having
th us impaled Descartes On the horns 01 the dilemma, More continues: ,"

I adm ire .lIlhe more your modesty and your fear of "dmilling the inf'nity
of mailer a5 you recogn ize, on the other hand, that maner i5 divided Into
an actually infinite number of partic~" And if \,<>U did not, you could be
compelled 10 do 50,

by arguments that Descartes would be bound to a,cept. 'so

TO the perplexity and objection, of his English admirer and crrtic Descartes
replies tOO_ and his an,.....::r is surprisingl y mHd and courteous - that it is an
error to define mailer by it5 relalion 10 senses, because by doing 50 we are
in dange r of missing its true essence, which doe, not depend on the
existence of men and which would be the ,ame if there were no men in the
world; that, moreover, if divided into sufficiently small parts, all mailer
b...:omes utterly insenSible: that his proof 01 the identity of e xtension and
matter is by no meanS a sophism but is as clear and demon"rati"" as it
could be; and that it is perfectly unnecessary to postulate. special
property of impenetrability in order to define matter because II is. mere
consequence of its e xtension.

Turning Ihen 10 More', concepl of immaterial or spiritual e"en,ion,

Descartes writes: '"

I am not in the habit of disputing about words, and therefore If somebody

wants 10 ~y that God 15, in some sense, e . tended because He is every·
where, I .hall nol objecl. BUll deny Ihallhere i. in God. in an Angel, in our
>oul, and in any su bstance Iha t i. not a body, a true eXlemion, such as i.
usually concei""d by e~erybody. For by an e . tended t hing e~erybod y
understand. something [which is] imaginable (be ~ an ens ratiom Or a real
thing). and in wh ich. by imagination. can be distinguished different parts of
a delermined magnitude and r,gure. of wh ich Ihe one Is In no way the
other; .0 that It is posl ible. by imagl nallon. to transfer any one of Ihem to
Ihe place of anOlher, bul nOllo imagine two ollhem in the same place.

NOlhing 01 Ihal kind appl ies 10 God, or 10 our <oul., wh ich are nol object.
01 imaginalion. but 01 pure undemanding, and have no ",parab le pam,
",pedally no pam of determinale . i,e and figure . Lack 01 eXlemion i.
preci",1y the reaSOn why God, t he human soul, and any number of angels
can be all together In the .. me place. A5 for atom. and void. It is certain
that. our inte lligence being finite and God·s power infi nite. It is not proper
for uS 10 impose lim~s upon k. Thus we must boldlV assert "Ihat God can
do alilhal we conceive 10 be possible. bUI nOI thaI He cannOI do what Is
repugnanl 10 our concept." Nevertheless, we can judge only according 10
our concepts, and, a, it is repugnant 10 our manne r oIlhinking to conceive
Ihat. if all matter were removed Irom a ~essel. extenSion, distance. etc.,
WQuld .till ,emain. or that parts 01 matte, be Ind",i.ible. we say ,impt,- that
all that implies contradiction.

Desca"es' anempt 10 save God's omnipotence and. neverlhele15, 10 deny

Ihe po.sibilily of void space as incompatible wilh our manner 01 thin king.
is, 10 sav Ihe trulh, by no means convincing. The Cartesian God is a Deus
ve,ax and He guaranlee.lhe trulh 01 our d e ar and distinct idea •. Thu, il i.
nol only ,.,pugnan! 10 OU, thoughl, but impo"ible Ihal <omelhing 01 which
we dearly see thaI it implie. ",ntradiction be real. The,e are no contr.dic-
lOry objects in t his world. though there could have been in another .

Coming now to More', criticism of his distinction between" Infin ite· and·
indefinite." Descartes assures him thMII is nOI because of ",

. an affectalion of modestv, bUI as a precaulion, and, in my opinion a

nec",sary one, Ihall call certain th inss indelinite ralher Ihan infinile . For it
is God alone whom I undemand positively 10 be infin ile; as for Ine olhers,
.uch a, Ihe extens ion of Ihe world, Ihe number of pam into which mailer
is divisible, and so on. whether they a'e simpliciter infinite or not. I confess
not 10 know. I only know that I do nOI dl~rn in them any end. and
therefore, in re.pectto me, I say they are indefinite. And though our mind
i, not the mea,ure of thing' or of truth, it must, a"uredly, be the mea,ure
of things that we affirm o r deny. What indeed is more absurd Or more
inconsiderate than to wish to ma ke a judgment about things which we
confess to be unable to perceive with ou r mind?

Thu, I am surprised that you not onlv seem to wanllO do so. a, when you
say thaI if eXlension is infinite only in re,pect to u, lhen exte n'ion in truth
will be finite, etc., but that you imagine beyond thi' one a cr.rlain divine
extenSion, whic h wou ld streIch farther Ihan Ihe extension of bodies, and
thus ,uppo,e thaI God has parte, extra partes, and that He i, div isible, .nd,
in ShOl1, attdbute to Him alilhe "ssence of a corporeal being.

Descartes, indeed. Is perfectly just ified in pointing out that More has
somewhat misunderstood him: a space beyond the world of extension has
never been admiued by him as possible or imaginable. and even if the
world had Ihere limits whi ch we .re unable 10 find. Ihere ce rtainly would
be nothing beyond them, or, bener to sa y, the re would be no beyond.
Thu., in o rder 10 di,pe l completely More', doubts, he de ctares: ' ..

When I say that the e otens ion of matter is indefinite. I believe It to be

suffiCient to prevent anyone im agining a place outside it. into whic h the
,man particles of my vortice, could eseaP'!; because wherever thi, plac~ be
conceived, it would already. in my opinion. con lain some maner; for. when
I sav th.1 it is indefinitely extended , I am ,aying thai il ,,"tend, farther than
all that can be conce .... e d by m.n.

But I think, neverthele". thatlhere is • very greal diHerence be tween the

amp litude of th is corporeal ,, "' ension and the .mplitude of the divine, I
shall not say, extension. because properly speaking there is none, but
substan~ Or esren~; and therefore I can this One Simpliciter infinite. and
the other. indefinite.

Descartes is certainly .ighl in wanting 10 maintain Ihe distinction belween

the "intensive" infinil y of God. which not only excludes an limit, but also
prec ludes an multiplicity, divi,ion and number, from Ihe mere e ndlessness,
indefin iteness. of 'pace, Or of the series of numbers, which necessafi lv
indude and pre,uppo,e them. Thi, di,tinction, moreover, is quite tradi·
tional. and we have seen it asserted not only by Nicholas of (usa. but even
by Bruno.

"
Henry Mo.e dOl" not deny thi. di.Hnction; .t le •• t not completely. In hi.
Own concept ion it e xp.esses itself in the opposit ion betw~n the mate.ial
and the divine e xtension. Yet. as he states it in his second letter to
Descartes. ,.. it has nothing to do with De5<:3rtes' assertion that there may
be limits to sp;ice and with his attempt to build a concept intermediate
between the finite and the infinite; the world I. fin ite or Infinite. tertium
non dater. And if we admit. a. we mU$I, that God i. infinite and every·
where p.e,ent, thi' "everywhe,e" can only me an infinrte space. In th is case,
pursue, Mo.e, re...,d iting an argument alread y u",d by B.uno, there must
al'" be matt", everywhere, that i•. the world must be infinite. 1M

Vou can hardly ignore th.t it is .. ther simpliciter infinite 0., in pOint of faet,
finite. though you cannot as uslly decide whether it is the one Or the
other. ThaI. however. your vortices are 1101 disrupted and do not come
apart s~ms to be a rather clear sign that the world 15 real ly infinite. For my
part. I confess fr~lv that though I can boldly give my approva l to th l.
a. iom: The world is finite, or not finite, or, what is here the same thing.
infinite, I cannot, neverlhe le .., fully undemand the infin ity of any thi ng
whatsoever. But here there COmeS to my imagination what Julius Scaliger
wrote somewhere about the contractioo and Ihe dilatation of the Angels:
namely. that Ihey cannot extend Ihemselves in infinitum. or contract
themselves to an imperceptible 10U6tvOl!)10) point. Yet if one recogni'es
God to be p",itively infinite (that is, existing e ..... rywhere). as you yourself
rightly do, I do not see whether it is permitted to the unbia ..ed rea,on to
hesitate to adm it forthwith also th.t He is nowhere idle. and that w~h the
same right, and with the same facility with which (He created) this matter
in which we live. or that to wh ich Our eyes and Our mind can reaCh. He
produced matter everywhere. Nor is it absurd Or inconside rate to say that.
ilthe extension is Infinite only quoad no~. it will. In truth and In reality. be
finite: ,..

I will add that th is consequence is perfectly manifest, because the panicle

·only" (tantum) clearly excludes all real infinity af the thing wh ich is ,aid to
be infinite only in re'pect to U', and there/a,e in reali!,; the extension will
be finite; mOreOve< my mind does pereeive these thingS of which I judge, as
it is perfectly clear to me that the warld i, either finite o r infinite. as I have
just mentioned.

,. ••
As I<>r Descarte,' c<>ntention that the impossibility 01 the void alread~
",.ult. Ir<>m the fact that "nothing" can have no propertie. <>r dimen.iom
and therefore cannOt be measured, More replies b~ denying this very
premise, '"

for, if God annihil.ted this universe and then, after a certa in time,
created from nothing another one, th iS intermundlum or thiS absence of
the world would have it. duration which would De me.sured by a certain
number of day., years or centuries, There i. thu,. duratio n of someth ing
th.t does not U iSl, which duration is a kind of extension. Consequentl~,
the "mplitude <>1 nothing.. that i, of V<Iid, can be me",ured by ells or
league" ju,t a, the duration <>1 what doe, not exi't can be mea,ured in it'
inexistence by hour., days and months,

We have seen Henry More defend. against Descartes. the infi nity of the
world, and even tell the laller thaI his own physics necessarilv Implies this
Infin ity. Yet it seems that, at times. he feels himself .".iled by doubt. He is
perfectly sure that 'pace, th.t is, God's exten.ion, i, infinile. On the other
hand, Ihe male rial world may, perhaps, be finite . After all. nearly every-
body be lieve. it; spatial infinity and temporal eternity a re Strictly pa rallel.
and so both seem to be absurd. Moreover (arlesian c<>,;,noIOIlY Can be put
In agreement with a finite world . Could Descartes nol lell what would
happen. in Ihis case. If somebody silt ing .t the e xt remily of the world
pu,hed his sword Ihrough the limiting wall? On the one hand. Indeed, Ihl,
seem, ea.y, as there would be nothing 10 resi,t il; on Ihe other, impossible,
as Ihere would be no plate where il could be pushed, ,..

De,carte,' amwer to this ,eco nd letter <>1 More ,., is muc h shorter. terser,
less cordia l than to the firsl <>"e . One lee l. that Descarte, is a bit di,ap·
pOinted in his correspondent who obviously does not understand his.
Descartes'. great diKovery. Ihat of the essenHal opposition between mind
and e xtension, and who persists in ~ttributing e xtension to souls. angels,
and even 10God . He restates 1>0

. .. Ihat he does not conceive any eXlen.ion of substance in God, in the

angels, or in our mind, but only an extensio n of power, so Ihal an angel can
proportion.te Ihi' power to a greater <>r smaller pan 01 corporeal
,ub't ance; I<>r il there were no body at all, tlli' power of God <>r of an "ngel
would not correspond 10 ~ny e xlension whatever. To attribute 10 sub·
,I.nce Whal pertains only 10 power Is an effect of Ihe ~me prejudice which
make. u, 'KIppese a ll sub'tance, e"en tllat of God, to be sometlling tllat
«In be im agined.

If there we,e no wortd. there wOl.lld be no time either . To More's conte n-

tion that the inlermundium wou ld I~St ~ cert~in time, DeS<:3rteS replOts: '"

I believe Ihalll implies a contrad"tion to conceive a duration between the

destruction of the first world and Ihe creation of the second one; for, if we
refer Ihi' d uration or ,ometh ing ,im ila r 10 the , uccession of God ', ide. "
tlli, wiU be an error of our inteUect and not a true perce ption of something.

Indeed. it would mean imroducing time into God, and thu, making God •
temporal, cllanging being. It would mean denying His eternity, replaci ng it
by me,e sempiternlty - an e rror no less grave than the erroe of ma king Him
an extended thing . For in both cases God is menaced with losing His
transcendence. with becoming immanent 10 Ihe w<)rld .

Now Descartes' God is pe,haps nOllne Chrisli an God, bUI a philosoph,,",

one. '" He i', nevertheless, God, nOlllle ,oul of the world thaI penetrate"
vivifie, and mov",~. Therefore lie maintains, in acc<)rdance willi mediaeval
tradition. that. In spite of tile fact that in God power and essence are one -
an identity pointed out by More In favour of God's actual e . ten.ion-God
has nothing in comm<lll with Ihe material world . He is • pu re mind. an
infinlle mind. wllose very infinity is of a unique and incomparable non-
q uanlital ive and non-<fimensional kind. of which spatial e'lension is
neil her an image nor even a symbol . Th e world the refore, musl nol be
«IUed infinile; though of course we musl nol enclose it in limilS: m

It i, repugnant 10 my concept to attribute any limit 10 the world, and I have

no other meaSu,e tllan my perception for whall have to assert Or to deny. I
say. therefo,e. tllat tile wocld I. Indete,minate or indefillite. because I do
not recogni'e in it ~ny limits. Sut I dare not call It infinlte.s I perceive that
God is greale r than Ihe world, not in respect to His e.tension. beca use, as I
have already said, I do nOI acknowledge in God any prOller (extension). but
in respect to Hi, perfect ion.

Once more De,earte, asserts thaI God', presence in the world does not
imply Hi5 e'le n,ion. As for the worid itself which More wam, to be either
simpliciter finite, or Simpl"iter inf,nite. Descartes stiU 'efuses to caU it
infinlle . And yel. either because he Is somewhal angry wit h More. or
because he i, in a hurry and therelare I",. carelul, he practically abandan.
hi' larmer a ..enian abaut th" pa"ibiliW al the wao1d', h.ving limits
(thaugh _ Can nat find them) and treats thi' conception in the same
manne r In which he treated that of the void, that Is, as nonsensical and
even contradictory; thus, rejecting as meaningless the question about the
possibility of pushing a sword th rough the boundary of the world, he says:
'"
n is repugnant to my mind, or what amounts to the ,ame thing, rt implie' a
contradiction, that the worid be finite or limited, because I cannat but
caneeive a space autside the baundarie. althe W<lrld wherever I presup'
p<>.e them . But, lor me, thi''!>iI'"
i. a true bodV. I da nat care il it i. called
bv others imaginary. and that therefore the world is believed ta be li"ite;
indeed, I know from what prejudic", thi, error takes Its origin .

Henry More, needless to say, was "01 convinced-one philosopher seldom

convinc", another . He perSisted. therefo.e. in believing "with all Ihe
.ncient Platonis,," Ih.I.1I substance, soul" . ngel, and God are extended,
.nd Ih.1 the worid, in Ihe most lile ral sen,e 01 th i' word, i, in God just as
God is in the world. More accordingly sent Descartes. third letter, 11>
which he answered, '" and a fourth. In which he did not HI I .han not
attempt 10 examine them here as they bear chiefly on questions which,
though interesting in themselves-for example, the discussion about
motion and rest-are outside our subject.

Summ ing up, we can say Ihat we have seen De"a"e" under More',
pressure, move somewhat from the p<>silion he had taken at lirst: 10 assert
the indefi niteness al the world, or al 'pace, d"". not mean, negatively,
th.t perhaps it h.s limit. that we .re unable to a""rtain; it mean., qu ite
pOSitively. that ~ ha, nOne because it would be contradictory to posit them.
But he caMot go farther. He ha. to maintain his diStinction. a. he ha. to
maint ain the identification of e . ten,ion and matter. if he is to maintain his
contention that the physical world Is an object of pure inte llection and, at
the 'ame time. of imagination-the precondition of (artesian science - and
that Ihe worid, in spite 0/ it, lack of limi", refers os to God ., ii, treator
and cause.

Inlinity, indeed, has alwav. been the e ..emial character, or attribute, 0/

God; especially since Duns Scotus, who could accepl the famous Anselm ian
a priori prool of the e . istence of God (. proof re.ived by Descartes) on ly
aft ... h.. had ·colo.ed" it by ,ub"ituting th .. conc .. pt 01 the infinite being
I..", inlinitum ) 10. the Anselmian concept 01 a being than whic h we cannot
think 01 . g.eate. lens quo maius cogita.i n<'<luit). Infini ty thus - and it is
pa.ticula . ly t.ue 01 Descartes whose God ... 1515 in virtu .. of the infinite
"supe.abundance of His .. ss .. ne.." which e nables Him 10 be His own cause
leausa sui) and to give Himself His own exis tence 11> -means o' Implies
being . .. ven nec.. ssa,y being. The ... fore It cannot be attributed to " ... tu, ...
The distinction. o' opposition, betwe .. n God and e.eatu.e is parallel and
exatliy equivale nlto th.t of infi nit .. and 01 finite being.

,. ••
 GOD AND SPACE, SPIRIT AND MATTER

He nry More

HE breaking off of Ihe correspondence wilh- and Ihe death of-

T DeK<lne, did not put an end to Henry More', preoccupation with

the teaching of the great French philosopher , We cou ld e~e n say
that all his subsequent de~elopment was, to a ~ery great e xtent deter-
mined by his aWlude towards Descartes: an att itude consisting in a panial
acce ptance of Cane s;"n mech.n ism joined to a reject ion of Ihe radOcal
dualism between spirit and matter which, for De.cartes, con.muted iI,
melaphySOcal background and basis.

Henry More enjoy' a ralhe r bad re putation among historian, of philos.,.

phy, which is nol ,urpri.ing. In .ome ,en.e he be long, much more 10 the
history of the hermet ic, or occuiti51, tradition than to that of philosophy
proper; in some sense he is not of his time, he is a spiritual contempOrary
of Marsil io Flcino, lost in the dioenchanted world of the - ne w ph ilosophy·
and fi ghting a lOSing bMtle against it. And yel, In spite of his pani aliy
anachronistic st.ndpoint, in spite of his invi ncible trend towards syncretism
which makes him jumble together Plato and Aristotle, Democritu. and the
(aba l., Ihe thrice great Herme s and t he $10<1, it W", Henry More who gave
to the new scie nce - and Ihe new world view- some of the mo,t imponant
elements of Ihe metaph ysical framework which e nsured its development:
this because, in sp ite of his unbridled phantasy, which e nabled him to
describe at lenglh God's paradise and Ihe life and ¥arious occupalions of
the blessed souls an d spirit, in the ir post-terrestrial existence, in sp ite of
his amazing credulity (e qualled only by that of his pupil and fr iend, fe llow
of the Royal Society , Joseph Glanvill, 'oo the ce lebrated author of the
Scep,i, scie ntifica), which made him believe in magic, in Witches, in
apparitions, in ghost', Henry More ,ucceeded in grasping the fundamental
principle of the new ontology, the in/in iti,ation of 'pace , which he . ..e n e<!
with an unflinching a nd fearle .. energy.

It Os po~sib l e.• nd even prOba ble. that. at the time of his letters to
Descartes (1648). Henry More did not )'I!I re cognize where Ihe develop-
mem of hi' conception, was ultimately to lead him, all the more", .,
these ~oncept"m. are by no mean. "dear" and " distin~t." Ten years I.ter,
in hi, Antidote again,t Atheism '" and hi' Immortali!:;, of the Soul ,., he
was to give them a much more preci,e and defin~e ,hape; but it was only
in his [nchiridium metaphysicum. ,.., ten yur, later ,till. that they were to
acquire their final form.

A, we have ~n, Henry More's critic"m of ~scarte ,' identification of

,pace or exte n,ion with matter follow. two main line, of attack. On the
one hand it ,eems to him to re ,uictthe omological value and importance
of extension by reducing i1to the role of an es,emial attribute of matte r
alone and denying it to .pirit, whereas ~ i•• n attribute of being a. such,
the necessary pre.:ondition of any real e xistence. There .re not, .s
Descartes assert •. two type. of substan~e, the e xtended and the une. ·
tended. There Is only one type: all substance, spiritual as well as material. i.
extended .

On the other hand. De.carle •. according 10 More, fails to recogn i,e the
,pecific character both of matler and of space, and the refore mi"es their
essential dillinction as well as their fundamental relation , Matter is mobile
in spa~e and by its impenetrabili!:;' occupies .pace: space is not mobile and
" unaffected by the presence, or absence, of matter In it. Thus matter
without space is unthinkable, wherea, space without matter, Descartes
notwithstanding, is not only an ea,y, but eVen a nece,sal)' idea of our
mind.

He nry More's pneumalology does not intere't u, here; ,till, as the nolion
of spirit play •• n important part in hi,-and not only his-interpretation of
nature, and i. used by him-and not only by him-to explain natural
processes that <-3nnot IH! accounted for Or "demonstrated- On the I><osis of
purely mechanical laws (such as magnetism, gravity and so on), we shall
have to dwell for a moment on his concept of it.

Henry More was well aware thai the notion of "spirll" was, as often a, not,
and even more of len than nOI, pre<ented as impossible 10 grasp, at ~ast
for the human mind, ,..

Sut for mine own part, I think the nature of a .p irit i, a, conceivable and
easy to be defined as the natu'e of anything else. For as for the very
Essence or bare Subslance of anv thing whatsoever, he is a vel)' Novice in
speculation that doe. not acknow ledge that utterly unknowable; but for
the Eo,enti.1 and In",parab le Propertie •• the y are as intell igible and
explicable in a Spirit as in an y other Subject whatever. As lor example. I
con~eive the intire Idea 01 a Spirit In generall. Or at least of all finite.

c~.ted and subordinate Spirits. to cons"t of these severall power, or

properties. vi:. Self·penetration. Self· motion. Self.contract ion and
Dilatation. and Indivisibility; and these are those that I reckon more
ab,olute: I wi ll adde al,o what ha, relation to another and that i, power of
Penetrating, Moving and Altering the Matter. The", Properties and Powe"
put 10gether make up the Notion and Idea 01 a Spirit whe reby it i, plain ly
distingui,hed Irom a Body who", pan, cannot penetrate one another. i.
not Sell-moveable, nor can ~ontract nor dilate it self, Os divisible and
"'P'Orable One part Irom another; but the parIS of a Spirit can be nO mOre
"'P'Orable. though they be dilated, than you can cut off the Rayes of the
Sun by a pair of Scissors made of pe llucid Cryst.lI. And thi, will "'rve for the
",ttling of the Notion of a Spirit. And OUI of this description it is plain that
Spirit I, a notion of mo'e Perfection than. Body. and ther"fo'e more fit to
be an Attribute of what is absolutely Perfect than a Body is .

As we see. the method used b-; Henry More to arrive at t he notion Or

definition of spirit Is rather .imple. We have to att ribute to It properties
oppo,ite or contrary to tho", 01 body : penetrabil~y. indivisibility. and the
faculty to contract and dilate. that is. to extend it",lf withoul loss of
cont inuity, into a ,mailer o. larger ,pace. Thi, lall property was lor a very
long lime con,idered as belonging to matter also, but Henry More, under
the conjoint inHuence 01 Oemocriws and Descanes, denies it 10 malter, or
body. which is, a, ,uch, incompres.ible and always occllpie, the same
amount of space.

In The Immortality of the Soul Henry More gives uS an even durer account
both 01 his notion 01 spirit and 01 the manner in which thiS not ion can be
determined . Moreover he attempts to introduce into his definition a sort 01
terminological precision . Thus. he say,. lOS "by Actual Divisibility I under_
stand Discerplbilily, gr055learlns Of CUllins of one part from Ihe other. " It
is quite clear that thiS "discerpibility" can only belong to a body and that
you cannot tear away and remove a piece of a 'piril.

As lor the fa~ulty 01 contr.~tion ond dilation, More relers it to the

"es",ntiol spissitude" of the spirit. 0 kind 01 spiritual density. lourth mode.
or founh dimens ion 01 ,pi ritual ,ub,tance that it posses",s in addition to
the normal three of spatial extension with which bodies are alone
endowed. ' .. Tho., when a ,pirit contracts, its "essential spissitude "
increases; it decreases, of course. when it dilates , We cannot, indeed,
imagine the "spissitude ' but th is "fourlh Mode; He nry More tells us. "" "i.
as e asy a nd fami liar 10 my Unde rstanding as Ihat of Ihe Th ree dimensions
10 my sense or Phansy '"

The definition of spirit is now quite easV' '..

I wi ll define there fore a Spirit in ge nerallthus: A substa nce penetrable and

indi><e rpible. The fitne ss of wh ich defi nition will be better underslood, if
Wi< divide Sub,tance in generall into these first Kinde" viz. Body an d Spirit
and t he n define Body A Substance impenet rable and discerpible . Whence
the contrary Kind 10 this i. fitl y defined, A Substance penetrable and
indiscerpible.

Now I appe al 10 anv man that Can seta'ide prejud ice, and has the free use
of his Faculties, whether every letm of the Definition of a Spirit be nol as
intelligible and congruous to Reason, a. in that of a BodV. f or the precise
Notion of Substance is the same in both. in which. I conceive. is comprised
hlen,,,,,n and Activity e ither connate o r communicated , for Matter it self
once moved can move other Matt er. And it is as easy to understand what
Penetrable is a, Impenetrable, and whatl ndi,ce rp ible is.5 Discerpible; and
Penetrabilit-; and Indiscerplbi1itV being as immed iate 10 Spirit as Impene-
tra bilitv or Disce rpibility to Body . Ihe re is as much reason 10 be gille n for
the Attribute s of the one as of the Dlhet, bV Axiome 9'" And Sub<lance in
it, pre cise notion including no mOre of Impenetrability th.n of Indi,ce rpibil-
ity we may as well wonder how one kind of Subnance holds out it> parts
one from another SO a, to make them impenetrable to e",h other la.
Matter, for inst ance does the parts 01 Matterl as that parts of another
substa nce hold so fast together that they are by no meanS Discerplble . And
there/o re the holding out in one being as difficult a busineu to conceive as
the holding togelher In the other, Ih l$ can be no prejud ice to the notion of
a 5plril.

I am rather dDubtful whethe r the mDdern re adet- even if he puts aside

prejudice and makes free use 01 his faculties-will accept Henry More's
.ss urance that it i. a, e a . ~, or as difficult, to form the «Ince pt of spirit a.
that of matter, an d whether, though recognizing tMe difficulty of the latter,
he will not ag ree with some of More's contemporaries in "the confident
opin ion" that "the very notion 01 a Spirit were a piece 01 Nonsen,e and
perlect Incongruity ." The modern reader will be right. 01 cour .... in
reject ing More', concept. patterned obviously upOn that 01 a ghost. And
yet he will be wrong in as,um ing it to be pure and sheer nonsense.

In the first place. we must nOI forget that for a man of the seventeenth
centul)' the Idea of an extended. though not material. e nti ty was by no
means something strange or even uncommon. Quite the contral)' ; these
entitie , we,e represented in plenty in the ir da ily life as well a, in their
scientific experience .

To begin with. there wa, li,ht.... uredly immaterial and i ncor~real but
neverthe less not only extending through space but also,.s ~epler doe, not
la il to pOint out. able. in ,pite 01 Its Immateria lity. to act UpOn maUer. and
also to be acted upon by the laUer. Did not light offer a perfect example of
penetrability. as well as of penetrating power? lighl, indeed. does not
hinder Ihe motion of bodies through it, and It can also lOa" Ihrough bodies,
at least lOme of them; furthermore. in the case of a transparent body
traversed by light, it ,hows u, clearly that mailer and light can coexist in
the Same place .

The modern development of optics did not destroy but. on the contral)',
seemed 10 confirm thi S conception: a rea l Image produced by mirrors or
lense, has certainly a determinate shape and 10Calion in space. Yet, Is it
body? Can we disrupt or "discerp" it, cui off and take away" piece of thi,
image?

As a matter of f.ct. light exemplifie s nearly all the propertie, 01 More',

"spirit. " those of "condens.tion " and "dilat.tion " included, and even that 01
"essential spissitude" that could be represented by the intenSity of light's
val)'ing, just like the "spiss itude," with Its "contraction" and "dilatation."

And If light were nol sufficiently representative of this kind of entity, there
were magnetic forces thaI to William Gilbert seemed to belong to the
.ealm of .nim31ed much more than to purely materia l being ; "there w",
attraction (gravity) that freely pas ... d through .11 bodies and could be
neither arrested nor even affected by any.

Moreover. we must not forget that the "ether." wh"h played such an
impon"nl role In Ihe phySiCS of the nineteenth centul)' (which maintained
as lirmly or even more lirmly than the sevent .... nth the opposition between
"l ight" .nd "matter." an opposition th.t i. by no mean. complete ly
overcome even now), displayed .n e nsemble 01 propenH!S even mOre
astonishing t han the ' spirit" of Henry More. And finaliV. that the funda·
mental entity of contemporary science. the "foeld." Os somet hing that
possesses location and extenSion. penetrabilitv and indiscerpibllitV· ... So
that . ~mewhat anachronistically, of (ourse. one could assimilale More', "
.piri",· allu sllhe lowesl, uncon,,;Ou. degrees ollhem, 10 ,orne kinds of
fields, ". a

But leI us now come bad to More . The greater preci.ion achH!ved by him
in the determ ination 01 the wncept 01 spirit led nece.sarily to a .tricter
discrimination between its extension and the space in whiCh, hke every'
thing e lse, It finds Itsell. concepts that were ~mehow merged together
into the divine or spiritual e. tension opposed by More to the material
Ca(lesian one. Space or pure immalerial e xtension will be distinguished
now Irom Ihe " spirit 01 nature" thaI pervades and li ll$ it, Ihat acts upon
mauer and produces the above-mentioned non-mechanical elfects. an
entity which on the scale 01 pedection of spiritual bein" occupies the very
lowest degree. This spirit of nature is '"

A Substance Incorporeal but without loense or an imadversion. pervading

Ihe whole mauer of Ihe Universe, and e .e rclsing a plastic power the reIn,
according to Ihe sundry predispositions and occas ions of the p.n, It works
upon, raising ,uch Phenomena in the world, by directing the p.ns of the
mauer, .nd Iheir motion, as cannot be re~lved into mere mechanical
power.

Among th ... e phenomena une.plainable by purely mechanic.1 lorce., of

which Henr)' More knows, ala •. a great number, including sympathetic
cure. and con~nance of string. (More, needless to say, Is • rather bad
physicist), the most important is gravity . Following Oescartes, he no longer
CQnslders It an essential property of body, or even. as G31ileo \till did, an
unexpla inable bUI real tendency of matter; bUI - and he Is right - he
accep" neither the Cartesian nOr the Hobbes ian e.planation of it. Gravitv
cannot be explained bv pure mechanics and therefore, if there were in Ihe
wodd no other, non-mechankal, force s, unattiKhed bodies on our moving
eanh would not rema in on it. ,udace, but flV away and lo,e themselve, in
space . That they do not is a proof of the e . lstence in nature of a "more
than mechan ical," "spiritual" agenc, .

,
"
Mor~ writ~. accordingly in the pr~l.ce to The Immortality of the Soul, ,.,
I have not only confuted their (D~sca rtes' and Hobbes] Rearon" but alro
"'om Mechanical principles granted on all sides and confirmed by Expe-
rience, demonstrated that the Descent of a stone or a bullet, fX any such
like heavy IkIdV is enormGUsly conlrary 10 Ihe laws of Mechanicks; and
Ihal according 10 Ihem Ihey would n~cessarily. if they ~e krose, recede
"'om Ihe Earth and be carried away oul of our 'ighl inlo th~ farthe.1 part.
ollh~ Air~, if .om~ Power mo re than Mechanical did nol curb that Motion,
and force Ihem downward, lowards the Earth . So Ihat it is plain Ihat we
have not arbitrar ily introduced a Principle but thaI it is forced upon u, by
the undeniable evidence of Demonstration,

A. a matler 01 fact the Antidote again.t Atheism had already pointed out
\hat stones and bullets projecled upwards return to earth - whiCh,
according 10 Ihe laws of mOlion, Ihey should nOI do; for, '"

. if we con'ider more particularly Whal a strong lug a ma"i"e Bu llel,

suppo<e of lead or brass must nffd. give (according to Ihal prime
Mechanicalilaw of motion pe~isting in a $traig ht line) 10 recede Irom the
super1lcies of the Earth, the Bullet being in ro swift. Molion a, would
dispatCh some fofteen Miles in one Minute of an Hour; ~ muSI needs
appear Ihala wonderlul Power i. required 10 cu rb iI, regulale it. fX remand
il back 10 Ihe Earth, and keep it Ihe re, notwithstanding the strong
Reluctancy of Ihat first Mechanical law of Malter Ihal would urge it to
rec~de, Whereby is manifested not only the marvellous Power of Unily in

Indiscerpibi lity in Ihe Spirit of Nature but that there is a peremptory and
even forcible £lecution of an all-comprehensive and eternal Council for the
Ordering and the Guiding of the Motion 01 Matler in the Universe to wh.t
is the 6e,\. And this phenomenon of Grav~y i, of ro good and nece,sary
consequence, that there could be ne~ her Eart h nor Inhabitan" without ~,
in this State that things are .

Indeed, without the action of a non-mechanical principle all matter in the

universe would divide and di,pe"e; Ihere wou ld nol ellen be bodie ••
because Iher~ would be nothing to hold logelher the ultimate particle.
composing them. And. of cour .... ther~ would be no Irace of that purpose-
ful organi ' .tion whic h manif~." it ... lf not only in plant., .nimal. and.o on.
bUI .... en In the very arrangement of our solar system . All that Is tne work

"
01 the spirit 01 nature, which acts as an instrument, i!>e ll uncon,cious, 01
the divine will ,

So much for the spirit of nature that pervades the who le universe and
e . tends itself in its infinite space _ But what about Ihis space Itself? the
Sp;lce Ihat we c.nnot conceive if not Infinite-lhM Is, necessary-and Ihat
we cannOI "di.imagine" (whkh I, a confirmalion of ils nece ssity) f,om ou,
thoughl? Being immaterial it is ce nainly 10 t>e considered as spirit , Yet il is
a ", pir it" of quite a , pecial and unique kind, and More is nol quite ,ure
about its exact nature . Though. obviously. he incline, towards a verv
delinite solution. namely t<>ward, the identification of space with the
divine utension itself. he is somewhat diffident about it. Thu. he wr~es: ,>4

If there were nO Maller but the Immen s ~ y of the Divine essence only
occupying all by its Ub;quily, then the ReduplicaHon, 3S I may so speak, of
his indivisible substance, whereby he p,esent. himself inl irely everywhere.
wl)<Jld be Ihe Subject of that Diffu,lon and Measurabllity_

for which the Carlesian, reqUire the presence of maue r. asserting thaI
material utension alone Can be measured, an assertion which leads
inevila bly 10 the a/firmaHon 01 the infinity and the necessaO)' e . isten~ 01
matle' . But we do not need matte, in order 10 have measures, and More
can pursue: '00

And I adde furl he r. Ihat Ihe perpetual ob<e rvation of this infin ite Ampli-
tude and Me n,urability, which we cannol di'imagine in our Phanc ie but will
nec""sary t>e. may be a more rude and obscure nOlion offered to our mind
01 that necessary and , e lf·e. istant Essence whic h the Idea of God does with
grealer lulness and distinctness repre.ent to us , For it is plain th.t not So
much a5 Our Imagination is engaged to an app,opriation 01 thiS Idea 01
Space to corPDru l Matter. in that ~ does not natu rally conceive any
impenetrability or tang ibilily In Ihe NOlion the reof; and Iherefo,e II may a5
well belong 10 a Sp;r il as a IkJdy_ Whe nce a$ I sa id before. Ihe Idea of God
being ,uch as il Is, It will bQlh juslly and necessarily castlhis ruder nOlion of
Space upon that infinile and elernal spi' it which is God .

There i, .1'0 .nolhe, w.y of answering thi' Objection, which is this; that
this Imag inat ion of Space is not the imaginat ion of any , e al thing, but onl v
of Ihe large and imme nse capat ity of the pOlentialit~ 01 Ihe Ma tter, which
we can nol free our Minds f,om bul mUll nece ssar ily acknowledge Ihat
 ~ 10 1

there i, indeed ,ueh a possibiHty of Matter to be measured upward,

downward, everyway in infinitum, whether this w!poreal Matter were
actually there Or no; and thaI though t his potent iality of Matter and Space
be measurable by furloughs, miles, Or the li ke, that it implies no more real
Essence or Being, tha n when. man recounts so many orders Or Kindes of
the Possibilities of things, the compute or number of Ihem wili infer the
realilV of their Existe nce_

But if the Carte ,iam would urge u< further and in,ist upon the impo«ibilitv
of measuring the nOlhingness of void space, ' ..

. . . it may be answered, That Distance is no real or Phy,ical property of a

thing bul only notional; becau,e more Or Ie" of it may accrue to • th ing
when as yet the re h.. been nothing at all done to that to whiCh it doe,
accrue _

And if thev urge ,tili funne ' and contend, Ihal ___ dl,lance must be ,orne
reallhing . . . I an,we< briefly thai Di,tance is nothing e l,e bUl lhe privation
of taclual union and the greater di<lance the sre aler privation . .. ; and that
this privation of tactual union i, measured by parts, as other privation, of
qualitie, by degrees; and that parts and degrees, and SUCh lil<e notion., are
not rea l things themselves any where, but Our mode of conceiving them,
and Iherefore we can besl ow Ihem upon Non-entitie, a, well a, Enlitit!S .

But if Ihi, will no l ,ali , fie, 'Ii. no detrime nt 10 our cause. For if after the
removal of corporeal Maller out of the world, the<e will be <l ill Space and
distance, in which Ihi' ""rv matter, whi le it was there , wa, also conceived
10 lye, and thi' distant Space cannol bUI be something, and vet not
corpo'eal, becau,e ne ither impenetrable nor t.1ngible, it must of neces>ity
be a substance Incorpore al, neces~rily and eternal"" existent of it self:
which the cleare r Idea of a Being abSOlutely pertect will mo re fully and
punctually inform u5 to be the Self-sub,isting God_

We ho .e seen tl>al, in 1655 and also in 1662, Hen,..,. More was hesit;ll inS
between various ,olulion, of the proble m of space. Ten yea" la le. hi'
deci,ion i. made, and t he Enchiridium metaphysicum (1672 ) not on ly
a,,,,'" the real e x"tence of infinite void 'pace against all possible
opponent', a•• real prewndition of all po •• ible u inence, but e ven
presents it as the be,t and most evident e. ample of non·material - and

"
. 01 ~

therefore sp if ~ual - real i ty and thus a, the fim and foremost, tllou811 of
wurse not unique, subject-matter of metapnysiC5 .

Thu. Henry More tell. uS that "the first method for provin8 the uncorporeal
things" must be based on ,.,

the demon\lfahon of • cena in unmO\'able extended Ibelng) distinct

from the movable maller, which common"" is called space Or inner loc us.
That rt i, ,omething real and not imagi nary, a, many peopK. ."en, we shall
prove later by variou, arguments .

Henry More seems to h.ve completely forgotten his own unUlrtainty

concerning the question; in any CaSt he does not mention it and pursue s:
'"
First. it Is so obvious that it hard"" needs proof. as it is confirmed by the
opin ions of nearly all the philosophers. and even of all men In general. but
partic ularly of those who, as it Os prOPer, believe that maner was created at
a certain time . For we must either .cknowledge that there i. a certa in
e . tended (ent ity) be.kle. matter, Or that God could nOt create finite
matter; indeed, we cannot conceive finite matter but as surrounded On all
sides by sometlling Infinitel y e . tended.

Descanes remains, as we see, the chief adoersary of Henry More; Indeed,

as More discovered meanwhi le, by his denial both of void space and of
,piritual ellen. ion, o..<eartes practically excludes spirits, ,oul., and even
God, from his world ; he simpl y leaves no place for them in ~ . To the
que5lion "where ?," the fundamental question which can be r.ised
wncerning any a nd every rea l being - sou ls, spirits. God - and to which
Henry More bel ieves he can give definite answers (here. elsewhere or- for
God - everyw here). Descartes is obliged, by his pri nCip les. to answe r:
nowhere, nullibi. Thus, in spite of his having invented or perfected the
magnifi cent a priori proof of the existence of God, which He nry More
embraced enthu~iaSllcally and was to maintain all his life, Descarl~, by his
teachi ng.. leads to material ism and, by his e. clmion of God from the world.
to atheism. From now on, Descartes .nd the (anesian, are to be relen-
tlessly " iticiled and to be.r the derisive nickname of nu llibists .

Still. there are not only (artesians to be combatted . There is also the last
cohon of Aristotel ians who believe in a finite world. and deny the e xistence
 ~ 10)

of space out,ide ~. They, too, have to be dealt with . On their behalf He n""
Mor~ r~viv~' ,om~ of th~ <>Id medi~cval argumer", used t<> dem<>",trate
that Acist<>telian cosmology was incompatible with God', om nipotence .

It cannot be doubled. of course . that If the world were finlle and limiled by
a sphe rical surface with no space ouls ide it. ,..

it would follow. secondly. that not even dJliine omnipotence could ma ke it

thatthi, corporeal finite world in ill ultimate ,urface po<.ess mou ntain, or
va lley" that i., any plOmin~n(~s or (avities.

Thirdly, that ~ would be ab-iolutely impo.,ible for God to <leat~ another

world; Or even Iwo small bronze spheres al Ihe same lime, in the place of
Ihe se two worl dS. as t he poles of the parallel a.es would coindde because
of Ihe lac ~ of an intermediate space.

Nay. even if God could creale a world out of these small sphere •. dose ly
packed together (disregarding the difficulty of the space that would be left
void between t hem). He would be unable to ,etthem in motion . The,e are
conclus ions which Hen"" More. quite rightly. believed to be '''digestible
eve" lor a came l's stomach.

Yel HeMy More', ins istence on the e . i,te nce of space "out, ide" the world
is, obv>ously. directed not only again,t Ihe Aristotelians. but al", against
Ihe Carlesi.ns 10 whom he want, 10 demonstrate the possibility of the
limitation of the material world, and at the ,arne time, the men,urability,
that is. th~ existence of dimen.ion.llhat now are by no means con.idered
as merely "notional" de'~rm ination.) in the void 'pace. It se em, that More ,
wh<> in hi' V<>ul h had been such an inspired and enthu,ia,tic ad herenl of
Ihe doclrine of the infi n~y 01 the world (and 01 worlds). be.:ame more and
more adverre 10 It. and would have liked 10 turn back 10 the "Sloic"
conception of a finite world in the midst of an 'nfinite space. or. alleast. 10
jo in Ihe , e ml..(a"esian, and reject Descartes' Infi nitil. Uon of the material
world. He even goe, ,0 far a, 10 quote. with approval. the Cane, ian
distinction of the indefiniteness of the world and the infinity of God;
interpreting it, of course, as meaning the re.1 finite ne<s of the world
oppo,e d to the i nfin~ ~ of spa.ce . Thi,. obviou.Iy, because h~ undemand,
n<>w much bette r than twenty yea" previously th~ po,itive re • ."n 01 the
Caneslan distinction , infi nity implies necessity. an infinile world would be a
necessary One . . .

"
But we must not .ntkipate. let us tum to anot her ... ct of phi losophe"
who are at the Same time More's enemie s and allies. "'"

But a lro tho ... philosophers who did not believe in the creat ion of matter
nevertheless acknowleged Ithe e' istence ofl Space, such are leucippus,
Democr itus, Demetrius, Metrodorus, Epk urus and also all the Stoi cs. Some
people add Plato to these . As for Aristot le, who defined place (locusl as the
neareSl surface of the ambient body, he was in thi' question de,ened bV a
great numDe r of hi' disciple, who rightly observed that in thi' ca"" he was
not in agreement with himself, as indeed he amibuted to place propenie,
that could not penain to any thing but to the 'pace occupied by any body;
that is, Equality and Immobility .

It is, mo<eover, worth while mentioning that those philorophers who made
the world finite (such as Plato, Aristotle and the Stoicsl acknowledged
Space outSide the world, or beyond it, whereas those who (belielle in1
infinite worlds and infinite matter, teach that the re is even inside the w(uld
an intermixed vacuum; ,uch a re Demoeritus and all the Ancients who
embraced the atomic philosophy, so that it seems to be entirely confirmed
by the voice of nature that there is 6,aln~(\: tI xwpo.(oU, a certain interv. 1Or
space really d istinct from mundane malter . As for the posteriors, Ihls is
sufficient ly known. Whereas conce rn ing the Stoks, Plutarch testifies that
they did not adm it any void inside the world, but an infin ite one out,ide.
And Plato says in his Phaedru, that above the sup reme he a""n where he
places t he purest souls, there is a cenain Sup,acelestial place (Iocusl, not
very different f,om the abode of Ihe blessed of Ihe Theologians.

As the admission of an infinite space seems thus to be, with IIery few
exceptions, a common opinion of manki nd, it may appear unn<!(Oessary to
insist upon It and to make it an object of discussion and demon>1ralion .
More explains Ihe refore Ihat '<n

I should assuredly be ashame d to linge, so long upon so easy a que,tion if I

were not compelled to do it by the great name of Descartes, who fasci-
nates the less prudent to such an e xtent that they p,efer to rave and rage
wllh Descartes, than 10 yield to most solid argumenlS if the PrinCiples of
Philosophy a re opposed to them. Am0f18 Ihe most important Itenetsl Ihat
he himse lf mentions is tha t one I ha"" so diligently combatted (elsewhe'e),
namelv, Ihat not even by Dilline IIlnue could It happen that Ihere should be
in the Univi'"e any interval wh ich, in realitv. would not be maner or body.
Which opinion I have alwaY' con,idered false; now however I impugn it
3150 a, impious. And in order that it should not appear as not comp letely
overcome. I shall present and reveal a ll the subterfuges by which the
Cartesians want to elude the strength of my demonstrations. and I shall
reply to them.

I must confess th.t Henl)' More', answer> to the "princ ipal mun. that the
Carte,ian. used in order to e vade the strength of the preceding demonstra-
tion," .re somet imes of vel)' dubious v.lue . And th.t "the refotation of
them all" is, as often.s not, no better than some of hi' argument •.

Henl)' More, a, we know, waS a bad physicist, and he did not a lwaY'
understand the predse meaning of the concepts used by Descartes - for
instance. that of the relativi ~ of moHon. And yet his criticism is e xtreme ly
interesting and. In the last analysis. just. "'"

The first w.y to esc.pe the strength 01 our ~monstrations is derived from
the Cartesi.n defin ition of motion which is as follows: [motion is] in all
".ses the translation 01 a body from the vic i ni~ 01 those bod",s which
immediMe ly touch it and .re considered as at re,t, into the vicinity of
others.'''' From thOs definition. objects Henl)' More. It would follow that a
small body firmly wedged somewhere between the a, is and the Circuml".
rence of. I.rge rotating cylinder would be al rest, which is obviouslV lalse.
More""er, in this case, this small body, though rem.ining at rest, would be
able to come nearer to, Of recede from, another body P, placed immobile ,
outside the rot. ting cylinder. Which i, absurd as " it supposes that the re
can be an .pproach of one body to another, qu iescent, one without loc.1
motion. "

Henl)' More concludes there/ore:"" . .. that the pre<:edlng definition i,

gratuitously set up by Descartes and. be<:ause It Is opposed to solid
demonSlrations, It is manWestly false .

More 's efrOf is obvious. It is d e .. that, if we accept the Cartesian concep-

tion of the relaHvi~ of motion, we no longer have any right to speak of
bodies as being absolutely "in motion" or "at rest" but have alway, to .dd
the point or frame of reference in re'pect to which the •• id body i, to be
conside'ed as being at rest 0' in motion. And that. accordinglv. the'e Is no
contradiction in stating that the selfsame body may be at 'est In respect to
~,surroundings and in mOlion in re'pecllo a body placed fanner awa~, '"
viU! ""<s • . And ~et HenfY More is pedectl~ d&hl: Ihe extension of Ine
re l ativit~ 01 motion to rOlation - at least il we do not want to restrict

ourselves to pure kinematics and are dealing with real, phY'"al objects - i.
illegitimate; moreover. the Cartesian definition. wit h its more than
Ari'tOlelian Insistence on the vicinity of the poinlS of referenU!. i, wrong
and Incompatible with Ihe "efY pr inciple of relalivity. II is. by Ihe waV.
extremely probable Inal ~sc.ne, tnougnl it oul nol for purely scie ntific
",",on" bUI in order 10 escape Ihe ne<""itv of ."efling Ihe motion of Ihe
eanh and to be able to affirm - will> his longue in hi' cheek - thaI the eartl>
wa, at rest in its vofl ....

It i, nearly the ,ame concerning More·s second argument against the

O rtesian conception of relat",ity, or. a, More , all. it. 'reciprocil'l" of
motion . He claim, ""

nallhe Cartesian definition of motion 1$ rather a description of place; and

lI>al if motion were reciprocal, its nature would compel one body to move
by Iwo contr.ry motion, and eve n to move and nol to move atlhe .. me
time .

Th", for instance, let '" take three bodie" CO. EF and AS. and let EF move
loward, H. whilst CO move, toward, G. and AB remain, fixed to Ihe earth.
Thus it does nol move and vet moves 01 Ihe ,ame time : who can s"",
anything more absurd ? And is it not eVident "" that tne Carte,ian definition
of motion i, repugnant to all the facuitie< of the ,oul, the ,en,e, tne
im agination and Ihe rea,on.

IEI' I H
I IAB I K
G ICD I
HenfY More, it i, clear, cannot transform the concepl of motion into thaI of
• pure relat ion . He feel' that when bodies move, even if we ronsider them
as mOving in respect to e.ch other. someth ing happens. at lust to One of
 ~ . 01

them, that i, "nilate,.1 and not ,ecip,o«ll: it ,eallv move., that i" chang",
its place, it. intemalloc .... lt i. in ,e'pect to this · place" that motion has to
be conceived and not in ,espect to any othe" and the,elo'e "" the
suppo~tion of the Cartesians that local motion i. ,e lative to the place
where the bod y is not. and not [to the place ] whe,e it is. is absu,d.

In othe, te,ms. 'elat ive motion implies absolute motion and can only be
understood on the baS i' of absolute motion and thus of absolute ",ace.
Indeed, when a C'/I ind'ical body is in ci,cul., motion, all its inte,nal point,
not only change thei, po~tion in re'I>"ctto its surrounding .u"ace, or a
body pl aced outside it: Ihey move, that is. pa .. th,ough some eXlen.ion,
de""'ibe a a ajecto"" in this e.ten.ion whiCh, therefo.e. does not move.
8od"" do not take their places w~h them, they go from One place to
another. The place 01 a body. iU Intemalloeus. is not a part of the body: it
Is someth ing entirely dist inct from it. something that is by no meanS a mere
potentiality of mailer: a potentia lity cannot be separated from the actual
being of a thing. but is an entity. independent of the bodies that are and
move in it. And even Ie" is it a mere ·phansV," "" as Or. Hobbes has tried
to • • <ert.

Having t hus establiShed. to his own satisfaction, the pertect legitimacy and
validity 01 the concept 01 space as distinct Irom malter and ref"ted their
mergi ng together in the Cartesian conception of" eXlenslon • Henry More
proceeds to the determination of the nature and the ontological status of
the corresponding entity.

· Space ," 0' · inne, locus," is something extended. Now, extension, a. the
Carte.ian, .,e pertenly ,ighl in ...ert ing, cannot be an extens ion 01
nothing: distance between two bodies is something real, 0', .1 the ~ery
least, a ,elation which implies a lundamentum ,eale. The carte'ians. On the
othe, hand, a,e w,ong 10 believ ing that ~oid spa~e is nothing. It i. ,Orne·
thing. aod e_en very much so. Once more, it is not a fancy, or a product of
Imagination, but a perfectly real e ntity. The ancieO! 310m ists were right in
as<efllng Its reality aod calling it an Intelligible nature .

The rea lity of space can be demonstrated also in a .omewhat diffe rent
m.nne ,; it is certain "'"

. . that a real atVibute of any subject Can never be lound anywhere but
where some real subject supports it. But extension I, a real attribute of a
",al ,ubject (namelv matter), which (attribule ] howe~er, i, laund el ...·
where ]namely Ihere where na matter i. present), and which is indepen-
dent 01 aur imag inat ion. Indeed we are unable nOI to conceNe Ihat a
certain Immobile e xten,ion pervading everythi ng in Infin~y has always
e xisted and will exist in all eternity Iwhether we t hink about it Or do not
Ihln~ about II). and Ithat it isl nevertheless reall y distinct from matter .

It is Iherefore nece"ary Ihal, became it is a real attribule, some real

,ubjecl "'pponlhi' extension . This argumenlation is so solid thaI there is
none Ihal could be stronger. For ilthi' one lail', we shall nol be able 10
conclude wilh any certainty Ihe e xistence in nature 01 any real subject
whalever. Indeed, in this case, it would be possible lor real attributes to be
present without there being any real subject Or substance to support them .

Henry More is perfect ly right. On the basi, of traditional ontology- and nO

one in Ihe sevenleenth century lexcepl. perhaps. G.ssendl. who cI.ims
that space and time are neither substances nor attribute, but simplv 'pace
and time) i. so bold or so careless as to reject il or to replace it by. new
one - his rea,oning is utterly unobjection.b le. Attribute, implv substances.
They do not wander alone. Iree and unattached. in the world. They unnot
e xist without support, like the g"n Of the Chesh ire cat. lor thiS would mean
Ih.tlhey would be attributes of nothi"g. Eve" those who, like Oescarles,
modify tradit ional o"tology by asserting th.tthe .ttribules reveal 10 uS the
very nature, or essence, of their substance- Henry More sticks 10 the old
view that they do not - maintain the fundamental relalion,hip ; no real
amibute without re al substance. Henry More, therefore, is perfectly right,
too, in point ing out thaI his argumentation is built on e xacl ly Ihe same
pattern aSlhe Cane,ian and ""

. . . that th is is the very Sam e meanS of dem",,!tration as Oescartes uses to

prove that Space Is ~ su bsta~ce though it become, f~l,e, in hi, ca,e. insofar
as he c""cludes Ihat It is ~ corporeal one_

Moreover, Henry More's conclusion Irom extension to the underlying and

supporting substance i< e xactly parallel to th.t of Descartes '"

... though he [Descanes) aims al .nolher g0311han myself. Indee d, from

this a rgument he e ndeava,. la conclude that the Space Ihat i. ", lied void i.
the very same corpo real substance as that called matter . I. 0" Ihe cont rary,
since I have so clear ly proved t hat Space or inlemal place Ilocus) Is reall y
distinct from matler, conclude therefrom Ihal il is a cenain incorpore.1
subj""t or spirit, ,uch a, Ihe Pythagore an> once a..erted it 10 be. And '0,
through thaI Same gate through which th~ (.anesians want 10 e xpel God
from the world, I, on the contrary land I am conlident I shall succeed most
happily~ contend and strive to introduce Him bad.

To sum up: Descanes was rlghl In looking for subSlance 10 supporl

exte nsion. He WaS wrong in finding il in maIler. The infinile, eXlended
entily Ihal embraces and pervades everylhing is indeed a subslance. Bill il
is nol mailer. II is Spiril ; nol a spiril, bUllhe Spiril, Ihal is, God.

Sp.ace, indeed, is nol only real, it is somelh ing divine. And in order 10
convince ourselves 01 its divine character we have only to consider its
attributes. Henry More proceeds therefore to the'" Enumeration 01 about
twenty titles which the metaphysic ians attribute to God and which fit the
Immobile e. tended [enlily l or Internal place Ilocusl ·

When we shall have enumerated Ihose names and lilies appropriale to iI,
this infinite, immobile. eXlended [entitv) will appear to be not on ly
something real las we have just pointed out) but ""en someth ing DiviM
(which SO certairlly is found in nature); thi, wil l give u5 further a .. uranCe
that It cannOI be not hi"! si"ce that 10 which so ma"v and such magnificent
allfibuleS pertain cannot be nOlhing . Of thiS kind are Ihe following, which
metaphyskians attribute particu larly to the f irst Being, such a,: One.
Simple, Immobile, Eternal, (omplete, Independent, Existing in ilself,
Subsisting by itse lf, Incorruptible, Necessary, Immense , Un-created ,
Uncircum scribed, Incomprehensible, Omnipresent, Incorporeal, All·
penetrating, AII'embrac ing, Be ing by its essence, Actual Being, Pure Act .

There are not less than twenty titles by which the Divine Numen is wont to
be deSignated, and which perleCtly fit this infinite internal place (locusl the
existence of which In nature we have demonstrated; omitting moreover
that the very Dilline Numen is called. by Ihe Cab.aliSlS. MAKOM, that ii,
Place Ilocusl_ Indeed it would be astonishing and a kind of prodigy if the
thing about which SO much can be said proved to be a mere noth ing,

Indeed, it would be e xtremely astonishing if an enlity ete,nal, untreated ,

and exi'ling in and by itself should finallv resolve into pu,e nOlhing. Thi'
Impression will only be strengthened bv the ana lysis of the "titles"
enumerated by More. who proceeds to e . amine them one by one: >"
llO ~

How thl. Infin~e extended [entlt~[ dl.tlnct from maner Is One, Simple, and
Immovable.

But let uS consider the Individual titles and note thei r congruence. This
Infonite E.lended [enlily) diSlinct from mall"r is JUSlly called One. nOI only
because 1\ is ~melhing homogeneous and everywhere similar 10 itself. bul
because il is 10 ,uch an Ulenl one, Ihal it is ab<olulely impossib le Ihal of
this one there be many, or thai II become many, as rt has no ph~sical parlS
out of which it could be multiplied Or in which, truly and physically, It could
be divided, or in which it could be conde nsed. Such indeed is the inte rnal,
or, if you prefer. innermost locus . ~rom which ~ follows that it i. apt ly
called Simple, .ince. as I haVll said, it has nO phy,'cai parts. As for whal
perU ins to those diversiti es of which a logical dOstribution Can be made.
there Is abSOlutely no thi ng so simple that they would not be found in 11.

IkJI from Ihe Simplicity it. Immobilily i. e",ily deduced . For no Infinite
Exlended [elllity) which is not co-augmented from parts, Or in any way
condensed or compressed, can be moved, either paM by parI, or the whole
[of itl at the same lime. as it is infin ite, nOr [can it be) contracted into a
lesser space. as it Is never condensed. nOr Can ~ abandon rts place. since
this Infinite is the Innermost place of all things. inside or outside which
there is not hing . And from Ihe very fact Ihal someth ing is conceived as
being moved. it is al once understood that il cannot be any part of Ihis
Infinite Extended [entity) of which we are speaking. II is Iherefore
nece ,," ry that It be immovable. Which "ttribule of the Flrsl il<'lnS Ari<1otie
celebrates a, the highest.

Absolute .pace i. infinite, immovable, homogeneous, ind iviSible and

unique. These are very important properties which Spi no:a and Male-
branche discovered almost at the same time as More, and which enabled
them to put e xlension - an intell igible extenSion. different from that which
is giVlln 10 our ImaSiMlion and sen,es - into the ir respective Gods;
propenies Ihat Kanl - who, however, wilh Descartes. missed Ihe indivisibi l-
rtv - was to rediscover a hundred years later, and who, accordingly, was
unable to cOnne cl 'pace with God "nd had to pili it into ourselves ,

But we must not wander away from our ,ubjec\. let y. come back to More,
and More's space " .

'Ir ate
"' i. indeed justl v called Eternal, becau ... we can in no way conceive but
that thi' One, Immovable and Simple lentity] wa, alway., and will be
always, But this is not the c .... for the movabJe, Or lor what has phySical
parts, and i. conden.ed Or compressed into parts, Accordingly, Eternity, at
teast the neces.ary one, implie. also the perlect simplicitv of the thing,

We see it at once: space is eternal and therefore uncreated . But the things
Ihat are in 'pace by no means particip.ate in the,e properties. Qu ite Ihe
contrary ' they are te mporal and mUlable and are [feated by God in the
elefOal space and al a certain moment 01 the ele rnal lime , Space is not
oniv eternal, ,imple and one , "' is also '"

, , , Comp lete becau ... it does not coalesce w~h anv olher thing in order to
form one entity (with ~); otherwi.e it would mo~ w~h it at t he Same time
• • Ithat thing). which Is not the case of the cternallocus ,

It is Indeed not only (ternal but also Independent, not oniv of our Im agina.
tion, as we have demonstrated, but of anVlhing whatever, and it is not
connected with anv other thi ng or. sup ported by anv, but receives and
supports aliithings) as their slle and place ,

It must be conce ived as Exi.ting by Itself because it Is totally Independe nt

01 MV ot he r. Bul 01 Ihe 13"lh31 it does not depend on Mvthing the re is 3
"ery manifesl sign, namely, that whereas we can conce ive all other thing,
as demuctible in rea lity, Ih is Infinite Immovable Extended (entity) cannot
be concei .... d or im agined destructible,

Indee d, we cannot "di,imagine" ,pace '" think it awav, We can imagine, or

th in k of, the disappearance of any object from space; we cannot imagine,
Or th ink of, the disappearance of space itself, It Is the neee .... ry presuppo-
.ition of our thinking about the e. i.tence Or non-exi,tence 01 any th ing
whatever. '"

But thai it is Immense and Uncircumscribed is patent, becau.e wherever

we mighl wa nt to imagine an end to it, we cannot but conceive an ulterior
extension which exceeds the.e e nds, and.o on in infinitum,

Herefrom we perceive that it is inwmprehemib l ~, How indeed could a

~nite mind comp rehend that which Is not comprehended by any limit?

,
Henry More could have told us, here too, that he wa, u.ing, though of
cour ... for a different end, the famous argument, bV which De«arte.
endeavoured to prove the indefi nity of mate,ial e xtension. Yet he may
have fe~ that not on lv the gO<oI of the .'gument. but atso its very meaning,
opposed it to that 01 Descartes. Ind eed. the P'OSr"eSsus in infonitum waS
used bV Henry More not If)( denying. but for assert ing the absolute Infin ity
of tile extended sub.tance. which '"

... is also untreated, because rt is the forst of .11, fDr it is by itself (a sel .nd
independent Df anVllling else . And Omnip,ese nt becau ... it is immen ... Dr
infinite. But IncD,pDreal because it penetrates ma tter, though it i, a
substance, that i., an in - ~ ... If ,ub.isting being.

Furthermore it is All-pervading because it is a certain immense, incorporeal

[enlity!. and ~ embraces .11 the singula r (Ihings) in its immensity.

It i. even not undeservedly called Being bV essence In contradistinction to

being by partic ipat ion, because Being by itself and being Independent it
does not obtain its e<se nce from any Dlher thing.

Furthermore. il is .ptly called being In act as it cannOI but be conceived.s

e . lsting outside 01 it. causes .

The list of "attributes" common to God and to ,pace, enumerated by Henry

More, i, ratller impres' ive; and we cannot but agree that they fit fairl y well.
Alter all, thi' is not surprising: all of them are the formal ontological
attribute. DI the absDlute. Yet we have 10 recDgni,e Henry Mme's
intellectua l energv that enabled him nDt 'D draw back before the condu-
.ion. Dr his premise,; and the courage with whic h he announced to the
WOfld the sp<ol ialily 01 God and the divin ily of space.

As ff)( this conclusion, he could not avoid it_ Infinity implies necessity_
Infonite space is absolute space; even more . It is an Absolute_ But there
cannot be two (or manyl absolute and necessary beings_ Thu" a, Henry
More could not accept the Cartesian solution of the indefinitene" 01
exten,iDn and had to make it infin;te, he was e D ipso placed before a
dilemma: e ither to ma ~ e the material world infinite and thus a 'ie and per
'ie, neither needing, nor even admitting, God', creative action; that i"
finally, not needing or even not admitting God's e . istenee at all .

" ••
 ~ ,11

Or he could-and that w;r; exactly what he actually did-,eparate matter

and 'pace, rai,e the latter to the dignity 01 an attribute 01 God, and 01 an
organ in which and through wh ich God creates and maintain. Hi, world, a
finite world, limite<! in space as well ~s in time, a, an infinite creature is an
utterly contr.dictory concept. Th~t is something t hat Henry More
acknowledges not to have recognized in his youth when, seiled by some
poetic furor, he sang in his Democrilus Platonissans. hymn to the inf,nitv
of the worlds.

To prove the lim~ation in time is not very difficult: ~ is ,ufficient, accord ing
to More, to consider that nothing can belong to the past il it did not
become "pa,t" aher having been ' present "; an d that noth ing can ..... er be
"present " Jf it did not, before that, be long to the futu re . It fOllows there·
from that ~II past ..... ents have. at some time. be longed to the future. that
is. Ih.t there was. time when .U of them we,e not yet "present: not yet
exiSlent. a lime when everything waS ,Iill in the future and when noth ing
wa,re.1.

n i, much more difficult to prove the limitation of the ,patial exten,ion of

the (mate,iall wocld. Most of the 'rguments alleged in favor of the
fin~enes.s are rather weak . Vet it can be demon,trate<! that the material

world must. Or at least can. be terminated. and theref"", is nOI really

infin~e.

And. in order not 10 dis< imulate anything, thi' ,eem, to be the be ..

argume nt for de monstrating that the Malter of the World cannot be
absolutely infinite but only indefi nite •• s Descartes h.s said somewhere .
and to re,erve the name 01 infinite lor God alone. Which must be a"erted
as we ll 01 the Durati<ln as of the Amplitude 01 God . 80th are indeed
abSOlutel y infinite; those of the World. however. only indefinite ... thai is.
in truth. fin ite. In this way God is duly. that Is. infinitely. elevated above the
Universe. and is understood to be not only by an inf inite eternit~ older than
the World. but also by immense spaces larger and more ample than it.

The circle i. do><ed. The conception that Henry More ""ibed to De,-
carte, - though falsely- and '0 brtterly crrticized in hi' youth, ha, demon·
'trated it' good points. An indet erminately vast but finite world merged in
an infinite 'pace i, the on lv conception. Henry More ie." it now. that
enables us to maintain the distinction between Ihe contingent created
world and the eternal and a se and per se existing God.
114 ~

By ••t range ircoy 01 hi.tory, the KEVDv 01 the godle •• atomi.t. became for
H~nry More God'. own ~ . tens i on, the very condit ion of His action in the

WQrld .

'I' ate
 ~ '"

ABSOLUTE SPACE, ABSOLUTE TIME AND THEIR

RELATIONS TO GOD

M~lebran<h e, Ne wton & 8entl ey

H
ENRY More', conce pt ion 01 space, which make, it an attribute 01
God, is by no mea n,-I h.ve said ~ already, but I should like 10
insist upon it- an aberrant, odd an d curious invention, a "I.ncy, " of
a Neoplatonk mystk lOSt in the world of the new sc>ence. Quite the
cont rary. It is, in its fundament~lleatures. shared by ~ number olthe great
thinke .. 01 hi' time, preciselv t hose who identil>ed themselves with the
new scientific world·vlew_

I need not imist on Spi",,,a who, though he denied the existence of void
,pace and ma inta ined the Carte,ian identilkation of e xtension and matter,
c'refully dist inguishe, between e xtenSion. as g;.,.en to the ,;ense, and
represented by the imagination . and extension as perceived by the
understanding-the lormer, being divisible and movable land correspond·
ing to the Cartesian indefinitely e ..ended world!. constituting the sempl.
ternal many-fold of ever-changing .nd finite modi, the 1.lIer, trUly . nd fully
infin ite and the refore indiVisible, constituting the etern al .nd essential
.ttribute olthe a se .nd per ,e existing Being. that is, of God.

Infinity belongs unavoidably 1<> God, not only to the very dubiou. God of
SpinOla, but al,o to the God of the Christian religion. Thus, not only
SpinOla, the by nO mean, piau, Outch phi losopher, but also the very piOUS
Father Malebra nche, having gra.ped Ihe esseotial infinity 01 geometrical
Spate, is obliged 10 connect it wilh God . The space 01 geometers or, as
M.leb,anche call s it, the "intelligible extenSion." is, according to Christ
Himself, who .ppea.. as one 01 the interlocutors 01 the Christian Me dita-
tiOn< of Ma lebf3nche , n•

. . . ele,nal, immense, necessary . It i. the Immensity of the O;"'iM Being, as

Infin itely participab le by the corporeal creature, ~s representative of an
Immense matter; it Is, in a word, the inte lligible idea 01 possible worlds_ It Is

,.
what vour mind contemplate, when vou think about the infinite. It i, by
mean. of thl> intelligible exten.ion that you know the vi.ible world,

Malebranche, of course, does nOI want to put matter into God and to
spatiali,e God in the manner in which Henry More or SpinOla did it. He
distinguishes therefore the Idea of space. or "intelligible extenSion." which
he places in God, from the gross m3lerlal extens<on of Ihe world created by
God. m

But you have to distingui,h two kinds of extension, Ihe one inlel liSible , and
the other material.

The intelligible extension is "eternal, necessary. infinite." whe reas the no

.. other kind of e xtension is that whic h is created; it is the matter out of

which Ihe world is built . . This world began .nd can cease to be. It has
certain limits 1hal it cannot lack. . Intelligible extension appears to you
eternal, necessary, infinite; believe what you see: but do not believe Ihat
the world is eternal, or that the maUer that <.<>mposes it is immense,
necess."", eternal , Do not attribute to the creature what pertai ns on ly to
the (reator. and do not confuse My [Christ '.[ sub.tance which God
engenders by the necessity of His Being with My work which I produce with
the Father and the Holy Spirit by an entirely free operat ion .

II is jUst Ihe confusion between the intelligible extension and the created
one that induces some people to assert the etern ity of the world and to
deny its crealion by God. For. '"

there i•• nother reaSOn which lead. men to believe that matter i. un-
trealed; indeed, when they think about extension they Cannot prevent
themselves from rega rding it as a necessary being. For they conceive that
the world has been created in immense spaces, that these spaces never
had a beginning. and that God Himself c.nnot destroy them . Thus.
confusing m.tter with these spaces, as mauer effectively is nothing else
but space or extenS ion, they regard matter as an Eternal being ,

Th;, i" a, a matter of facI, a rather natur.1 error as Malebranche himself

doe. not fail to point out to hi. Divine Mane,; he reco8ni,e., of course,
that his doubts are removed, and that he now sees the distinction that
formerly escaped him. Still'"

,
"
 ~ 117

I beg you, had I not >orne re.,on to believe that extension i, eternal? Must
one nOt judge things a~rding to one's ideas, and i, it ""en possible to
judge otherwise? And, as I ca nn ot prevent myself lrom regarding inte lligi.
ble extension as Immense, eternal, ne<:essa"!. had I not grounds for
thinki ng th3t mate r"'l e>1ension has the same attribute s?

By no means. In spite of the Carte,ian axiom hinted at bV Ma lebranche (in

the role of the discipulu, of the dialogue), according to which we are
entitled to .ssen of the th ing what we dearlv perce ive to belong to its idea,
the rea,oning attributing infini\)' and eternitv to material e>1ens ion wa,
illegitimate; thu, the Divine Ma,ter replies: '"

We must, my dear Disciple, judge things according to their Ideas; it is on lV

thus that we have to judge them , But that COncerns Iheir esential
attributes, and not the circumstances of their existence. The idea you have
of e.renslon re present' it to you as divisible , mobile, impenetrable: judge
without fear that it has essentially Ihese properties , But do not judge Ihat it
is immense, or that it i, eternal. It may not exist al all, or possess very
narrOw limilS. [The contemplation of the idea of e xtensionl gives you nO
reason 10 be lieve that there is (in e xistence) even one loot of material
extension, though you have present in your mind an infinite immensity of
Intel ligible extension ; and much less are you entitled to judge that the
world is infinite as some philosophers assert. 00 nOl judge eithe r thaI the
world is eternal because you regard intelligible extension as a neeessa,,!
being of which the duratio n has no beginning and cannot have an end. fIX,
though vou must judge the essence of things according to the ide. s which
repre sent them, you mu>! neve r judge by them of their existence.

The Disciple of M3lebranche 's dia lOgue is fully convinced - wIlo, indeed,
would not be by ,ueh a Master? Nobody else, ala" shared his conviction.

Anloine Arnauld considered Ihe Malebranchia n distinction between

"intelligi ble" and "created" extension as perfeC!~ spurious and corre.pond ·
ing only and solely to the Cartesian diS!inction between (realf ut ension
given to the sense, and the same real extension a, object of pure under·
standing. According to him Malebranche's "inte ll igible exten,ion" wa,
,impl y the infinite extension of the material universe. Thirtv ye ars late r,
Dortous de Ma iran made fundamental ly the same reproach, though he
formulaled it In a somewhat dilferent and moch nastier manner: accord ing
to him MaJebranche', "intell igible exten,ion " wa, indistingui,hable from
that of Spino,~ .... ".

But not on ly philosopher> ,hared, mOre Or less. Henry More's conception 01

space: ~ was s~ared by Newton. and this, because of the unrivaled
influence of Newton on the whole subsequent development. is. indeed, of
overwhelming Importance .

It may ,ee m "ran ge, a1 lim glance , to lin k together Henry More and I..ac
Newton .. .. And yel, th;, link is perfectly established . '" Moreover, as we
'hall se e, More', explicit leaching will Ihrow ,ome lighl on t he implicit
premi ... , of Newloni~n th inking, a light .11 the more neces .. ry as Is:a.c
Newton . in contradistinction not only to Henry More but also to Rene
Descartes. is neither. professional metaphysician like the former, nor. like
the latte r. al once a great philosopher and a great scientist: he Is a
professional SC ienl ist, and though science. at that time, had nOI yel
accomplished iI, diS3WOU. divorce from philosophy, and though phVSics
WaS still not on lv designated, but also thought of, as "natur.1 philosophy,"
~ i, neverthe le ss Irue th.t hi. prim.ry inte res" are in the field of "science,"
and not 01 "philosop hy." He deals. therefore, with met. phvs ics not e.
professo. but only Insol.r., he needs it to e,t.blish the foundations of his
intentionally e mpirical and alleged ly pOsitivist iC mathemalical investigation
of nMure. Thus the melaphyslca l pronouncements of NeWlon are not vel)'
numerous and, Newton being a very cautious and secretOlie person as well
as a vel)' careful writer, they are rather relicent and reserved, And yetthev
are sufficie ntly clear so as not 10 be misundemood by his comemporaries,

Newton '. physic., or. it wou ld be better to s:ay, Newton'. natural philoso-
phy, stand. or 1.11, w~ h Ihe concepts 01 ab,olute time an d ~bsolute .pace.
the selfsame concepts lor which Henry More fought his long-drawn-out
and relentless b.ttle 3gain5t Descarte,_ Cu riOUSly e nough. the cartesian
conception of the only relative, or relationa l. cha racter of t hese and
connected nOllons is branded by NeWlon a, being ".ulgar" and as based
upon "prejudice,."

Thu, in the famous schol ium which follow, the Definition. thaI are placed
at the very beginning of the Principia, NeWlon write" '"

Hitherto I have laid down the definitions of such words as are less known,
and e xplain the sense In which I would h •• e them 10 be underslood in Ihe
following discourse. I do not define time. space, place, and motion as being
well known to all. Only I must observe th.t the vulgar conceive those
quantities under nO other not ions but from the relations they bear to
sens ible objects. And thence arise certa in prejudices, for the removing of
whiCh. it will be convenient to distinguish them into absolute and relative.
lrue and apparent. mathematical and common .

Absolute. true and mathematical time and space - for NewtM tlle'e
qualifICation, are e quivalent and determine the nature both of the
concepts in question and of the entities corresponding to them - are thus.
in a manner of which we have already seen some uamples. opposed to t he
merely common-se"se time and space. As. matter of fact, they could just
as well be c.alled "intellig ible" time a nd space in contrad isti nction to
"sensibl e. " Indeed. according to the "empi ricist " Newton. ", "in ph;tosoph i-
cal disquisitions we ought to abstract from our senses and consider thi ngs
,.
themse lves. distinct from what are only sensible meaSures of them" Thus:

n may be that there is no ,uch thing as an equable motion whe reby time
may be accurately measured, All motion may be accelerated and retarded.
but the flowing of absolute time Is liable to nO change , The duration Or
perseverance of the existence of things remains the same; whether the
motions are Swift or slow. or none at all: and therefore it ought to be
distinguished from whal are only sensible mus ures thereof .

Time is not only not linked with mOlion - like He n!)" More before him.
Newton takes up against Aristotle the Neoplatonic I>Osition-it is a reality
in in own right: m

Absolute. true and mathemat ical time. of itself and from its Own nat ure.
flows equab ly without regard to anything uternal.

Ih.t I5. il is not .•$ Descartes want, us to believe. something which pert.ins
only to the e<lernal. material world and which would not exist if there
were no wch world. but something wh ich has its own nature fa rather
equivocal and dangerous assertion which Newton later had to correct by
relating time, a, well as space , (0 God). "and by another name is called
duration"; that is. onc~ mor~. time is not •• , Descarte, wants us to beli~"".
something subjective and distinct from the durat ion wh ich he. Descartes.
llO ~

Klentifi", with the amoum of real~y of the creat~ t>eing . Time and
duration are only two nam es lor the same objective and absolute entity .

But. of course, " • ... relative. app~rent and CommO<l time, is SOme sensible
and e. ternal (whether accurate or ..mequable) measu re of duration by the
means of motion. which Is commonly used instead of lrue time: such as an
hour." day. a monlh. a year.

II is jmt the <ame concerning 'pace: '"

Absolute sp.ace, in ~. own nature. without regard to anything e. ternal,

remain, alway. similar and immovable,

is. space is not Cartesian e"'ension whk h moves around. and wh ich by
t h ~t

~sc.rtes is Identified with. bodies. This is. at most. relative space. which is
mistaken for the absolule space Ihat sublends It by bOTh CarTesians and
Aristotelians. '"

Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute

spaces; which Our sen,e. determine by its position to bodie •. and which i.
vulgarly taken for immovable space; such Is the dimension of a ",bte"ane-
ous. an aereal. Or celestia l space. determined by ItS position in respect of
the earth. Abso lute and relative space are Ihe same In figure and magni.
tude; but they do not remain alwa~ numerically the same.

because re lative 'pace, which i', so to speak, attached to the body, moves
with that body through absolute 'pace >IJ

For if the earth, for in"ance. move., a 'pace of our air. which relat;"'ely and
in respect of the earth always rem aiM the same. wil l alone time be one
part of the absolute 'pace into whkh the ale passes; and another time will
be another part of the same and so. abSOlutely understood. It will be
perpetually mutable .

Just as we have distinguished absolute. immOl/able ,pace from the relative

spaces that are and move in it, so we have to make a distinction between
absolute and relative places which bodies occupy in space. Thus, el.borat·
ing More', analy>" of th" concept and his criticism of the traditional a,
well as the Cartesian cO<lceptlons. Newton states: " 4

,. ••
Place is a part 01 'pace which a body takes up and is, acco,ding to the
space, " ithe, ab>olut .. 0' ,elat",,,. I ", y, a part 01 space; not the , ituat ion
no, Ihe ute, nal ,urface 01 the body. Fo' the places 01 equal solkls a,e
alwa.,.. equal; but the l, surfaces. by ,eason 01 t he i' dissimila, figure •. a,e
often unequal. Positions p,ope rty have no quantity; nor are they so much
Ihe places themselves as Ihe prOllerties of places. The motion of Ihe whole
is the ",me wilh Ihe sum of Ihe mOllons of the pa,lS; Ihat is. the Irans lo.
lion of Ihe Whole, out of ~s place, is Ihe same thins with Ihe sum of Ihe
translation, of Ihe pans oul of Iheir place.; and the,efore Ihe ploce ollhe
whole is Ihe ",me .s th .. sum of Ihe pl. ce.of Ih .. pans, and forlhal ' .... on
il is intern. 1and in Ihe whole body.

Place - locus - is thus somet hing which is in Ihe bodies, and in which bodies
a, e In t heir turn. And as motion i•• p'ocess in whiCh bod>es change their
pl3ces. not tak ing Ihem along with them bul relinquishlnglhem /0' others.
the di,tinc!ion between absolute and relalive SIlaces implies necessarily
Ihatol ab.olute and rei alive mOlion. and llice versa. is implied by It : as

Absolute motion i, Ihe translalion of a body f,om one absolut .. place into
another. and , el ative mot ion t he t,anslalkm I,om One , elalive place into
another. Thus in. ship unde, sail the ,elative place 01. body is that part of
the ship which the body possesses. 0' Ihat part of Ihe cavity which Ihe
body fills and which therefore moves together wllh the ,hip. and 'elative
rest is the contin uance of the body in Ihe same part 01 the .hlp or of ~s
cavily. But reat absolute rest is Ihe conti nuance of the body in the <ame
pan of Ihat immovable space in which the ship itself, its caVity, and all that
it contains is moved. Wh .. ,efo, .. , il th .. ,hip is realty.t , .. st , the body, which
,elali""ly ,e,1S in the ,h ip, will ,eally and ab>olutely move with the same
velocity which the ship has on the ea,th . But if the e .rth also move., the
t,ue and absolute motion of the body will ar;s." partly I,om the true
motion of t he Urth In Immovable sp~ce, pa,tly from t~ e ,elaliVl': mot ion of
the ship on the earlh ; and If the body move~ also relatively in the sh ip, its
true mOlion will arise, partly "om Ihe true motion of the eanh In Immova·
ble .pace and partly from Ihe 'elatiVl': mOllon. a, well of the 'hlp on Ihe
earth as of the body in the sh ip; a nd f,om Ihese relative motions will a, ise
the ,elal",e mOlion of the body on Ihe earth. A< if Ihat pan of Ihe earth
where th .. ,hip i, was lruty move<! towa,d the e a,t wilh a Vl': locity of 10,000
pans, while the ship it<elf, with a f,esh gale . nd full s. il " i. c• .,ied towa,d
the west with a velocity e xpressed by 100f those parts, but 3 sailor walks in
the , hip toward the ea" w~h 1 p;on of the said velocily; Ihen Ihe .ailo' will
be moved truly in immovable space toward the east, wfth a ve locity 01
tO,OOl parts, and relatively on the eanh toward the west. with a velocity 01
90lthoseparts.

As fa' the Inne. SVuctu'e of space, it is characte'iled by NeWlOn in terms

that St'ongly .emind uS of the analysis made by Henry Mo.e: no

AS the o,der of the parts of time is immutable, So al,o is the orde, of the
parts of 'pace. Suppo,e those pans to be moved out of their place" and
they will be moved (if the expression may be allowed) out of themselves.
for times and spaces are, as it we.e, the places as we ll of themselves as of
all other things . All things a.e placed in time as to o.de. of succession and
in space as to order of situat ion. It is f.om their essence a. natu.e that they
a.e place>, and that the primary places of thi ngs should be movable is
absurd. These are therefo'e the abrotute places, and traoslations out of
those places a.e the only absolute molions_

NeWlon. il is true, does not tell us Ihat space is "indivi,ible" a' "ind&erpi-
ble ";'" yel it " obvious that to "divide" Newton's space, that is, actuallv
and really to sepa,ate its "parts." is just as impossible as il is impo<sible to
do.o with More's, an impo>sib ility that does not preclude the mak ing of
"abst'act" 0' "logical· distinct ions and dlvi,ions. O. p'event uS from
diSlinguishing Inseparable "parts" in abrolule space and from a,sening its
indefinite, 0' even infinite "divl sibility· Indeed, fo' Henry More, as well as
for Newton, the infinity and the continuity of absol ute space imply the one
as _II as the othe,.

Absolule motion is motion in respect to abro lute space, and aU relative

motions imply absolute ones: , ..

... all motions, from places in motion. are no other than parts 01 e ntire and
absolute motion,; and every entire motion is composed of the motion of
the body out of lIS first place and the mOlion of thi, place oul of lIS place;
and ro on, until we come to some immovable place. as In Ihe befo'e-
mentioned example of the ,ailor. Wherefore enti,e and absolute motions
cannot be otherwi,e determined than

by immovable places; and lor that reoron l did before rele, Iho ,e absolute
motions 10 immovable places, but 'elative ones to movable places_ Now no
other places are Immovable but Ihose Ihat. from Infinit y to infinity. do all
"'tain the same given position one u> another, and upon th i' account mu,t
ever remain unm""ed and do thereby comt~ute immovable space .

"From infinity to Infin~ y retain the Sam e position.. ." What does Infinity
mean in Ih is ptace? Obviously not only the spatial. but also Ihe temporal :
absolute places retain from eternily to elernily their posil ions in Ihe
absolute. Ihal is. Infinile and eternal space. and It Is In ,e,pectto this space
thaI Ihe motion of a body is defined as tle ing absolule.

Alas, ab,olule mOlion is very dilficult, or even impossible, to determine .

We do not perceive space -~ is, as we know, inacce ssible to our sen .....
We perceive thing' in space, the ir motions in ,espect to othe, th ings, that
is, thei r ,,,Iative motions. not their absolute motions in resped to space
itself. Moreove" motion It... lf. or In Itself. the status of mot ion, though
utterly opposed to the stalu. of rest. is nevertheless (as we see It clearly in
the fundamental Case of uniform. rectilinear. inertial motion) absolutely
indistinguishable I,om Ihe 1.1Ier.

n is only by their causes and elfects that absolule and re lalive motions can
be distinguished and determined:'"

The cauSeS by which true and re lative motions are distinguisl1ed. one from
the otller. are Ihe forces impressed upon bodie s 10 ge nerale mOlion . True
mOlion is neither generaled nor a ltered but by some force impressed upon
the body moved. but relative motion may be generated or altered without
any force impressed upon Ihe body. For it is sufficient only to impress some
force on other bodies with which the former is compared that, by their
giving w;ry, that relation may be changed in which the ,elalive ren or
motion ollllis other body did consist. Aga in. true motion sulfers a lways
some Change Irom any force impressed upon the mOVing body, but relative
motion does not necessarily undergo any change by such lorces. For if the
same forces are likewise impressed on Ihose olher bodi es with which the
comparison i, made, Ih3lllle 'elalive position may be preserved, Ihen Ihal
condition wil l be preserved in which Ihe re l.l ive motion consists. And
therelore any relative motion may be changed when Ihe Ifue motion
remains unaite,ed, and the relative may be preserved whe n the true
sulfers some change. Thus, true motion bV no me .n, consists in such
relations.

,. ••
Thus it is only in the <ases where our determination 01 the lorc", acting
upon the bodies is not based upon the pe rception 01 the cha nge 01 the
mutual relations of the bodies in question that we are actually able to
distinguish absolute motions from relative OMS. or even from rest.
Rectilinear motion. as we ~now. does not offer uS this possibility. 6ut
circular Or rOlal ional mOlion does. ,..,

The effeas which distinguish absolute from rel.tive motion are the force s
of ,eceding from the .xis of circula, motion. f or there are no ,uch force. in
a circular mOlioo pur~ v re lative. bUI in a true and ab,olute circul ar motion
Ihey are greater '" I"". according to the quantity of the motion.

Rotationa l Or circular motion. everywhere On tile earth as in the skies, gives

blcth to centrifugal forces. the determination of which enab les uS to
recognile its e xistence in ~ given body. and e vt:n to meaSu'" its ,peed.
wilhout taking inlO .ccouni the pOSitions o. beh.v ior of .ny olher body
outSide the gyrallng one . The purely relative concepllon finds liS limit- and
iti refulalion-in the ca.e of circular motion and. al the same lime, the
Cafle,ian e ndeavor 10 extend thi' <onceplionlo <ele'li.1 mOlions appears
as it really is: a clumSV atte mpt to disregard the facts, a gross miSinterpre-
tation Or misrepresentation of the structure of the universe, ,., The re is
only one real circular motion of anyone 'evolving body. correspond ing to
only one power of enduvoring to recede from its a. is of motion, as lIS
proper .nd adequ.te effect; but relative motions, In one and the same
body. are innumerable. according to the various relalions it bears to
eXiernal bodie., .nd. like other relation,. are altogelher destitule of .ny
real eflect. any otherwise Ihan they mav perhap, partake of thai one only
lrue motion , And therefore in the,r ,y'tem who ,uppo,e that our heave n••
revolving below the sphere of the fixed stars, v.rry the planets along with
them, the severa l parts of those heavens and the pla~ets, which are indud
relatively M re,t In their heave~s, do vet ,e ally move , For they change thei ,
position one to another Iwhich never happens 10 bodies truly at rest) and,
being carried together with Ihelr he.vt:ns, partake of their motions and. as
parts of reyolvlng whole~, ende.vour to recede from the axis of their
motions.

The Newtonian discovery of Ihe absolute character 01 rotation-in

tontr.distinction to rectilinear trans lation - constitutes a ded.ive conlir·
mation of his conce ption of space; It makes it accessible 10 Our empirical

,
knowledge and, without depriving it 01 its metaphl"ical lunction and
status. it ensure, in role and its place as alundamental wncept 01 ""ience.

The Newton i~n interpretation of circu lar motion as motion 'relative" to

absolute space. and. of course. Ihe very idea of absolute space with its
physiCO' metaphysical implications. met, as we know, with r31her strong
oppos~ion. For two hundred year,. Irom the time, of Huygens and Leibnl!
to tho'e of Mach and Duhem, It wa, ,ubjected to searching and vigorous
Cf itici,m.'" It has, in my opinion, wrth"ood victoriously all the a"aults.
whkh is. by the way, not so very surprising' il is indeed the necessary and
inevitable consequence of the "bursting of the sphere: the "breaking of
the elrde: the goometri!ation of .pace. of the di.covery o r assertion ofthe
I~w 01 inertia as the first and IOfemost law Or • • iom 01 motion. Indeed, if it
Is the inertial, that is, Ihe rectilinear uniform motion that become.- ju.t
like rest - \he "natural" statu. of a body. then t he circular one, which at any
point of it, trajectory changes i\5 direction though maintaining constant its
angular veloc ity, appears, from the point of view 01 the law of inert ia, not
" a uniform, bUI a, a con"antly acce le raled motion. BUI acceteration. in
contradi"inction to mere trandalion, has a lways been something absolute.
and it remained SO until InS, when. for the first time in the history 01
phl"iC$, the general relativity theory 01 Einstein deprived it of its absolute·
ness. Vet as, in sO doing, it reclosed the universe and denied the Euclidean
structure of ,pace, it h3$, by thl' very facl, confirmed the correctness of t he
Newtonian conception.

Newton thus wa, perfectly right in "ating that we are able to determine
the absolute rotational or ci reular motion 01 Dod ie, without needing, for
that pur~se. a te rm 01 reference represented by a body at absolute rest ;
though he was wrong. 01 wurse. in his piou. hope of being able, finally. to
aChieve the determination 01 all 'true" motion •. The difficulties that stood
In his p .. th were not merely - as he believed them to be - very gre31. Thev
were in'urmountable. '"

It is indeed a matter of 8",at difficulty to discover and effectively to

distingui,h the true motions of panicul .. bodies from the apparent,
because the p.m of that immovable 'pace in which tho,e motion, are
performed do by no mean, wme under the observ.tion 01 our ,ense •. Yet
the thing is not altogether de,pe rate ; lor we have .ome argument, to
guide us, partly from the apparent motions, wh ich are the differences of
Ihe true motion,; partl y from Ihe f<)fces, which are Ihe causes and effects
116 ~

oltne true motions. For inst.nce, iltwo ~Iobes. kept .t • given dist.nce
one Irom tne otner by means 01 a wrd th.t wrmects them, were revolved
about thei r commOn center 01 gravity. we might, I,om tne tension oltne
w,d. discover the endeavo, 01 the globes to ,ecede f,om the . xis 01 thei,
mot ion. and f,om Ihence we mighl compule Ihe quantity of Iheir clrcula,
mot ions. And then if any equal forces shouk! be Imp'essed .t once on the
alternate faces of the globe to augment or d iminisn their circula, motions.
from the incre.se or decre •• e of the tension of the cord we might infer tne
incre ment or decremelll of their motions, .nd thence would be found on
what f.,es those forc", ought to be impre>sed that the motioos of the
~Iobes might be m",t augmented; that is. we might discover their
hindmost faces. or those which, in the circular motion. do lollow. But the
faces wh;eh follow being known. and consequently the oppos~e OneS th.1
precede. we should li ~ ewise know the determination 01 their motions. And
Ihus we might find Ihe quantity and the dele,mination of Ihis Circula r
motion. even in an Immense .acuum. where the'e was nothing ext ern.1 or
sensible wilh which the globes could be compared. But now. if in that
'pace some remote bodies were place d th.t kept alwav' a given position
one to another, as the fixed sta .. do in our regions. we ,ouk! not indeed
determine Irom the relative tr.nslation 01 the globes among those bodies
whether the motion did belong to the globes Or to Ihe bodie •. But If we
observed Ihe cord and found that ils tension was that very tension which
the motion 01 the globes required. we might conclude Ihe mOlion to be in
the glob", and Ihe bodies to be at rest; and Ihen. lastly. from Ihe transla-
lion of the globe, among the bodies. we shou ld find the determination 01
their mOlions. Sut how we are to obtain the true motions from Iheir
«Iuses. effects. and .pparent differences. and the converse, shall be
e.plained .t I.rge in the following treatise. For to this end it was that I
wmposed it.

The real distinction between >pace and matter. though It involves the
rejection of the cartesian identilication of the essence of matter with
extenSion. does not. " we ~now. necessarily imply the .ccept ance 01 the
existence of an actua l vacuum: we have see n 6",no, and Ke ple' too. aSlert
that space is everywhete full of "ether." As for Ne wton, though he . too.
believes in an ether tha t fills at leaS! the space of our "world" (solar
system). his ether is only. very tnin and very elastic substance, a kind 01
exceedingly rare gas, and it d"", not comp letely fill the world space. It doe.
not extend itself to Infinity as is sufficientiv clear Irom the motion 01
comets : '""

,
"
 ~ 111

. .. lor though they are <arried in oblique paths and sometimes <ontrary to
the COurSe <>I the planets, yet they mOVe every way with the greatest
freedom, and prese",e the ir motion lor an e xceeding long time. even when
contrary to t he course of the planeU. Hence also II is evident thaI the
celestial spaces are void of reSistance. and as un resisting matler. that is.
matler depri_ed of the vis inertiae, is unthinkable, It is obvious that the
ce lestial space s are _oid also of matter. MOte""er. e_en where it is present,
Newtonian et her does not possess a <.Ontinuous mutture. It is composed
of exceedingly small panicles between which, of «>urn., the re is vacuum .
EI.sticity. indeed, implies v.<uum. In a Canesian world, th.t is, in • world
constituted by a <.<>ntinuously-spre.d uniform m.tter, el.st icity would be
impOSSible . Nay. if all spaces were eq ually lull las they must be accord ing 10
Descartesl even mOlion would nOI be possible. '"

All spaces are not equa lly full; for if all spaces were equally full. Ihen the
spe<:lflc gravity of the flU id which fills the region of the air, on account of
the extreme density of the malter, would fall nothing short of the spe<:ific
, ravity of quicksilver, or gold, Or any othe r the mo" dense body; and,
Iherefore. neither gO ld nOr any othe r body could descend in air; fOr bodies
do nOI descend in lIuids. unle SS they are spe<:ifically heavier than the fluid •.
And if the quantily 01 matler in a given space can, by any rarefaClion. be
diminished, what should hinde r a diminution 10 inr,nily?

Malter, according 10 NeWlon . who shares the alomic conceptions of his

contemporarie s land even improves upon them in a very inle re" ing
mannerl, has an essentially gr.nula, "fOeture. It is composed of small ,
solid, particle •• nd there/ore '"

if all t he solid particles of all bodies are of the same density and cannot be
rarefied without pores. then a void space. Or v.cuum. must be granled.

As lor mailer itself. Ihe essential propert ies Ihat NeWlon ascribes to it are
nearly Ihe same as Ihose that have been Ii>led by He nry More.28 by the
old atom iSIS and the modem partisans of corpuscular philosophy :
extenSion, hardne«, impenetrability, mobil ity, to which is added - a most
importanl addition-inerti. , in the pre<:ise, new me.n in8 olthi. word . In a
curiou, <ombin.tion 01 anti-Cartesian empiricism and ont~ogica l ration. l·
ism. Newton wants 10 admit as e«ential properties of malter only those
that a re lal empirically given 10 us. and fb) can be neither increased nor
dimini'hed. Thus he writes in the third of hi' flules of fleasonin~ in
Philosophy, by whkh he rep laced the third fundament.1 Hypothe,;' of the
rlf,t edition of th~ Principia : '"

The qualities of bodies, which admit neither inten,ification nOr remission of

degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of
our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies
whatsoever.

For , ince the qualities of bodie, are only known to us bV experiments, we

.re to hold for unive".1 all .uch • • univerSill1y agree with e xperiment', .nd
, uch as .re not liable to diminution can never be quite taken away, We are
u rtainly not to re linquish the evidence of experiments for the sa ~e of
dreams and vain fictions of Our own devising: nOr are we 10 recede from
the analogy of Nature, which is wont to be simple and alwavs consonant to
itself. We in no other way know the extension of bodies Ihan by our senses,
nor do these reach II In all bodies; but because we perceive utension In all
that are sens ible, therefore we ascribe it universally 10 an olhers also. That
abundance of bodie, are hard we learn bV e'l'erience; and because the
hardness of the whole arise, from the hardness of the parts, we therefore
justly infer the h.rdne" of the undivided particles, not only of the bodies
we feel, but of a ll others. That all bod ies are impenetrable, we gather not
from reason, but from sensation. The bodies which we handle _ find
impenetrable, and -hence conclude impenetrabilitv to be a universal
property of all bodies whatsoever. Thai aU bodies are movable and
e ndowed with ce rtain powers (wh ich we call the inertia) of persevering in
their motion, or in their rest, we only infer from the like pr<l!lertie s
observed in the bod>e. whkh we have seen . The extension, h.rdness,
impenetrability, mob ility, and inertia of the whole resun from the
extenSion, hardness, impenetrability, mob ility, and inertia of the parts and
hence we "'nclude the least part icles of all bod ies to be also all e xtended,
and hard and impenetrable, and movable, and endowed with their proper
inertia . And this Is the foundation of aU philosophy. Moreover, that Ihe
diVided but contiguou, particles of bodies may be separated from one
another is a matter of observation; and, in the particles that remain
undivided, our mind, are able to distinguish yet lesser parts, as is mathe-
matica llv demonstrated. But whether the part' '0 distinguished and not yet
divided may, by the powers of Nature, be actually divided and ",par.ted
from one another we cannot certainly dete rmine. Vet had we the proof of
but one experiment that any undi~ided particle, In breaking a hard and
solid body, suffered a divi,ion, we might by virtue olthi, rule conclude that
the undivided a. well a, the divided particle. may be d"'ided and a<1ually
sepcar.ted to infin ity.

lastly, if it universally appnrs, by experiments and astronomical ob, .."'a·

tions, Ihalall bodies aboullhe earth gravitate loward the earth, and thai in
proportion to Ihe quanlily of matter which Ihey severallv conlain; Ihallhe
moon likewise, a«ordins 10 Ihe quanlily of ii, maller, Sr.vitale, loward
Ihe earth; Ihal, on Ihe olher hand, our sea gravilales loward Ihe moon;
and all Ihe plane" one loward anolher; and Ihe come" in like manner
toward Ihe ,un: we must, in consequence Ollhi' rule, universally allow th.t
.11 bodies wh.tsoever are endowed with a principle of mutual gravit.tion,
For the argument from the appearances conclude. with mOre force for the
un ... ersal gravitation of all bodie, than for their impenetrability, 01 which,
among those in the celestial region" we have nO e xperiments nor any
man ner of obse",ation. NOllhat I affirm gravity 10 be essential to bodies:
by Iheir vi. in, ila I mean nOlhing bullheir inertia. Thl. I. Immulable. Their
gravily is diminished a, Ihey recede from Ihe e.rlh.

We see, therefore, that Newton, no mOre than Galileo Or even Desc.rtes,

Includes gravity, or mutual atlraction, In the essent ial properties of bodies
In ,pite of Ihe fact that its empincal foundation, are much stronger than
those of such a fundamental property a, impenetrabilily. Newton seems to
.uggesl Ih31 Ihe rea,on for Ihl' exclusion consist, In the var",bilily of
gravilal ion a$ opposed 10 Ihe immulabilily of Ihe inertia . BUI Ihi' i, by no
mean , Ihe case. The weighl of a body "gravilaling" toward Ihe earth i,
indeed dimini'hed as it recedes lrom it: bUI Ihe altroclive lorce of Ihe
earth - or .ny other body -i. constant, and, just ., in the case of inert i.,
proportion.lto ilS ma.s, and it is as ,uch that it appears in the lamou,
inverse square lor mula of un",ersal gravitation. Thi. is so because ,..

. it is rea,onable (0 suppose that force, which are directed to bodie,

should depend upon the nalure and quanl ity of IlIo,e bodies, as we see
Ihey do in magnelical e xperiments. And when ,uch cases occur, we are to
compute Ihe attraction, of Ihe bodies by assigning 10 each ollheir p.nicle ,
ils proper force, and Ihe n finding Ihe ,urn of Ihem all .

Thu, Ihe attraction 01 a body i, • lunction, or ,urn, olthe .ttraction, 01 it,

(atomic~ particle ,. just a, its maSS Is the sum of the masse, of Ihe selfsame
panic le •. And yel il i, nOI an "essenlial property" of tile body, or of its
particles. At, a matter of fact it is not eve n an ad""ntitiou, proper!'; of
them; it i. in no .en... their propeny. It i. an effect of .ome extraneous
force acting upon them according to a fi xed rule.

It is- or shou ld be - a well·known fact that Newton did not believe in

allract ion '5 a real. phl'S ieal force . No more than Descartes, Huygens or
Henry More could he admit that maUer 15 able to act at. dist ance , or be
animated by a spontaneous tendency . The empirical corroboration of the
f.ct could not prevail againS! the rat ional impossibility of the proce" . Thus.
;ustlike Descanes or Huvgens, he tried at first to exp lain amaction-or to
e.plain it away- by reduc ing it to some kind of effect of purelv mec hanical
occurrenc ... and force •. But in contr.di,tinct ion 10 the former. who
believed that t hey we re able to devise a mechankal theory of gravity.
Newton seems to have become convinced of the utter futility of such an
attempt. He discove red. for example. that he could indeed explai n
attract ion, bulll1a t in order to do.o he had to postul.te repulSion. which.
perl1aps, was somewhat beuer. bUI not ""ry much 50.

Fortunately. "' Newton knew full weli. we need not have a dear concep·
tion of the way in which certain effects are produced in order to be able to
study the phenomena and to treat them mathematically . Galileo was not
obliged to develop a theory of gravity- he even claimed his right to Ignore
completely il5 nature - in order 10 e5lablisl1 a m.thematic.1 dynamiCS and
to determine the laws of f.lI . ,..

Thus nothing prevented Newton from studying the laws of "attract ion" or
"gravitation " without being obliged to give an account of the real forces
thaI produced the ce ntripeta l mot",n of the bodies. It was perfectlv
sufficient to aSSume only that these forces - whether phySical or metaphys-
Ical - were acting according to strict mathematical laws (an assumption
fu lly confirmed by the obsef\lation of as(ronomical phenomena and also by
well.interpreted e . perimentsl and to treat these "forces" ~s m~thematical
forces. and not as real oneS. Although only p.rt of Ihe t3s k, it is a "ery
nece "ary part; only when tl1ls preliminary stage is accompl ished can we
proceed to the investigation of the rul causes of the phenomena .

Thi. i. precisely what NeWlon does in the book 50 .ignificantlv ca lled not
Principia Ph ilosophiae, that is, Principles 01 Philosophy (l ike ~sc a ne.'). but
Philosophiae naluralis principia mathemaliea. thaI is. Mathematical
Principles of N.tural Ph ilosophy. He warns us thaI : '50

ryr d
I here u.., the word "attraction" in general for any endeavor whatever
mad~ by bodies to approach eac h other, whether that enduvor ads~ from

the .ction of t he bodie, themse lves, a. tend ing to each othe r Or agitat ing
each other by sp irits emitted; Or whether it arises from the action of the
elher or of the 3ir, or of any medium whalever, whether corporeal or
incorporeal, in any manner Impell ing bodies placed there in toward each
other, In the ,arne general sen.e I me the word impulse, not defining in
this treat i.e the 'pecies or phy.ical qualities of forces, but invest igating the
quantities and malhe matical proportions of th~m, as I observed before in
the definition., In mathematics we are to investigate th~ qU'lntilie, of
forces with their proportion, con ... quent upon any conditions suppo..,d;
then, when we enter upon physiCS, we compare these proportions with the
phenomena of Nature, th.t we may know wh.t condiHons of these forces
anSwer to the several kinds of att ractive bodies, And thiS prep"fation be ing
made, we argue more safely concerning the phyi<cal spe<:ies, causes, and
proportion of the force"

In hi. Leiters Iwrinen five ye.rs after the publication of the Principia) to
Richard Senile)' whO, like nearly ""e""body else, missed the warning just
quoted and Interpreted Newton in the way that became COmmOn in the
eighteenth century, namely .S asserting the phySical reality of attr.ction
and of attractM! force as inherenl 10 matter, Newton Is loOmewhat les,
reseNed, He fif5ttells Bent~y (in his second leite r): '"

You sometimes .peak of gr,v ity as essential and inherent to matler. Pray
do not a,cribe thaI nOlion 10 me, for the cause of gravity is what I do not
prelend 10 know and therefore would ta ke more time to consider of it,

In the third one, he practically COmes into the open, Though he does not
tell Bentley wh.t he, Newton, believes the force of attraction to be in
rerum, he lells him Ih.t:'"

It is Inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, withO<lt mediation

of something else which i. not material, operate upon .nd affect other
mailer without mutual conlact, .s it must be if gr.vilation, in the ,ense of
Epicuru., be e"ential and inherent in iI, And thi' is one re",on why I
de. ired you would not a"ribe innate gravily to me. That gravity ,hould be
innate, inherenl, and essential 10 maue r, so Ihat one body may .ct upon
another at a di"ance through a vacuu m, withO<lt the mediation of anyth ing
el .... by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from
one to another. is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who
has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking Can ever fan
into il. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting con,tantly .ccord ing 10
certain laws. but whether this agent be material Or immaterial I have lelt to
the consideration 01 my readers.

AS we see. Newton does not pretend any longer not to know the cause 01
gravity; he only inform, u, that he le ft thi' que'tion unanswered. leaving it
to hi' readers to find outthemsel"".the ,olution. namely that the "agent"
which "cau.e," grav iw cannot be material . but must be a ,pirit. that i,.
either the spirit of nature of hi. colleague Henry More. or. more simply.
God - a solution that. rightly Or wrongly. Newton was 100 cautious to
annOunCe himse lf. But that Dr. Bentley could not - and did not - Iail 10
understand.

As for Dr. Bentley (0' more e •• ctly Mr . Richard Bentley. M. A. - he became

DO. in 16961. who did not know much physics- he was by training a
c,""ieist- and obviou,ly did not grasp the ultimate implication, of
Newton's natural philosophy. he espouses it wholeheartedly. as far •• 1
leasl. a, he understands it. and turns it into a weapon for the Confutation
of Atheism in the Boyle lectures which he gave in 1692.

Richard Bentley follow, so closely. and even so servilely. Newton's

teachi ng, or le.,ons-he copied nearly verbatim the leiters he rece i""d
from him, adding, of course, .ome refe rence, to the Scriptures and a good
deal of rhetoric-that the view. he expre .... s can be con.idered a.
representing, in a large measure. those of Newton him,elf.

The atheists Mr. Bentley deals with are essential ly the m.teriaHslS, mOre
prec isety those of the Epicurean brand. and it is rather amUSing to see thaI
Bentley accepts the fundamenlals 01 Ihe lr conception, Ihat Is. Ihe
corpuscular theory of mauer. the reduction of malerial being to atoms and
VOid. nOI only withoul the apparent heSitations and cautious re,ef\le of
Newton. but even a. something that goe, without ,aying and wrthoul
discussion. He only object', "' rt has always been done, that it i, nol
enough. and that they cannot e.pla;n the orderly structure of our universe
without superadding to matte r and motion ,ome purposeful action of a
non-material cause : the fortuilOuS and disorderly motion of Moms cannot
transform chaos inlO a cosmos.

,
"
 ~ .H

Yet, if the pattern of hi> ,e.,oning i. qu ite traditional -but we must not
blam e Mr. Bentley (0' that: it;s also the Newtonian pattern and, mo,eo"""
did not Kant himself tell uS a century later that the physico·teleological
prool of the e xi stence 01 God ;s the only one that has any value? - the
contents 01 the demonstr.t;"n are ad'pted to the present·day (Bentley's
present day) level of scientific philosophy.

Thus, for instance, he accep" without the ,I ighte" critici,m the contempo-
,ary version of Giordano Bruno', conception of the universe: an infinite
space w~h an immense number of "a,-,uns. Bentley maintains, of course,
th.t the st." .,e finite in number-he thin ks he can prove it -a nd would
even like them to be arranged in space so as to build a -firmament. " But if
this cannot be done. he will accept their dispersion in the boundless void.
l\enUey, indeed, insiSIS upon the void. He needs it. 01 cou"e, as we Shall
see in. moment, in order to be .ble to demonstrate the existence and the
action, in the world, of non_material, non-me chanical forces-first and
fo'emost of the Newton ian universal attract ion-but he is also somehow
elated and ravished by the idea that this our world is chiefly composed of
void spaces, and he Indulges in cakulations that show that the amount of
matter in the universe is so small., pr.ctically not to be worth speaking of:
'"
let us aHow, then, that all the mau er of the system of our sun may be
50,000 times as much as the whole rna ... of the e arth; and we appeal to
astronomy, if we are not liberal enough and e""n prodigal in thi' conces-
,ion. And let u, suppose further, that the whole globe of the earth i,
entirely ""lid and compact, without .ny void interstices; notwith".nd ina
what hath been shewed before, a. to the texture of gold itself. Now,
though we have made such amp le allow'nces, we Shall find, notwithstand,
ing, th.1 the void space of our system is immensely bigger than all it,
corpore~1 maSS. For, to proceed upon suppoSition, that all Ihe matler
with in tne firmament Is 50,000 times bigger tn.n the solid globe of the
earth; if we assume the diameter of the orbis magnu~ (wherein the earlh
move, about the sun) to be on ly 7,000 times as big as the diameter of the
earth, (though the latest and most accurate observations make it thrice
7,000), and the diameter oflne firmament to be only 100,000 time, as long
as the d;"meter of the orbi. mag nus (though it can not possibly be less than
Ihat. but may be vastly and unspea kably bigger), we must pronounce, .fter
such large concessions on that side, and such gteat abatements on ours,
that the ,urn of empty 'p.ace, within the concave 01 the firmamell1 is 6,860
million million million t imes bigger than "lithe matter contained in it.

And fi rst. because evel)' fixed Mar is supposed by astronomers to be of the

same nalure with our ,un. and each may vel)' posslblV have planets abQUI
them. though, by reason ollheir vaSI distance, Ihey may be invisible 10 us;
we will a"ume Ihi' rea,onable ,uppo,ition, Ihat Ihe ,arne propoflion of
void 'pace to maller, which i, lound in our ,un', , e gion wit hin Ihe sphere
01 the fixed 'tars, may competentl y well hold in the whole mundane sp.ace.
I am awa,e that in this computation we must not ass ign the whole cap.adty
01 that sphe,e lor the region of Our sun, but allow hall of its diameter lor
the radii 01 the several regions of the ne>1 fi xed stars: so that, diminishing
Our former number. as this last consideration requires. we may safely
a/form. from certain and demonstrated principle •. that the empty ,pace of
our .olar region lcomprehending half of the diameter of the fi rmament) I.
8,575 hundred Ihousand million million times more ample than all the
corporeal ,ubstance in it. And we m.y fairly suppo,e, that the same
proportion may hold through the whole e xtent of the un;"'e " e.

It i, clear that with Ihi, immense void at tneir disposal: ,,..

. . . evel)' single P;OMicie would have a sphere of void space arQUnd it 8.575
hundred thousand million million times bigger than the dimension of Ih.t
p"flicle. Accordingly, Oemo"itian atoms, whatever their initial disposition
in space, would pretty soon be comp lete ly dispersed and would be unable
to form even the most simple bodie" and much less, of ,ours .. , .uch an
artful and we ll-ordered syStem as, for instance. our solar WOfld. Fonunate-
Iy for its- and for our- existence. atoms are not free and independent of
each other but a,e bound together by mutual gravitation .

Now thiS Is already a refutation of alhelsm-6entlev. as we have seen. has

learnt from Newton thaI gravitation cannot be allrlbuled to matter- as it
i. cle.r '"

that ,uch a mutual gravitation or ,pOIl1.ne ou, attraction can neither be

inherent and essential to matter. nor ever supervene to it, unless im-
pressed and Infused into It by a divine power.

,. ••
just because act ion at a distance ,..

is repugnant to cOmmOn sense and rusOn. 'Ti, utterl y inconceivable,

that inanimate brute matter, without the mediation 01 SOme immaterial
being. shoutd operate upon and affect other malter wit hout mutual
contact; Ih.t distanl bodies should act upon each other Ihrough a vacuum,
without the inlervention of ~mething else, by and through which Ihe
aClion may be conveyed from one to Ihe other. We will nOI obscure and
perplu with multitude of word, whal i, ~ dear and evidenl by its own
light, and must need, De allowed by all Ihat have competenl use of
thinking. and are initiated into, I do not ,ay the mysteries, but the plaine"
prindpl'" of philosophy, Now, mutual gravitation or attraction, in our
pre,ent acceptation of the wordS, is the ... me thing wit h thiS, 't is an
oper""on, <X virtue, Or Influence of di,tant bodies upOn each othe r through
an empty Inte"'al, without any efliu";a, or ed,alations, Or other corporeal
medium 10 convey and transmit it. This power, therefore, cannot be innate
and essential 10 matter: and If It be not essential, II Is consequently mOIl
man if",t, since it doth nOI depend u!>On motion Or re", or figure or
pMilion of part" which are alilhe way' thaI matler can diversify itself, that
it could never supervene to it, unless impressed and infused into it by an
immaterial and di";ne power.

Now, If we adm it. as we muSI do, Ihal thi, mutual allraclion cannot be
e' pl. ined by any "material and mechanical agenl: Ihe indubitable reality
olthi' power of mulual gravitation. '"

... would De a new and invincible argumenl for the being of God, being a
direct and positive proof thaI an immaterialli";ng mind doth inform and
actuate the dead matter and ,upport the frame of the world .

Moreover, even If reciprocal attraction we re essential to matter, Or if it

were simply. blind law of action of some immaterial agent, it would nOI
suffice 10 e' plain Ihe actual fabriC of our world, or even Ihe e. istence of
any world whatever. Indeed, under Ihe unhampered influence of mutual
gravitation, would not all matler convene together into the middJe of the
world ?

Bentley seem, to have been rather proud of having fou nd that God not
only pulJed or pushed bodies towards each Olher, but also counteracted His
aCllon-or, more simply, suspended it-in the case of the r>xed ~tars, at
Jeasl of Ihe oule,mo51 one" which He p,evented in Ihis manne, f,om
Jeaving thei' pl"es and ma inta ined al ,est.

AI~S, Newton explained to him that his ,ea",oing implied. finite world and
thM the,e was no 'eason to den y its possible infinity. t hat the difficulties
Bentle y found in the concept of an infinite sum or se,ies we'e not
cootradictlons, and that his ,efutalloo of the Infinity (or eternity) of the
WOtld W", a pa,alogism, Newton confirmed, however, that even in the case
of an infinite wo ,1d the me,e and pure action of g,avity could not explain
it> structu,e, and that choice and purpose we,e cle a,1y app.,ent in the
.ctual distribution of the heavenly bodies in space, as wel l .s in the mutual
adjustment of thei, ma"es, .elodl ie s and so on : n .

A, to you, firsl que,,!, it seems 10 me that il the matter of ou, su n and

plaoets. aod all the matter of the YOiverse, were evenly scattered through.
out all the he •• ens, .od eve,,! p'''icle h.d an inn.te gravity towards all the
rest, and the whole space Ihroughout which thi, mailer was scanered wa,
but finite; the mailer on IheO<llSide of this space wou ld,by its gr.vity,
tend towa,d, all the maner on the in,ide, .od, by consequence, fall down
into t he middle of t he whole space, and t he ,e compose one great spherical
mass, But if the maUer was evenl y disposed throughout an infinite space, it
could never convene Into one mass; but some of it wO<lld conveoe into one
mass, and !.Ome into .nolher, !.O .s to m. ke "" infiolle num~' of g'eat
mas.es, scanered at grea t dlst.oces from one to .oother throughout an
that infinite spa"', And thus might the ,un aod fixed 51ars be formed.
supposing the maner were of • lucid nature , 6ut how the mailer should
divide itself into two !.Om, and that paf! of it which i. fil to compose a
shining body ,hou ld fal l down into one ma .. and make a sun, and t he re51
which i. fit to compose an opaque body shO<lld coaJe,ce, not into one grea1
body, lil<.e the shining matter, but Into many littJe ones; Or if the ,un at first
were an opaque body like the pl~nets. Or t~e planet' ludd bodies like the
sun. how he alone Shou ld be chaoged into a shining body, whilst all they
cootioue opaque. or all they be changed into op.que ones. whilst he
'emains unchanged; I do not think explicable by mere natural causes, but
am forced to a,cribe it to Ihe counsel and contrivance of a volunta"! Aget\I,

To your second query, I .nswer, that the motions which the planets now
h•• e could not spriog from anv natural cause .Ione, but we'e impressed by
 ~ .17

an intelligent AIlent . For since comets descend into the region of our
plan ets. and here move all manne r of wav>. going sometime. the .ame way
with the planets. sometimes the contrary way, and sometimes in cro.s
way •. in planes indined to the plane of the ecliptic, and at all ~ind. of
angle •. 'tis pla in that there is nO natural cau.e which could determine 311
the plane15. both primary and secondary. 10 move the same way and in Ihe
same plane. withoul any conSiderable va riation : this must have been Ihe
effect of counsel. Nor is Ihere any natural cause which could SOlie Ihe
pl.net. Iho<e jml degrees of velocily, in propol1ion 10 Iheir distances from
Ihe sun and other cemral bodies, which were requisile to m. ke them move
in such concentric o rbs abOUllhose bodies.

TO make Ihis system. therefore. with all its motions. requ ired a cause which
understood and compared together the quantit ies of matter In the .everal
bodie. of the sun and planet •• and the gravitaling powers resulting from
thence; the severa l distances of the primary planet< from the ,un. and of
Ihe secondary ones from Saturn, Jupiler, and the eanh; and Ihe velocities
with which these planets could re volve aboutlhose quantities 01 matter in
the central bodies; and to compare and adjust .11 these thing. together. In
so great a variety of bodies. argues that cau.e to be. not blind and
fortuitous. but very well skilled in me<:hanics and geomelry.

Having learnl hi. lesson, Bentley wrile. therefore: " •

. . we .ffirm, Ih.1 Ihough we shou ld .lIow thaI reciprocal attraction is

essenti. lto matter, yellhe .Ioms of. chao, could never.o convene by it
as to form the present system; or. if they could form it, yet it could ne ither
acquire these revolutions, nor subs i.t in tile present condition, w~hout the
conservation and providence of a dOliine Being.

I. For. first. If the mailer of Ihe universe. and consequenlly the space
through which it's diffused. be suppo~d 10 be finite. (and I think II mlghl
be demDnSlrated to be so. bUI Ihat we have already e.ceeded the jUst
measure, of a sermDn,) Ihen, since every ' ingle particle hath an innale
gravilalion loward .11 olhers, propol1ioned by mailer and d;stance; il
evidently .ppe. ". Ih.tthe outward atom. of the chao, would nece". ri ly
lend Inwards. and descend from a ll quarters toward the middle 01 the
whole space. for. In respect 10 every atom. there would lie through the
middle the greatest quamity of matter and the mo,t vigorous amaction;
and tho ... atoms would there form .nd comtitute one huge spheric.1 m....
which would be the onJy body in the unive~e . It is plain. therefore. that
upon this supposition the m~tter of the chaos could neve r compOse such
divided and different masses as the stars and planets 01 the present world .

Furthermore. even il the maner 01 the chaos could build the separale
bod""s of the planets. Ihey "could not possibly acquire such revolution ' in
cirwlar o rb,. or in e llipse< VefV lillie eccentric. " a, they aClually perform, by
Ihe mere actOon of Ihe (orce, of inertia and gravity. and finally, "if we
should grant . . . that the ... circular revolutions could be naturally at·
t.ined," it still req uires a divine power and providence to pre<erve them.
and. generally spea~ing. to preserve the fabric of the world. For. even if we
adm itted that the combination 01 inertia and gravity wou ld suffice for the
maintaining of the orbital motion of the planets, what about the f"ed
5t.rs? What prevents them from com ing logether? "If the fi . ed 5t.~
are suppOsed to have no pOwer of gravitation. 'tis plain proof of dhline
Being" as it 'hows the non-natural character of gravitalion . "And 'lis as
plain. proof of a divine Being iflhey have Ihe pOwer of gravilation." For, in
that case. onJy a d ivine pOwer Can compel them to remain in their aSSigned
places. But what if the world were not finite. but infin~e? Accord ing to
Bentley it does nOI ma~e a very great diffe rence : 100

In the suppOsillon of an Infinite chaos. 'tis hard indeed to determine

what would follow in Ihi' imaginary ca,e from an innate principle of
gravily. 8ul . to haslen 10 a conclu'ion . we wi ll granl for Ihe present. Ih.1
Ihe d~fused mailer mighl convene into an infinite number of greal masse,.
at great din.nces from one another. li ~ e the ,ta.. and planets of this
visible part of Ihe world . But then ~ i. impossible th.t the planets >IIould
naturally at1~i n t~es e circular revolutions. either by prinCiple of gravitalion.
Or by Impulse 01 ambient bodies. II is plain there Is no difference ~s to this.
whether the world be infinite or finile; SO that the Same arguments that we
ha.e used before may be equalJy urged in this suppOSition.

In 'pite of these cle.r proofs of God', purposeful action in the world. Ihere
are, as we know, people who refu,e 10 be convinced by them and who
argue that an infi nite W<Irld can have no purpose. What indeed can be the
usefulne .. of these innumerable st." that are not even seen bV us. either
bv Ihe unassisted eye or through t he strongeSI telescope? 8UI, replies
Bentley, embracing Ihe pallern of reasoning based on the principle of
plenitude, "We mu" not confine and determine t he purpo"" in cre.tin~ all
mund.ne bodie, merely to human end, and u,e •." For, though, as it i,
evident, they a.e IIOt created for Our ,a ~ e" they a.e certainly not made for
thel. own: ,.,

For matler hath no life nor percephon. is not consciou, of its own
e. 'Slence. not capab le of happiness. nor gille, the ,"crlfice of prai,e and
worship 10 the AUlhor of its bein£. It remains, therelore, that all bodie s
were formed for the sake of inte lligent mind" and as the earth w.,
principall y de,igned for the be ing and service and contemplat ion of men,
why may not all other planets be created for the lib u"". each for their
own inhabitants which have Hfe and unde"tand ing? If any man will indulge
himself in this speculation. he need not quarrel with revealed religion upon
such account. The holy Sc riptu.es do not forbid him to suppose U great a
multitude of systems. and as much inhabited as he pleases. God
Almighty. by the inuh'uSled fecundity of his creative power. may have
made innumerable orders and classes 01 rational minds; some in Ihelr
natural perfections higher than hum an souls, othe rs inferior.

An indefinitely extended and populated world, immersed in an Infinite

space. a world governed by the wisdom and mOiled by the power of an
Almighty and Omnipresent GOd. such is. finally. the universe 01 the very
orthodox Richard Bentley. future Bishop of Worcester .nd MaSler of Trinity
College. Such is. doubl lessly too. the universe of the very hereticalluca' ian
Professor of Mathe matics, Isaac Ne wton. Fe llow of the Royal SocietV and of
the ,ame Trin ity Col lege'"

'I' ate
 THE DlVINIZAT10N OF SPACE

Jose ph Raphso "

EWTON. as far as I know, never quoted More; "or did he make an

N e xplicit reference to his teac hings. Yet the relatiom between the
theorie, of the Iwo Cambridge men could nol. of course, escape
their contempor.rles, It is therefore not surprising that, fifteen years after
the pub lication of the MathemaUcal Principles of Natural Philosophy, thei r
connection was openlV proc laimed bv Joseph Raphson .• prom ising Voung
mathemalieian. Master of Arts and Fellow ollhe Royal Societv, >or in an
extremely inleresting and v.luable Appendi" which he added, in 1701, to
the second edition of his Uni"e"al Analysis of Equations, ...

In this Appendix, which bea .. the title On the real space or the Infinite
Being, Joseph Raphson, who obviously has neither Newton', , ubjective
inc lina tion for reticen,,! and secrecy, nOr his objective r"aSOnS lor
prudence. dots all the;'5 and crosres.1I the I's.

Starting with a hiSIO,ical accounl of Ihe developmenl of Ihe concept ion of

space whk h begins with lucreliu, and culminates in Henry More's "ilicism
of Ihe CaMesian identification of extension wilh matter, his characterila-
tion of malter by impenetrability, and his demonstration of the e . istence

-
01 an immov able and immate rial e xtension. lIaphson states hi, conclusion :

ThuS from every motion (extended and corporeal). even from the )onlvl
possible ones follows necessar ilv Ilhe existence 01) an Immovable and
incorporeal e"tended [entily], beeaure everything which moves in Ihe
extension must neees",rily move Ihrough extension, The extension of the
rea l motion demon'trates the re.1 existence of Ih is immovable e>tended
[entityl, because otherwise it [the motion) can be neith .. r ... pre,sed nor
conceived, and because that which we cannot but conceive is necessarily
true, It could be argued in the same manner concerning the supposed
motion of figures in geometry. The possibility of these motions demon-
strates the hypothetica l necessity of this immovable extended (entilyl. and
Ihe realily of the phvsica l mOl ions. Ihe ~bsolule_
 ~ ,.,
There is an unmistakable Spino,istk flavor in Raphson 's term inology and
manne r of spea~ing, Yet, though de<'Ply innuenced by Spino,a, ,.. Raphson
is by nO meanS Splnolist, On th e conlrary, More '. dislinction belween Ihe
infinile, immo.able, Immale rial exlension and the malerial, mobile and
therefore finite one is, according 10 him, the sole and only means of
avoiding Ihe Spino, I,lIc identification of God with the world. But leI u~
proceed wilh Raph,on ', pre~nlalion of Henry More's Iheories.

The e xistence of mOlion implie" inde ed, nol only Ihe distinclion belween
Ih .. immovabl .. , immaterial ...... n~ion and the mat .. rial on .. , and thus the
fl'ject ion of the Canesian identification; it impl ie. al'" the rej ..d ion of the
Cartesian negation of vaCuum, in 0 world complelely a nd continuou~y
fi lled with matter rectilinea r motion would be utterly Impossible, and even
circu lar moUon would be extremely difficult to ach ieve. ,,, The real
existence of really void spaces can thus be cons idered as fu lly demonstrat·
ed. Wherefrom we can draw Ihe following corollaries: ...

I. The universal ma" of movable (bodie') (or ol the world) mu,t nece,,,,ri-
Iy be finite, be<: au.e, on account of the vacuum and Ihe mobility, each and
every system of it may be compressed Into a smaller place; the finitude of
Ihe ensemble of Ihese systems, that is, of the world, follows herefrom
necessarily, Ihough Ihe human mind will never be able 10 arriv .. at its limi1.

2. All Ihe fi nite (being') exi"ing separately can be comprehended by a

nu mber. It i~ pO"ible thaI no created mind i, able 10 comprehend it.
Neverlhe leS5, 1<> their nume raling Author, Ihey will be in a finite number;
thi' can al'" be .hown •• follow>: let, for e • • mple, (0) be the mi nimum of
what can e ~ ist, then (a l infinitely mu ltiplied will turn out 10 be infinite;
indeed, if it gave a finite Sum

Ihe true minim um (or 3tom) would not be (a) but another infinitely sma ller,
or infi nilelv small, body. This, however, a, Raphson states, is "againstl he
hYPolhe,Is" Of course we are not studying here the composition of '!lace:
we are dealing with impenetrable e ..ended being" that is, with bodies.

J. Herefrom can be argued the falsity of the teaching of Spino.a, who,

mi.us ing hi< 6th definition, make. it .o wide a.'0 force maner, imofa r a. it
e. p"'S5es essence, to e xpress Ihe essence of the ' nfinite Seing, and to be
one of its attribuleS. I recO£nl,e, however, and I can demonstrate, thaI
everything of which the essence implie. an absolute infinity pertai",
necessarily to the absolutely Infin ite Being; it i, in this way that I defi~ e my
klea of the absolutely Infin~e Being,. which i n~ol~es the supreme and
absolute necessity.

The error of SpinOla Is thus at once elucid'led and corrected. Raphson

oblliously thinks that SpinOla was perfectl y right in following the (Carte-
sian) principle of attributing to God all that is essent ially infinite; right also
in rejetting the Cartesian distinction between the infinite and the indefinite
and in claiming for liis e xtension actual and not on ly potential infinity. But
he i. wrong in accepting the Cartesian identifICation of e<tension and
matter. Owing to Henry More'. critici.m of Oescane., Raphson believe. he
;s able to escape the Spinolistic conclusion by altributing the infinite.
immaterial exlen.ion to God, and redu cing mailer to the .tatus of crealure.

Malter. as We know. is characterized by Raphson by il5 mobility (which

implies finitude) and impenetrability. A$ for the immaterial e xtension. or
more 'imply, space, its propenleS, nature .nd e. istence are derJlied by him
more geome trico "from the necessary and natural concatenation of ,imple
kleas.' ,..

Space is defined <>s "" "tne innermost e xtended (entity) (whatever it be)
which is the first by n.ture and the very last to be obtained by continuous
division and sep;oration"; Raphson Informs us that it is an imperfect
definition or de,cription of Ihe defined object; il doe. not tell us anything
about it' e,sence, but, on the other hand, it ha, the advantage of being
immediately acceptab le a. deSignating someth ing the existence of which i.
perfectly evident and indubitable . Moreover. the analy.i. of the ideas used
in this definition will lead us lowards important conSl!<lucnce •. name ly
towards Ihe affirmat ion of the e xistence of a re.1 space really distinct from
maUer.

The investigation stans with a postulate.•"ording to which a "given idea "

always enables us to derive from II the propenies of the object. even
making abstraction of its existe nce. Thre e corollaries are added. and these
tell u. that: '"

All finite extended can be divided (if on lv by the mind) or, what i. the , ame,
be conceived as divid ecl .

,. ••
And it i, (even if only for the concept) moyab,", and p""esse, an actual
fi gure.

And [its) p<lrts 'an be separated Or ,emoved from each other (if only by the
mind). o r be conceived.s being removed .

An .xiom then .ssens that : ",

l!et_en thing •• eparated or removed from each othe r there i, always a

distance (be it great or ,mall). that is something extended .

A series of propo,itions now fol low. in quick succ" .. ion : '"

I. Space (or the In"erma,t extended) is by its n.ture, and absolutely.

Indivisible. nor Can it be conce ived as divided - whiCh. if division mean •
•eparation and mutual removal of parts. th3l ls. dOv isibility means discerpi.
bility. is. of course. a cogent consequence of the above--quoted corollaries .

2. Sp.ace I. absolutely. and by it' natllre, immovable - motion Indeed

implies dOvisibility .

3. Space Is actually Infonite - which; vice versa. implies. immediately a nd by

necessity. Its abSOlute immovability_

•. Sp.ace i. pure act.

s. Sp.ace is all-containing and all·penetrating.

To p."" the way to further development. that is. to t he identification of

space with an attribute of God, flaphson adds that '"

_ _ . doubt,""sly this is the reaSOn why for the Hebrews the name of this
Infinite WaS Makom; as It is that of St Paul's 'it is nearer to uS than we are
to ourselve,.' It is to thiS Infinite that assuredly must be referred a gre.t
number of p.a"ages of the Holy Scripture " well a' the hidden Wisdom of
the old He brew. about the highes1 and incomprehensible ampl itude of Ihe
Ensoph ; as well a, Ihe teaching of the Gentiles aboullhe all permeant, the
all'embracing elc.

'I' ate
But let us nDt think th.t sp.~ is a kind Dr immate,ial stuff- RaphsDn ,
Dbv<""sly, wants tD DPl>"se spate tD MD,e's sp i,it: ".

It is !><Itent that sp~ ce ;. not penetrated by anything : being Infinite and

undivided it penetrates everything by its innermost essence, and therefore
cannot itself be penetrated by anything, nor even Can It be conceived as
penetrated .

It is clear thus that ".

6, Spate is incDrpDreal.

7. Space is immutable .

•. Space is one in itself, [and therefo re). , . It is the most simple entity, not
composed of .ny thing, and not divisible into any Ihings.

~. Space is ele,nal [becalJ se]lhe actua lly infinite caMol not be , . . in Olher
words, thai il cannot nol be is essential 10 Ihe attualtv infinite , It was
Ihere/o,e always. Thi' meanS that it is, or has, a necessary being, thai the
etern ity 01 the infinite is the same thing as its e , lstence, ~nd that both
imply the Same necessity m

10. Space Is incomp rehensible to us, Uust because it Is inlinlte].

U. Space is mosl perfect in its kind [ge nus].

n. Extended Ihings tan neilher be nDr be cDnte ived WilhDUI it. And
there/D, e

u . Sp~ce Is an a\tribute (namely the Immensity) of the First Cause ,

ThiS I." proposition, according to R.ph~n, can .Iso be de monstrated in a

much easier and more di'ect way: as, Indee d, the First (a use ".

, can neilh .. r give anything thai it doe s not1>"""".

nor be th .. caus .. of
anv perieclion that it does nOl contain (in a certain manner) in the same
degree if nDt in a greater Dne; .nd as the re can be nDthing in rerum natura
e xcept e><tended and vnextended [things]; .nd as we have demonstrated
Ihat e,tensiol\ Is perfection, e, i,ting everywhere, and Is even Infin ite,
 ~ ,..
nec",sary, eternal , etc., ~ loI lows necessarily that it must be found in the
First Cau,e 01 the e .. ended [things[ wfthout which the extended [things)
cannot e~ist . Which it was proper to demonstrate. For the true and
reciprocal reasOn of the omniform. true and actual Infinity is found to
consist in the most absolute unity. just as. vice versa, the highest ruson of
the unity culminates in and is absorbed by the infinity_ For whatever
expresses Ihe actual. and in its kind mOSI absolule, infinity. necessari ly
e"pre"e' the es~nce oflhe Firsl Came, the AU lhor of everythin8 Ihal is.

n is rather curious to ~e Raphson U~ the Carte,lan and even Sp inol i"ic

logic an d pane rns of reasoninl! to promote Henry More', melilphy,ical
doct rine. Vet it cannot be denied that by the~ mean, Raphson succeeded
in giving it a much higher degree of con.istency than it had Irom its author.
Henry More. indeed. could only present us with a list of -titles· applicable
both to space and to God. Raphson show. Iheir inner connection;
mo<eover. by idenl ifying infinity. on the one hand. with highest perfection.
and, on Ihe Olhe r hand, by transforming extension itself Into perfect ion. he
makes the attr ibution of extension 10 God logica lly a' well as metaphysica l-
ly unavoidable.

Having established the aU ribution to the First cause of Infinite space

(which taken abstra ctly Is the obje<:t of geometry. and taken a. reality Is the
very immensity of God). Raphson now goes on to. more careful considera-
tion of their connection:''''

That in [the Fim Cause',) true and essemial presence is a ne<:e.sary

prerequisite as well 01 the essemial being a, of the real existence 01 all
thing' is recognized by a number of contemporaries. Sut, how this ",senti. 1
and intimate presence can be e xplained in the hypothesis 01 the none xten·
sion [of the First cause) without a manifest contradiction has flot yet been
made clear; and it will never be possible to make it clear. Indeed, to be
pre.ent by essence in places dNerse and distant from each othe r, fo'
Insta nce In the globe of the Moon and In that of the earth. and a lso in the
intermediate space. wha t else Is it bUI. precisely. 10 extend oneself? Now.
we have demonstrated that this extension is truly real, indiViSible,
immaterial (or, if you wish, 'piritual). What e lse is there 10 be desired in
order to infer its perfection, ,upreme and inlinite ol~, kind (insofar a, it is
an inadequate concept 01 the Inlinite Bein8)? I do not ,ee, conclude,
Raphson. by what other name than extens ion or space thi' e,sential
omnipresence of the Fir,t Cause could be e xp'essed .

,
The philosophe" were right.. of course, in removing from the f i"t C.u,e
the imperfect, divisible, mate,i.1 extens ion, Yet, by the rejection from it of
all ~ inds 01 e. tension, they opened up the way towards ~t~ eism, Of ,.ther
hylotheism, to. grut many people, n~mely, to those who did not want to
be hemmed in by ingenuous circu its of ambiguous circumlocutions and
embarrassed by ob$(:ure and unintelligible notions and terms. Such are
Hob~s and ,ome others ; because they did not find anywhere in the world
this infinrte and eternal, unextended Supreme Bei ng, they thought that it
did not exist at a ll, .nd boldly proposed their opinions to the world . So too
had some of the .ndents, who insisted upon the incomprehensibility of the
Supreme Being. The e. pl.nation of all these aberrat ions is to ~ sought,
according to R.phson, in the misunderstanding of the veJ)' essence of
e . tension that has been falsely he ld to ~ nece>5aci ly something imperfect
and lacking all unity and reality. In truth, however, extension, as SUCh, is
something positive and denotes a veJ)' real perfection. Accordingly, as
generally '"

. e veJ)'lhing positive and substantial th.t is found in the essenc.e of

things .s their primaJ)' .nd constitutive attribute, suCh .s e xtension in
mMter, etc .. must necessarily ~ really and truly present in the first Cause,
and be In it in a degree of Infinite e. cellence in the manne, most perf«t of
its kind, the infinite extension must be tru ly and really, and not only
metaphorically, .mibuted to the First Cause.

The First Cause appears thus as the twofold source, or cause, of the
perfections of the cre .ted things th.t it com.ins, as the Sc:hoomen say, in
an eminem and nanKendem manner . '"

For (as they sayf ~ gives nothing that it does not have (in a mo,e perfect
manner) in itself, Consequently they .ssert that God is a thin~lng Being:
how could, indeed, a th inking being (li ke ourselves) proceed from a non·
thinking one? But we can reverse the queStion and, with euctly the same
'ight, ask: how can an extended be ing come fonh from an unextended
one? The Schoolmen, of course, want both perfections to ~ contained in
the First Cause in the transcende nt manner , As fOfextension, <ueh as it is in
maner, they justly argue that it is imperfect . We, however, and we can
quote good authorities in ravor of this opinion, for in"ance , Father
Malebranche, 'egard cogitation, or thought Isuch as it Is in hu man minds,
or in the created spiritsf, to ~ just as imperfect in compari\.On to that of
the Abwlutely Infinite Being. And though. perhaps, <ogitation in fon ite
th in king beings i. much mo,e perfect than e.tension, as it i. in matter, it i.
doubtles, rem(Wed by the same interval. that i" by an infin~e one. from
the , ource of these perfections In the Firsl Cause. and. in relation to~. Ihey
are both equally imperfect. '"

The Infonlte amplitude of e" enslon expresses the immense dilluSion of

being in the f irst Cause, or it.> infinite and truly interm inat e es~nce. Thi.
(amplitude] is that originary extensive pe rfe<:tion, which we have found, w
imperfectly (ounterfeited, in mail er .

The infinite (whatever it be) and most perfect energy, e ver,whe re

indivisibly Ihe same. wh ich produ ces an d per-petually conserve, everyth ing
(a nd which this ne ver·,ulfici enUy·to·be·admlred series of Di",ne Ratiocina ·
tion. that is, the whole fabric of natu re. more than sufficientl y demon·
strates to uS a posteriori). is this intensive perfection, which though (distant
from It1 by an Infinite interval In kind as we ll as in degree. we, miserable
examples 01 the inlin ite Archetype, flatter ourselves to imitate.

Aaphson', assertion, are to be ta ke n verbatim' e"ension as SUC h is a

perfection. even gross, materi. 1e xtension . The modus of its rulizat lon In
bodie s is, to be sure. extremely defective, precisely as our discouf'live
thought is an e X"eme lv defective modus 01 cogitation; but. just as in spile
of its dl,(ouf'livenes, our thought is an imitation of, and a paflicipatlon In,
God's (ogilativer",." ,0 in 'pite of its divi.ibility and mobility O<Jr bodily
exte n,ion is an imilation of, and a paflic ipalion in, God', own and perfect
extensiveness,

As for the latter. we ha ve already proved that' ,., .. . th i, intemal or tru ly

innermost locus penet rale s everyt h i~ g by its eSSenCe and, undivide d, is
most Intimately present In everyth l ~g ; that it unnot be, or even be
thought of. as pene trated by any thin&. and t hat It is infinite, most perfect,
one and indivisible . He nce it d e arty appeaf'l by what infi nite interval are
distant from It all other things that have on ly an evane sce nt being and, to
u ~ the elegant expre ssion of Ihe Prophet lI~aiah, 40~, are a. not hing to thi ,
Infinite a nd Eternal and. so to spea~, essent ial (ouol6tat(W~ Be ing. They
' re, as it were. light shadows of the t rue Rea lity and even if they were
ever,whe'e . they would by no means express e ve n In Ihe lowest degree
that Infinit y which we understand to be sup'e mely posilive and sup'eme ly
real In the First Cause .

,
Thu., even if it were infinite ly e)(tended-which it i. not-maner would
never be identical with the divine e xtension and would never b<! able to
become an att ribute Of God, Joseph Raphson i, to such a degree elated and
ravished by the contemplation of the Idea of Infinity that we could apply to
him (though modit.,.ing it somewhat) the express ion used by Moses
MendelSSOhn for Sp inOl a : he Is drunk with infinity_ He goes ,0 far .,-
parado xically-to reject Henry More', reassertion of the fundamental and
primary validity of the category or question: "whe re?" In infinity rt has no
meaning. The infinite is not something, a ,phere, of wh ich the ce nter is
everywhere and the limits nowhere; it i, something of which the center is
nowhere also, something that has neither limits nor center, something in
respeu to which the question ·where?" cannot be asked, as in respect to it
everywhere is nowhere, nullibl, ,..

In respect to this immense locus. system of finite bodies, be It ever so

~rge. Is truly said to be nowhere_ It is indeed utterly immeasurab le; here,
there, in the midd~, etc. vanish in it completely.

Raphson is obviOUSly right. In the inlin ite homOgeneous Space all · place s·
are pertectly equivalent and cannot be distinguished from eaCh other: they
all have the Same · position" in respect to the whole . m

The illustriouS Guericke has very well wrillen about it in his Magdeburglan
Experiments; If in thiS immensity (which has no beginning.. nOr end, nor
middle) ,omebody marched for an infinitely Ions (time), and traversed
innumerable thousand, of miles, he would, in re lalion to this immensity, be
in the .ame place; and if he repeated hi. auion and arrived ten infinitie,
fart he r, he would nevertheless be in th is immenSity in the ,ame way and in
the Same place and would not b<! a single step nearer to the end, Or the
fulfillment of his intention, because In the Immusurable (Immensum)
Ihere is no re l::01 ion . All rela \lons in it are conceived in reference 10
ourselves or to some other created thing_ Indeed this immense locus Is
truly everywhere; and everyt hing that has its finite where? (as they are
wont to spea k about spirits) has it as a relation to some other finile (thing);
but in relalion to the Immen,ity it i'truly nowhe re ,

Yet. if lIaph,on insist •• 0 strongly upon the infi nity of uncreated 'pace in
contradistinction 10 Ihe finitude of Ihe crealed world, it is by no means his
Intention to assign to this I.ller determinate, or even determinable - by
us-d imen,jar,.. Quite the contrary: in infinite 'pace there i, room enough
for a practically indetermin.te .nd indefinitely larse world. Thus he tell> us
that il ' .... . there Can be ab,olutely nO rea,On why [the world ] should
extend itself to the inlioity of Its Immense locus. as it does not pOssess an
absolule plenitude and is compOsed of mo.able parts .. whereas the
absolutely Infinite is utterly ,mmo_able aod absolutely one or full of itself.
[neverthele,sl how great the universe is or how fa' it extendS. is
completely hidden to us.

Raph,on himself would'" . .. ea,i ly believe that it can be imme asurable in

"''Pect to our capacity of understanding, and that we shall never be able to
comprehend it . Indeed, it doe, not follow that we can comprehend by our
cogitatiOn all magnitude that is not infinite, Or that we ,hould ever be able
to depict It In Our mind as so I.rge that the universe could not. in t ruth. be
eveo larger. We can. for instance, conceive a series of oumbers. diSpOsed in
a straight line. to extend from Ihis our e3rth 10 the Oog-SI3I. or to anyone
in the Milky Way or to whate_er _isible limit. the unity 01 these [numbers)
e"pre"ing the distance between the earth and that limit; we can also
conceive this number to be squared, rai,ed to the third, IDurth, and so on,
power, until the index of this power becomes equal to the first number. Or
to its first rOOl; we Can finally con,ider this pOwer as a ,oot of others.
progressing in the same manner. And yet It is, perhaps. as noth ing
compared to the magnitude of the universe which can, and possibly does.
su'pa" the capacity of any finite numbering [mind1. oot onlV ours. and
cannot be cDmprehended bV anv other than its immense Author. Yet it i,
certain that it cannot be infinite in that ab'Dlute manoer in wh ich the First
Cau,e is, in,oiar a, it is conside red a, the immen,e I<>cu , of things.

We soo it thu, quite dea rly : the difference between the infinite and the
fin~e is not a difference betwee n "more' and "Ie,,": it is nOt a quanmative.
but • qualitative one. and. though sludied by mathematicians, it i,
fundamenlally a metaphysical difference. It is this difference which, fully
understood. en.bles us oot 10 lapse inlo the err", of • pantheistic
confUSion of Ihe Crealor God with the created world. and II is this selfsame
diHerence which provides u, with a firm ground for the sludV of Ihe near ly
infin ite variety of created things. Indee d, thDse '"

who will (studY] lhi. part 01 the universe. visible ID us, not onlv in booh,
bul who will diligently read and carefully contemplate [the book of Naturel.
uloing his own observations aod the (Malvsis) of the constitution of the
skies, will hardly fail to recogni,e not only that there can De a plura lity of
WOfld., but that, in truth, there are a nearly infin ite number of'V.tem.,
various laws of motion, e~hibit i "g various (nearly innumerab le) phenome-
na and creature •. Why, even Of) this earth the re are so many and such
varied creatures. endowed with so many diHe~nt faculties. possibly even
with some that are comp letelv unknown to us . How many more could
there be el~where that can be called into being by the Infinite combinative
art of the Infinite Arch itect.

As for us, the onlv doors open to the true c"Sit.tion of the universe are
observation and u pe';e nce. BV the fim we arrive at the '\"item of yjsible
motion. of the world; bV the second we di.cover the force., the (sensible)
qualities and mutual relations 01 bodies. Mathematics (mathematical
phVSICS) and chemistry are the sci ences that .rlse On these empirical
foundat ion •. As for t he "hypotheses" that go beyond these empirical data.
they may be plausible. and even. sometimes. useful for the investigation of
truth; ye tlhey breed prejudices and therefore cause more harm than good_
Hypothesom3nia, the invention of new hypotheses, belongs to poetical and
fictitiou, phi lo<ophy, not to the pursuit of knowledge . f or the 1.1Iter,
according to Raphson. the method establ ished by the supreme philoso-
pher, Newton, in his Principia. consisting in the study of the phenomena of
nature by means of e xperiments and rational mechanics, reducing them to
forces Ihe action of which-though tllelr nature is hidden from us - is
oblliO<lS and patent in the world .

As we see, empiricism and metaphysics, and even a very definite kind of

metaphysics, the creationist, are closely linked together. What other
mean., inde ed, but observation and u perie nce can we po>sibly use for the
.tudy 01 • world Ireelv created by an Inli nite God? Raphson conclude.
there/ore : , ..

Neithe r can Human Philo<ophy theoretically compose the smallest mou~

or the simplest plant, nor can human pra . is build them, much less the
whole unlverse_ These are problems worthy of the Primordial Wisdom and
Power which produces the se things. As lor us, theV offer us only a progre.s
in aeternum of our knowledge both of the thinS' themselve. and 01 the
perpetually ge<>metri,ing God .

'I' ate
GOD AND THE WORLD: SPACE, MATTER, ETHER AND
SPIRIT

Isue Newton

T is difficult to tell what the rea,ons w",e that dete.mined Newton to

I enla'8e, in the latin ed~ion (tran.lation) of hi. Optick>, th ~ number of

Que.ies appended bV him to the thi.d book 01 hi. wo.k, and to indude
among the add~ional ones two rather long and extremely impOrtant and
intere,ting pape.s whkh, In cont.adistinction to the purely technical
Queries 01 the first English edition, deal, not with optical, but with
methodological, epistemological and metaphysical problems . ...

The publication of Raphson'. book could not have been the mOlive: Ihe De
spat'" real i was publi'hed in 1702, the Latin translation of the Optick, in
1706; bul the Engli,h edition appeared in 1704 an d if Newton wanled to
make his position clea r in relation 10 Rapnson's, he could, and Should have
done illn 1704. III, possible, In mv opin ion-though it is only a conjec·
lure-that It was the publication of Or. George (heyne's Philosophkal
P.inciples 01 Natural Religion that gave Newton the incentive, usual ly
lading, to come into the open. ,ot
Now, be this a, it may, it is the", Querie. (which, curiou.1y enough, .ee m
to have been ignOfed by Berkelev) which build the ,ubject 01 the lamo" ,
polemiCS between Leibniz and (Ia.ke. II is, indeed, in these Queries (21 and
22) that, In a muCh "",re preci,e and clea. manner than anyw he.e e l,e -
Ihe General Scholium of Ihe second edillon of the P.incipla nOI e.cluded -
Newton 51ale, hi, concept",ns aboul the purpose and aim of philosophy
and develops, at the same time. his general world·view: an e. "eme lv
interesting and fairl y consistent s""tem of ·corpuscul.r phil~phV·­
al.eadv sketche d in hi. leue" to Bentlev -a"ening !he fundamental unity
of matter and light, and pre.enting the male.i"1 components of the
un;';e.,;e, that is, hard, Indivisible particles, a, constanlly acted upOn by
quite ~ system of various non·mal",i~1 31\f~Clive and .epu ls;';e forces. Thus
Que,..,. 20 128 in the second ed i! ionf uplains at lenglh the phvskal
laS\fonomlcal) inadmissibility of the plenum la completely full space would
oppose such a strong resistance to motion that it would be practicallv
imposoible and would ha ve ceased long ago), as well as the phvsical
la stronomical) admissibility ot the celestial spaces' being tilled with an
e . lremelv thlo, rare and tenuous ether, of which the den s ~v can be made
as small as we wOsh (is oot Our air "at Ihe he<ght of 70, 140, 210 miles
100,000, 100,000,000,000 or 100,000,000,000,000 times rarer, and so 00"
than on the eanh?), which Implies the gran ular structure of this ether, the
existence of a vacuum and the rejeClion of a continuous medium, and
concludes: ,., And for rejeuing such a Medium, we have the Authoritv of
those oldest and most cele brate d PhilO'Sophers of Greece and Phoenicia,
who made a Vacuum, and Atom" and the Gravitv of Atoms, the fi"t
Principles of their PhilosophV; tacitlv attributing GravilV 10 some other
cause than dense Mattee. later Philosophers baniSh the Consideration of
such. cause oul of n.lura l PhHosophv, fe igning Hvpotheses for explaini ng
all th ings mechanicallv, and referring other Causes to Melaphvsicks:
Whereas the main Business of natu ral Phi losophV is to a rgue from
Phaenomena wit hout feigning Hvpotheses, and to deduce Ca uses from
Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which cerlainly is not mechani-
cal; and not onlv to unfold the Mechanism of the World, but chiefly 10
resolve t hese and such li ~ e Questions. What is there in places almost
empty of Matter, and whence is it Ihat the Suo and Planets gravitate
towards one "notner, wilnout dense Matter between them? Whence is it
that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all Ihat Order and
Beauty wh ich we see in the World? To what end are Comets, and whence Is
it that Plane" move all one and the same way in Orb, concentrick, while
Comet' move all manner of way' in Orb, very e xcentrick; and what hinders
the fi)(,d Stars from fa lhns upon one anothe r? How came the Bodie , of
Animals 10 be contrived with so much An, and for what ends were their
several Parts? Was the Eye comriwd withoul Skill in Optkks, and the Ea r
without Know ledge of Sounds? How do Ihe Motions of Ihe Body follow
from the Will, and whence is the insti nct in Animals? Is not the Sensory of
Animals Ih'" place to which the sensitive Substance is present, and Into
which the sensible Spe<:ies of Thing~ are ca"'ied through the Nerves and
Brain, that there Ihe y may be perce lwd by their Immediate presence to
that Sub~tance? And Ihe se thin" being rightlv di~palCh'd, doe~ it not
appear from Phaenomena that there i, a Being incorporeal, hving,
intelligent, omnipre,e nt, who in infinite Space, as it were in hi' Sensof'!,
sees the things the mselve s intimate ly, and Ihoroughly perce ives them, and
comprehends them wholly by their immediale presence to himself: Of
which things the Images onlv ca.,ie d through the Organs of Sense into our
 ~ IH

little Sensoriums, are Ihere "",n and beheld by Ih.t which in u, perceives
and think •. And Ihough every true Step made in this f'hi lo",phy bring' u.
nOt immediately to the Knowledge 01 the first Cau'e. yet it brings uS "".rer
to it, and on th3t account is to be highly valued.

As lor Query l3 (3 1 f. it starts with the question:

Have not the ,mall Particles of Sodies certain Powers, Virtues, or Forces, by
which they att at a d i'tance, not only upon the Rays of Ughl for .eflee!ing,
refracling, and inflecting them, but al,o upon one anolher for producing a
great Part 01 the I'haenomen. of Nature? For it's well known, that Bodies
act one u~n another by the Attr.ctions of Gravity, Magnet i,m, and
Electric ity; and these InStances shew the Tenor and the (ourse 01 Nat u,e.
and make it not imp,oluoble but that the re may be mOre alt,act",,, Powers
th.n these. Fo. N.t u,e is very co nsonant and conformable to he. se lf.

Newton does nOltell u. outright- any mo.e th.n he does In the Principla -
what th",e various "Powers" .re. Just as in the Principi., he le.ve, that
qU"'lion open, though, as we know, he hold. the m to be non ·mechanic.I,
immaterial and even 'spiritual" energy ext'a neOuS to matter:

How these Attractions may be perform'd. I do not here consK:ler. What I

call attraction may be perform·d by impulse. or by some ot her mUnS
unknown to me . I use th.t Word here to signify only In gener.1 any Force
by which Bodie, tend toward, one .nother, what",eve, be the Cause . Fo,
we must le.rn from the Phaenomena of Natu,e what Bodie, attract one
another, and wh.t are the Law. and Propertie s of the Attraction, before we
enquir" the Cause by which the Attraction i. pe rform·d. The Attraction. of
Gravity, M.gneti.m, and Electricity, reach to very sensible d istance., and so
have been observed by .....,Iga, Eves. and there may be other, which ,each
to so ,ma ll distances as hitherto c"'ape ObSeN.tion; and pem.ps elect rical
Attract ion may reach to such small distances. even without being excited
by Friction.

What"",,er the,e "Powers" may be, theV are, in anv case. real force, and
perfe ttly indi'pen'Mlble for the explanation - even a hypothetical one - of
the e.istence of bod;e" th.t i" of the sticking togethe r 01 the m.te rial
partic le. th.t compo.e them; • pu,ely m.terialist ic patte," of nature i.
utterly Impossible (and a purely mate rialistic or mechanistic physics. such
as that 01 Lucretius or 01 Oescaftes. is impossible. too) : ,.,
fhe p.m of .11 homOllene"' h.rd Bodies wh ich fully lou~h one another,
stick together ~ery strongly. And for e xplaining how th is may be. SOme ha~e
in~ented hoo~ed Atoms. which Is begging the Question; and others tell u.

that Bodies .re glued together bv rest. that is. by an occul\ Quality. Or
rather by nothing; and others. that they stick together by conspiring
Motions. th.1 is. by relall~e rest amongst themselves. I had rathe r infer
from their Cohesion, Ihat their Particles attract one another by some Force,
which in immediate Contact i, exceeding strong, at ,mall distance ,
perform, the chymical Operation, above-mention'd. and rea~he, nol far
from the Pa nicle, with any sen,ib le Effect.

It could be argued. of cOurse land was to be .rgued by Leibnil) thai

Newton is wrong 10 stick 10 the d.sslca l .tomic conception of hard.
impenetrable. indivisible last components of matter. a conception which
implies gre.t diffICulties for dynamics . It is indeed. impossible to say whal
w<)<lld happen if IWO absolute"" hard bodies should collide . let uS take. for
instance, two perfectlV ,imil ar and perfectlV hard, that is. absolutelv
un)'ielding and indeformable, bodies, and let the m approach each other-
the dassica l c .... of dynamics - with the same speed. What will Ihe y do
after the impact? Rebound. as elastic bodies would do? Or stop each other
as would be Ihe c.se with Inel.stic ones? As a m."er of fact. thev should
not d" either - vet. tertium non datur. As we know. Oescartes. in order to
preserve the pr inciple of conset".tion of energy, assened the rebounding.
81Jt he was obviou<ly wrong. II we admit. however, that they would ,top
each other, that is, that motion is lost in every impact, would not the
WOfld·machine run down very qu ickly and very quic~IV come to a stop?
Should we not. in orde. to .~oid these diffkulties, discard completely the
atomic conception and admit. for in.tance, that matter is infinitelv divisible
Or thai its "last" compOnents are not hard atom. but soft, Or elastk.
parlicles. or even ' physical monadS' ? Newton. Iherefore. continues'"

All bodies seem to be composed of hard Panicles: for otherwi se flu ids
wO<Jld not congeal; a. Wate r, Oi l•. Vinegar. and Spirit or Oil of Vitriol do by
freeling; Mercury by fumes of lead; Spirit of Nitre and Mercury. by
di""lv ing the Mercury and evaporating the Flegm; Spi rit of Wi ne and Spirit
of Urine, by de Oe gming and mi.ing the m; and Spirit of Urine and Spirit of
Sail, bV .ubliming them togethe r to make Sal·amoniac. Even the R.y. of
light seem to be h.rd Bodie.; I", otherwise they would nOI 'ela in dillerenl
Propenies in their different Sides. And the'efore Hardne" may be reckon'd
 ~ '"
the Property of all uncompounded Matter. At le.st. thi' ,,,em, to be a.
evident • • the unrror",llmpenetrability of Matter. for all Bodie •• '0 far.,
Experience reaches. are either hard. or may be harden'd; and we have no
other Evidence of unive rsal Impenetrability. be sides a large Experience
without an uperimental hception. Now Jf compound Bodies are so very
hard as we find some of them to be. and yet are very porous. and consist of
Parts which are onlv laid logether; the simp le Particles which are Void of
PQres. and were never vet divided. mu>1 be much harder. For such hard
Particles being heaped together. can scarce touch one another in more
than a few Points. and t he refore must be separable bV much Ie.. Force
than i, requisite to brea k a ,olid Particle, whose Parts touch in all the Space
between them. wfthout anv Pore. or Interstice, to weaken the ir Cohesion .
And how such very hard Particles which are only laid together, hold and
that so firmly.s thev do. w~hout the ."istance of something which causes
them to be attracted or pre5S'd towards o ne another, is very dilflcult to
conceive .

This "something," as we know. and as it is clear from the very tex" t am

quoting, cannot be other. ,mailer. "ethe real" panicle,. at lea" not in the
last analvsis, because the Same quest ion. that is. the question about their
interaction, Can obviously be raised concern ing the "ethereal" particle,
themse !>;es. and cannot be answered by postulating an ultra·ether. which
moreover. would imply the e xistence of an ult"·ultra...,ther. and so on_
Forces of an raction. and a lso of repulsion are therefore fundamenlal.
though non-mater"'l. elemenu of nature; m

There are Iherefore AIIent' in Nature able 10 make the Particles of Bodie s
stick together by very ,trong Attraction •. And it is the Business of experi·
mental PhiloSOphV to find them out.

Th" , we ,ee it once more : good. empi'ic~ 1 and e xperimenta l natur.1

philosophy does not exclude from the f3bric of the world and the furniture
of huven immateri31 0' "Msmate,lal forces_ It on ly re nounces Ihe
discussion of Inelr nature. and. dealing with them simply as causes of Ihe
oMeNable effects. Ifea" them- being a malhematica l nalur~1 philoso-
phy- a, mathematical cau,es or forces. that i•• as mathemalical con~epts
or relations. It is. on the contrary. the a priori philosophV of the classical
Greek atom ists. who 3t least r""ogni,ed the existence of void spac~ and
probably even the non-mechanical character of g'avitv. and of course that
of Oescartel. Ihat is gUilty of th is e'Clusion and of the Impossible attempts
to explain ""e""thing by matter and motion. As for NeWlon him ... lf. he is so
deeply convinced of the re.lity of the ... imm. teri. l. and, in this sen ....
transphy,ic31 lorces. that this conviction en3bles him to devise. mOst
e . lraordina"" and truly prophetic picture 01 the general structure 01
m3te,ial beings: , ..

Now Ihe ,m ane,1 Particles 01 Maner may C(lhere by Ihe ,tronge"

Attraction •• and compo ... bigge, Particles 01 weaker Vinue; and many of
the,e may cohere and compose bigger Particle, who ... Virtue i, still
_ake •• and so on for di""" Successions. umilthe P.ogre"ion end in the
biggest P.rticles on which the Operation. in Chym istry. and Ihe Colou" of
natur.1 Bodie. depend, and which by cohering compo.e Bodies of a
sensible M3gnitude. If the Body i. C(lmpact.• nd bends or yields inward to
Pression without any . Iiding of its Part •• it i. hard 3nd "I • • tick. relurning to
~s Figure with a Force rising from the mUIU31 Attraction of its Pans. If the
Parts slide upon one anolher, the Body i, malleab le o •• oft. If Ihey ,lip
ea,ily. and are of a fit Si'e 10 be agitated by Heat . and Ihe Heal Is big
enough 10 keep Ihem in Agitation. the Ilody i, fi uid; and if it be apt to $lick
to Ihing,. it i, humkl; and the Drop' of ""e"" fluid affect a round Figure by
the mutu31 Attraction of their P.rIS, .s Ihe Globe of the Ea rth and Sea
affects a round Figure by Ihe mutual Attraction 01 its Parts by Gravity.

Moreover, " I ha",! already hinted before, Ihe admission of various

immate.ial forces acting upon or dlst.ibuled around Ihe bodies o. particles
a<C(I.ding 10 'trict mathematicallaw,- or to expres, It in a more modern
way : the admission of the existence of different field, of forces connected
with bodies and pan icles-enable, us. and thaI i, an invaluable advantage.
to superimpo,e them one upon Ihe olher. and e""n to transform Ihem into
their cont •• ries . Indeed, 197

Since Met.l. dissot>vcd in Acids att ract bUI a small quantity 01 the Acid.
their attractive Force can 'each but to a sm all distance from them. And as
in Algebra. where allirmatlve Qu.ntities v.ni sh and ce.se. the'e negative
ones begin; 50 In Mechanicks. where Am.ction cease,. Ihe'e a repulsive
Vi,tue oughlto succeed. And Ihatthere i, such a Virtue ...... ms to follow
from the Reflexion, and InflexiollS of the Rays of lig ht . For the Rays are
",pelle<! bV Bodies in both these Ca"". withoulthe immediate Contacl of
the renecting o. inflecting Body. It ,eems .Iso to follow f.om Ihe Emi..ion
of l ight; the Ray 50 soon as it is shaken off from a ,hining Body by the
vibrating Motion of Ihe Parts of Ihe Body. and ge" bevond Ihe .each of
 ~ IH

being driven awa y with ,,"ceeding great Velocity. For that Force
A1tr.~t i on,

which i. sufficient to turn it back in Refle.i on, may be sufficient to emit it. It
seems also to follow (rom the Product ion of Air and VapOur. The Part"les
when they are sha ken off from Bodies by Heat or Fermentation. So soon as
they are beyond the reach of the Attraction of the Body, receding from it.
and .Iso from one another with great Strength. and keeping at • dist.nce.
so as sometimes to ta ke up abO\le" Million of Times more space than they
did before in the form of a dense Body. Which 'a>l Contraction and
Expansion seems unintel li gible. by feigning the Particu,s of Air to be spring)'
and ramous, or rolled up He Hoop', or by any other means than a
repulsi,e Power .

Thus, the admission of immaterial "'irtues" offers uS an immed;'te and

elegant solution of the mo.t ImpOrtant and crucial problem of elasticity. Or
' springiness" of bodies; and vice versa. Ihis very solution demonstrates the
impossibility of e xplaining th is property of bodies by purely me<:hanical
mean, la, Des<:arte, and BOY~ tried to dol and therefore confirm, the
insulhciency of pure materi.lism not only for phi losophy in genera l, but
al,o for natu ral philosophV. As a matler of fact, without the immaterial
Powers and Virtues. there would not be any Nature to philosophize about.
because there would be no COheSion, nO unity and no motion; Or if there
were. at the beginning. it would have ceased long ago. On the contrary. if
we admit the doubu,. material as well as immaterial. structure of Nature .
,.. Nalure will be very conformable to her ,elf and very simple .
performing all the great MOlions of the heavenly Bodie s by the Atlraction
of Gravity which int ercedes those Bodies, an d almost all the sma ll ones of
their Particles by ,ome other atlractive and ,epe lling Powers which
intercede the Particles. The vi. inertiae is a p ...ive Principle by which
Bod",s persist in the ir Motion or Rest, receive Motion in proportion to the
Force impressing it. and resist a~ much as they are resisted . By this Priocipl"
~Ione there neVl':r could have been any Motion in the World . Some other
Principle waS necessary for putting Bodies Into Motion; and now they are in
Motion. some olhe' Principle is nece ssary for conseflling the MOlion . For
from Ihe various Composition of IWO Mollons, 'ti5 very cenain that Ihe re is
nOl always the .ame quantily of Motion in Ihe World. for if two Globes
jo ined by a sle nder Rod , reva"'e about their common Center of Gravit y
with an uniform Motion, while that Ce nter move, on uniformly in a right
Line drawn in the Plan e of th"; r ci rcul.r Motion; the Sum 01 the Motions of
Ihe two Globes. as oflen as Ihe Globes are in the right Line described by
thei' common Cenler of Gravily. will be bigge< than the Sum of thei'
Motions, when thev are in a line perpendicular to that right line_ BV this
Instance ~ appea .. that Motion mav be got or lost. ,.. But by rea<on of the
Tenadtv 01 Fluids, and Andtion 01 their I'arts, and the Weakness of
Ela ,ticitv in Solids. Motion is much more apt to be lost than got, and i.
always upon the Dec~y. For Bodies which are either absolutelv hard, or so
sol! as to be void of Elast icity, will not rebound from one another.
Impenetrab ility ma ke~ them only stop. If two equal Bodies meet direct ly In
"acuo, they will by the laws of Motion stop whete they meet, and Io.e all
their Motion, and remain in rest, unle " they be elastick, and rece ",e new
Motion from the ir Spring.

Yet.. even if they be ela.tic, they cannol be absolutely ela.tic, and thu" bv
each and every impact, SOme motion (that is, momentum) will be lost . And
Jf Ihe world were full, a5 the (.artesiaM want it to be, then the "vortical"
motion assumed by Del-cartes would cease very quickly, because'" . ..
unless the Maller were void of all Tenacity and Attrit ion of Parts, and
Communication of Motion (which is not to be supposed,) the Motion would
constantly decay. Seeing therefor" the variet'! of Motion that we fond in the
World is always decrea.ing, there is a neces"IV of conse",ing it and
recru iting it by acli..., Principles, that is, in the last analvsis bv Ihe constant
action in the world of the Omnipresent and AII· powerful God. Newton
therefore continues: 10'

All these things being conslder'd, It se ems probab le to me, that God In the
Beginning form'd Matler in solid, massv, hard, impenetrable, moveable
Particles, of such Si,es and Figures, and with SIlch other Properties, and in
such Proportion to Space, as mmt conducted to the End for which he
form'd them; and thalthe,e primiti..., Particle . being Solids, are incompar'
ably harder than any porou, Bodie, compounded of them; even '0 very
hard, as ne...,r to wear 0<" break in pieces; nO ordinary Power being ab le to
divide what God him,elf made One In the first Creation. While the Particle,
continue entire, they may compose Bodies of one and the Same Nature and
Te>!u re In all Ages: But should they wea r away. or break in pieces, the
Nature of Thing:$ depending on them, would be changed. Water and Earth,
compmed of old worn Particles and Fragments of Part icle., would not be of
the same Natu re and TeXlUre now, with Water and Earth compO'<ed of
entire Particles in the Beginning. And therefore, that Nature may be lasting,
the Change. of corporeal Thins, are to be placed only in the variou,
Separations and new Associations and Motions of these permanent
Particles; compound Bodies being apt to break, not in the midst of solid
Particle., but where those Particle, .re I. id together, .nd on ly touch in •
lew Point •.

~ seems to me larther. that these Parti cle. have not only a Vi. Ine rtiae.
accompanied with such pass .... e laws of Motion as naturally result from
Ihat fo<ce. bul also Ihat Ihey are moved by certain active Principles.

and it is Ihe action ollhe'e principle" or, more exactly, the aClion of God
bV mean, oflhe,e principle , Ihal give, to Ihe world it, ,trueWre and order,
and it i, Ihi. structure .nd order Ihal enable. u, 10 recognize Ih.l lhe wodd
i•• n effe ct of choke, and nol chance Or nece .. il'; . Natural philo'OIIhy - at
lea" the good one. that is, the Newton i. n and not the Cartesian - thu,
transcends itse lf and leads us to God, ""

. by the help of these Principles. all material Things seem to have been
composed of Ihe hard and solid Particles above·mention·d. various ly
aSSOCOated in the firSI Creation by the Counsel of an Inlelligenl Agent. fo< il
became him who created them to set them in order. And if he did so, it's
unphilo.ophica l lo .eek for any olher Origin of the World , Or 10 prete nd
Illal it mighl arise out of Chaos by the mere laws of Nature; though be ing
Once form' d, it may continue by t hose laws for many Ages. for while
Comets move in very excentrick Orbs in ali manner 01 Positions. blind fate
could never make all Ihe Planets move one and the ... me way In Orbs
concentriCk.•ome i ncon,iderab~ Irregularit ies e«e pted. which may have
ri,e n from the mUlual Actions of Cornel< and PlanelS upon one another,
and which will be .pt 10 increa,e, tilithi' System wanl5 a Reformalion .
Such a wonderful Uniformity in the Planetary System must be a llowed the
Effect of Choice. And '0 must the Unifo rmity in the Bodie. of Animal •....

All that, and much mOre besides. 10' ... can be the eflect 01 nothing else
than the Wisdom and Skill of a powerful ever' living Agent. who being in all
Places. is more able by his Will to move the Bodies within his boundless
uniform Sensor ium, and Ihe'eby 10 form and 'elorm t he Parts of the
Universe. than we are by our Will to move the pan, of ou r own Bodies. And
yet we are nol to cons ider the World as the BodV of God, or Ihe several
Pam there of, a. the Part' of God. He is an uniform Being, void of Organ.,
Members or Pam, .nd they are hi. Creat ure. subordinate 10 him, and
. ubservie nt to his Will; and he is no more the Soul of them , th.n the Soul 01
Man is the Soul 01 the Species of Things carried through the O'gans of
Sense Into the place of its Sen.."tion. where II perceives them by means of
~, immediate Pr",ence, without the Intervention of any third thing. The
Organs 01 Sense are not lor en.bling the Soul to perceive the Specie. 01
Things in its Sensorium, but only for conveying them thither; and God has
no need of such Organs, he being everywhere present in the Things
themselves. And since Space is divisib le in infinitum. and Matter is not
necessarily in .11 places. it may be .Iso allow'd that God is able to crute
Particles of Matter of several SI,es and Figures, and in several Proportions
to Space, and perh.ps of different Oensities and Force', and thereby to
vary the Law, of Nature, and make World. of .everal sort. in several Part.
of the Universe . At lea", I "'" nothing 01 Contradiction in allthi', condude,
Newton , who could have added that in the Principia he had already
shown-without insisting upon it-th.t the inverse square law of attrac-
tion, the actu.1 law 01 this world, waS by no mU nS the only possible -
although the most convenient one - and that God, had He wanted to. could
have adopted another . As he cou ld have quoted his friend Robert lkIyle
who believed that God h.d .ctua lly tried out, In different worlds. different
laws of motion; Or Joseph Raph.on who had Just e xpressed the same
opinion. Yet he did no1 . As he dkl no1 quote Henry More when he made
infinite space the ,ensorium of the neverthele<s transcendent God.

'I' ate
 ABSOLUTE SPACE AND ABSOLUTE TIME: GOD'S
FRAME OF ACTION

Berkeley & Newton

T i, ce rtainlv Raphson', interpretation, or, it would be bener to , av,

I Raphson', di,do,ure of the metaphv,ical background of Newtonianism,

that Bishop Berkelev had in mind, when, in 1HO, in his Principles of
liuman Know ledge, he not onlv made" vigOrous a!ta ck upon its fundamen'
tal concepts, absolute 'p<lce and absolute time. but also pOinted out the
great dange r tnat thev implied from the theological point of vie w_ One of
the chief adv3nlage, of the radical Immaterialislic and sensualistiC
empiricism advocate d bV Berkeley;', according to nim, the possibility it
give. u, of gening rid of the.., entitie., asserted in "" . . . • certain
celebrated treatise of mechanics : in the entranCe of which justly admired
treatise, time, Sp<lU and motioo, are distingu ished into absolut e and
relative. true and app<lrent, mathematical and vulgar; wnlch distinction, a,
it is at large explained by the autnor, dOlh suppose IhGSe quantities te> have
an exiltence without the mind; and that they are ordinarily conceived with
rel ation to sensible things, to which nevertheless, in their own nature, they
bear no relation at all.

"Thi, ce lebrated author," ~ontinue. Berkeley, who offers us a very precise

account (largely in Newton ', word,1 of the theory he i, about to critici , e,
holds that . . there is an absolute 'pace, which being unperceivable to
sense, remains in itse lf . imilar and immovable. and relative spau to be the
meaSure thereof. which being movable, and defined by its situation in
respect of sensible bodies, I. vu lgarly taken for immovable space .

Ilerke leV, 01 course, does not accept thiS theory; an unpefceivable reality is
untninl<able and "philosophic considerations of motion doth not implv tne
being of absolute space distinct from what is perce ived by sense and
related to bodies," Newton's assertions to the contrary notwithstand ing.
Moreover. and though last, not least, ...

,.
What i, here laid down seems to put an end to aU those dispute, and
diffkun ies which have sprung up amongst the learned C(mcerning the
nature at pure spau,. Sut the ch iet advantage .risine tram ~ is, that we a re
freed tram that dangerous dilemma, to which se.....,r31who have employed
their thooghts on this subject Imagine themselves reduced. to wit. of
thinking either that real space is God. or e lse thM there Is something beside
God which Is eternal. un-created. Infinite. Indillil ible, Immutable. Both of
which may ju"ly be thought p<!rnicious and absurd notions. It is <enain
that not a few divines, as well as philosophers of great note, have, from the
difficuny they found in conceiving e ither limit or annihilation of 'pace,
concluded it must be divine. AIld ,orne of late have set them,ell/e,
partic ularly to show, that the incommunkable attributes of God agree to it.
Which doctrines, how unwonhy Soever it ma y seem of the divine nature,
yet I do not see how we Can get dear of it, so long as .,....., ad here to the
received opinions.

Berkeley's anack, though it ce rtainly did not affect Newton a, strongly as

was thought by some of his histori.ns, seems nevertheless to halle been
the reason, or at least one of the reasons - the second being leibni,'s
accusation of introdUCing, by his theory of univers..1 gravitation, the use of
• senseless occult qua lity Into natural philosophy 100 - that Induced Newton
to add to the second edition of his Prlncipi. the famous General 5chGi lum
which upresses so forcefu lly the religious conceptions that crown and
support its empirico·mathematica l construction and thus revea l the real
meaning of his "philosophical" melhod. It seems to me rat her probable
that he wanted to di<sociate himself from Ihe somewhat compromising
allie, hinted al by Berkeley "" and, by expo,ing hi' views in his own
manner, to demonstrate- as Bentley had already anempted to do- that
natural philosophy, that is, hi. natural philosophy, lead, neces... riiy not to
the denial but to the affirmation of God's e . istence and 01 his action in the
wodd . At the ... me time he obviously does not want to disavow or reject
them, and in spite of Berkeley's warning, he asserts not only the e . istence
of absolute lime and space bUI also their necessary connection with God.

Compared 10 the statements made by Newton in his letter< to Bentiey-

and much mOfe so if compare d to Bentley 's e laboration of these state-
ments and Newton', own development, in the Queries of t he Opt icks-
Newton 's pronouncements in the Gene ral Scholium, at lea't those
concerning God 's action in the world, are not very e.plicit. Thus, Newton
does nOI teU uS anything about the necessity of God's continuous can·
cour", lor tne preservation 01 its ,tructure; he ",em, even to adm it that,
onut started, the motion of the heavenly bodies could continue lorever; it
is only at theic beginnin8 that God's direct interve ntion appears ind;s pens-
able. On the other hand, tne actual structu re 01 the w<xk! (t hat Is, 01 the
solar system) is, of course, asserted to be the resutt of a conscious and
intelligent cnolce: >01

. in tne ce lenial spaces wnere tne re .. no air to resist their motions, all
bodie, will move with the gre aten Ireedom; .nd tne planet< and come t,
will const.ntly pursue tneir revolut ions in orbits given in kind and pOSition,
according 10 the law, above explaine d; but though tnese bodie, may,
ind eed, continue in their orbit, bVthe mere I.ws 01 8ravitv, yet they couk!
bV nO meanS have at first derived the regular position 01 the orbits
themselves f,om tho'" laws .

The si. primary planets a(e revolved aboul Ihe sun In ci'des concentric
with the sun, and with motions directed lowa,ds Ihe same parts, and
almost in tne same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the ea rth, Jupiter,
and Saturn, in circle , concentric with the m, with the ,ame direction of
motion, and nearly in the planes 01 the orbits 01 tho", pl.nets; but it is not
to be conceived that mere mech.niul causes could give birth to so many
regular motions, since the comets range over 311 parts of Ihe heavens in
very eccentric orbits; for by thaI kind of motion Ihev pass easily through
the orbs of Ihe planets, and with g'eat rapid ito,; and in their apheliQrls,
wnere they move the ,lowen, and are det ained the longe st, they recede to
the greate't di'tance, from each othe r, .nd hence sufler the le.<I
disturbance from tneir mutual attraction., Thi' mo't Deautilul system of
the ,un, planets, .nd comets, could only proceed from tne coume l and
dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And ;rthe fixed ,tars are the
centres of other like systems, the"" being lormed by the like wise counsel,
must be all subje ct to the dominion of One; e,peciall y since the light 01 the
fi xed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from e_ery
system light passes Into alilhe other systems; and lest Ihe systems of Ihe
fi xed sta .. should, by Ihelr gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those
systems at immense distances Irom one anothe r.

Newton', God i, not mere"" a "ph ilo,ophical" God, the impe"onal and
uninte rested First Cau,e of the Aristote lian" '" the -lor Newton-utter ly
Indilferenl and world-ab",nt God of Descartes_ He is-or, in any case,

,
Newton wants him to be-the s<blical God, the effective Ma"e r and Ruler
olthe world created by him:'"

This Being go.....,rns a!lt hings, not as the soul 01 the world, bul as lord O';er
all; and On account 0/ his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God
n(1l1To. p6.rwp or Universal Ruler: for God i. a relat ive word, and has a
respect to ,eNaMs; and Deity Is the dominion 01 God not O';er his own
body, as tho~ imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over
seNan" , The Supre me God i, • Being eternal, infinite, .b,olutely perfect;
but a being, howe\ler perlea, without dominion, cannot be , aid to be lord
God; for we .. y, my God, your God, the God oll".e l, the God of Gods, the
lord af lard.; but we da nat say, my Eternal, your Eternal, the Eternal 01
Israel, the Eternal of Gods: we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect these
arc tilles whkh have nO re.pect to servants. The word God usua lly s ignifies
Lord; but every lord is nol a God. It is Ihe dominion of a .p irilual being
which con.titule•• God: a Irue. supreme. or imaginary God . And from thi.
true dominion II follows Ihat the true God is a lilling. intelligent. and
powerful Being; and from his other perfection" that he is supreme, or most
perfect , He i, ete rn.1 .nd infinite , omnipotent and omni,cient; that is, his
duration re aches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to
Infinity: he governs. Uthings, and know. all thingS that . re or can be done.

HiS duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his pre.ence from in~ nity to
Infinity , .. the Newton ian God is, patently, not above time and space: His
eternity is sempilernal duration, Hi, omnipresence is infinite e.:tension .
Thi, being so, it is clear why Newton insiSl" 'w

He i, not e ternity and infinity, but ete rnal and infinite ; he is nat durat ion ar
sl>ilee, but he endures and is present . And yet, like the God of Henry More
.nd of Joseph Raphson, he not only "endures forever and is everyw he re
present"; but ~ i. "by existing always and everywhere" th.t "he constitute.
dur",ion and .pace" II is nOI .urprising there/ore thaI '" since every
particle of space is always, and every Indivisible moment of duration is
everywhere, ce rtaln lv the Make' and Lord of allth in£$ cannot be nEve r and
nowhere. Every $001 that ha' perception i', though in different tim", and in
different organs of ~ n,e and molion, 'till the ,"me indilli, ible person.
There are given ,uee"" ive pan. in duration, coexi"ent I>iIm in 'pace, but
neither the ane nor the other in the person of a man, or his thinking
principle; and much less can they be found in the th inking sub.tance of

, ,
God. E""rv man, .1> far a, he "a thing that has perception, is I>ne and the
same man during hi' whl>le lile, in all and e ach 1>1 hi' I>rg.n. 1>1 ,en.e .

And that. '"

He is omnipresent not virtu.II V onl~. but a lso substantially; for virtue

canom subsi51 without substance. In nim a'e all things contained and
moved; ~t neither .Hect, the other: God suffers nothing from the motion
of bodie,; bodie, find no ,e,illance from the omnipre,ence of God. It i,
allowed by all that the Supreme God e xill' neces,arily; and bV the ",me
nec""ity he exi,t. alwaV" and everywhe re.

Thus "in Him we live, we mOve and we are: not metaphoricall v Or

metaphysically as 51. Pau l meant it but in the mo,t WI>per and literal
meaning of these words.

We -that is. the world-are in God; in God's space, and in God', time. And
it i, because of thi' ubiquitous and sempiterna l co-presence with Ihing'l
that God i, able to e xerd,e Hi, domin ion upon Ihem ; and il i, thi'
dominio n or, mOre e..clly, the effect Of this dominion that reveals to uS His
otherwi,e unknowable and incomprehensible essence: ,11

We know him onlV bV his mOSI wise and excelle nt contrivances of things.
and final cau,es; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and
adore him on accounl of his dominion: for we adore him as his seNants;
and a god without dominion, prOVidence , and final cau,e" i, nothing el,e
but Fate an d Nature. Blind metaphV"ical n"ceSl ity, which i, certainly the
,ame alway, and everywhe re, 'I>uld produce no variety of thing •. All that
diversity of natural thing ' wh ich we find su ited to diffe rent times and
places could arise from nothing but the ide3' and will of a Be ing neces",rily
ex," ing. But, by way 01 allego,.,.. God is said to see. tl> speak, to laugh. to
love, to hate. to desire. to gi"". 10 receive. 10 rejoice, 10 be ang,.,., to fight
to frame, to work. to build; for .11 our notions of God are ta ken f,om the
ways of mankind by 3 certain similitude, whiCh, tnough not perlect, has
some likeness, howt'ller. And thus much concernin8 God; to diseourse of
whom from the appearance, olth;ng" doe, certainly belon8 to Natural
Phil",ophy.

ThuS much for God; 0 ' fo' BerkeleV· As for g'avitV, or for leibni •. NeWlon
e' plains that he does notlnlroduce into philoSOllh y" occult qualities· and
magical «Iu,e" but, on the contrary, remicts hi' inve,tigation to the study
and analy,i, 01 observable, p.atent phenomena, renouncing, at least lor the
time being, the causal e xplanation of t he e xperienHally and experimentall y
established laws: '"

Hitherto we have explained the phenomena 01 the heavens and of our sea
by the power of gravity, but have not yet a,Sig ned the cau,e of thl5 power_
This i, certain, that il must proce ed from a cause that pe netrate, to the
very centre, of the sun and planets, wilhout suffering the least diminution
of ilS force; thaI operale, nol according to Ihe quantity of the surfaces of
the particle. upon which it act, (a, mechanical causes used to do), but
according to the quantitr 01 the ,olid maner whkh they contain, and
propagates its virtue on all ,ides to immense distances, decreaSing always
as the inverse square of the distances .. .. But hitherto I have not been able
to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I
feign no hypothese,; for whatever i, nOI deduced from the phenomena i,
to be called an hypolhe~s; and hypothese,. whether metaphy,ical or
phVSic.l. whether of occult qualitie< or mechan ical, have no place in
experimental philosophy. In Ihi' philo,ophy particular propo,ition, are
inferred from the phenomena. and afterwardS rendered genera l by
induction. Thu, it waS t hat the impenetrability. the mobil~y. and the
impulSive force of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation. were
discovered_ And 10 uS it is enough Ihat gravity does really e. iS!. and act
according to the law, which We have expla ined, and abundantly Serve, to
account for aill he motion< of the cele,Hal bod ie., and of our sea.

"I feign no hypothese, . ..• '" Hypothese, non fingo ... a phrase that
became extre mely famou, and also like all, or nearly all, ce lebrated
utterances torn out of the ir conte xt, completely perverted in its meaning . "I
feign nO hypotheses ." Of COurse not; why Should Newton "feign hypothes-
es: that is. fictitious and fanc iful conceptions not deduced from phenome-
na af1d having therefore no basis in reality) Hypotheses, ·whether of occult
qualilie, or mech.nical h.ve no place In e' perimef1tal ph ilosophy"-ol
Coorse nol, '5 this kind of hypothesis h , by definllion, either false or at
le.st unable to conduce 10 experimenls and be checked .nd confirmed (or
disproved) by the m. Gravrty is not a hypolhesi" or an "occult" quality. The
existence of gravity, insofar a, it i, a statement about the behaviour of
bodie., or about the existence of centripetal lorce, in consequence 01
which bod ies, instead 01 moving In SIr.lgM IIMS (as they Should, according
to the principle or law 01 inertia). are deflected and move in cu~" is a
 ~ . 67

patent f.ct; the identification of the cosmical "Io"e" which determine, the
motion 01 plane" w~h that in consequence to which bodies lall, that i"
move towards the center of the earth, is certa inly an important disco~ry .
But the assumpt ion of the existence in bodies of a certain force which
enables them to act upon other bodies and to .ttr.ct Ihem is not a
hypothesis either. Not even one th.\ makes use of occult qualities. It Is
mere and pure nonsense .

As fo, "mechanical" hypotheses, that is. those of Descartes, Huygen, and

lei bni" they ha~ no place in experimental philosophy simply ~(aU5e they
attempt 10 do something that cannot be done, .s Newton hints rathe,
broadly, indeed at the very beginning 01 the General Scholium where he
shows that "the hypothesis of vortices is pressed with many difficulties."
Me<:hanical - feigned - hypotheses. as his pupil and ed itor Roger Cotes
expl.ins in hi. famou. pref.ce to the .econd edition of the Principia. are
the special and lavorite d ish of the Cartes;"ns, who. mo reover. are
conduced by them into the assumption, 01 Irulv and 'eally "OCCUlt"
properties and realilies. Thu. ha,,;ng uplained Ihe "erilily of AriSlotelian
and scholastic philosophy 01 natu,e, COles continue s: ".

Others have endeavored to apply their labor, to greater advantage by

reject ing thaI u.eless medley of word, lof tne scholastic nalural philoso·
phy) _They assume thaI all maner is homogeneous, and thallhe variety of
forms which is see n In bodies arl,es from ,ome ve,...,. plain and simple
rel at ion. of the component particles. And by going from ,imple thing' to
tho,e wh ich a re mo,e compounded they certainly proceed 'ighl, if Ihey
attribute to those prima,...,. rel ations no other ,elalions than those which
N.wre ha, given. But when they lake a libi!rty of imagining at ple asu,e
unknown figures and magn iludes, and uncertain siluations and mol ions of
the parts, a~d moreove, of supposing <xcult fluids, Ireely pervading Ihe
pores 01 bodies, endued with an ali· perlormlng ,u blility. and agitated with
occul\ motions, Ihey run out inlo dre.ms and chimer ••. and neglect Ihe
true constitulion of things, wh ich certalnlv is not to be derived from
fa llaciouS conjectures. when we can scarce reach It by Ihe moSI certain
oMervations. TIl",e who assume hypot hese. as lirsl principle. of thei'
spe<:ulations, although they alterwards proceed with the greatest accu racy
from those princip les, may indeed form an ingenious romance, but a
rom.nce it will.till be.

'I' ate
As lor Leibniz, whom Cote. doe, not mention by name, ~et dea rly, though
>omewhat parodi,tkally, hims at, he is no bener than the Carte.ian.; or
perhaps even worse, as he assumes the existence around "the comelS and
planets .. . 01 atmospheres .. . whkh by thei r own nature move around the
sun and describe conic sections" Ian unmistakable allusion to the "harmon.
k circulation" of the great German mathematkian and arch·foe of
Newton ). a theory which Cote, declares to be a "Iable" as fantastic as that
01 the Cartesian vortice s. and 01 which he presents a rat he< witty and biting
parody: ."

Galileo has .hown that when a stone projected mov", in a parabola, it'
deflection into that curve Irom its rectilinea r path i. occasioned by the
gravity of the stone towards the earth, that is, b~ an occu lt quality. But nOw
somebody, more cunning than he, may cOme to explain the cause after this
manner. He will suppose a cerlain subtile matter. not discernible by our
sight. our tOUCh, or any other of our senses, which foils the spaces wh ich are
near and contiguous to the surface of the unh, and that this mauer Is
carried with different directions, and various. and olten contra'l, motions,
describing paranolk curve •. The n see how ea.ily he may account for the
dellection 0/ the stone above spoken 0/. The Slone, says he, floats in this
subtile fluid. and following It. motion, can't choose but describe the same
figure. But the lI uid moves in parabo lic curves, and therefore the stone
must move in a parabola. of course. Would not the acuteness of this
philosopher be thought very e xtraordinary. who could deduce the
appearance, of Nature from mechanical causes, maUer and motion, so
clearly that the meanest man may unde<'tand it? Or indeed .hould not we
smile to see this new Galileo taking so much mathematical pains 10
introduce occult quaHties into phHosophy, Irom whence they have been so
happily excluded? But I am a,hamed to dwell so long upon trilles .

Trines? As a matter of bct. we are not dealing with trilles. The use of
"hypotheses" co nstitutes, indeed, a deep and dangerous pe(\tersion of the
ve'l munlng and aim of natural philosophy : ... The business of true
philosophy Is to derive the nature, of th ing<; from causes truly existent, and
to inquire afte r those law, on which the Great Creator actually chose to
found this mo51 beaut iful frame of the World, not those by which he might
have done the ,ame, had he >0 ple a,ed .

~et the partisans of mechankal hypotheses, that is, once more, the
Cartesians- and Leibnll-not only forget this fundamental rule, they go
much fan her and, by the denial of void space as impossib le, they impose
upon God a cenain determinate manner of action, restrict hi. power and
I<eedom, and su bject him, thu., to necessity; finally, they deny altogether
that the world wa> freely created by God. A teaching not only infamous.
but also false (as Newton has shownl : ".

Therefore Ihey wi ll al la,l sink inlO Ihe mire of Ihal infamoo, herd who
dre3m Ihal .lIlhing, are governed by fate and nol by providence, and Ihat
mailer exist' by Ihe nece ssity of its nalure alway, and everyw here, t>e ing
infin ile and elern.l. BUI ,uppo, ing Ihe se Ihing', il must be also everywhere
uniform; for variety of form, i, entirely inconsi stent with nece .sity. It must
be al,o unmove<!; for if it be nece .... rily move<! in any determinate
direction, with any determinate velOCity, ~ will by a li ke necessity be moved
In a different direction with a different velocity: but it Can never move in
different directions with diHe,ent velOCities; therefo'e It must t>e unmoved.
Without all doubt this world. SO diversified with that v.riety of form, and
mOlion, we find in it. could .rise from nOlhing but the perfectly free will of
God directing and presiding over all.

From this fountain it is that those law •. which we call the law. of Nat u,e.
have /lowed, In which there appear many traces indee<! of the most wise
contrivance. but not the least shadow of necessity. These therefore we
must nol ,eek f,om uncertain conjectu,e,. but learn them f,om obse,va·
lions and exper iments. He who is p,esumptuous enough 10 Ihink Ihat he
can fond Ihe true p'inciple, of physics and Ihe laws of n3tl)(allhings by the
force alone of his own mind, and the inte,nal lighl of his , e.son , must
eilher ,uppo,e thaI Ihe wo,ld exis" by nece ssity, and by Ihe ... me
necessity follows the laws proposed; or if the orde, of Natu,e was
established by the will of God, that him>elf. a mi.erab le reptile. can te ll
what was fittest to be done. All sound and true philosophy is founded on
the appearance of things: and if these phenomena inev itab ly draw us .
• g~inst our will~. to such principles as most cle~'ly man ifest to uS the most
excellenl counse l and sup reme domin ion of Ihe All_wise .nd Almighty
Being. Ihey are nOI Iherefore 10 be laid aside t>ecaure some men may
perhap' dislike them. The,e men may call them mirades or occull qualitie"
but name, maliciously given oughl nol to be a di ... dvanlage to Ihe things
themselves, unless these me n will say at last that all philosophy ought to be
founded in athei.m . Philosophy must not be c""upted in complia nce wit h
these men. for t he orde r of things wi ll not be cha nged.

ry' ate
We see now dearly why we mllst not feign hypothese,. Hypotheses,
e">peci ally me<;hankal ones, implying the rejecti"" of void space and the
assertion of infinity and therefo re of the necessity of matter, are not only
false; they lead str~ i ght .w~y towards alhelsm .

Mechanical hypotheses concerning gravily. as a mailer of fact. deny God 's

aclion Inlhe wo,ld an d push him oul of il . It Is Indeed. praCllcally cerlain -
and Ihis knowledge makes the "feigning of hypotheses" completely
non,emical - Ihat Ihe tflle and ultimate cause of gravily is the attion of the
"spirit" of God . Newton there fore conc ludes his General Scholium; »0

And now we might add somet hing concerning a cen ain most subtle spirit
which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodieS; by the force an d action of
which spicit Ihe particles of bodies .ttraci one another at near distances.
and cohere. if contiguous; and e lectric bodies operate to greater distances.
as well repelling as attracting the neighbouring corpuso:ies; and light is
emitted, relleCled. relracted, In~ected, and heats bodies; and all sensation
is eXCited, and Ihe members of animal bodies move at the comm and of the
wil l, namely, bV the vibration, of thi' spirit, mutually propaga ted alon8 the
solid fil.ments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the
brain, and from the br~ i n Into the muscles. Butlhe.e are things that cannOI
be e xplai ned in few words, nor are we furnished with that suff iciency of
ex~riments which is requ ired to an . ""rMe determination and demon.
stration of the laws by which thiS electric and e lastic spirit operates.

'I' ate
 THE WORK -DAY GOD AND TilE GOD OF THE
SABBATH

Ne .... ton & leibnl.

EWTO N' S veiled and Roger Cote,' open counterattack upon the

N ·ple ni" . " did not remain una",were<!. If th~ Carte.i .n., proper ly
speaking, did not react, le ibni •. in a letter to the Princess 01 W.les.
," written in Novem ber 1715. replied to the accu",tions formulated by
Cote. by u pres,ing to his august correspondent his misgivings concern ing
Ihe wea ~ening 01 religion and the spread 01 malerialism and godless
philo!.Qphies in England, where ~m e people attribuled mat eria illy not on ly
to !.Qui, but even to God. where Mr . locke doubted the imm ",~r iali ty and
the immortality 01 the ,oul, an d where Sir Isaac Newton and hi. lollower>
prolessed rath er low and unworthy ideas about the power and wisdom of
God . leibnl. wrOle: '"

Sir I",ac Newton "'ys. \hat Space is an Organ, wh ich God ma~es use of to
perce",e Things by_ 6u l II God SUnds in need 01 any Organ to perceive
Things by. il will follow . Ihal Ihev do nOI depend altogelher upon him, nor
were produce<! by him,

Sir I",a, Newton, and his Followers, haW' a l~ a very odd Opinion con c~rn'
ing the Wor1< 01 God . According to their Doctrine, God Alm ighty want. to
wind up his Wat<h Irom Time to Time: Otherwise it would cease 10 move.
He had not, it se.!ms, sufficient Foresight to make it • perpetua l Motion .
Nay, Ihe Machi"e of God's ma king, is so Imperfect. according 10 these
Gentlemen, thaI he Is ob liged 10 clean it now and Ihen by an e _traord inary
Concourse. Md even to mend It as 3 Clockmaker mends his Wo<k; who
mUSI conseq uentlv be so muc h Ihe more unskilful • Workman, 35 he is
often obliged to me nd his Work and to ,el it RighI , Acco rd ing 10 MV
Opinion, the same Force and Vigour remain. alway. in the World, and on ly
passes from One p;Jrl of Matter 10 another, agreeably to Ihe laws of
Nalure, and the beautiful pre·established Orde r_

,.
An accu,ation of the kind formulated by leibni, cou ld not, of course, be left
without refutation. Yet, as it was obviousl y below the dign ity and standing
01 Sir ISaac - who, moreover. hated all polemics and public discuss ions- to
do it himself. t~e task fe ll upon t~e .houlders 01 Dc. Samuel Clarke. the
faithful pupil and friend of Newton. who transla ted his Opt icks into Latin.
m .nd, as far back as 1697. stuffed wll h Newtoni.n fOOlnotes his \(an,la-
tion of Rohault's Cartesian Physics. A long_drawn_out and e xtremel y
interesting corresponde nce resulted, which ended only with the dealh of
le ibn i' , and wh ich throw, a vivid lighl upon the conflicting po,itions of Ihe
two phi lo·s ophers (leibn i, .nd Newtonl as well a. upon the fundamental
issues that were in question.

Thus. Dr. Clarke. though recOllni'ing the deplorable fact that there were, in
England as elsewhere, persoos who denied even natural religion Or
corrupted it enti'ely. eopla ined that it waS due to the sp ' ead of false
ma terialistic philosophies (which we'e al,o responsible fo' the m.teriali,a-
tion of Ihe ,oul and even God. menlioned by leibni'l; pointed out that
these people were most eHectively comb"lIed by the mathematical
philosophV, the only philosophy which proves that malter is the smallest
and the least important part of the universe . .,. As for Sir Isaac Newton, he
does not say that spa,,~ i. an organ which God uses In order to perceive
things. nor that God needs any means for perceiv ing them . Quite the
contrary. he ... y. that God. be ing everywhere. perceives Ihem by his
immediate presence In the very space whe'e Ihey are . And il is just in order
to expl ain the immediacy of thi. perception th.1 Sir l<aac Newton -
comparing God'. perception of things with the mind', perception of
ideas-said Ihat infin ile space is, so to speak, as the sensorium of the
Omnip resent God."

From the point 01 view of the Newlon ian, leibni,·s reproach of belittling
God·, power and wisdom by obliging Him to rep~ir and to wind up the
world cloc k i, both unfa ir and unjustified; on the contrary. it is just by His
conllant Md vigil~nt action. by conferring on the wo,ld neW ene'gy th.t
preventsltl decay into chaotiC disorder and immobility. that God manifests
His presence in the world and the ble"ing of Hi. providence. A Carte.ian,
or a leibni,ian God, intere<led only in conseJVing in its being a mechanical
clockwork ",t once and forever, and endowed, once and forever with a
constant amount of e ne rgy, would be noth ing belter t han an absent God.
Cla'ke the'efore ,tate, rathe' wickedly that the assimilation of the wo"d to
a perfect mechanism moving without God's inlelWntion. '"

,
 ~ 171

... i. the Notion of Materialism and Fate, and tend, (under pretence of
making God a Supra· Mundane Intelligence) to exdude Providence and
God's Gove",ment In re~ l ity OI.It of the World. And by the ><Ime Reason
that a Philo~pher c~n represent all Thi ngs going on from t he beginni"g of
the Crea(ion. without any Government or Interposition of Pro. ide nee. a
Steptick will easily Argue stili farther Backward,. and suppo.e that Thing.
h""" from Eternity gone on (a, they now do) without any true Creation or
Original Author at all. but only wha t .uch Arguers ca ll AII-Wi,e and fternal
Nature . If a KinS had a Kingdom wherein all Thi ns, would continually go on
without his Government or Interpo.ition , or without hi' Attending to and
Ordering what i. done therein; It would be to him, merely a Naminal
Kingdom; nOr wOl.lld he in ru lity de,erv" at all the Title of King Or
Governor. And as those Men. who pretend that In an farthly Government
ThI"8S may go on perfectly well wit hout the ki ng himself ordering or
disposing of any Thing. ma y reasonably be su,pecled thaI they would like
very well 10 set Ihe King a,ide : SO whosoever contends. Ihatthe Course of
Ihe World can go on withoullhe Contin ual di rectiOll of God, Ihe Supreme
Governor; h" DDClrine doe, in Effe ct lend 10 exclude God out of Ihe World.

Conlranted with Dr. Clarke's reply that rather unexpectedly placed him
under the obligat ion to defend himself against Clarke's sly In,inuatiOlls.
leibn;! struck back bV pointing out Ihal "m3lhematical " principles are nol
opposed to. bUI identical with, those of materlali,m and ha"e been claimed
by Oemo.::rilus and Epicuru, as well as by Hobbes; Iha1the problem dealt
wilh i. not a malhematical but a melaphysical one, an d Ihat me taphy,"" ,
in contradistinction 10 mere mathemali"" has 10 be based on the principle
of ,uffk ient rea,on ; t hat th is principle, applied to God, necessarily implie.
the ca",iderat ian of God's wisdam in planning and creating the universe,
and that, vice Vl!r><l. the neglect of th" principle (L e ib~il does not ><Iy ~
outright. yet he ,uggests that suc~ i, the case 01 the Newtonians) lead,
direct ly to the world· lliew of SpinOla. or. on the other hand. to a concep·
lion of God closel y resembling thaI of Ihe Socini""S. '" whose God is ~
Ullerlv lacking In foresight Ihal He has "10 live from day 10 day· The
Newlonians point out Ihat, according to them, and in contr.distinction to
Ihe materialists, mailer i, the le,sl imponanl part of the unillerse, whith i.
chiefly constituted by void space. But afler all, Demo.::ritu, and EpicUfU'
adm itted void 'pace just a. Newtan doe., and if they differed from him in
believing that there waS much more m.tter in the world (han there I.
according to Newton. IheV were in Ihl' respect preferable to the laller;
174 ~

indee<!, more matter means more opportunities for God to exercise Hi,
wi,dom and power, and that is a reason, or at least one of the rea,ons,
why, in truth, there is nO void ,peace at all in the universe, and that space is
eve,ywhere fu ll of m"Uer.

But to come back to Newton . In spite of oil the e xplanations of his friends.
'"
I find [writes Leibn iz] in exp re .. Words, in the Append i. to Sir I..ac
Newton ', Opticks, thot Space is the Sen,orium of God. But the Word
Sensor ium hath always sign ified the Or~an of Sensation. He, and hi'
Friend" may now, if they thin k fit, explain themselves quite otherwise, I
shall not be aga inst it.

And as for the accusation of making t he world a self·sufficing mechanism

and reducing God to the S(.atus of an intell igentia supr • •mundana. Leibnl/
replies that he never did so. that I" that he never denied that the created
world needed God', continuous concourse. but only asserted that the
world is. dock that does not need mending. , ince, before creating it, God
saw, Or foresaw, everything, and that he neve r excluded God from the
world. though he did not,., his adversaries Seem to do. transform Him into
the soul of the world. Indeed. if God has, from time to time. to correct the
natural deve lopment of the world. he un do it either by supernatural
means. that is. by a miracle (but to explain natura l things and processe, by
mi,.des i, absurd). or He can do it in a natural way: in this case God is
inc luded in nature and be comes anima mundi. Finally, '"

The comparison of a Ki ng, under whose Re ign eve ry thing should go on

without hi. Interposition. is by no means to the present Purpose; since God
preserves every thing continually. and nothing Can sub,ist without him. His
~ ingdom therefore is not. Nominal One. Otherwise we should have to say
Ihat a Prince who has so well educate<! his subjects that they never Infringe
hiS low, is. Prince onlv In name .

leibn il does not express, as yet, his ult imate obje ction, to Newton; the
fundame ntal OPPOSition appears neverthe le .. pretty clearly: the God of
Leibn i. i, not the Newtonian Overlord who make, the world a, he wants it
and continues to act upon it as the Biblical God did in t he first six days of
Creat ion . He Is, if I may continue the simile. the Biblical God on the Sabbath
Oav. the God who has finished hi, work and who finds it good, nay. the
very best of all possible worlds, and who, therefore, ha, no more to act
upon it, o r in it, but onl v to conserve it and to preserve it in being. Thi, God
is, at the Same time- once mOfe in contradistinction to t he Newtonian
one- the supremely rational Being, the principle of sufficient rUSOn
personified, and for this veO)' reason, He can act onl y according to this
principle, that is, only in order to produce the greatest perfection and
ple nitude . He cannot tnerefore - any mOfe tnan the God of Glord3no Stuno
with whom (in .pite of Hi, being a mathematician and a scie ntistf He ha' a
great deal in common - either make a finite universe, or ,ufler void 'pace
either in.ide Of out,ide the world .

n i. ha rdly surpri.ing tha t, having read Leibni " . an.wer to hi. <ritici,m, Or.
C I . f ~ e felt himsell compelled to reply : Leibni!"s hints were tOO damaging,

" . his tone too .uperior, and, moreover, hi' Insistence on the implications
of the term · sensorium: somewhat hastily and perhaps un happ ily used by
Ne wton, far too menacing to allow Cl arke to leave Leibni, in the position of
having had the la,t word.

Starting thus from the beginning, Clarke explain. ''' that the · principle, of
mathematical philosophy· are by no mean, identical with, but radically
opposed to, those of materialism, preciselV in that they denv the possibility
of a pu rely naturalistic e xplanation of the w(>rld and postulate - or
demonstrate - its production by the purposeful action of a free and
intelligent Being. And a, for Lelbnl"s appeal 10 the principle of suflkie nt
reason, it i. true that nothing e x"ts without suflk;ent reason: where the re
i, no cause, there i, al'o no effect; yet the said sufficient rea,on can be
,impl v the will 01 God . Thus, lor instance, if one considers why a system, or
a certain piece, 01 matte r is cre ate d in one place , and an other one in
another, and nOt vke versa, there <an be no other reason for that than the
pure will of God . If it were not so - that is. if the prinCiple of sufficient
ruson we re taken absolutel y. as Leibni, does - and if this will could never
act unless predete rmined by ~ome cause. as a balance cannot move unless
some weight ma ke it turn. God would have no liberty of choice. which
would be 'eplaced bVnecessity.

As • matter of fact, Dr. Clarke subtly sugge sts that Leibni " indee d, de prove ,
hi' God of aillit><.nv . Thus he forbid, him to create a limited quantity of
matter . .. vet by the .ame argument one could p, ove that the number of
men Or 01 anv kind 01 creatures whatsoever should be infinite Iwhich. of
course. wou ld impt.,.- the eternity and neces~ty of the wo'ld).
176 ~

As lor the (Newtonian) God, he i. neither an imelligemia mundana, nor an

intelligemi•• upra· mundana; nOr is he an anima mundi, but an intel ligence
which Is everyw he re, In the world and oUls ide II, in eve»'lh lng, and above
eve»'lhing. A"d he ha, "0 orga '" a, l e ibni: perjist. i" insisti"g. III

The Word Se"so», doe. not properly .ig,,'~ the Org"", but the Place of
5e"..,1ion, The Eye, the Ear, &c. are Orsa.,., but not Se"..,..>a, Moreove r,
Newton does not say that place is a sensorium, but calls it thus o nly by way
of comparison , in order to ind icate that God real l-; and eHectivel-; perce ives
thing' in them",lve" where the y a re, be ing pre,em to them, a nd not
purely tra nsce ndem - pre.ent, . cting, lorming and reforming (which last
term, juSt.s the term ' correcting: must be underjtood in respeu to us, Or
to God' , workS, not i"de ed a. implying change in God's designs) : thu, If " ,
Ihe pre.enl Frame of Ihe Solar Sy,tem (for instance) acco,di ng 10 the
pre.e"t La ws of MotiOn, will in lime fall into Co"fuslon; . nd perh.ps, after
ThaI, will be amended or pUI into. new Form

it will be ne w in ,e spect to us, or to itself, not new in res pect to God wl""e
eternal pl an implie d just such an intervent iOn in the normal cou<w of
events, To for bid God to do that. Or to declare all God', action in Ihe world
10 be miraculous or ,u pernatural, me ans excluding God f,om the govern·
ment of Ihe world . II may be, concede. Clar ke. Ihat in Ihis ca.e He would
,till rema in its Crealor; He would certa inly no longer be its governor.

The second pape r of Or , Oarke made l eibn i, angry, Why, he complains, did
they gram me th is impon am principle t hat noth ing happens without a
. u/fide m re ason why it .hould be so rather tha n othe rwi"" but they grant
it on ly in wo rdS, not in I.ct. Moreover, they use against me one 01 my own
demonstration. against rul absolule 'pace , that idol lin the sen", 01
6acon) of some mode m Englishmen , l eib nil is righI, 01 course : to "" v, as
Clarke does. that God's wi ll is, ~, ,uCh. 3 , uffo cle nt reason for anVlh ing, is to
reject Ihe principle • • nd to reject .1, 0 Ihe thoroug h_going rat iona li, m
which suppons II. And to use the conception of homogeneous, Infinite , real
space as a basis lor the demonmation that God', free (that is, unmoti-
vated, irralional( will ca n, and must, be considered as a ·,ufficie nt re ason"
lor something. is to ins ult the intellige nce ; and to force leibni, to discuss
the problem 01 'pace (something he did not very much want to do) : m

,. ••
These Gentlemen mai ntain therefore, that Space Is a real absolute Being.
But thl. Involves them In great d;Hkultie.; for .uch a Being must needs be
Eteenal and InHnlte . Hence Some have beHeved II to be God himself. or.
One at his Attribute •. his Immensity . But since Space consists of Parts. it is
not a thing whic h can belong to God .

Allth. t. as we know. is perfectly l"'e . Nevertheless le lbn iz's criticism of the

Newtonian or, more generalli'. the absolulist conception of space, forget<
that those who hold it deny lhat 'pace con,i,n of pans-parte, e xlfa
panes- and . s",n, on Ihe conlfary, that it is Indiv" ible. le ibn lz is perfectly
right, too, in a ..e rting that "" Space is Something absolutely Uniform; and,
without t he fhings placed in it, On" Point of Space does not absolutely
differ in any re.pect whatsoeVllr from Another Point at Space. Now from
hence it follows, (supposing Space to be Something in it self, besides the
Order of Bodies among them,elves.) that it is Impossible there shou ld be a
Reason, why God, preserving Ihe .ame Situation. of Bod ies among
themse lve •. should have placed them In Space after one cenain particular
manne r, and not otherwise; why every thing was not placed the quite
conlfary way, for instance, b)' changing East into West.

Yet the conclusioos drawn by lelbniz and by Cla r1<e from the ",me.
hypotheticall y admitted facts are diamelfic"11i' opposed. lelbn iz believe,
that in this case, that is. in Ihe absence of rea,on, for choice. God would
not be able to act; and vice versa, from Ihe fact of the cho ice and of acting,
he deduce, the rejection 01 the fundamental hypothesis. that is, the
existence of an absolute space, and proclaims that space, like motion, i,
purely relative, or even more, is nothing else but the order 01 coexistence
of bodie s and would not exist If there were none, just as time Is noth ing
el'" but the order 01 succeSSion atthings and events, and would not e xi.t if
there were nO things Or events to be ordered .

The Ne wton ian, on the other hand. co ncludes the freedom of God, that is.
the non-nece ssity of 3 dete rmining ruson or motive for God's choice 3nd
action. f or Lelbniz. of course, thiS unmotivated choice Is vague indiffe-
rence, which is the contrary 0/ true freedom; but for the Newtonian, il is
the absolute ly motivated action of the Leibn izlan God whic h is synonymous
with necessity.

The Newtonian. assert that. Ie/t to itself. the motive force of the universe
would decrease and ronalli' disappear. But, objects lelbn iz. m
;r act"'" For<e .hould dimini.h in the Unive"e, by the Natur.1 Laws which
God has established; so thai there should be need for him to give a new
Im pression In order to re store that Force, like an Artist, Mending the
Imperfections of his Machine; the Oisorder would not onlv be with respe<:t
to Us, but also wilh reSllecl to God himself. He might have prevented it and
taken better Measu res 10 avoid such an Inconvenience : And Iherefore,
indeed, he has aClually done il.

The NeWlonian, protest 'gainst leibnil', .ssenion Ihat the y make nalure a
perpetual miracle. And vet, if God wanted 1o ma ke a free body revolve
around a fixed center. t hough nol acted upon by anv other creature, He
would not be able to ach ieve it without a miracle since such a motion
cannot be explained bv the natu re of bodies. For . free bod y naturall y
moves awaV from a cu~d line along Its u"ge"t. Thus mutual attraction of
bod>e. Is something mir::>eulous as it ca ""ot be expl ained by their nalure.

From now on the discussion broadens and deepens. The "papers" be<:ome
longer and longer. The skirmish develops into a prtche d battle. leibn il and
Clarke go at each other hammer and tongs. It is true that, to a large e xtent,
they .implv repeat. Or elaborate, the same arguments- philo.ophers. I
have al~adv said It, seldom. if ever. co nvi"ce each othe r, and a discussion
belween IWO philosophers resembles as often .s nOt. "dialogue de
sourds"-and yet Ihey come more and more into the open, and the
fundamental i,sues come more and more to the foreground .

Thu •. for instance, in hi. third paper, Dr. Clar ke re·objects to leibnizthat it
is preposterous to .ubje<:t God 10 the law of strict motivation and to
deprive Him of the facuity of making a choke between two identical cases.
Indeed. when God creates a particle of matter in one place rather than in
another. Or when He places three identical particle. In • certain order
rather than In a"other. He cannot have anv reason f(H" dOi"g so e xcept His
pure will. The perfect equi .... lence of the cases, a consequence of the
identity of m~let i al panicles and of the isomorphi~m of space, is no more a
rea,on for denying God's freedom of choice Ih.n it i, an objection to the
existence of.n absolute, real and infinite sp.ce . And ", for it' re~tion 10
God, misrepresented by le ibnil, Clar ~ e sl ales the correct, Newton ian, th.t
is, More '" doctrine:1S

,. ••
Space is not a Being, an eternal and infinite Being,. but a Property
lattributel, or a consequence 01 the Exi. tence 01 • Bei ng infinite and
ete..-nal. Infinite Space, is Immensity. But Immens ity is nOt God : And
therefore Infinite Space, is not God. Nor is there any Difficulty In what is
here al leged about Space having Parts_ For Infinite Space is One, absolute ly
and essentially indivisible: And to suppose it parted, Is a contradiction in
Terms; because there must be Space In the Partition It self; which is to
suppose it parted, and yet not parted at the same time. The Immensity or
Omnipresence of God, i, no more a dividing of hi' SUbstance into Part';
than hi' Duration, or wntinuance of ex isting i, a dividing of hi' existence
into Part', There i, no d ifficulty he re, but wh.t a rises from the figurative
Abuse of the Word, Parts,

~ is not Newton's admiss ion, it Is Le ibnlz's denial, of absolute 'pace th.t

leads to difficulties and a bsurdities_ Indeed, if sP<lce were only relative, and
nothing but the order and arrangement of things, then a mere displace-
ment of a syste m of bodies from one place to anothe r (for instance, of our
world to the region of the farthest fixed 'tars) would be no change at .It
and it would follow therefrom that the two place, would be the same
place " . , ' ''It would follow also that, if God should move the whole world
In a straight line, then, whatever the .peed of thi. motion, the world would
remain in Ihe Same pl",e, and that nothing would happen If that motion
were suddenly stopped . '"

And if time were onlv an order of succession , then il would fol low Ihat, if
God had crea led Ihe world some millions of years earlier, rt wou ld,
neverthe less, have been created atlhe same time ,

We ,h. 1I See in • moment what Leibni, has to object to in Dr. Cla"'e',

reasonings Ihe will lind them meaningless); as for US, we have to admit th.1
they are by no mea n, as ab.urd a, may se.;,m at lirst glance; Ihey on ly
represen\. or imply, a form al breach (already accomplished by Henry Morel
with the main philosoph ico-theologica l tradition 10 whic h leibni, remains
fund.menlal~ fa ilhful ; Ihe Newtonlans, as we know, do not al1ach lime
and 'pace 10 creation but to God, and do not oppose God 's et ern;ly and
immensito,' to sempiternily and spalial infinily, bUI, on the contrary, idenlify
them , Clarke thu, expla;ns: ' "

God, be ing Omnipresent, is real~ present to e""rylning. Essentially and

Substantially_ His Presence manifests It self indeed by its Operation, but il
could not operate il it wa, not There. Nothin g, indeed, can act w~hout
being there; not even God: there is no action at a distance; not even lor
God. Vet as God is everywhere "there; He can, and does, act eve rywhere,
and therefore, leibn iz's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. He Can
achieve withoul ml'acle. but by His own - or some c~alu~'s - action Ihat
a body be deflected f,om the langent and can even make 3 body turn
a'ound a II. ed cenle' InSlead of 'unning away along Ihe 13ngenl; whether
God in order 10 p,oduce Ihis effect act. Himselt a' th,ough a crealure, is of
no avail: in ne ither case would il be a miracle as leibni, p,elends.

It is dea, Ihat , fa, Cla, ke, le ibni,'s assertion-as well as his rejection as "
imperfection· of the diminution of the moving power in the world -is
based On the assumption of the necessary sell·sufficiency of nature; a
conception. as WI": know, utterly unacceptable lor the Newlonlans who see
in ila means of e.eluding God from Ihe wO'ld .

IkJtlel us come back to Cla'ke's objection to lelbni,'s conceplion of space.

The firsl arsument of Samuel Clarke" nOI very good. as Ihe displacement
imagined by him would be not only absolute but also ,elative to the
agg~gate 01 the fixed stars. But the second One is perfectly valid: in the

inlinite universe 01 Newtonian physics any. and every, body Can be

considered as posseSSing-or not possessing-a uniform, rectill nea,
motion in a ceMain direction. and Ihough the Iwo cases would be perfectly
indistinguishable one from another. Ihe p;lssage from the one to the othe'
would be accompanied by very dete,mined effect,. And if the motion were
not unilorm but accelerated, we should even be able to perce i"" it
lsomething that would not happen ij motion and space we,e only ,elati",,):
allthot is an in ev ~able consequence of the Newlonian p, inciple 01 ineMi •.

Cla,ke. 01 course. does not stop here. For him - as for Bentleyor Raphson -
the ,.dical distinction of matter and space implies t he belief in the possible
and pe'haps even 'eal finitude of Ihe univeo"ie. Why. indeed, should
maue,. which occupies so small. paM of space. be inr,nite? Why should We
not admit. on the conl,a",. that God has created a dete,mined amounl of
it, juS! a, much as was needed for thiS ve", world, that is, for the ,eali,alion
of the aims that God had in c,eati ng it ?

The lounh paper olleibni, leads us directly to the deepest metaphysical

problems . le ibni, starts by asserting with the utmost energy the absolute
pana"hy of Ihe p'inCiple of suf~cient 'eason: no action without choice, no
 ~ .8.
choice without determining motive, no motive without a difference
between the conflicting po.,ibilities; and therefore - an allirm~tion of
overwhelming impOrtance - no two identical obje.:ts or equivalent
situations are real, Or even possible, In the wodd . ,,.,

As for space. Leibni: reasserts just as ... igorously Ihal space Is 3 funCIiO<"l of
bodies and Ihat. where the re are no bod ies. there is also no space""

The same reason, which shows that extra·mundane Space is imaginary,

proves Ihat All empty Space is an imag inary Ihing; for Ihey d~fer only a,
greater and Ie ... This does not mean, of courw, that, according to Leibni.,
the world and space are both limited in extension, as was thought by the
medi.e ....1 philosophers who spO ~ e aboul the ' imaginary' space 'outside"
of the worl d; but, on the contrary, that void space. be it outside Or inside
Ihe work!, is pure fiction. Space. everywhe re, is /ull; indeed, '"

There is no possible Reason. Ihat Can limit the quantity of Maner; and
therefore such limitation Can have no place.

Now. let uS fancy a Space wholly empty. God cou ld have placed SOm e
Matte r in it without de rogating in any respect from all othe r things;
Therefore he hath actually placed some Matter In That Space: Therefore,
there is no Space wholly Empty: Therefore All is full . I42 The same Argument
proves that there is no Corpuscle. but what is Subdivided. '"

Moreover, the idea of void space is a melaphl"ically impo<sible idea ,

against which Leibni. erects obiection< analogou5 to, and probably derived
from, those that 0 ""C3ne, opposed to Henry More:'"

If Space is • property Or Attribute, it must be the Property of some

Substance. But what Substance will that Bounded empty Space be an
Affection Or Property of, which the Persons I am arguing with. suppOse to
be between Two Bodies? Thi s is a reasonable question. but a question to
which Henry More had a lready given an answer, which l eibni, howe ... er
ChOOse\IO disregard; he continues the refore ; .. \

'" Infinite Space is Immensily, fin ite Space will be the Opposite to Immens i·
ty, that is, 'tw;U be Mensurability, or limited Extension. Now Extension
must be t he Affection of some thing e. te nded . But if That Space be empty.
it wi ll be an An ribule Without a Subject, an htension without any th ing
ntende<l . Whe,efore by making Space ~ Property, the Author fall' in with
My Opinion, whkh ma ~ e. it an Order of things, and not any thing ab.olute .

By no me ans; of course there is no attrib ute without substance; but as we

know. for the "Author" thaI substance Is God . leibniz does not admit It
and de~lops the awkwa rd consequences of the absolutist conceplion : '"

If Space is an ab,olute reality; far from being a Propeny or an Accident

oppo,ed to Substance, it will have a grea ter reality than Substance ,
themselves. God cannot destroy it, nor eve n change it in any respect. It will
be not only immense in the whole, but al.o Immutable and Ete,nal in e very
parI. There will be an infin ite number of Et e rn~ 1 th ing. besides God.

A> we know. it is just what the Newtonian,. Or the Hen ry More·i, ts as,ert
denying. of course. thaI space Is somelhlng "besides' God. But their
teachi ng. according to leibnil. implies contradiction s: >4'

TO say that Infinite Space has no Pan" is to say that it does not con,i't of
finite Spaces; and that In fi nite Space might ,ubsist, though all finite Space ,
should be re duce d 10 nOlhing. It would be as if One , hould ' ay. in the
Drtesian SuppoSition 01 • material ulended unllmiled World thaI .uch •
World mighl subsist. though .11 Ihe Bodies 01 wh ich il consiSIS. should be
reduced to nothing .

By no means; Leibni l does not understand the diHerence between his own
conception of 'pace - a lallice of quantitative ,elatioM- and that of
Newton , for whom space is a unitv wh ich precedes and makes p"" ible all
", lations that can be discovered in it. Or, more probably, since il i. rather
diffkuh to believe that there wa, something that l eibni, did not under-
stand, he does understand. but doe, not admit t he conception of Newton.
Thus he writes: '"

If Space and Time were anything absolute. that Is. if they were any thing
else. beSides ce rlaln Orders ofThing~; then indeed my as~rtlon wou ld be a
Contradiction, But since it is not so, the Hypothesi, Ithat Space and Time
are any thing absolute) i, contradictory, thai i, 'ti, an impo<sible Fiction,

As for the examples and counter·objection of Or . Clarke, Leibniz deals with

them In a rather olf_hand manner. Thus he russerlS thaI those who fa ncv
thai the actioe powe rs decr,,"se by Ihemseloes in Ihe world do nol know
the pfindpal laws of nature; thai to imagine God mDVing the wond in a
straight line i. to compel him to do something wholly meaningle,", an
action without rime Or rea ron, tl1.t i., an action that it is impossible to
attribute to God. Finally, concerning attraction, whic h Clarke endeavors to
present as something nMural, leibni, repeats: '"

'Ti. al.o a supernatural thing, that Bodies should amact One another at a
distance, without any intermediate Means; and that a Bod>! should mDVe
round, without receding in the h ngent, though nothing hinders rt from ro
receding, For the"" Effects cannot be explained bV the Nature of things .

leibni "s repeated .ppeal to the principle of sufficient rea.on did not,
needless to say, convince Or eVlln appease aarke, Quite the contrary: it
seemed to him to confirm hi. worst apprehenSions, In the fourth replv he
writes: ".

This Notion lead. to unlVllrSal Necessity and Fate, by supposing that

Motives have the same relation to the Will of an Inte lligent AIIent, a'
Weights have to a 8alance; .0 that 01 two things absolutely indifferent, an
Intelligent Agent can nO mare choose Either, than a Balance Can move it
self when the Weights on both sides are Equa l. But t he Difference lies here

in the distinction, disregarded by Leibni" between a free Md intelligent

bein&. who is a self-determining agent, and. mere mechanism, which, in
the la>l analysis, is always pas. ive, If Leibni, were right about the impo"i-
bility of. plurality of ide ntical objects, no creation wou ld ever have been
possible ; matter, indeed, has one identical nalllre, and we can always
suppo.e thaI it. part. have the . ame dime",ion and figure, '" In olher
terms: the atomic theory is utterly incompatible wit h leibni"s conception:
whiCh is, of course, perfectly Irue. For Leibni, there cannot be in the world
two ident ical objects; moreover Leibnll, like De=rtes, denies tile
existence of last, indiliis ible, hart! particle. of matter, wit hout which
NewtoniM physicS is inconceivable .

l<'ibnil " lin king space (and time) with the wOfId, and his asse rtion of the
fictitious (imaginary) character of void space and 'void" time seem to
Clarke utterly unrea",n3ble; and al'" full 01 danger , It is perfectly clear that
m

,. ••
Extra·mundane Space, (if tile materi~1 would be Fin ite in it' Dimension.,) i,
not im agin ary, but Real, Nor are void Space. in the World, merely imagi-
nary.

It i, the same In re'pect to time: '"

Had God created Ihe World but Thl, Moment. II wou ld not have been
created allhe Ti me it was created.

The denial of the po" ibilily for God to give mOlion to Ihe world is no more
convincing: n .

And if God has made (or Can make) Matter Finite in Dimens ions, t he
material Universe must con requently be in its Nature Moveab le; For
nothing that Os finite. is immoveable.

le ibn i:'s criticism of the concept of lIold ,pace i•. for Clarke. b",ed on a
CQmplele misunderstanding of ils nalure and on misuse of metaphysical
concept" Wi

Space void of Body, i, the Proper1y (attribute( of an Incorporeal Su bstance.

Space is not Bounded by Bodies. but e xi,ts equally within and without
Bodies . Space is not indo~d between Sodies; but Bodie,. existing in
unbQunded Space. are. Ihemselves only, terminated by their own Dlmen·
sion<.

Void Space, is not an Amlbule wilhoul • Subjecl, because, by void Space,

we never mean Space void of every thing, but void of Body only. In All Ii04d
Space, God i. cen.inly prerem, and po"ibly many other Substances which
a,e nOt Matte,; be< ng neithe, Tangible. no, Objects of any of Our Senses.

Space is not a Substance, but 0 Property (,"tribute); And If it be a Property

[attribute) of That whkh i, necessary. it will consequently (as all other
Propenies [attributes) of ThaI which is necessary must dol. e . isl more
nec,,",sarily, though il be nol ilself • Sub<lance, than those Substance.
Themselves which .re not nece.sary. Space i. immen.e, and immutable,
and elernal; and so .1.0 i. Duralion. Yel il doe. nol .1 all from hence
follow, thaI any thing is eternal ho .. de Dieu. For Space and Duration a re
not ho" de Die". but are coured by. and are immediate and necessary

,
Consequences of Hi. Existence. And without tllem, hi. Eternity and
Ubiquity (or Omn ipre.ence l would be taken away .

Having thus established the ontolOg ical .tatus of space as an attribute of

God. Clar ~ e proceeds to the demonstration tllat its attribution to God does
not constitute a slur on His perfe<:tion: thus It does not ma~ e God divisible.
Sodies are divisib le. Ih31 is. can be broken up into parts. ,,.

but infinite Space, though it may by U< be partial"" apprehende d, Illal i<,
may in our Imaginalion be conce ived as composed of Parts; vet Tho", Parts
(improperly so called l beins essentially indiscerpible '" and immoveable
from each other, and not partable witllout an expre" Contradiction in
Term., Space consequently is in itse lf essentially One, and absolute ly
Indivisible. It is tills .pau whkh I. a precondition of motion ; and motion In
the true and full sense of the word. is absolute motion. that Is. motion in
respect to this space. in wh icll places. though perfectly similar. are
neverthe less different . The reality of this motion proves. al the same lime.
Ihe rea lily of .bsolute 'p,ce: ".

It is largely insisted On by Sir Isaac Newton in his Mat hematica l PrinCiples

(Definit . 81 where. from the Conside ration of the Properties. Cau",. and
Effects of MOlion. he shows the difference between real Motion. or a
Bodie's being carried from one part of Space 10 another; and relative
Motion, whic h is me rely a ch. nge of tile Orde' Or Sltu.t ion of EIodies with
re'peclto e .eh other.

The problem of time is e xact"" parallel 10 Ihat of sp.ce: '"

n was no impossibility for God to ma ke t he World Sooner or late , than he

did: NOr is it at all impossible fOr him to destroy it SOOner Or later t han it
shall actua lly be destroyed . As to t he Notion of the World·s Eternity; They
who suppose Matter and Space to be the same. must indeed suppose tile
World 10 be not onl y Infin ite and Eternal. but necessari ly so; even as
necessari"" as Space .nd Duration. which depend nOI only on Ihe Will, but
on the Exi"ence of God. But Ihey who believe that God crealed Mauer in
what Quantity, and al what particular Time, and in what particular Spaces
lie pleased, are here under no difficulty. For tile Wisdom of God may have
very good reasons for creating Tllis World, at That Partkular TIme he did.

'I' ate
Clarke's rea",ning foHow. the well·uodden path: infin ity implie, neces,itv,
and therefore,'"

That God Cannot limit the Quantity of Matter, is an Assertion of too great
consequence, to be adm itted without Prool. If he C3nnOt limit the Duration
of it neither, then the material World Is both infinite and eternal necessari·
IVand Independentlv upon God .

Thu, we ,ee it once more: the acceptance of absolllIe 'pace as an attribute

of God and as the universal container or receptacle of everyth ing is the
means-the only one-Io avoid infiniW, that i" sell·.uffkien", of maner,
and to save the concept of creation, >0,

Spaoe is the Place of Al l Things, and of All Idea" Just as Duration is the
Duration of AH Things, and of All Ideas .. , , This has nO Tenden", to make
God the Soul of the World. Far from making God Immersed in the world
and thus, a, leibn i: in, inuates, dependent upon the world, the Newtonian
conception is, according to Clarke, the on lv one that make, Him lully and
truly independent of it; fully and uuly Iree, ""

There is no Union between God and the World, The Mind of Man might
with greater propriety be stiled The Soul of the Images of thif1gs whic h he
perceive., th.n God can be stiled the Sou l of the World, to which he is
present throughout, and acts upon it as he pleases, Without being acted
upon by it , And it i. just becau .... 01 thi' independe nce 01 God Irom the
world that"" , II no Creature, eXi'led, yel the Ubiquity 01 God, and
Continuance 01 hi' Existence, would make Space and Duration to be e xactl y
Ihe ,alfll' as they are Now,

Finally, coming back to Leibniz', persistence in misunderstanding Newton's

theory 01 attraction and in want ing to make it a mirade, Clarke (who
pointed out that leibni/ 's own theory 0/ the ·pre·estabhshed harmo ny·
between the non·communlcating and non.acting·upon-e.ch-other mind
and body ha , much more righl to imp ly a perpetual miraclel explain" ...

That One Body "'ould attract anolher wilhoul any inle rmediate Means, is
indee<! not a Miracle, but a Contradiction, for 'Ii' supposing ",meth ing to
act where it i, nOI. But the Mean. by which Two Bodie. atlraet eaeh other,
may be Invisible and intangi ble, and of a different nature from mechanism,
and yet, acting regularly and constantly, may well be called natural; being
 ~ .87

much Ie" wOflderiul than Anim al-motion, which yet is never cal led a
Mirade.

Indeed. it is only from the paint 01 view of the Carteslo·Leibni:lan risid

dualism of mind and body. with its negation of all Intermediate entities and
consequent reduction of material nature to 3 pure. self·sustaining and self.
perpetuating mechanism. that the Inte"'entlon in n",ure of non·
mechanical and therefore non·material agencies becomes a mirade. For
Clarke, as for Hen,,! More before him, this dualism is, of cou"e, unaccept·
able . Maner does not coostitute the whole of na"'re, bul is only a pan of
it. Nature, therefore, indudes both mechanical Istricto sensul and non·
mechanical forces and agencies, just as "natural" as the pu rely me<;hanical
ones, material as well as immaterial entities which "fill" and pe",ade space
and without wh ich there would be no un~ y or structure in the world. or
better to say. the re would not be a world.

The wor ld. of course. is not an organism. like the animal. and posses;es no
"50<11 ." Yet it can no more be reduced to pure mechanism than the animal,
in spite of Oe"a"es,

The vigorous (or. from Leibnil's point 01 view. obstinate! defeMe by Or.
Clarke of his luntenable! position; Ihe a,suranee with which he not on ly
acce pted the (absurd and damaging! consequences deduced by leibni:
from his premises-the eternity of space-but even went beyond Ihem by
openly prodaiming that space (and lime) were nece",a,,! and untreated
attribute, of God; the lack of in'iSht (or perfidyl with which he pe"isted in
misinterpreting and misrepresenting Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason
bV identify ing the supreme freedom of his supremely perfect God, unable
to act e~ce pt according to Hi, ,upreme wisdom (t hat is, for the reali,,,,ion
of the absolutely best universe unerring ly recogniled by Him amoog the
infinite number of jlQssible ones). with the fat~l i ty, necessity ~nd paSS ivity
of a perfect mech~nism. convinced leibni/ that he had to devote even
more space and effot1 to the refut3tion of his :>dV(!f"1;ary; and to the
correction of the Image that the latter presented of leibni,'s own .iews_

Thu. the fifth (and la"! paper addre«ed by Le ibn i, to the Prince" of Wale,
became a lensthVtreatise, the full analv,;, of which would lead us too far
kom our topic. It is, for us, sufficient to .late t hat it >!arts with an
adm irab le e . planation of the difference between 3 motive. which incli nes
without co mpelling and Ihus preserves the sponuneity and the freedom of
the ,ubject, and a real cause, which nec",sari l ~ produces its elfe<:!, and of
the infinite distance th~t separate. the 1IlOf.I- th~t i., free -n""e.. ity of ~
full~ mot .. ated act"'n from the unfree and p" '''e neces,it~ of a m""han-
ism.

Freedom. indeed. for l.eibni:. as for moSI philosophers, means doing what
is good. or best. or what one oughllO do. nOlsimply doing whal one wants
to .... The la~men, a!as-and NeWlon is no belter than Ihey-cannol ma ke
thaI distinction; Ihey do not ,,,,,ogni:e freedom in the al><olule determina·
tion of God's action. The lavmen, and the Iheoiosians, therefore, accuse
the pnilO"iophers of reje<:!ing freedom in favor of necessily, and .ttribute to
God actiom utterlv unworthy of Him. It i., howe""r, e";dent that ;t i.
unreasonable to a,k God to.ct in a purposeless irr.tional manner even if,
Slri<tiv speaking, He is able - being all'powerfu f- to perform such an
action . Thus, for instance : '"

Al><olutelv speaking. it appears thaI God can make the material Universe
finite in h tension; but the contrary appears more ag'eeable to his
Wisdom.

And it is. of course, even less ' agreeable 10 his Wi.dom ' to move the world
in a straight l ine-wh~, indeed. Ihoold God do such a meaningless thing?
"'
And therefore the Fi<lion of a material finite Universe, moving forward in
an infinite empty Space cannot be admitted. It is altogether unrea,onable
and impriKticable. For, besides that the re i, no real Space out of the
material Universe, ,uch .n Action would be without any De.ign in it: It
would be working W~ hOUl doing a n ~ thing, agendo nihil ~gere . There would
happen no Change, wh iCh could be observe<! bv Anv Person whatsoever .
These are Imaginations of Philosophers who have incompletc notions, who
makc Space lOn absolute Reality.

le ibn i/ had al ready said It In his preceding paper, and even In Slronger
te rms. Yet, in Ihal paper he did not tell us all his reasons for rejecting this
kind of motion. He did not me ntion precisely the most important one,
namelv that such a mot"'n would be unobservable. It is perfectly dear that,
if we accept the principle of ob..,rvabiliW, absolute motion, o r at ieast
absolute uniform motion in a straighl line, which everybod~ agrees to be
unobserv.b le, will be ruled out as meaningless, 3Ild onlV relative mOl ion
will be acceptable. Yet in that c..... the Newtonian formulation of the
principle of inenia. stating that a body remains in it, ,tatus of re,t or
unf/orm motion i,,,"spect i.e 01 what happens 10 others. and would remain
in its status 01 motion Or rest even if no other body e xisted. or if all oIthem
were destroyed by GOd. will have to be rejected as meaningless and
therefore Impossible. But as it is only in such a case that the pri nciple of
inertia 1$ fully valid. It I, not onlv Newton', formulation of it. but the
principle igelf that becomes meaningle". These are rather fa r-ruch ing
consequences of an innocent-looking principle. fully confirmed by the
recent discussions about re lativitv. that .re. as " mal1er of fact. an
aftermath of the largely forgotten discussions of the XVllth cemury.

Leibni'. of cou " e. does not require that anv and every motion be actually
obsef\led; yet, according to him. it must be poss ible to do so. and that for a
.athe. su'prislng .uson. a reason th.t shows uS the depth of leibni,'s
opposition to Newton. and the fidelity of leibnil to old AriS( otelian
conceptions which mode.n science has been at such pains to .eJecI and to
reform: for leibn i,. indeed. motion is >lill conceived.s a change. and nO!.s
a S(alUS:'" . .. Motion does not indeed depend upon being Obsef\led; but
it does depend upon being possible 10 be Observed . There is no Motion .
when there Is nO Change that Can be Obsef\led. And when there is no
Change tn.t c.n be Obse"'eO. there is no Change 31 .11. The contr.ry
Opinion Is g'ounded upon the Supposition of. real absolute Space. which I
h""e demonstratlvelv confuled by the Principle of the want of a sufficient
Reason of things.

The principle of obse",ability confirms the ,e lalive character of mOlion and

space. But relations-another fa " reaching "alemenl-h • .., no "re. I". but
only an "ideal". existence. The ,efore. -

since Space In it sell Is an Ideal thing, like nme; Space out of the World
muS( needs be imaginary. as the Schoolmen themselves have acknowl_
edged. The case is Ihe Same wilh empty Space within the Wor ld; which I
lake also 10 be Imaginary, for Ihe reason before alleged.

The Schoolme n. to tell the truth. meant some thing quite different. and
Leibni, know, it bette r than anyone : they conceived the world as finite and
wanted 10 deny Ihe e.istence of rea l spa", (and time) oua ide the world-
leibni/, on the contrary, denies tne limitation of the universe . Sut In a
sen,.. he is righlto appeal 10 them: for both time and space are intramun_
dane and have no ... istenee out, ide-or independently from-the created
world. How, indeed, could time be ,omething in itself, something real or
even etern al? ".

It cannot be said. that Duration is Eterna l; but that Things. which continue
always. are Eternal. Wh'le ver exists of Time and Durat ion, perishes
continually: And how can a thing e.i,t Eternally, which. (to speak e xactly),
does neVer e xin at all? for. how can a thing exist, whereof no Pan does
ever exi't ? Nothing of Time doe, ever eXi 't, but Inn.nts; and .n Innant i,
not even it self a pan of Time. Whoever con,ide" These Ob,e",ations, will
ea,ily apprehend that Time can only be an Ideal thing. And the Analogy
between Time and Space, will ea,ily ma ke it appear that the one is a,
merely Ideal as the other.

Yet we must nOI unduly wess the p.rallelism between space .nd time in
order not 10 be conduced 10 .dmil either the infi nity of lime, that is, Ihe
etern ity of the world, or the possib ili ty of a finile univ"",, : '" the
World', having a Beginning, does not derogate from Ihe Infinity of its
Duration a parte pon; but Bound, of the Un iverse woufd derogate from the
Infinity of its Extension. And therefore it is more re3,onable to .dm~ a
Beginning of the World, than to .dm~ any Bounds of it; thaI Ihe Character
of Its Infin ite Aulhor, ma y be fn Both Respects prese"'ed.

How ever, those who have admilled Ihe ( tern ity of Ihe World, or, at leall,
la, ,ome famous Divines have done) Ihe po<,ibility of its Eternity, did nOl,
for all tha I, deny its depende nce upon God; as the Author here lay, to their
Charge, without any Ground.

The Newtonian" of cou r,e, do not a,<eptthe", Leibni.ia n "a xiom," (and
we have just seen Ihal they have very good reasOnS lor nOI dOing so, 3$
Ihey overthrow the .very foundations of the ir phys ics), and try 10 save
absolule space by relating it to God. lelbni" t;,erefore, reminds us 01 his
already lormulated objections. which he repeats in the pious hope thaI,
finally, he will succeed In convincing his opponent lor, at least, the Princess
of Walesl how utterly impossible it is to confer an absolute existence on
void ,pace . m

I objected, that Space, taken for something real and absolute w ~hout
Bodies, would be a th ing elerna l, impassible. and Independe nt upon God .

, ,
The Author endeavours to elude thi, Difficulty, by saying that Space is a
property [attribute) of God.

I objected further, that if Space be a property [attribute). and infinite Space

be the Immensity 01 God; fin ite Space will be the E. tension or Mensurabili·
ty 01 something linite . And therefore the Space Ulken up by a Body, will be
the Extension 01 that Body. Whkh Is an absurdity; since a Body can change
Space, but cannot luve its Exte nsion. Rather amu'ing to 'ee Leibni' use
against Clar ke the same a rgument< that Henry More used against Des·
cartes . Butlet us continue; '"

If infinite Space is God', Immen,ity, infinite TIme will be God', Eternity; and
therefore ~ must say, that what is in Space, is in God's ImmenSity, and
consequently in his £osence; and that what Is in TIme. is also in the Essence
of God. Slraf1ge hpre5s ions; which plainly show. that the Author ma~ e5 a
wrong use of Terms.

Assuredly. al least if we follow the lraditional schol.stic conception" But

the Newtonian" as we know, reinterpret the,e term, and expre,,1y
identify God's immenSity wilh infinite e xt ension a nd God', etemily with
infin ite du ration, They will therefore acknowledge that everything is in
God, without beif1g obliged to put everything in his e"ence . BUI leibni'
insists: '"

I shall give another Instance 01 Thi', God's Immensity make, him actually
pre,ent in all Space" BUI now il God i, in Space, how can it be <aid Ihat
Space is in God, or thai it i, a Property [amibule) of God? We have often
heard, Iha1 a Property [.mibute) i, in ii' Subject; but we never heard. 1hat
a Subject is in it. Property [attribute), In Like manner, God exist> in all Time.
How then Can Time be in God; and how can it be a Property [attribute] of
God? There are perpelual Alloglos.ies,

Once more, the Newtonlans would obje<:t thM Ihe preposit ion in is
obviously taken In 111'10 different meanings. and thai nobody has ever
interpreted the attribute being in the ,uMtance as a spalial relation; th.I,
more over, they on;.,. draw a correcl conclusion from God 's omnipresence ,
whkh everybody adm its, and God's ,implicity, which everybody admit'
al,o, by refus ing to recogni,e, in God, a separation belween Hi. subslance
and His power and a"erting there/ore His substantial presence every·
where. Thev would deny Lelbni!'S contention that " ,

,
.91 ~

It appears that the Author conlound, Immemity or the Edension 01 Th ing',

with the Space accord ing to wh iCh that uteosion is taken. Infinite Space, is
not the Immensitv of God; Finite Space. is not the Extemion 01 Bodie,; A.
Time is not their Duration . Thing~ keep their E. tension; but they do not
always keep their Space . Every Thing has its own extenSion. Its OWn
[)tJration; but it h., not it, own Time, and does not keep its own Space .

Of course not. But lor the Newtonian., it muns pred,ely that time and
space do nO! belong to thing', nor "re relation. based upon the e . istenee
olthin~', but belong to God a, " Ir"mewori< in wllich t hi n~' "nd evem,
have and take place, leibn i, know, it, 01 course, but he cannot admit thi'
conception; , ,.

SpKe is not the Place of all Things; for it is not the Place of God. Otherwise
there wou ld be a thing co-eternal with God, and independent upon him;
nay, he himse lf would depend upon it, if he has need of Place .

If the rea lity of Space and Time , is nece ssary to the Immensity and Eternitv
01 God, if God must be in Space; ifbeing in Space is a Propertv [attribute) of
God ; he wili, in some me"su re. depend upon Time and Space. and 'tand in
need 01 them. For I have alreadv prevented That Subt erfuge. that Space
and Time are Properties [attri butes) of God.

Still, leibnil know, that his own position implie, difficultie. (they a,e not
proper to it, but are tho.e of the whole scholastic tradition) : if space and
time are onlv innerworldlv entitie., and did not e . ist before Cre"tion, must
""" not assume that the creation of the world brought about change in
God; and that, belore it. He waS neither immense nor omn ipresent? is not,
there/ore, God. in his own conception. dependent upOn creat ures? Leibn il
writes then: '"

'TiS true, the Immensity and Eternity of God would subsist, though the'e
were no Creatu res; but those Attributes would have no dependence either
on Times o r Places. II there were no Creature., there wou ld be neither
Time nor Place, and consequently no aelllal Space. The Imme nsitv of God i.
independent upon Space , as Eternity is independent upon Time. These
attributes ,igni/y onlv, that God would be pre,ent and w -e. istent with all
the Things In3t should e. ist.

,. ••
A perlect an.wer ... . Ala,. the Newlanian will not accept it, and will persist
in hi. affirmat"", that thaugh. al cour .... Gad <an not be <a' pre,ent with
things that do not u is!. their existence Or non·e xi,!ence do"s not ma~e
him more. Or less. present In those place. where these th ings. Once
c~ated. will co·e' ''t with him.

Having deal t with the gener.1 problem of space and time. Lelbnlz passes to
the re ..... aminatiM of the particular problem of attraction. Dr. Clarke',
expl.nation did not sati,fy him; qurte the contrary. A miracle is not defoned
bv its being an ex«,ptianal and rare happening: a miracle i, defined bV the
very nature of the event. Samelhing that ,"nnot be e xplained naturally.
th.t i•• something Ihat cannot ,esult Iram the interplay af natural fa"e ••
that i•• fo,«,s derived from the natu,e af thing •• is and ,emain' a miracle.
Now the natu,e of thingS does not admit action at a distance . Attraction
therefore would be a miracle. t hough a perpetual one. Moreover.
according to Leibn i'. the suggestion made by Dr . Clarke to e . plain it by the
action of non· mechanica l, ·spirit\lal • force •• Is even worse; thiS. Indeed.
would me.n going bad behind Descartes. renouncing >eienee for m'gic.
Onee mo,e we see e xpressed in thi' debate the rad ical oppo,ition of two
conflicting views of nature. and of science: Leibniz can accept neither the
Newtonian concept ion of the insuffociency of the materi.l n"ture nor the
provisional pOSitivism of his conception of "mathematical philosophy·: '"

I objected. that an Attraction. properly so called. or In the Scholastic Sense.

would be a n Operation.1 a Di,tance. with""t .ny Mea n, interven ing. The
Author .n,wers here. that .n .ttraction without any mean, inte rven ing
would be indeed a Contrad iction. Very well! But then what dae, he me.n.
when he will have the Sun la attract the Gklbe of the Earlh thraugh an
empty Sp.a<e? It is Gad him.elf that perlarms it? But this wauld be a
Miracle. if ever there was any. Thi. would surely uceed the Powers of
Creatures.

Or. are perha ps some immaterial Substances. or some spiritual R' y5, or
some ACC ident without a Substance, or some Kind of Species Intentional is.
Or ,ome other I know not what. the Me.n, by which thi' is pretended to be
performed? Of whic h ,ort of thingS. the Author ,eem, to h.ve still a good
'tock in hi' Head. w~hout explaining himself ,ufficiently?

,. ••
That Mea~s of communication (savs he) is invisible, intang ible, not
Mechanical. He might as well have added, inexplicable, uninte lligible,
precarious, groundless, and unexample<:!.

If the Means, which causes an AUraction properlv 50 called, be constant.

and at the same time Inexplicable by the Powers of Creatures, and yet be
t"'e; it must be a perpetual Mirac le : And if It is not mlraculou., it is false.
' Ti •• Chimerical Thing.. a Sehola"ic occult quality.

The Case would be the same, as in a Body going round without receding in
the Tangent, though nothing Ihat can be explained, hindered it from
receding. Which i. an Instance I have a lready alleged ; and the Author has
not thought fit to answer it, because it shows too clearly the d~lerence
between what is truelv "latu ral on the one side, a~d a chimerical occult
Quality of the Schools on Ihe other.

Once more Or . Clarke rej)lied. He was, needle.s to say, not convinced.

leibn i"s subtle di'tinctions did not succeed in hiding the brute I.ctthat hi'
God wa, ,ubjected to a ,Uict and unescapable determin ism. He lade<:! not
only the true fcel!<iom that belongs to a spiritual being but even the
spontaneity (leibni:, mOreover, seemed to Clarke to confound the two)
belo"8i"g to an a"imal one : He was no more than a puce mechanism
enchained by.n abSOlute necessity. If Or. Clarke had the gift of foreseeing
things, he would say: a mere calculaling machine I

leibn i, ', renewed allack on "lewton', conceptions of lime, space and

motion is not mOre successful. ,,.

It i. affirmed, Ihal Motion necessarily implies a Relalive Change of Situation

in one Body, with regard to other Bodies; And yet nO wav is shown to avoid
this absurd Consequence, Ihat then the Mobility of oM Bodv depe<\ds on
Ihe h i,tence of other Bodies; and thaI anv single Body e . isting Alone,
wO<Jld be Incapable of MOlion; Or Ihat Ihe Parts of a ct r.:ulatlng Body
(suppose the Sun) would tose the vis centrlfuga arising from their circular
Motion, if all Ihe e.trins ick Maller around them were annihilated, 'ti,
affirmed Ihallhe Infinity of Maller is an Effect of the Will of God . And ve t,
if il Wefe Irue Ihal-as laughl bv O",cartes-a finile universe is contradic·
lOry, i. it nol clear Ihal, in th is case, God ne ither is, nOr was, able 10 lim~
Ihe quantitv of matter and Iherefore did nol create, and can not destroy it?
Indeed, ...,

,
if the M.teria l Univers .. can possibly, by the Will of God, be finite and
MoV<!able: (which this leacned Author here finds himself n...:essitated to
gra"t, though he perpetually treats it as a" impossible supposition:! then
Space (in which That Motion is perlormed! is manifeStly independent upon
Matter. But if, On the contrary, the material Univecse cannot be linite and
moveable and Space cannot be inde pendent upon Malle.; the n (I sa V! it
lollows evidently, that God neithe. Can nor eve . Could set Bounds 10
Malle.; and consequently the mate.ial Unive rse mu" be not on ly
boundless, but eternal also, both. parte ante and a pane poSI necessari ly
and independent olthe Will 01 God .

As for the re latio" betw~n space, body and God, Cla",e restates his
position with perfect clarity: ,OJ

The space occupied by • bod y is not the extension of Ih31 body; bul the
e"ended body e xi5lS in Ihls space .

There is no bounded space; bUI our imagination consid .. rs in the space ,

which has nO limits and cannot ha ve any, such a pan, Or such a quant ily
that it judges convenient to consider.

Space is nOllhe affection of one or several bodies, nor Ihat of any bounded
Ihlng, and II does not pass f.om one subj...:t to another, bUI II is always,
and wilhoUI va.iation, the immensity of an immense be ing. which never
ceas", to be Ihe same .

Bounded space s are not properties 01 bounded substances; they are on ly

pans of the inlinite space in wh ich the bounde d substances e xist .

If matter were infinite, infinite space would no mOre be a property of this

Infinite body than finite spac", are properties of finite bodies. But, In this
case, infinlle malte . would be in infonite space as finile bodies are in it now.

Immensity, as well as Eternity, is essential to God . The Pans of Immensity,

(being totally of a diffe rent Kind from corporeal, pa"able , «,parable ,
divisible. moveable Pa"s, which are the ground of Corruptibility), do no
m<><e hinder Imme ns il'; from bei ng .... e nt i. lly One, than the Pa". of
Duration hinder Eternity from be ing e ssentially One.

'I' ate
God him,elf i, not ,ubjected to any change lTv the d~ .. ity and the change
olthings that a,e in him, and which in him have lile, motioo and being.

This st range Doctrine i, the e xpress Assertion 01 51. Paut as well as the
plain \loice 01 Natu'e and Reason.

God is not In space 0' in lime; but hi. existence Is the c.u~ 01 space and
time. And when we .ay, in conlormit'! with the language 01 the vulgar. that
God exist< in all the space, and in all the t ime"

These Word. mea n only that he is Omnipr e~ nt and Eternal, that is, that
Bound!e .. Space and Time are nece"ary Consequence. 01 hi' Existence;
and not. that Space and Time are Beings d;stinct from him, and in wh ich he
e , I,ts.

to ,ay that Imme n'it'! doe. not .ignify Bound less Space, and that Eternit'!
doe. not ,ignily Duration or Time without lIeginning and End, i, (I think)
affirming that Words have no meaning.

As lor the criticism 01 attract ion. Clarke. 01 course. maintains his point 01
\/Iew: miracles are rare and meaninglol events produced by God lor definite
reason.; a perpetu.' mirade is a contradiction In terms; and II not. then the
pre--establ i.hed Harmonv 01 Leibnil is a much greater one . MOfeover-
Clarke i, rather astooi.hed that Leibni, doe. not understand thi.-in
Newton ian science or mathematical philosophy, amaction (whatever be its
ultimate physical Of metaphy.ical e xplanation) appea" only a. a phe no·
menon, as a general lact and as a mathematical expr""ion. Therefore, >II

it is very unrusonable to call Attraction a Miracle and an unphllosophical

Term; after it has been so often dist inctly declared. that by That Term we
do not mean to express the Cause of Bodies tending towards each other.
but barely the EHeet. or the Phaenomenon It .elf. and the law. or
Proportion. of Ihat Tend en"" ' di"overed by h perience

which dearly ,how. Ih.1 Ihe Sun attract. the Earth. Ihrough Ihe int erme·
diate void Space; that is that t he Earth and Sun gravitate toward. each
other. or tend (whatever be Ihe Cause 01 that Tendency) towards each
other. wilh a fo'ce. which is In a direct proportion of the ir Ma sses. or
Magnitudes and Demities tOj!ether, and in an inverse dupl icate proportion
of thei r Distances.

But. of course, there Is much more behind this Lei bnlli~n oppos ition to
attraction than a mere unwillingness to adopt t he point of v>ew of
"mathem.lical" philosophy with its adm ission inlo the body of science of
incomprehen.ible and inexplicable "facts" imposed upon us by empiricism:
whal Leibni, real ly aims at is the .e lhuffic>encV of the world· mechanism,
and there is very linle doubt that the law of <.OIlseN.tion of the vis viva
achieves it in a 51ill beller way than the Cartesian law of conservation of
motion.

The Newtonian world - a clod running down - requires a constant renewal

by God of its energetic endowment; the Leibnllian one, by its very
perfection. rules out any inteNention of God into its perpetual motion .
Thus it is not surpr ising that for Or. Clarke the fight for \/Oid space. hard
atoms and absolute motion becomes a fighl for God's Lordship and
presence, and that he ask' Leibni, why'"

.. so great Concern should be shown, to e "lude God', actual Government

of the World, and to allow his Providence to act no further than barely in
concurring (as the Phrase is) to let all Thif1gs do only what they would do of
themseNes of mere Mechanism .

'I' ate
 CONCLUSION : THE DIVINE ARTIFEX AND THE DlEU
FAINEANT

HY, indeed? leibni" who was much more interested in mora l.

W th.n in ph)"ie. a nd in m.n than in the co. mo., could have

answered that it was the only means to avoid makin8 God
re,pon,ible for the actual management, or mi,management, of thi' our
world. God ju,t did not do what He wanted, or would lil<e to do. There
WOlre laws. and rules. that He could neither change nor tamper with. Things
had n.ture, that He could not modify. He had made a perfect mechanism
in the working of which He could not inlerfere . Could not and should not.
a, thi, world was the best of all the po~ible worlds that He could create.
God, therefore, was blameless for the evil, thaI He could not prevent or
amend . Alter all, thi' world wa, on lv the best po.sible world, not a
perfectly 800d one; that waS not poss ible .

l.elbn i, mighl have said th is in reply to Clarke. But he did not read Clarke',
fi/th reply. He died before he received iC Thus their fight. a fight in which
both sides fought pro majore Dei glor .... ended as abruptly as it staned. The
outcome of the Homeric struggle was not conclusive; neither side, as We
have ""en, budged an inch . Yet, in the decade. that followed, Newtonian
\.Cience and Newlonian philosophy gained more . nd more ground,
gradually overcoming the re,istance of the Cafle,ians and the leibni,ians
who, though oppo.ing each other on many point', made a common front
against the common foo.

At the end of the century Newton's viclory was complete . The Newtonian
God reigned supreme In the Infinite void of absolute space in which the
force of "nOver,.1 attraction linked together the atomicallv structured
bodies of the Immen<e univerre and made them move around in accor-
dance with strict mathematical law •.

Yel It can be argued that this victory w'" l'y"hic one, and Ihal the price
paid lor It was disastrOUSly high. Thus. for instance, the force 01 attraction
which. for Newton, waS a proof of the insufficiency of pure mechanism, a
demonstration of the eoiSlence of higher. non.mechanical powers. the
man ifestation of God's presence and action in the world, ceased to pla~
this role, and b""ame a purel~ natu ral force, a propert~ of malter, that
enriched me chanism instead of supplanting ~. As Dc. Che~ne e xplained
qu~e re asonabl~, altracHon was .ssuredl~ not an eS$enti~1 propert~ 01
bod~. but wh~ should n01 God have endowed matter with une,senti.1

properties? Or. as Henry More and Roger Coles-and laler. Voltaire -

pointed 0111. ~nc e we possess no knowledge of the wbltances of things.
and know nothing about the link that connect< property with substance,
even in the cales of hardness or impenetrability, we cannot deny that
amaction bElongs to mailer jU51 bEcause we do not under<;tand how it
worh.

As for the dimension, of the malerial univer-;e which Newtonian, al first

had opposed to the actual infinity 01 absolute space, the relentless
pressure of the principles of plenitude and sufficienl reason. b~ which
leibni! managed to infecl his successful rivals. made it co-exlensive wilh
space itself. God, ellen the Newton ian one, could obviouslV not limit His
creative action and treat a ce rtain part of infinite homOf!ene<)us space -
though able to dist inguish it from the re st -in a way so ullerly diffe rent
from the others. Thus the mate".1 universe. in spite of filling only an
e . ceedingl~ sman parI of the Infinite ...,id, became just as infi nite as this.

The same reasoning which prevented God from l i m~ i ng His creative action
in respect to space could. Just as well. be applied to time. An infinite,
immutable and sempiternal God could not be conceived as behaving in a
different manne r at different times, and as limiting His crealille action to a
sman stretch of it. Moreove r, an infinite universe existing only for a limited
duration seem, illogica l. Thus the created world became infinite both in
Space and in Time. But an inlinite and ete rnal world, a, Oarke had so
strongly objected to l eibn iz, can hardly admit creation. "doe, nOt need it;
it e . ists by virtue of this very infinity.

Furthermore, the gradual dissolution 01 traditional ontology under the

impact 01 the new ph ilosoph~ undermined the validity of the inference
from the attribute to Its supporting sub>lance. Space, consequent lV. lost
progre"ively its attributive or substantial character; from the ultimate stuff
which the world was made of (the ,ubsta",ial space of Descart"') or the
attribute of God, the frame of hi. presence and action (the space of
Newton l, it became more and more the void of the atomists, neither
subst ance nor accident the inlinite. untreated nothi ngne ss. the frame of
Ihe absence of all being; consequently also of God's.

,
Lit,t but not least, the wofld·d<><k made bo; the Divine Artife~ wa, much
better than N~wton had thought it to be. E~e"l progress of N~wtonian
science brought new proofs 10' Leibnlz'S content ion: the mo"';ng force 01
the universe, Its vis "';va, did not decrease; the wo.ld·cloc~ needed neither
rewinding, nor mending.

The Divine Arlile>- had Iherefore less and Ie., 10 do in the world. He did not
even need 10 conse"", it, as Ihe world, mOre and more, became able to
dispense w~h Ihi' ser"';ce ,

Thu, the mighty, enef"lletk God of Newton who actua lly "ran" the universe
according to His free will and deci.ion, became, in quick succeSSion, a
con",rvat ive power, ~n intelligenti. supra· mundana, a " Dieu fain~ant."

Litplace who, a hundred years after Newton, brought the New Cosmology
10 ~s final perfection, told Napoleon, who asked him about the role 01 God
in his System of the World : 'Sire, je n'ai pas eu besoin de ceue h¥pothese. "
11 did not need this hVl>olh"'i') 6uI it wa, not lapl.",', System, it wa, the
world described in ~ that no longer needed the hypothesis God ,

The infi nite Universe of the New Cosmology, infinite in Durat ion as well as
in Extension, in which ete rnal matter in accordance with eternal and
necessary laws moves endlessly and aimlessly In eternal space, inherit ed .11
the ontological attributes of Di.inity, Yet on ly those -all Ihe othe ... the
departed God took away wilh Him,

'I' ate
 ~ 10.

ENDNOT ES

I CI. A. N. Whiteh~ad, Sc~nc~ and th~ moxlern world, New York. 1925; E. A. Burtt,
The me,.phr<ic.1 lound. t"'n. 01 moxl~rn phy<kal .d~ n[ ~. New Yor k. 1926; J. H.
Randall. The ma king of the moxlern mind. 80>lon. 1926; Arthur O. lovejoy',
cI ...".1 G,eat chain of being. C.mbrid~~. 1,1 ..... 1936, and my own (tudes
Ga IMenn~s. Pari., 1939. (p. 4)

' The co.mo. con<option i, only "... <tic.lly. th .. i,. hi, tone. lly, lin~ed together
wrth the geeeontr" world' view. Vet ~ can be completely divorced from the latter
a •• fOf .. amp ~. bv ~ e pler . (p. S)

' T~ lull >lory 01 the tron,form.tion of the space concept ion from the Middle
/410' to modem timos should include the hi>lory of Ihe Ploton" a nd Neopl"oni<;
revi"al lrom t l>e FIo,..,ntin. Academy to the (ambridge Platon ist< a, w~1I IS that 01
t he atomic coocoption. 01 ma"e r and the discu""'n' . bout the vaCuum fo ll owing
t he e ' perime n" of G.lileo. Torri<;el li and P.,~ I. But thi' would double ,I>e volume
of this wor~ and. be,ides. d ima", uS somew""t from the ""ry de~ nl le and precise
Ii.... 01 d. ""lopme nt wh ich _ a re l<>flowi ng here. Moreove r, fo r ,ome of the ...
problem. we ~n ref. r ou' r • • d. " to the , I" ""al books of Kurd I..o.. wi".
Geschi<;hte de. Atomistik. 2 vol• .• Hamburg und Berlin. 1890. and [rnst C. , .. , ...
Oa. ErtenntnlspfOblem In def Phllosop h~ ur><! Wis •• nochoft de< ,,"uen Zeit. 2
vol, .. Berlin, 1911, a. well a. to the r.CO nt works of Corn. Ii. de Wa.rd,
l'exp<!rien<e b,rometrique•• es onto;:ede nts et se • • • pl ication •• T""u.". 1936.
and Miss M~fi e Bo ... "[lta bli.hment of the mecha nical pl>ilorophy." O.;ri •• vol.••
1952. ;..., now Ma. Jammer. Conc ~ pt< of ..,ac ~ . Harvard Un... Pres •• (ambridge,

f.". j'
M ..... 1954, a nd Ma rtu< Fie". ' ueber den Ur<prung un<! gedeutung .on New'on'
~enre "Om .booluten Raum: Ge,neru •• vol . • i. 4. 1954. especiallv for the
space conception, of f etesio Pa"ri", a nd C;oml>"nella . (p. 5)

• On the Gr ... ~ con""ptio'" of tl>e uni""~ c/. Pi. " . Dul>em, l • • y't~m. du
monde. vol. ; and ii. Par;•• 1913. 1914; R. Mond<>ffo. l'infinito nel pe n,i.,o de i
Greci, f iren ... 19.3.4. ont! Chorl'" Mugle r. De • .", ir cyclique et I. plurolite oes
mond .., Pari<, 1953 . (p. 7)

, Th. MS <>f De ~rum n.tur. w.$ di"o"",,,d in 1411. On it. re <ep'io n and
influence d . J. H. s.ondy •• History of d a"""1 " hol;o"hip. Cambrklge. 1908•• nd G.
Had,itt. ~ucretlus a nd hi' Influenc~. New Yor~. 1935. (p. 7)

,.
101 ~

• The l im Lillin t"M..,tion 01 {);O(eM' la~niU$' D~ .i~ '" moribu. philO$<lphorum

by Ambro.iU. Ci.eniu. ap~.red in Venke in 147S and "'a. immediatel>j reprinted
in N(I,nberB in 1476and 1479. (p. 7)

, The . tomi.m 01 the a""ient> • • t lea., in the a'P'!<t pre.ented to u. by Epicurus

and luveti u.-rt moy be t h.;ot rt wa. d iffe'e nt ",rth Oemo<rrtus. but we know very
little .bout Democritus-", •• not • ""lenlille the<>f"j, and thOUBh >ome of Its
pre<epts. a s lor In<la nce. Ihat which e njoins u, 10 e , ploin Ihe .,.,1e" i.1phe nome n.
on t he potte m 01 th ~ tem",ri.1 one., ..,~m to le.d to t he unification olthe world
""h ie.eel by modem """,,,,, •• II h.s n.... ' been able to yield. found. tion fo'
de.ek>pmen. of • physics; not e.-en in mode,n times: indeed. it< ,.., .... 1 by
Gauendi ,..,mained p<erfe<tly sterile. The ' , plonation of t hi$ .ter ility IiU, in my
"" in io n, in the e. t reme ,en.u.l i,m olt .... Epi<u rean t,.d ition; it i, only when t his
sen.u.li,m wa. ""je"ed by t .... lound. " 01 mode rn "",nee and replaced by •
m.,hem.tlc.1 appro.oeh to n.'u,. th.t • •omi.m-Io ,he work. 01 G.lileo.~ . B.oyle,
Ntwton. etc. - betame. scientilic. 11>j .. lid conception. and l UC retlu •• nd Epicuru,
appe.red a s fo rerun ners 01 modern science. It i, ",,"ible. 01 <ourse, and e.en
Pfob.b4e. that. In linldnl mathem.,'.m With atOm i.m. modern ""lence , .. i""d ,he
dee",,<l ln'urtion. and intentions 01 Demotrilu •. (p. 11)

• C/. Ren .. Desco" "" "l.ettre '" (honut: June 6, 1647. o..uvres, ed . Adorn hnn~ry,
vol. v. p . SO sq .• P"is, 1903. (p. 8)

• Nichola< 01 (u",)N ichOIa< Krebs or (hryplf.) w"born in 14{)1 in (ues (or (U"')
on the Mo.elle . lie studied law and mathematics in Padu., t .... n theoioS'/ in
Colottne. As archdeacon of Liege he ...... me mbe, of ,he Counci l of ea.el (14371 .
was " nt to Con,l3ntinOpie '0 bnnS .bout • union of the Ea"ern . nd Wes,ern
Churches. Md to Germ.ny os p.pallesate )14401. In 1448 I>e ", • • rai<ed by P""e
Nid..,'" V to t he cardina lote, . nO in 14SO i>e wo' ap pointed e i,i>op 01 e ritten. He
died AUiU>! 11. 1464. On Nichol •• 01 Cu ... d . Edmond va~.! ... nbefllhe. I.e C.,dln.t
Nicolo. de Cues. P.ri" InO; lienry Bet!, Nicola. 01 CU", london. 1932; Ma urice
de Ga"dill.c. Lo phil"""phie de Nicol .. de Cue .. Pan •• 1941. (p. 8)

'" C/. Ernst Hol/ma"n. D., Unr.ersum .ott Ni~ol .. von Cue •• e~ci ally the
Te" be ilaSe by Raymond Kliban<ky. pp. 41 Sq •• which ~ives the te xt 01 Nichol .. 01
Cu ... in a crit ical edit ion .. well a< the bibl""raphy 01 t he problem . The booklet 01
E. Holfmann appe.red as "Cu,a nu. Stud ien, I" in the S~lung.berichte de'
Heide lberge, Ak.demie de, Wi.. enschaflen. Philo.Ophi""h-li i<1o,lsche KI.... .
J.h .... ngI9291930, 3. Abh.ndlung, lie idell>erg. 1930. (p. 8)

11 ct. Oe doct. linorantl., 1. ii. tap. Ii, p. 99. I am fo llo ",ln&Ihe te" of the lale>l.
cr~Ic.I, ed ition 01 the ",or'" of Nichola. of Cusa by E. lioffm.nn-R. ~ Iib.n. ky
(Op ..a om ni •• lu .. u e l .ucto,~ate At.dem"e litte ,","m Hei<le ll>e,&en"i ad
 ~ 10)

codicum fidem e dita . ..... i. [jp~ i ~ • • 1931 ). The,e i ~. now. ~n E n ~ h,h t .. n l l ~ t i o n 01

tne Do do«, isoo,.n,i. by f, . Ge'm. in Heron: Of Ie.rn.,j igno,.n« b~ Ni<~o ) ••
Cu .. nus. Londofo, 195-4. I h ...... n _ "h~I"". pr ef~".,j to g; .... m~ own tran,laUon
olt'" t • • t, I a m quol i"ll. (p. 10)

"lbid .• p.99,q. (p. 11)

" Ibid., p. 100. (p. 11)

" Ibid " p. 100 'Q. I, I. to be reme mbefKl. '>owe .er. 'hat '~e conc~p,ion of ,he
, ... . tivity of motion. a t I~'<I "' tn ~ son .. of ,~. n ~c~ ,,~ y 10 ...1.le motion to •
re$l in~ r ~ le ... nce·pOint lor body) .. not hi n ~ new and Ca n ~Ir" ady be fo und in
Ari'totle: d . P. Ounem. Le m",,"ement ob.olu ., .. mow. men' rel, til. Montlis ·
non. 1909: , ... o ptiul ' ol' tiviW 01 mot io n i, . t ooi.,j ot lenglh b~ Witello (d .
Oplicu lib ~ de cem. p. 167. 6 . ,il ... , lS7l) .nd . ~ •• n more ~",.n."'."". bv Nicok
Or"<m ~ . (d. Le l i v r ~ du ci ~ 1 ~ t d" lale". ,.,j. by A, 0 , M ~ur" t . nd A, j , Donomy, C.
S. B.• pp. 271 sq .• Toronto, 1943).lp . H I

" Ibid .. p. 102. (p. 13I

"Ibid .• p. 102 sq . (p . IS)

" Do docl> i&nor.n tl. , I. ii, cap. 12 , p. 103. (p. IS)

" ct. tho f,mou. p.... ge 01 Virgil. Pfo.ehimu' portu t Of"e<l Ue urbe.que
recKlunt. quot.,j bv Copernicu<. (p. IS)

" This lamou • • oyinl! which dese,ibes God ••• ,ph.~ra cuiu. C~nl'u m ubiq u".
ci«um/e re nti. null ibi 'ppe'" lor the fi" t time in this lorm in the p,e udo·He rmetic
Boo!< of t~e XXIV p~llosophe", a n a nonvm"". com pll . t io n of the X l lt ~ <en,u"!; C/,
C"m~ ns B.em k~'. 0., ~udoher m,",iseh~ Such de r IO( I~ M~i<l~' (Se ~,~&" lOr
Gesehichte de ' Philoso ph ie und Theoloj:ie de. Mittel. lt . ". r. "" 10:\0). Mu n"er.
Ina; Oiet rkh Mahnke. Une nd liche ~ h ..., e und AllmiUe lpunct. ~ .lIe/S .a " , 1~17,
In tni. eoo ~ of the IO(I ~ ph ilosopi>e<., th~ a l>o",,-mentioned fo rmul. fo rms Ih~
p,opo.it ion ii. (p. 16)

,. He i•• how","". 'e/erre d to by Gio.on ni fr~nce.eo Pi<o in hi' E• • m. n doc", •

.on ;to". Be ntium 10p<.'~. t . ii. p. 713. a •• II•• e, lS73) and Cello Ca lc ogninl In ~I<
Quod coelum <I ~ t. t ~ rr. m"""'lur . • ~ I d ~ pe r ~ nn l motu I. " "" (Ope ,. . Iiquot . p,
395. B•• il• ...,. 1544 ): d. R. Klib. n, ' y, <>p. cit .• p. 4 1. (p . 16)

"ct. l. A. Bir ~"nm.j~'. Mlkola j Kopernik. vol. i, p, 248, Cracow. 1900. Birk~nm.je,
deni. . .n ~ in ll ue nc ~ of Nkhoia , 01 Cu,. On Copernicu" On th ~ me d ieval
"fo,e runc.e,s" of Copernk", c/. G. McCo lle y, "The theory of the di urna l ,,,,at ion of
,he eor, h: I,i" ..vi, 1917 . Ip. 16)

" 0. d<><t. igoo,a n,la, ii, 12, p. 104. (p. 111

" ~i<hol., of Cu,", ', conception could be " •• ted . , an a ntkip' ''on of t hat of Si,
Willi.", He's.che ll ; and •• en of mo,. mode 'n ones. (p. 17)

.. Oe doot. igoo,.ntia , ii, ll, p. 104_ (p. 111

"'b" . p. 105. (p. 18)

" ll>d ., p. 101 . Ooce mo,e, on. <ou id <ee in thi. <on<.ptio n 01 ~k ho l •• of Cu, ••
p'eftgU'.' io n of the ,heory of tile mut ual ." ,.e'io n of 'he hu.e nly bod i... Ip. 18)

"I b" ., p . 107. (p. 19)

ni b" .. p. 108 s.q.(o. 191

'" M..""llu, Siellotu, Pa linlleniu" wnos. ,,,,e n.",e wa. P"" Angelo Manzoli, bo,n
at l;o Stell ... ><>me l ime betwet'n 1\.00 . nd 1503, w,ote, unde' the t rtle of
lod ..,u, vi'.e,' d i d",,~ 1 poem, wh ich wa, p' inted in Venit<! Ip,owbly) in lSJ.4,
rapid ly bec.me .." e me ly ""pular. e <4>oci. 11y .mOnl Prole"anl '. a nd w", • .en
" .n, lated into Enillish, F~och . nd Ge,man . The £II1Ili. h tran.l.,io n (Zodiale of
lilel by S;o,,,,,by Goodge , appea'ed in 1560 (,lie first ,h,.., booh), ond in 1565 ,h.
en, i,. poem wa. prlnled . It ,..,m, II>a, Palinge nlu, w., at •• er'oln time su'peeted
01 he,• • y, bu, it wa. o nly IS vears aft. , hi, de"h (he died in 15431 Ih>l, In 1558,
Ihe Zodiacu, vita. wa. pu, On ,he Inde. lib,o",,,, proh,bi,o,"",. lJnde , P~ Pa ul II
hi' bone , we 'e di'inte rre d a oo bu'nt; d_ F. w_W. tson, The Zodiacu, Vrta. of
M"",llu. P.llnl"nlu. Stell.,us: An old s.chool book. London. 1908 .nd F. ~ .
John"'n, A,tronomOcaI ,h""aM in Renai.. ance , ngl' nd, pp. 145 'q., SaHimo,",
19)1Ip· l0)

.. Zodiacu. ,,~.e, I. vii, lib,a , R. 497-99; 'nBI . tran'l .. p. 118; d . A. O. lovej<>\" The
1I, • • t <h.in 01 heinll,. pp . US <q ., Ca mbridge, MU •. , 1936; F. R. Joh",on, 00. <~ . ,
pp. 147 'q . Ip.l01

" Zodlacu. "i''', I. ix. Aquarlu" II. 601-3 1"an,l.. p. 2 18).(p. 20)
"l b" _, I. • i, Ilqu oriu., U. 6 1Z ·616 ("a n,I., p_1181 . lp_111

"A. O. l o."j<>\" The i,e at< h.in of hein\:, p. 52 and p."lm. (p. 211

••
.. ZO<!;om' yitat, I. • ii, Pi,cel, ~. 20·]5 (I,~nol ., p. 228) . (p. 11 )

.. Ibid .. II. 71 -85 (t"nol., p . 229). ""~ world -YI~w of Palingeniu, ;, bea<>tifully
e.pre,<@dbvEdmu ndSp..n<@rinhi, Hymnol he,yenlybeauty (quoted bv E. M. W.
Tilly.,d, The ' ii,a bet h.n world pictu'e, p. 45,london, 1943),

f ar aboye Ih .... he .. e n. wNch here we ... e, p. 281

Be ot he" lor e.c_ in,. Ihe <@ in light,
Not bounde d, not co,rupt, 0, 'hese ,ame be,
But Infonite ill I.,genes, a nd in hell ""
Unm"" ni, Incorl'lJpl an d 'pol le « Mtht
Th., nee d J>O,un t' illum ina't 'heir ,ph e~ ,
But their o wn noli •• light I., po''' ng thei"
And a, th. ", hea""n. still by deire •• ,i,e
Untill ti>e'; come 10 Ihe l, first move,', bound,
Th. t in hi' mighty c"mp;>>> dOlh comp';..
And , ~ rr,/ . II , h. re" wil h him .round;
~ 'bo", likewl'" clo by cleg'" e ,edound
And ri.. more 'ai, till the y" I"" arrw<
To 'he most fai', whe 'eto ,hey .11 do st,i",,_ (p. 21)

"In the technic.t ",n", of the wo,d, Cop..'nic u, i. a Plolem •• n. (P. 131

" CI. Joachim Rheticu$, Na,n,k> prim • . I.m quoling , he ,""ce ll en' ".nll" "10 of E.
Rosen in hi' Th,ee Copernican Ireali",., p . 147, New Vorl<, 1939. (p. ll)

.. f . R. Johnson, Astronomical t bough! in Re .... l... nce England, pp. 24549,

aa ltlmo ~ , 1917: d . A. O. lovejoy, op. Cit., pp. 109 , q. (p. 24 1

.. John Donne, AnOlomy of the world, Fi"t Annl..... ry (16 11 ) eel .. None.uch
P,e«, p. 202. T h~ dl.amou, eff~ ct< of th~ <e>-ent.. nlh cent ury', ,pi ,~u al
r.yolut ion h'"" 'e<:ent~ been studied wrth Cre. t c~ re and some nost. fgic rei,et by
a nu mberof ",ho i...: d. inte' .lio, E. M. W. Til ~ " d, The Etl1Obet ho " world picture,
lor>don, 1943: Victor Harrl" ,0,11 co herenc ~ BOM, Chicago, 1949: Mi" M",jor~ H.
NiCollOn, Th" brukin8 of the circle, Ev.n""n, II I. , 19S0; S. l. Be ,h"II, The cullu ral
"yolu, ion of the XVtlth c" ntury. london, 19S1. fo, ' non.no".,-ic tre at men' ct. A.
O. l o.ejov, The i'." ch.in of be ing. , "d .,.. .. 1 Wi lley, Th . ..... n' eenth ce n'ury
b.cl<t!round, Comb'ida", 1934. (p. 24)

.. Nicolou , (opo: ,nicu., Do ' ovol<>tionibu. orbium c""I." ium, I. i, cop . viii_, (p. 241

" AccordlnR to t~ medl~val conception the c~nt," 1 po';t ion of th~ e arth I, the
lowe" po" ible; on~ H ~II i, "lower" tha n 0"' ~ arth l ~ abode. (p. 24)
" for the pre-modern. t hot i" pre-tele>copi, ~wonomy. r,>ed >t." po ...... ~
" isib,", ond e.en measyrable d ia me te r. SirtCe. on the ot~ e r hand. they Ife rat her
lar away from y, ond in t~e Co.,.rnican conce pt ion even e.ceedinSly larld. Infro,
PP · n-9) • • ko!i r rul dimen"on, my" b<! • • tremely la rge . lp. 241

., Cf. Gront McColley. "Tko! seventeent h century dottrln. of a plura lity of worlds."
Anna l, of Scle""e, I, 1936, and "Co.,."'ic"' a nd the i nfi n ~ e Ynive, ...; P<>p"lor
Astronomy • • Iiv. 1936; d_ frand, R_ John.",.. op_ crt .• pp_ 101 , q.lp_ 2S)

.. Nicolo", Ccpe'nic~" De revoluiionib", orbium """Ie'ti"m, I. I, ca p. 1. lp . 2S)

",C
" , . ,' ".,. p. '"
. ', top. "''' ~

"l bOd .. I. I. cap. x. ip. 261

"A. 0 _lovejoy. op . cit_. pp. 99 >q . lp. 271

.. Cf. S<r Wolter R.leiSh. The hlstorle of the world. IGnclon. 1652. pp. 93 >q.; d .
EI<:. i>elI, op. crt ., pp. 46 ,q.(p. 211

.. Cf. Infr•• p. 94.l p. 211

.. Gior.bno Bruno unde rn.nd, them ., , • • chi"1l t he i nfin~y 01 the un iverse. I nove
already e.a mined .ko! ca,e of Nic hol., 01 Cu,a; ., lor lu,,""iu •• he ..... n •• indeed,
the i nJin ~ y of space and th at of the world •• but malntal", the Ilnllene .. of our
vi<ib,", world and the e.i,lence 01 0 lim~ in S heavenly ,phe re. oul,ide of which. but
Inocc"""ib,", 10 Our .,. ree plion, the ....... other Identico l 0, ono l<>i0u, ' world, :
Anachronist ica lly we could con'ide r hi. co"",p'ion a, prefigurating t he modern
conception of IsI . nd·unive' .... di • .,....,d In on Infinite 'poce, lhoulh with ~ •• ry
Import. nt diffe ... ""e: , he Lucretla n world ..... cio!.ed and not con n.,<ted with each
other. l p. 281

" Cf. f roncis R. Johnsen and Sanford V. larkey, "Thorn .. Oill8'"', the eo.>e,nican
,v>,em a nd the ideo of ,he infinity 01 ' he universe; The HuntinS,0n library
Bu ll .. in. n . S 11934). ond Fro nd, R. John"'n, op . cit., pp. 164 >q .; cf. 01,0 A. 0 .
Lovejoy. op. cit_. p. 116_ (p. lSI

" A Pe rfit De<c,iplion, ,la' N J-N 4; d . John"'n-lar1<ey, pp. Il8 >q.; John"'n, pp.
16S-167_lp. l91

.., A. 0. loyejo,. op. cit., p. 116. Giord.no Bruno wos born In Nol'lne .. N.p,",,) In
1548, b<!came • Dominica n In 1S66, tx.t. ' M ye." I.te, in 1576, on accoont 01
 ~ 101

<om~ , ~ t he' he,,,,ic. 1vie w> held by him on ".n,ub,uontiatiQn .nd t he Imm.cul.te
Cance ption, h.d la leo"" bolh Ihe 0''''' ' ond II ...... In I S7 ~ he came la Ge ne ..
(w .... r. he Co<old not ,'a~1. Ihen la To<o la u,e, and to P,,'.
(1581) wher . .... k!ct,,,..;
00 the 108ical 'V"~m of R'ymundu, luliu, (.nd w,ole SOme philosophic. , work<, i.
e. Oe umbri' idurum and. , aliric como-dy. II Ca nd elajo); in lS83 he went to
~ngland whe'e he lectured and published some of hi' be" w",h, ' u<h., .... Cona
dele (oone,1. Oe I. cau ... pMnclp;o 01 UOO and Oe rlnflnita un i"""" e moodl. from
15-85 10 15112 8wno wande ,ed In Eu, ~ (Pori', Morbufg, Wittenbe,g, P,agu.,
Helm".dt, Zuric h). publi,hing the Oe immenso et innum.,a bili b.,. in 1591 . Fin. I.....
In 1592 .... aCCepted an i""ita lian to Ve nice. DenO<Jnced and .",osted by the
Inqu i '~I"" (In 1593). he wa, brought to Rome, whe,e he rema ir>ed Imprisor>ed 10'
"'ven ye.,s. until h" wo, e"omm unk.ted and burnt at the , take"" Fe b'ua"" 17,
1600 . ct. Oo<olneo W.ley Singe ' G;ordooo Sruoo. hi' lile a nd thought. New Vo ' ~,
I~SO Ip_lI)

.. W,itten in 1584. (p. 31)

.. CI. my ~tude, G.li~ne" iii. p. ii 'q" a nd ·G.Ii~ and the scieMlfic ,ollOMlon 01
the XVlllh century, · The Philosophical Re"ew, 1943. (p. 31)

.. Gio'dono Bruno ..... Cen. dele Ce ne'i, dial . ''''' 0, Ope,. ltaliane, ed_ G. Genti le,
Vol. i. p. 73. e..'i. 1907. (p . 31)

" ,bid .• pp. n .q. (p. 31)

.. The Oe nnfinito uni"""" e mondi wa, wr~len in 1584 ; the Oe imme nso el
innume .. b il, bu" 0, . 0 quote Ihe lUll litk!, De innume,.bilibu<, immen", el
lofigu,abill: . i"" de un .....", e l mundi. l, b,1""10, In 1591. I ,hal l I>.>.e m ~ ex pos~I""
on the De I'infinito uni"""o e mand i and quot e it in the e" elk! nt 'e, en'
t'an" . I;On of Mrs. Oo<OIhea Wale~ 5inge,. adjoined 10 I,." G;o,d.oo 8.uoo. hi, I ~e
and wo,k, New Yorl<, 19'>0. I ,hall ,,,,,, Ihe ",Ie",nce first to Ihe e dit;on 01 ~nlik!
(Ope ' e l!.alia ne, vol. i); then to M,,_ Singe", lfan,l.,i"" . (p. 31)

.. Bruno', .pace I, a void ; bul Ihl. IIOki i. nowhe,e ru l.... void; ~ i, e~f"\'Whe rel" 1I
0 1 beinS . A • • Cuum with nothing fil ling it would me.n a limitat ion 0 1 God', c"' ..... e
. cl;on 3nd . mo,e""",.' ,in 3g3 inst the printiple 0 1 ,ufficient ,e."'n which lorbid.
God to Ifea' .ny p.r' 01 ,pace in a manner differen' from . ny othe •. Ip_l~)

.. De nnf. un iv. e moodi, p. 309 sq., t,oo<l. . p. ~W; d . De Im"",nso. . Ope, •

.... lin., vol . i. part i. p . 259_ (p_ 32)

"A. O. lovejoy. op. cil .• p. 119. (p. 32)

,. ••
" o~ I' inl. univer«>, ded ic . epi<tle, p,17S (tr~n,' ., p,146), (p, 33)

'" The famoy, ph,ase "Ie 'ile nce ~Ie",e l de "". ",~<e. 'nfonl. m'enraY"" d.",. nel
e. p,e .. pa"al', CWn luling-a. i. u.ually a"ymed by p. "al ', hi1tor;'IO,-bu1
that cf the at"'isti< "Iibe"in." (p. 33)

"0. I' inf, univer«>, p. 274 (lran,I., p. 245), (p. 34)

.. De I'inl. universe_ p. l80 (tr.n~ .• p. 250); ,I. ~ immen>c. i, 4. OP"fO. i. i, p. 214 .

(p, l51

"l bOd .• p . 281 (l,.n,I .• p. 2S1). (p. 36(

"Thi. . . ry lamou. "gum" n, . ga in.t the fin~ud. 01 the univ"",,_o' of .poce- i'
a g<>Od • • • mp~ cf the conl inuity of philosophicol tradllion ond dlscu"ion,
GI<>rd.no BrYno proba bly borrow. it f,om l u"etiu. (D. ,erum n" u r~. I, i, Y. 968
>q .). but ~ wa. a l,udy widely u.ed in t he dis<u"ion. of the XIII·X"",h ce ntu,i ..
about Ih. p'ur.'lt~ of Ihe world •• nd Ihe po .. ,bll,ty cf Ihe ",,'d (d. my paper
qYOled In chap. in, 40) and willI>< u.ed by He nry More «f. Infro, p. 139) and • .on
by lode (d. An e .... y on huma n unde"tandin,. I. ii. "U. 2n Ac<crding to the
Comme ntaire e. esetiq ue.' « il ique 01 A . Ernout and l. Robin to their e dition of
Ih. O. rerun n.,u ,. Ip. 180 'q., Pa,i •• 1925). 1'" .rgumenl 0"81"",., wilh Archita.
and I. y<ed by Endem i", In hi' Phys;c., (d. H. 0;.1" Fra8me nte der Vor<ocratlker, c.
,U\'. A 24. B ' ~in. 1911). Wh .. i. mOre im po .... "t. it i. to I>e f""nd in Cicero. De
natufO deo'um, i, 20. 54; d . Cyril Soiley, l u«etiu., De rerun n.. ur •• vol. ii. pp. 958
1q .. O><fo,d, 1947(p. 36).
" O. '·inl, unlver«>, p. 282 (ua n.l .. p. 2531, (p. l6)

"I bid .• p . 283 ("an,,". p. 254); d. A«ot i.m u. Camoe ra",n.i". Oper •• i. i. pp. 133.
134.140. (p. 371

'" CI. A<;roti,mu. C~moero<.o"" p. 175. (p. 37)

"0. rlol. univ., p. 286 (tran.I., p. 256).(p. 37)

" Thi. very fam"'" .,sument 38a in " the fi n~ude of the yni ...."e-o, of 'pace- i'
a g<>Od e. ample cf the con !inu ~y 01 philo.ophicol trad ition .nd di.cu"ion .
Giordano Bruno probably borrow. it from l ucre1lu.(De re rum n.tur •• I, I. v. 968
Sq .), but it wa. a lreadv widely u,ed in t he di.cus>ion> of the X III-XI~th centu,i ...
a bout the plurality of the world. and the po.sibil ity cf the void (eI. my pa"",
quoled In chap. in. 401 . nd will I>< u.ed by Henry Mor. (d. Inl,. , p. 119) ond •• en
by Lode (ct. An ..s.ay on human unde"landin&, I, Ii, §§13, 21). Accordin& 10 the
Comme nlai.... ~ s~tiq u e el critique of A, [rnout and L. ~o b i n 10 thel, edition of
the De reruo notur> (p. ISO ><I., P~r" . 19251, 'he a'll'umeot ",i,ioate. wrth Ar(h it ..
• nd i. used bv !ndemios i~ ~i. Pnv>"" (d. H. Oiel., Fr~ gm""le der Vorsocroliker, c.
".'''', A 24. Be,lln, 19 12). W~al is mO,.., imponant, ~ is 10 ~ found in Cia.,o, 0.
o"ura d~orum. I. 20, $4; ct. Cyril S. il"y. Luu ... iu,. O~ r ~ruo n.l ura. vol. Ii. pp. gs.<!
><I .• Orlord, 1947. (p. 38)

" Ibid .. p. 3.J.4(t,.n" .. p. 304): d . De Immenoo, Ope,., i. I. p. 218.lp. 18)

"'Ibid .• p . 335 1".0.. .. p . 31)4): d. De immeooo, Opo:ro, i: i. p. 290; i, ii. p . 66 . lp. J3)

"tbid .. p. 3361Iran" .. p. 30S); cf. De Imm~n<o. I, II. p. 12l. (p. 3g)

" Ibid .• p . 3361".0.. .. p . 30S). (p. 39)

"Ibid .. p. 286It(On" .. p. 2S7). (p. 40)

'"Ibid .• p. 28g 1".0.. .. p . 260). (p. 40)

.. A•• sclentl" ~e wa •• sometime •• fo, ~ n i nd ~. Ip. 411

., (f. F. R. John,,,,,, Aotronomk;ol thoullh, io Reo. i" .o« Engla nd. p. 216. (p. 41)

01 G. Guill ie lmi GII~ 'li Colc~m~"'I'. medici lO<Idin~"'i', De mOB""'~' mosn ... i<--
qu~ torporibu" ~, de m' 8f1O m3I1n ... ~ t ~l l u .. phyl ioloei. nov., C. vi, t .p . iii; pp .
liS 'q., Lor>don. 1600; Gil~rt·. work w.,
tron,l.te<! bv P. Fleury Mottel.y iIl1Sn
and by S'tf\oanu, P. Tl1omp,on in 1900. Th~ Mott~ l av t.. n, lotion wa, ,ePflnte d In
1'141 ., On" of "Tl1. CIa" it> of ti>e St. Joh,,', i'<'ogram" und~r the t itl~: Willi.m
Gilbe,t of Colc~ ~ 't et . phy.iclan of LO"""". 0" th ~ 10M "o n~ . nd ""'go ~ tit bod le,
ond 00 'ne , r e~ ' m.gn ... the Earth: d . pp. 31~ 'Q. Ae<Ofdiog '0 J. t. E. Oreye r, A
history of amonomy from Thole. to ~ eple r , 2nd ed .. New York.. 1953. p. 348,
Gilbe,t. in hi. po.thumou. wo,k. De ,,"uodo no"ro . ublun .. i ph ilo",phl. """.
(Am"e iod.mi. 1651), ". ppe." '0 h.. rta'e betwet!o t he ","e m of Tyeho . nd
Cope,nicu.: Tl1i' i. not Quite e .. C1, ,,;nee Gilbert, in cont'odlst;nC1ion to Tycho
S.. he. 1'1 a.",n, the ,ol.tion of t~~ ~"'t~ which Tycl>o g,.he ' ~JK ", and Ib)
d~oi" ' h" " . i""nte of • ,pher~ of fox" d " ' '' •• nd "v~o th" fi n~ud~ of ,ho
univ~"" >! ill I.ugh' by 8...h ~. Thu, Gilbert ,,,II,
u. ,h3t though ' h" m.jor~y of ,ho
philooophe" plaCed 'he e~rth in the ,enter 01 ,h. world, there i, flO 'eo"", '0 do
00 II . 2, cap. it De tellu ,i, loco. p. 1151 ; "Tell .. , I,

p. 285

v ~ ro,Iobum In centro univ~rS l m"""otern omol. fer~ phllo.ophorum tu,b.

",11""•• k. At . 1 mot .. ,," . lI qu~,," h"b u ~'k p.. ~t~r d iurn.m r" .ofytio n~m (ut
1.'1 ~

nonnylli ~ . i <l i m o nt l ""ontm e.i. m illom OpOne. "'It; ,in in .<>0 ,ede vow .... ",u.
,an'um, non in ci.tu lo, pl~ne" "um . i'u mo • • relY'. Non tomen ind •• aut " II i,
a liunde dop.ompti, .aHonibu •• ""no ".,rsuadetu , eom in univ. ' .... ""um natu'"
,on"o. au' , i,c.a ,.n. rum. perman..... H• • dd>. ind<.d (ibid .. p . 117). th .. · Non
e st .utem quo """uaderi pes.it in ce ntro y nive,,; magi. t."am reponi quam
lunam, qy ~ m Solem; net U. in motivo myndo horum unu m in centro .it, net .....
....... and In.,. morOO\li!f. 1M world it"," has no cenler (p. 1191.

On the other h ~ nd. thoygh he pUll t he ",n and not the e.n h in the cente' 01 .he
mo.iog world (p. 1201, "Iocu.,."u". non in medio qui. planela e in motu ci.tUI.fi
," 1I ",.m non ob ... ...... nl. I.nqu.m conlr"m motion"m . ... d Solem ma!I>. · .nd lel l,
y, t M' th ~ ,un Ip. IS8) · m .. imom vim ~~endi 01 imMII.ndi h' '''t. qui el"m
mOl ivi myndi ce ntfum e.t." h. dOH not ,eli u' outfight 'hOi tne unh belo"i' t o
,hi. · mo.ing wOfld" 01 I~e planet• .

Thou8h he quot ... Cope ,nicu, .nd e.e n ," II , u, that Copem icu. e rred In • • cribin8
to the eanh thru motio n,. in"ead 01 two I•• ound ill • • i> ~ nd .,ound the ",nl.
Ih. Ihlrd one, tnal which. acco'dlnl 10 C~' n icu,. turne d Ih. ax"of Ih. .. n~ In
erde, 10 k...,p it polntin8 .'w'y< in I~e •• me d i... Clion bel"i nol • mol ion . 1 all. 001
la" 01 it (p. 16S): ""Te n iu. motu, a Co pemito inductu, no n ..' motu, omnino •• e d
te ll " ri. .., di'eClio " ~ b i li,." he ~, not .,... n the trut h 01 .he h.lio<entric world_
vie w.

He tell. u<, ind .... d ( I. i, c. p. lOI. (}e vacyO , o ~'"to ), that tM Ar i<to t ~li. n objett"'n'
aga in" the \/Old Ofe ,"ortM..... Ih ~. thing. c ~ n ju,I •• w. 1I mo • • in I~e .oid . pace
a. ",main immobile In il and t h., Ihe ~arl h c.an ""ry ",.11 ~ a plane l . nd lu,"
a,o"nd Ihe <un l i l~ the o! h ~"; tha •• n ~.enh~ I ~ «. h e ~, nol w.n! 10 d iscy« t hi'
qye,lion (I . i. C3p. "". 0.. .><00 .. ~ ra! o, p. 4gl: 'Cuju, rei • • r~."m ,ic h, "'l o.
Omnia Qui ..,"nt in V"'"O PO"''''; it. quie, plurimi, globi' mundi. At no nnu lli globi
el Inflnili. vlr;by , et ",Iu .llerum co' perum al"n,U' Clfc.a q"""d.m <erpo' •• U,
planet •• circ. Solem. l una cire. Tel 'y ,e m N ~ 'iI' Sole m.

·Quod ,i Sol In me dio qu iescil u, C~nl" "' O' ion. ut Aft!UfU'. ,U,n pl.net.e, 'urn
e l i. m teliy, . a Sole 'gYnt u, In o'~m. con,.nti.ntlbu, propl.r bonum Ip' "
~ klbon.rm lormi<:" "",,>
tellu, in mediC qu ,",u , Ide cuju, motu .nnuo non ~ <t
hy iy, loci d iscepta,.) .gun.ur ci.ca ip:<am ,,,,era m"""n' ....

II I. po" ; bl~, 01 ,ou, .... Ihat GII~rI ..,.II~ con,'dered Ih.t 1M disc""lon of Ihe
annual mOlion of Ihe e.nh w>< o "t 01 pla ce In a book dtvOte d 10 the d<ve lop""'nl
01. ne .. ph ilowphV 01 ou. <ublynarworld. Yet ~ i, dilf"uit to ad mit tha•• d he wa,
fu lly con.;nced of ,~. trUlh of Ihe Copefnican .monomv, he would .0 con'i'lent ly
avoid <ayi"i It. ev' n when " "' rlina~' d.ily ,ol.tion •••• Ier In"'nco In ,h.p. Viol
boo. II of 1M Philo,ophl. nova Ip. 135): ""T~" . m r ircumvolvi diumo mOly,
 ~ 111

ver i ~imi l e
videtur: On ~rO <i"u l ~ ri a liquo motu annuo cietur, non huju, e$t Io(i
inquire ,e" I, ",em" thu., that Gjlbe" .... e ither not ve'Y mu<h jn ,ereS1~ in the
problem, 0' ""e ptlcalabou, the pos,ibilit-t to "'o<h a solution . nd tha, he "',~a,~
betwffn a n Improved C<>P" ,nicanism (<Y<h a, Kepler',) a nd on impr"""d Tv< ho
Brah ·i.m (.uch a. longomont;>nus'l. (p. 44)

.. In ~ntlnl out the ano log~ bet .. een Ke pl<>r's vie ... ~nd ,hose of some mod. ,n
"""' n\l'1< and phllosophe" of >Clenee I a m not eommittlnl a n anachronism;
e pi".mo!c'gV a nd Iogi< ore. ind.ed, nurly . , old . , >cience it",lf a nd e mpiri< i,m
0' po.j, ivism ~'e bV no mun. n ...... Inven'lon • . (p. 451

.. The ~un ,.pr.",nt~. $ymboli,.s, and p. rhap, • •• n embodie$ God the Fathe " th.
SI. lI o, VOUI1. ,h. X,", ~nd the .p.ce in bel", •• n, ,h. !ioly GI>ost. (p. (5)

.. O . De .te Ua no •• In pede Se'pt'nt;>rii. cap . .. i. pp. 687 (Ope, . omnl., ed. Fr i>ch.
vol. ii. Frln kofu"i et Erl. nga • . 18591 . The 0.. ,t.U. nov. w"' publi,hed in 1606. (p.

'"
" Ibid .. p. 688. (p. (6)

-Ibidem. (p. (6)

"Ibidem . (p. (6)

"Ibidem . (P. (7)

" Ibidem . (p. (7)

porfe<tly r.asonabl" . "umption. a nd quite "ol<>llou, to th .. of cont.mpor.'Y

.. A
owonomy, about ,he distribution of ga l. , .. ,. (p. (7)

" 0.. >1.110 novo. p . 689. (p. 48)

., Ibide m. (p. (9)

" Ibidem . (p. SO)

.. The skv belnl ·o bove· us, the st .... Ofe · el ..... t.d· in ,espect '0 us; thus to place
t hem at. ,"'ate , di<ta nte from u' (or th. cent,. of t he world) i. 10 8ivo Ihem.
I'''''.'·,,"'v"ion" (p. SO)

" Ibid .. pp. 689 "I. (p. 50)

,. ••
111 ~

" r ho: ~b.en[e of <t. II~r p. ,. I1 ..., imp(l,,,, ~ minimum to the di,,,,,,,,, .ep .r~tini
u, from lne r..ed 'l~". Ip. 5.0)

" M3r<u. M3niliu" • 510«, wOO livod In Ih. Augu"on oSe, .uthor of • g .... t
.",ologi, . 1 poem. Aotronomi<on lib'i quinque. whkh wa, oditod by Re8iomonta.
nu, in Nu'nbe rg in 1473 . (p. 5\)

"I b>d, . p, 690. (p. 51)

"I b>dem.(p, 511

'00 Two mi nute. i, Ihe m. lInilude of the . iSible diamete r of • sta r for Ihe
unassisted eye. (p . 52)

"" Ibidem , Ip. 52)

"" Ibid_. p_ 691 (p_53)

' ''Ibidem, (p. 54)

""Ibidem . lp_ 54)

""Ibidem , Ip. 54)

"" J. Kepler. Oi"e ,m io ,um Nunlio Side ,eo nuper od mon.I., mi,,,, .. Goli!eo
GII;I.I. p. 490 (Ope ra om n". vol. ii i. fran ..oforti et [,Ianpe. 1859 , Wache", • • the
Im p....1 Councillor wackh.. . on Wack. nfe l, who was Ihe finl 10 infom> Ke ple ,
about Ih. discoverle, of Gai lle o , Btutu,' the Engli.hm.n Edward B,uce who lOa • •
I'dni .. n of Giord. "" O",no a nd woo •• ome ye." befo' e INov . 5. 16(3). ",nt to
Keple, a lette, (hom Ven i<:e) in whith he "pres",d hi' belief in Ihe Infinity of the
world : according to Bruce fi>.e d "a" wer . ... n, .urroundod b, planet' like our ' un,
a nd. like ou' , un, endowed wil h a ' o"'lional mohon. Sru,e·, letter i, quoted by
frisch. Opera om ni•• vol , ii. p , 568. and publi.hed by Ma' c..p., in hi' e d'l ion of
K.pl., (Jol>ann ... Kep le ,. Ge<amm . ~. Werk••• 0 1. Iv. p. 45.0. MYnchen. 1938). (p.
'"~
"" The fj. ed " . "," . ee n by a Galilean 'ele'tope, do no' appea, a, li8M ·poin,,;
Ihey "ill h."" visible dlmen,ions; C/, '''pr •• p. 191. (p. 56)

,.. Epito"", . "ro""mi.c (opo ,niun..,. liber i. """ ii, p_ H6(Opero omni. , vol. vi,
fran ' ofort' el [d.ng.e. 1866). (p, 51)

"'Ibide m, Ip. SS)

,. ••
 ~ lU

"O lbi<:lem. (p. S8)

III ibid ., p. Il7. (p. 59)

III Ibi<:lem. (p. 591

"' lbOd., p. 138. (p. 6 11

,1< Ibl<:lem. (p. 62)

' " Ibidem. ( p. 6 21

'" Ibi<:lem. (p. 63)

," Ibidem. ( p. 631

'''bid .• p. 139. (p. 64)

". Con\<mpO,"fY co.moloay, 00 ,~ot~r hand. ~~m' to h."" r"'<>gni',;d 'h~

.o lue of the old doub . . . b-out t he p<»,ibil ity 01 .n ..:tuoli'l infin i\< world. a nd
tu rned b..: ~ to 3 finitl>! conceptloo . (p. 65)

". Th.t i. the coote ption o!<fib<'d by Pluurth (or P,~uoo.Plu" rth) to ,he ""'n.
(p . 65)

", Ibid .• p. 139. Ip.651

Cf. mv p.per. "Ie v;de e t I·e' p. ce infini 'U XlVemc ,ie.;le: Archive , d'hi""',.
III
dOClrin.le et litt~r.lre du Moyen-Ale ... il. 1949. (p. 65)

'" Galile<> Ga lilei. Side,. u, nunciu, Ve ne ' ii•• 161 0; there i. an Enlli'"
t ,.n.l.t lon bV E. 5. carlo •• The ,ide reol me .... nser. London. 1880. lAIrs. p.rt. of
Ih .. tranola tien are re pMnled In Ii.rlew Shapley and Ii. len E. liew.rth. A SOurce
boo ~ in . <tror>Omy. Ne w YOrl<. 1929. Thoul h net u.in8 t hi. ,ran,lotion I .. ler '0 it
whene ver p"'.ible. The e . pr."io n Sidere", HU IKiu. w" u,ed by G.lileo ••
m .. ni". , ,~ me .... 8. of , .... ".". Ve' Xepler " nder"ood it a. ",.a ninll' the
me''''''I "r of " .... Thl. ml""n.IOIion became se neral ly .ccepted and wa.
to" "".d oni'l'n'~ r ~ '. n! ~ di' l oo of the Nuntiu, bv M ... M. Timp>onOfo-Cordinl,
flore nce. 1948. (p. &6)

, .. 0. Sid .",", nUIK;u •• pp. S9 <Q. (Opere, Ed idone N. lIon. le ••. iii , fire n.., I a n).
Source booI<, p. 41 . (p. 66)
114 ~

11>On the disc""o ,,! 01 the lelem'pe d . Vos<o Ro",t. i, G.liJeo e iI c.nr>QC"i~lo.
Udlne. 1942. ar>d 510.1. d~lI. l<Jce. 2 e d .• eolosn ~ . 19S2.lp. 67)

.
"'Ibid., p. 76. (P. 68)

'" lid.• p. 78. )p. 68 ,

'" Ga lil.,o Ga mei. tette r to Ingoli. p. 526. Oper• • €d. " .. .. VQI. vi, Firen,.. 1896_ (p.

'"'
" ' II is intere,tin~ to nOt~ that 'h~ conce ptiOn .«ord i n~ to wh><" Ilea vonly bod~
are inh. bited is relerfed to by Golit"" os ·,ommonly ho ld · (p . 10)

"" tette r to InBo11. p. S25.lp. 711

'" Ibid_. p_ SIS . lp_711

", GoliJeo Golilel. 0101010 >OPf. I due m ... im i .1.lemi del mond<> lOpe' •• [d. "Ia, ..
VQI. viii. p . 44; Firen' e, 1891 ; d . 01", p. 333. l he Dia logue i. u . ily .voilable now in
the . " .lIe nt mode rnizat io n 01 the old S.lu,bu cy lra n,I.,.,., by p",I.""r GiOr ~ iO di
Soonlllla no. Go lde o Golil.i. 010108 "" on tho If 031 wofld system,. Chic;llO. 1953• • •
we ll as In Ihe ne w Iron,la tion by Stillma n O," ~~ . G.lileo G.l ilel, Oia loil<J.
co"'o,nill1l the t wO <hi~1 wo~d <y$ t ~m$. Ptolemaic a nd Cope<nitln. l\efk.ley ond
tos Ang.I .... 1953. (p . 711

>Os Oialot!o. p. 306. lp. 721

'M tette r to l"1Ioli (Oper• • vol. vi). pp. 518. 529 . (P. 721

" . Oi.l",o.lo<. t~. (p. 721

" . Cf. le"e, to l><"ti. 01 Feb, uacy 10. 1640; Ope'o, vol. lOIlii. pp. 1~3 "l .. FI'en,.,
1906. Ip. 731

'" CI. R. IM<<> rt.", Pfincipio philosophi• •• port ii. t4, p . 42 . (Oeuvre<, ed. Adam
Tonn.cy, _01. ,,;ii, POfi •• I !1OS ·1 (p. 141

!I' Prlnclpl' philosoph i• • . pI. ii, UO, p. 4S. (p. 7S1

,» Ibid .• §11, p. 46. (p. 76)

,.., Ibid., §13. p. 47. (p. 161

,. ••
'" IbOd., Ul, p. 47. (p. 76)

,,' IbKl., §16, p. 49. (p. 76)

'" IbOd .• HI. p. 52. (p. 77)

... IbKl., §22, p. 52. (p. 77)

'" IbIOem. (p. 181

... Pdncipi.a philo<Opt.iae, p. i. §26, p. $4. (p . 78)

'" P,in<ipi.a philo,op!>iae, p. iii, U. p . llO. (p. 191

"' I bi~m. (p. 191

1>0 IbKl., n. pp. 81 ,q. (p. l101

'" Cf. Miss M"Jo,ie II . "I;eol,on. "The u, ly ,tag" of C.,tesiani,m in En81~nd:
SI<,,:lie. in Philolc". vel. ","viii, 1929. Henry M or~ acc ~p t"'" Carl .... n ph." i"',
th o u ~h only pa" iolly, and 'he Ca " e, ion reiection of , ub"a ntia l Io,m', but he
n ......... b.ndoned ~i, belief in the .. i>1enc~, and o<tion, 01 ",pi' it""l" agents in
nat"re and n"""r .dopted th~ (arte.la" ' t rict cppo, itlon 01 matter-reduced to
ext e n<lon-to ""dt, defined by ,,,It..coMcio,,.ne< • • nd lreedom . Henry More,
aCCOrd ingly. I>/,Iie,e< In an ima l. 'havina <0,,1. and in <001,' ha",ng' non-m.tedal
. " . n,ion; <I. a lso Miss Nkolson', Th. br.aki"ll 01 th. circl. , <v.nston, III ., 1950.
(p.82)

1>1The , . lette" ,....". published by (I • .-.ell ie' in hi, ed ition 01 t~e corre,ponden"
01 DeKa rte, (leW .. de M. Doosc.,te, ou sonttraittee, Ie> plu, be lle, q"estion, ele
la mor. le, de la physique, de I. m~lne et de< m'l h ~mahqu e < . .. Pa,ls, 1651)
a nd ,epublished by Henry MOr. him.ell (wit h a rather o"8ry prefau) in hi'
CoI I ~ ct i on of ",vera ll philo.ophi,,1 wr~int' 011662 . t a m quoti"8 t!>em oc<ordint
to the Ie" of the Adam-Tonne,,! ed ition of the work, 01 Oe><;.rt", (Oeuv' e., vol. v,
PaM" 1903). (p. 82)

,n l. tter to Oe,u rte<. ii- .Ii, 1&48, 00 . 238 'q. (p. 82)

,. ••
1.6 ~

,,. In t his "/1'"',

written in 1&46, he , how' himseU.n Mthu, ;;Ub< lollower at the
'u«el ion·Bru'''mion do<l'ine ol the infinity 01 wo,ld,; d, lovejoy, op, cil .. pp_ llS,
347. (p. 84)

'" On G..... ndi , ... ~_ t."wrt., op . cit ., and R_ P. Go""n Sortoi.. Uo phiios<)ph;e
modeme, d"""i, S<><on ju,qu' ~ t , ibn i., \/QI. ii, Pari" 19n; .Iso P;erre G... , ndi, s;o
vie el son <>eu.,.. , Pori., 1955. Ga"endi I. nOt on o"~ i n .1 Ihln ' er and doe, not play
anv 'o~ In I~ dl.cu.",," I am .Iudy in~. He 1< 0 ra the r timon,.,. mind ond '<cept<.
obvio u,IV 10' t heolOiical ru ,on" the l initude 01 t he wo,ld immerse d in \/Qid
.""ce; 1"'1, bV hi' , eviv. 1 01 Eplcurun atom i,m arK! hi. in.istence upon th •
.. , i<tenc. 01 Ihe \/Qid , he undermine d the .. ,..,. ba.l, of t he di","« io n, that 1<, the
traditional ontol(>HY which <till domin.ted the lhou8ht not only at De,cort.. a nd
1.1 0'" but . 1,0 01 Newton and Leibni • . (p. 64)

,.. ,etter to De", .. te" p. 242. (p. 85)

'" In the Cone,ian wo, ld "",t ieo, which ,u'round fi. ed ,tors limit • • ch other and
pre ... nl eoch othe< from 'p,eadlfljl and dlosolviog unde , the infh,ence at
«ntrijulI. 1fo",e; ij Ihey were lim~ed In number. and t l>/"efore In "le n<"'n. II>/, n.
first t he outermo" on ... a nd then . 11 the others wou ld be di,persed and di" i·
pdt. d. (p. 85)

". ,etter to De""'t e< , p. 242. (p. 85)

, .. Namely, bV orguments b.",d upon the ,on, ide,.,"'n 01 God', omnipotence. (p.

'"
",' [)e"0r10< 10 He nry MO,-", 5, ii, 1649, pp. 267 .q. (p. 85)

,., Ibid .. pp. 269 sq. (p. 8S)

,., Ibid., p. 214 . (p_86)

~
Ibid., p. 275. (p. 87)

''' S.<ond let,e, 01 H. 1.10r~ to De<cone<, 5, iii. 49; pp. 298 sq. (p. 88)

'"'Ibid .. pp. 304 sq. (p. 88)

'''Ibid_, p_ 3DS . (p_SIl)

,., Ibid ., p. 3D2. Mo,e '< ariument ,gain<t [)e",o"es 10 0 ,-.,~d~"'n of Plotlnuo'
arau men! ag' in<1 Ari<1otl• . (p. 89)

,
 ~ 117

''' Ibid., p. 311; c/. ,upro. (p. 89)

... Second "'1t~r 01 Do.u rt~. '0 H~nry MO'~, I S, iv, 1649; pp , 340 ,q. (p, 89)

''" Ibid_, p. 341_ (p . S9)

'" ,.'...·. P,'""-,

>. p,""

III Such w", In ~ny use, Iho opini<," 01 P. sc.l, Ve l, .lte, .11, whot I> Ihe God of.
ph l losoph ~r .UppO.«Ilo ~ if nol a philo.ophic.1 God? Ip. 901

'" Ibid., p. 344. lp . 901

'" Ibid .. p. 34S.(p , 911

' " D"ed t he H,d 01 JulV, 1649 (Oo uv, ... , vol. v, pp_ 376 «I_I_(p. 911

"'> /III ""SI, I>e Sla rted "" ~Ing .n .n,..,e,- In /IIuguSi 1649- thou,h he did M I ,end
it to Henry More . lp. 911

'" Do led Ihe Ihl 01 October, 1649, vol , v, pp. 4J.4 >q . (p. 91)

.,
'>t It i. po<<ible, of cou ,.." th ... .. he went to SwedM on Sept . 1, 1649 ond died
lhe, . on feb. 11, 1650, Desca'te, d id nol ' .,,"ive lI> i. I." le\1erol Henry Mo' • . (p .

". CI, my E.,. i . ur I~, pre u .... , d~ r~, i.t~nce de D~ ch~' Do«.rte<. Pori •• 1923•
• nd · Oom,ne. alt., thr.o hundred yea,,,,· The lJ niv. ,,,ty 01 Buffalo Stud,.., vol.
, 1, ,195 1, (p. 92)

... Henry Mo'e ha, no' re<eivod the m""Oirophi,ol tr .. tme nt to which he i.
undoub led~ e nl itled. On him, ond o n In. Combridge Plotonim In 8eneral, d . John
Tulloch, Ration. 1 Iheology .nd ehrl.ti. n philo<ophv in En8~nd In ' he XVUllh
century, ..,. , ii, Edinbu,gh a nd lon don, 1814; F. J. Powicke, The C.mbrid8~
PI.tonim, Lon don, 1926; J. H. Mui rhe.d. The Plato nic tradi'ion in Anlllo.$31«ln
philosopl>y, london, 1931; T. (."i'er, 0 .. PI.tonls<ne R"""i ...""" In England u nd
die Schu'" \<00 Omb'ldg~, l<>ip,lg. 1932; Engli,I> " on,latlon : The Plalonic
~ena i« af\C ~ In En,land arid , he c..mbndge School, New H..... n, 1953. s.. 1~ clion, of

the philosoph,,;. 1 wrrting> of He nf'j More Inam. lv from The antidote ag.in"
othel>m, The immortality of the .aul. and the Enchl"dl Ym me1aphv<loym In
'ran.lalion) were publis hed in 1925 by Mi« flo," J. Mackinnon wilh an I nle,~.t l nl
Int,oduclion, valu a bl~ note<. and an ~>cel","1 blbliolraphy ; Phllo,ophic.1 wril inl s
01 He nry More, New Vo ' k. 1925. CI. Morjoroe Nicolson, Conw,"", "'tte r<, th ~
corre'pondence 01 AM~. Vi",ounte .. Conway, Henry More ~r>d Ihei ' Iroend"
1642-1684, l ondon, 1930; M. ,ku, Foe", ' Ueber de n Ursprung und e."""t"ng <Ie,
l.h ,e Ne wton •• Om obsol","m RO"m; Go.no,u" vol. • i, lose. 31 4. 1954; Max
J.mmer. Concept 01 _e. Ha rva rd Univ. Pre,", Oombridge, M..... 1954. Both
Mark". foe" . nd Mo. Jammer ,e"m to me to .. agger. te the ' eal inlluence of
caMlist .poce oon<option. on Henry More lond hi' p,ed""e.sorsl. In my opinion, it
w", a typieal ca .. 01 rep,o~ l ion inlo Ihe past 01 mode rn conc.ptlon, In order 10
Me. them "p by »cred or ' e"" ,obl••"thoritie.; ye t, " we know. mi. " ndersta r>d _
ing and mi.interpret at ion ploy 00 importa nl pari in tne history of Ihougnt. It .... m.
10 me, mo,eov .., Ihot fie" and J.mme, "",m ... tv", are nol quke Inr><>ee nl of Ihe
.in 01 ,. "oprojeclion, loriettine Ihot 'P"O <onceptkm, formed be/or. the
invention of geometry were not. and could not, be i<lenlic~1 o r even .imilar 10 Ih.
conception. devi.ed a her thi. momenlo", .... nl. (p. 93)

"', He nry More, An onlido," "-IIoinsl at he i""e, or an a pP"a l 10 Ihe nal"ral l;orullies
01 t he minde 01 mon. whether t here be not a God. london, 1652; . econd ed .
corrected ood en l.,ged, london. 165S; third edillon, co""",o<I, and enlarged,
' wilh an IIpP"ndl. I~re"nlo .nn..ed; lor>don, 1662. I .m quotina thi' edition",
siv<:n in Henry Mor.'. Collect ion of .... e r.11 philosophic.1 wrrting:s. lc;ondon. 1&62 .
(p 941

.., He nry More, The immon. lrty of the SOYI, so f. ..... forth", it i, demon",able
/rom the knowlo:dge 01 nature .nd the light 01 re.<on, london, 1669; ... c<>nd
edit io n in the Collect io n 01 ' .... r. 1I philosophica l writing, 011662. I, i, t his e d ition
,hat lam qUOll ng.(p. 94)

,., Henrieu, Moru., Enchitidium m"tophy1lcum <i.., de rebus IncorpO,ei' ,u«lncla

. t I",ulenta d is.e .... tio. lond ini. 1671. (p. 94)

... H"nf'"l More,lIn antidote al. lnst .t hel"", book i, cap. iv, §}, p. 15. Ip. 94)

,., Henry Mor~. Tne immortality of ,he 'oul, b. i. c. ii, • • iom i-. p. 19. (p. 95)

... Cf. R. Zimmerm.n, -Honry MOr. and di • • i. " e Dimon.ion do. R3"m.,,;
~ ai , .~iche Ak.dom" der Wi, .. n«halton. Philosophi« h_hi,toriseho KI....,
Sitzung:s1>e ' ichte. ed . 98, pp. 403-", .• Wien. ISI:!I . (p . 961

"', Henf'! More. The Immon. lity 01 Ihe '01.11, b.I, c. lI, ~11 . p. 20. (p. 96)

110 Ibid .. 6, i. c. lii. HI .nd 1. pp. 21 sq. (p. 961

,. ••
 ~ 1.9

... Axoom i. (b. i, c. ii , p. 19 ) t~lI. u. that "fhl, re ,,~ $Orne P~rti~., powe" a nd
Qpe'01ion., imme<l"t~1y . ppe<t.ining 10 a ,hing, 01 which M ' ... on. can be l iven,
no, O<J&hl 10 be demanded, no, Ih~ Way 0' Manne' of t he cohesion 01 Ihe
Att,ibY .. wit h I~ ,ubi""t CO" by .nv mUn' be I.n",.d or i r"'s i n~d : (I'. 96)

,.. CI. William Gilbert, De m.sne' " , ch .• ii, p. 306: "Th. m. gnetic fo r« is .ni .... "',
0' ImllOte . I.... sou l: In many r.'pe<t. ~ .y,p., .... Ihe hum." .aul wh ile t n.t I.
unite d 10"n o,s" nic bodv." (p. 98)

'" ~en'Y More, The irnmor,.li,yof'h •• oul, c . • " c. • ii, §l, p. 193. II'. 98)

to, Ibid., pr<:/'ce, ~ll , p. ll. (I' . 99)

'" An antidote ag.instal hei.m, c. ii, <. ii, §l, p. 43. (I' . 99)

''' Ibid., Appendi. (of 1655). cap. vii, §1, p. 163. (I'. lOll)

''' Ibidem. (I'. 100)

''' Ibid., §§4, S, 6, pp. 164 ' Q. (p. 101)

'" [ n<niridium melaphyslcum, p.r, I, C3 p. vi, v. 42 . (I'. 102)

''' Ibidem. (I'. 102)

''' Ibidem. (I'. 103)

"'" Ibid., cap. vi, 4, p. 44. (I'. 104)

"" Ibid .. cop. vi, II, p. 51 . (I'. 104)

" " Ibid., cop. vii, 3, p . 53 . (I' . .oS)

"" Thl, d~finjtian i. Ilv~n by De""rt.. In the princi i>i' philo,ophi... , p.rt ii, US. (I'.
lOS)

"" , n<hiridium met;ophysicum, "1'. vii, 1, p. 56. (I'. IO~)

"" Ibid., c. vi i, 6. p. 5S. (I'. 106)

"" Ibidem. (I'. 1(6)

" " Ibfdem. (p. 107)

,. ••
110 ~

'"'Ibidem . Ip. 101)

"" Ibid.,< . viii. 6. p. 68 . (p. !Ol)

11D Ibid_. <. viii. 1. p . 69 . (p. 1(8)

'" Ibid., <. viii, 7, p. 69. (p. 1(8)

'" ,•.,, _. <. viii. 8. pp. 69 sq . Ip. I(9)

'" Ibid .• <. viii. 9. p . 70 . (p. nO)

' '',•.,, _.< . viii.IO.p. n. Ip . 111I

'" Ibid.,< . viii. n. p. n . (p. 111)

"-' Ibid .• c. viii. 12. p. 72 . (p. I l l)

' " Ibide m. Ip. 112)

'" ct. '"Iitolos M .lebr~n,he. Med itation. <hret ienne •• mOd. i• • ~9. p . 112. Pari.,
1926. On M.'ebran, h. <I. H. Gouhie r. I> philo.ophle de Malebra",he. pari•• 1925.
(p ns)
'" Ibidem . lp_ 116)

' ''' Ibid., 'iIO, p. 173.(p. 116)

12> Ibid .• 'i8. pp. 111 sq. Ip. 116)

m Ibid .• 'i ll , p_174. (p . 116)

'" Ibid .• § 12. pp. 174 sq. (p . 117)

'" Cf. ",.,.bran<he, COr..... pondlon<e .w< J. ). Donoo, de M.iran, ed. nouvelle,
Pfoktdee d' uoe introduc\i"" oa r J"",e ph Morea u, P.ri •• 1!)41. Ip_ 118)

», CI .• e. i., the . 'ready quoted book of E. A. Burtt,. The metaphysic. , looMalions

01 mode rn phYSical "ience. New Vo<k. 1925; .«""d ed_. l-ond"". 1932_(p_ 118)

" ••
 ~ II.

". Cf. Sir I, . x NeWlQo', m~tt.tm~tic. 1 pfio' ipH., of "",u,,1 philos<>phV. ,,.o,I.,,-d
iOIO English by Andrew Mone io 1n9. the Ir.nslOlkm ",';sed by FIo';.n Cojo<i. p .
6. e..rke ley, CollI .• 1946. (p. 118)

'" Ibid .• p. 8 . (P. 119)

'" Ibk!em. (p. 119)

"" Ibid .• p. 6. (p. 119)

"" Ibidem. (p.120)

,,, Ibidem. (p. 120)

'" Ibk!em. (p. 120)

'" Ibidem. (p. 120)

' .. Ibk!em. (p. 120)

'" Ibid .• p. 7. The ...mpH. of ,he ",ilor is d iscu"ed by De",.rt.,.. in 'he Pnncipi.
pMOS09h i~", ii. 13. 32 . lp. I n)

' '' Ibid., p. 8. (p. 122 )

'" Hi, pupil, Dr . Clarke, will indeed do it; d . infra . p . H5. (p . 112)

' >O lb;d., p. 9. (p. 122)

'" Ibid .. p. 10. (p. 123 I

"" Ibidem. (p. 124)

", Ibid., p. II . A, ogain'l rx.",a rle., PMnc;p;o, ii, 13. (p. 124)

'" CI. Ernst Mach, The " ie n'. of mechanks, Ch;<>go , 1902, w. 232 sq.; <I . • fs<>
M. , j.mmer. op . cit., W · 104 sq .; 121 sq.; 140 sq. (p . 12S)

"' Ib;d., p. 12. (p. 125)

,.. Ibid., boo!< iii. The _\'Stem ohi>e world. lemmo IV. cor. III. p. 497. (p. 126)

,. ••
III ~

.., Ibid ., book ii i, Tht 'I'>tem of ' ht w<>r ld, prop. V, t heo re m VI, .d><>lium, <or. III, p.
414 , (I', U7)

'" Ibid"cor, IV, p. 415 . (I'. 121 )

,., Ibid ., fUl< II I, PI' . 39B sq . The t~" I a m r.f.rrin8 to aweared in t he se<ooo
~dit ion of Ihe Pflnciplo; vet, •• it ,. pr.""n" the fundament.1 view, 01 Newton
whkh In'pl'td hi. wholt '1'>Iem, I fHI It neces<.>r'Y 10 quote ~ he,.,. On lhe
diff.," " e belw""n the rom >nd 'he .ub • .".""nl ed rtien, 01 the Pri ncipia , d . my
1'. "...., · Pou, une ;,dilion cril;que de> oeuvre . de Newlon: Revue d'lliSloj,. de.
s<~nc e" 1955, .nd ' E , ~'i e n"" ~' hypol h ~ se che. Newlon: Bulletin d ~ I. Socl,",'"
F,.n ~. i "" de Philo'OIIhit, 1956 . (1'. 128)

""Ibid., book I, ,0<,.XI, p rop. l)(IX, "hoi ., p . 192 . (p . 1l9)

... O . mv Elude . G.IiI~e nnt • . II, Uo 101 de I. chute des corp<, . nd II I. G."""' ~' I. lo i
d'in..-' i•. l p. nO)

"" Ibid .. 100:. cit. (p. 130)

'" Four letters lrom Si, I",", New'on to ' I>e Reverend Or . Bentley, let"" II p.n .
17, 1692·9l), p. 210, London. 11S6; ,"prinl ed in Opera omn i., ed. bV Samuel
Ho,, 'ey, S 001 ... london, ln9-8S (001. t., PI'. 429-.442), .nd ." 0 in Ihe Wo,k< 01 R.
Hen" ey, vol. in, london, 1838. I.m quoting , hi• .d ition.lp . 131 )

'''' t.ller III (f eb. 2S, 1692·9l), ibid., p. 211 . (1'. Ill)

'" Eighl .ermon. p" och'd ." he HOnourable Robe" fIoy lt lecture In Ihe firsl ye ..
MO(X(II, By Ri<hOfd Bentley, M."., of Art., london, 1693. Th ~ fi" t • .,mon
Pfo ... Th. 1011'/ of .,"~Ism . nd . . . o..~m ..en w;th ,e spect lo Ihe pr e senl l ~., 1M
second demon'hat'" Iha t ",ott", and mot"'n c.nnol t hin ~ , the 'hlrd, lou"h .nd
fift h presen' A <onlut"ion 01 .t l>e ~m lrom the "r"",,ure 01 the hu ma n body, the
,i'th, .... ni h .nd e<ghth, lorminS t he second 1'3" of the worl<, A conlulatlon 01
. 'hei,m ' ,om , .... orisin . nd lrame 01 the wo' ld . I . m quoting the I..t e di' '''n
(W""ks. Y. iii) of this book th .. N O< seen nine of them in Engli'h, . nd on" in l.,i n
(EIe,olini, 1696); ct. Part II, . e rmOn VII (p,uchtd Nov. 7th, 1692), pp. 152 Sq . (p.
Ill)

'''Ibid., p. 1'>4. (p. 134 )

'" Ibid .. p. IS1. (p. 114 1

'''Ibid., PI'. 162 Sq. (p. 135)

,. ••
'" IbOd., p. 163. (p . 135)

'" lett~r< I,om Si, l<a.c N~wton to th~ Re~""nd Dr. B~ ntlty. ~tt'" I, pp. 203 .q.
(p . 136)

,.. A ,o<>lut ot ion 01 othel,m Irom the orl~ i n arK! Irame of the world. p. 165. (p.
137)

,.. Iblcl .. p. 110. (p . 138)

,., IbOd., 1'1' . 175 ,q. ( p. 139)

"" ~ttefS f'om 5ir l<aa, Newlon to t he Re~rend Or. l!entlty. letter I, PP. l03 'q .
(p.139)

'''' (",e ph Rophsoro i, chiefi'! known a, the out!>o, of the y.,le ntly p,o_Newtonia n
l1 i,to,lo Flu.io nu m, ,i.e T ract~tu , O' iginem et P'o&r., ... m Pe'.gregl•• I,tlu,

. ,'
Me thodi> a r ~ Y i"lmo Compe oo., (Et qua,l ,ynopt"") Exhi t..n' , LoOOinl, 1715. (p .

,.. boly,;, .<E:qua,ionum U n i~fSal i,""u od Aequot ione, Algebra i,a, Re,oIvend • •
Method u, Ge"".. li. et Expedita, Ex nova InfinitOfum s.r"",m Methodo, o..ducta
~ t ~mo n $tf .... Ed"io "",undo cui acted it Appendi. de Infinito Infinitowm
S.'''',um pr",,,,,," ad Equot.,num Alfle b.. i<.. um Radi"", eli,;end ••. Cui et .. m
Ann .. um es, De Sloatlo Rea li ""u Ente InlioilO con.men Mathem.t leo Metaphy,;-
cum, Author< Jo. ~ p ho Ra ph.on A. M. ~t R~g . Soc . Soc",., lOndinl, 1702. Th~ firs t
~ d i t l on 01 (. Raphsoro', wo, k. without the a_-mentioned appendices, a Pl' ~ared

in 1691 . (p. 1401

"'> 0., ente lnfinito, , op. iv, p. 67. (p. 140)

"'Cf. intra,pp. 193,196. (p.1 4 11

,., ~ ~nt~ infinito, "p. iv, pp. 57 .q. (p . 141 )

2M Ibid .. 1'1' . 70 sq . (p. 1411

~
IbOd., cap. _, p. n. (p. 142)

''" Ibid .. o.,f. I. (p. 142)

,,, IbOd., Scholium, p. 73. (p. 142)

" ••
114 ~

'" Ibidem . (p. 1431

m Ibid., pp. 74 «1 . (P, 143)

'" Ibid _. S<l>olium, p . 76_ On tho 'p4'. theo.ies ofth. (;Ib.l. d_ M • • J.mme., o p.
elt .• pp. 30 sq, (p. 1431

n, Ibid .• ,o.oll. dum_ (p_ 1( 4 )

'''Ibidem , (p. 144 1

.
,,-, Ibid .• p. 7B.(p. 144)

,. lid., p. SO. (p. 144)

"' Ibid_. ",p_ iii. p. 8l . (p. 14S1

,.., Ibid., p. 83.(p. 146)

,.. Ibid_. pp_ 83 sq . (p_ 1(6)

~
Ibid" p. 85. (p. 147)

m Ibid_. pp. 9Osq . (p_ 147)

''' 'bid., p. 91 . (p. 148)

11> Ibid_. p_ 91_ (p_ 1(8)

* Ibid., pp. 91 «1 .(p. 1(9)

"., Ibid_. p. 94 . (p. 149)

"",bid .• p. 93.(p. 1(9)

"" Ibid_. p. 95_ (P. 150)

no SI,30lle 3, k may , ...,m, the adjunclioo of th.,e "que .ie,; numt.. .e d 17 10 43,
to the i.;otin e dition of the Opti, h in 1706 .. e m. to h ~ • • e><;oped the attention of
Ne .... ton'. hl"orlon . .... 1>0. ","oU'/. amibute the,. que" •• to the ,,,,,ond (Enl li ,h)
e d~ i o n of 1617 of hi. Opticks. Thu" for In,t.nc. , l . T. Mo.., lsa.k N. .... ton, New
Yo,k-lOndon, 1934, p. 506. note: ." second .-dition (octo.o) b ..... tn. ad • • " ".-
ment 1711. It wa$ publi, h.d in 1118.. . . The num ~ ' af r>ew Quene, ad ded ~~ n$
w ~h Ihe ."""nteenlh" teon 8Ioeh'. y pl>i lorophie de N...... ,on. PO'i., 1908, i. a n
honorab~ e'''''pl ion 10 l he ofo<e-menlioned ,u le; and lod.y, M,. N. G. AI=nder,
edi.o, of The t eibni,·Clar1<e <o<'e'pOndence , Manth..te, Uni.,.,,,ity Pre", 19'>6.
(p . 151)

", PMo<ophic.ol P'lnclples of n.,,, ..1 ,elil ion by GeO(le a.eyne, M. D. and f . R. S.,
London. 1705. The , e cond e dil ion af Chevne', book, publi,hed unMr the til~
Philosopni<a l p'inciple' 01 'eligion, n..",.1 .nd r"""a~d , lon don, 1615, "to,re<t.d
a nd enl"led: tonl.in. two pam: Part I, "tOnla ininl the Element< at Notu,,1
Phllo"",hv and Ihe P,ool, af Natu,.1 Reli.8ion a 'i' ing from Ihem: and . Po" II,
"tont;lininl the Natu ,"" and Kind, af Inlinilie<, Ihe A,ilhm Hd a nd U"'" and lhe
P hilo ~i<k Principle, 01 R"""al'd Religion, now l irst p"bli,hed: St rangely eno"gh
Ihe common tille poge, a, well a, thot of Ihe ,o<ond port, be." the date 1715,
whereas Ih .. of Ihe Ilrst pa rt.. Ih. d ate 1716. As • mane, of fact.. 0' .. I••.,
according to David Gregory who held thi, inlo,malion from NewlOn hlm,elf, ~ wa<
. he pub lication by 0,. Cheyne of hi' flu. ion"m m."hodus inVl! .... siv. quantrtat"m
nue"'l"m "'ge. ,ene 'ole •• london, 1703 I,.the, sh"pl'j critki ted by A. De Molyre
In hi. Animadye"'on,,, In 0,. G. (n.l"'e ', flu,i onum method u•... london, 1704),
which prompte d Newton to p"bli,h the Two t re.tise, on the ,pe<;ie< a nd
ma,nrtud", af <UIViline., lil"IO', 'hat i" The quadratu'e of t U"'e, . nd The
enumer.lion af the line. af th. third order: (d . Da,iel Gregory. I ""'~ NeWlon and
Ihei, ci(Cle, Exl,act. from David G' ~B ory'S Memoranda, .d i,.d bv W. G. Nisroc~,
pp . 21 ..,. ., O<fo,d, 1937). In 'he ",Hume Memo,anda unde, the date 01 Dereme.,
11, 17(15, we find .1<0 the folloWing. Vl!ry interesting posUle (ibid_, pp. 19-30): 'Sir
I• • a k. Newlon was wrth me and told me Ihal h' had put 1 i>i'g~s af Addenda to hi.
8001< of Ullht< a nd Colou" In t his ne w latin e dition 01 it. He ha, by way of qua ..e
expl. in.d tn. e>plo<ion of Gun pOWde r, all the thief O~,atio n . of Chymlstry. He
ha, , hewed th," ~ i gh' is neithe ' a communic. tion of motion no' of, P'e,,,,,,,, . He
Inclines to believe It to be projecle d minute bodys. ~e has e , plalned in those
Qua ~ ry. Ihe double Refraction in t.. land Cry.tall. Hi. Doubt w" whethe , he
should put Ihe I,,, Quaere ,hu._ Wh.t t he spate ,hat is em pty 01 bodie, is l ill.d
w ~h. lhe plain I,ut h i, that n. belieVl!' God to be omnip,esent in Ihe liter.1 ... n ....
And thaI • • we are ,"",ible of Ob)",ts where tn.ir im 'lles or, brougnt wit hin the
b.. in, <0 God mu<t be ," n,ib", of every ' hi ng be ing intima,.1y p,,,,e nt with e",rv
t hinll' 10' h. ,uppo<M ,hot .. God is pr. .. n, in <l>3<:e whe .. the,e i. no body, he i.
pr..... nt in space whe , • • body is '''0 pr..... nt. But ~ thi' " ov 01 prOpOsing ' hi' hi'
nOl ion be 100 bold. he Ihlnk.. af doing ~ Ihus. What co u'" d id Ihe Anc,""', ... Ig n
01 G,"v~y. He bel~' that In.V ""kone d God the "'u.e 01 iI, nothinl e l.., Ihal i.
no body being 'he to"",; ,inee e ve ry body i, heavy_

"Si, I.aa ' believe. that In. R.v' of ut:ht e nter Into the compo,k ion af mOst Nalural
Bodie, that i. Ihe .mall pa"icle, that are project.d from a lucid body In lorm 01
116 ~

R~y< . As pl.in this m. v be the ("e with moot (ombu<tible, inflamm. ble bod;",:
On t ne ,e lotion, of l i~nt ond m~Ue' .t<Ofdin~ to Newton d . He ~ne Met 'ge',
Newton. Stahl, _,hoave el la do<:trine chim iq ue, Pa , i., 1930,lp. 151)

.., Optice .. _ I. iii, quo 10, pp . 312 sq .; london, 1706; qu o16 of the Engli' h edition;
d_ I. """n.,d Co hen'. edit ion of t he Oph<h, New Yorl<, 1952, p . 369. As the Engli,h
edit ion ee"~ln"" gnre. Ine OIi~i n.1 tut of Newton hlm,eW, I will quote t ni, 10 " ..
giving fir<t t he p.ge numbe" of the lotin, ond t hen tho,,", of tn.. .fore-me ntione d
editio n_lp_ 152)
., Ibid., p. 335; pp. 38.8 sq . (p. 153)
"" ,bid., p. ns sq .; pp. lS9 sq . (p. IS4 )

"',bid., p. 337; p.l94 . (p. ISS)

""bid_, pp_ 337 sq .; W · 394 .q . (p_ 156)

. ' ,• Id .. pp. 33S sq ... pj), 395·396, Ip. 156 )

". 'bid_, pp_ 340 sq .; w · 397 ,q . (p_ IS 7)

",asonin, I" of cou'''"', utterly folse ond ~ i. ,athe, . <toni,hing t ""l Newton
>to Tn..
could h... mode it and that ne ithe r he himself nor hi ' ed itOr< notke d th i'
1.I,eho<xl. lp_ 158)

100 Ibid ., p. 343; p.l99. (p. ISS)

... 'bid_, pp_ 343 sq .; p. 400_l p. 15S)

.., Ibid" p. 345; p. 402 . (p. 159)

""bid_, p. 346; p. 403 , Ip. 159)

... GM,ge l!erl<e t.y, Principle. of hum. n koowledge, §110; p. 89 (The wo,b of
GM' Se I!e,ke ley Bi,hop 01 Cloyne. ed. by A. A. wee . nd T. E. JM.Op, vol. i,
Edinburgh,I9491 . (p. 1611

... 'bid " j i ll, p. 94. (p. 161)

... On the lSt h of feb, u.ry 1673 . ROller Cot .. W'ote to Newton (d. Cor''''pon'
d"nee of Si, lsoak Newton and P,o/""or Cot'" , .. e d, J. £dl",ton, london, 18SO,
P\>, lSl ,q.): " ... I t hin. it will b. prop" Ito) od d somet hing by wnk h yo"r book
 ~ 111

may b ~ d e-,e d f, om >orne ",ejudiCt< whkh "... been indu.,,"''''1y I.Od a~. i n" rt .
A. ,ha, ~ de... rts me,hanic.1 "' u.... i. buik Ul>On mirode. and '<0<"'" to Oc,ult
q" a l lt~' . Th't you may not thin . i, unnee ... ,,,, to >n'W'" ,ueh Obje ction. you
may bo pl . .... d to c"".ul,. W•• <ly pap'" .. ' ~d Memoi,e, of Lit.,,,u,. a nd soOj
by Ann Il-oOjwin in WarwkHane . In t he l~t h Numbo, of ve ... ,,,,,d Volume 01
tho.e Papers whkh wa. publ ished May 5'h. PH. you will lind a v. ", . ",.",d i·
no", Idter of Mr. U,lbnlU to Mr. Harls~ke r """eh w<ll con~rm whO! I ha"" saOd."
Indeed. In Ihi. le tte ,. doted H''''''''' r. Feb,u.ry 10. 1711. l eibnl, who • ., • matte,
of bet al re.dy had . "a,ked Ne wton in hi. The.,dicceI Es .. i de Thcodkee. Discou"
de ta Conlo r mit~ de .. f ,. .vee ta Raison. §l9. Amsterdam. 1710 1. "imltat ed ,he
Newton ian &ravrty to an "occult qua lity." so "oc,u lt" that ~ cou ld n."." bo <I • • ,.,;
up e ve n bv God . It h well 'nown that ne ither U,ibni, nor Huv~en s had ev.r
accep,e d the Ne wtonian concePt ion 01 8 ... i,ation. 0' ""o<tion. Cf. Rent Ouga ••
HiSloire de la m",a niQue .u )()(1/lle .oed e . Neu,natel. 1954. <;op . • ii. Retour au
Continent. pp. 446 .q. and cap . • .,i. R~ a<l",n de. Newlonlo",. pp. ,56 .q.(p. 162)

lO' In the Ii",lin•• Hen", Mor••nd Joseph Ra ph.on. (p. 1\il)

,.,. cr. Mathema,ic.t prin<lple. of natu'a l philosophy. Iranslated into Engll.~ by
And'ew Motte in 1729. The " . n.Io'ign re . i. "; . by FlO' ''n C.;on. Ge".,ra l
Sch<>lium. pp. 543 ,q .• Be rkeley. C.I .• 1946. (p. 163)

- 'bOd .• !>p. 544 sq.lp. 164)

"O lbi<l .. p. 545. (p . 164)

'" Ibidem. (p. 164)

'" Ibidem. (p. 165)

'" IbOd .• p. 546.(p. 165)

'" IbOd .. !>p. 546 sq. (p. 1661

." Professor Cojori follows An d,e w Mone in "3n<l. ti"1l Newton', l ingo bV fr.me.
lt ... e m' '0 IH! th.t th. old , erm fe lgn (u ... d by NewtOn him,elf) i, bo,h mor.
corr<o<t and more e xpressi• •. (p . 166)

", Prlncip~,. p"'f.~. p. xx. (p.167)

'" IbOd .. p... ix. (p. 1681

no IbOd .• p . ... .,;i. Ip. 1(8 )

,. ••
"-' Ibid .• pp . ..-.I SQ . Ip. 169)

.10 Pr1neipl~,. p. 547. On t~ XVlI,h e~nlur; eone~pt;"n of ·.pir~· d. E. A. Burtt. op.

cit .• ~ nd A. I. Snow. Mm. r . nd gr ... ty In Newton', philooophy. O<lord, 19l6. (p.
170)

'" W il h~lml~ C.rolin~, lot~r QU""n C3rolin~, w3. born Prln""" of 8 .. n~nbu,,­
An>!,,,,,h and in 1705 be< ~ m e t he w~e of G. o rge Augu"u. , E le<; tor~ 1 Pri""e of
Hono •• r. It w.. . , Prjn"".. 01 lian""er . na. ,he beuome Int lm ••• with lelbnl.; .,
, .ibni. pul I. him "'II, .h. · i nh ~r lt.d· him Irom SoPh~ Charlott. of Pru«i• . (p.
171 )

'" ct · An e"roet 01 . letter written in November 1715." U3 ~rod 4. ""bli,hed in A

(ollect"'n 01 pa,.., ... Which p.o.",d betwe.n Ihe lat. I.",,"d Mr. l eibni" 3rod Dr.
Clarke . In the ""." 1715 a nd I? 16 Re la 'ing '0 the Principl.. of Natural Philosophy
and Rel igion. Wit h a n Append i• • PII . 3 and S. !..ondon, 1717. leibni. writu, of
eour>e. ln f rench. and CI.r ~ ~. in Enl li .h. Bu, h • • coomp anl~ ' ,he public~lon of the
original. bv a tr.mlat;"" 01 l ~ ibnl", "p.pe,," In'o Enl lish (probably m.d" bv
hlm ... 1f) . nd of hi' own "repjie ." into Fro""h (probably m ade by t he Abbe Conti) .
Moreover. he odd. to the text .... rie. 01 footno",. wrth ref<,rencn to relevant
p.o"age, In Ne wton', writ ing •. Thl, polemic i, now av ~ il . b l. in .he e"e llen'
. dilion of G. Ii. Alexander. Th. leibni.-Clorke oo ...... pond.nce. M.nche"", Univ.
Pr ..... 1956; d . • 1<0 Ren< Ougo., L. m <! c.niqu~ au XVII ' iedo, .. p . • vi. n.
pp. 561
"1 . (p. 171)

" .• The eho;.,., 01 Or. Sam" e l a3r '~ w •• ",th. r oil""",. Or. Clark• • Rec.or of S' .
J.m..' . W.. tmin,ler. w>< not only 0 ph ilosophical theologian- In 1704-5 "" gave
tho 8oy\e lectu res- but 01<0 w ~ . former chapl ~ in 01 Quee n Anno, romoved. to .. V
,h. 'M h. from th l' cha"e lor lock of orthodo .... (he was prottiealloj on Aflan).
Ho ....er, aft .. QU.' n Ann. ', d.ath he be<.m • • n Intimate of Prince« CoroliM
w~h whom, .t her ,.,quest. he had weekloj philo«>!lhlcal conv .... tion. in whkh
other gen.leme" in'er.".d in d is<u"ing philo<opnica l problem. p." icipated . Thu,
it wa. on ly nat ..... l lhal, a. 0 .. Moi, eau< ,ell,u' in , h. preface to hi. own f rench
r ~,e dit;"n of the (Oll«tio n of p,p~" (R~' u e il de div~"'" piec ... ,ur 10 ph ilosophio,
la relig;"n n.tur e l~. I 'h i "o ir ~. I., m3th' m3tiqu ... etc .• 2 vols .• Am"erdam, 1720,
p. II): "Mad ame I ~ Pr i""e". d. Ga lle>, ocooutumee au. Reche rche. Philosophiqu ...
I" , plus .b"'ait .. "Ie, plu •• "blim~. fit .<>ir cel1e leme ~ M. Cl. r . . . . souh.rt.
qu'il V ,,",pondit.. . Elle envovait ~ M. leibnb I.. R~ pon"" d. M. Clarke . 1
communiQuart a M. Clart.le, nouvelle , d ;ffic uk~ •• ou Ie, I n" ~ r,,;e , de M. ' oibni, ."
Indeed. Or. Clar" os an Inl imat. lriend of Sir I~.e. and a New'O" ia n of ",nil
w,
".nd ini. could to. rel",d upon 10 rep.e",nl t he ph llo.ophlcal .... of hi. m."".

,
In mv opiniOn w ~ mu« Co ""en la"h ~ r: rt i, u".rly uncOI'I("iv. ble th.. Clarke
should >«ept t he role 01 philosophical ,poke,,,,"~ l~J>d delender) of Newlon
wrthout being eotru"0<1 by Ihe latle , 10 do It, n.y, w~hout having "",,ured the
collaboration 01 t he g,eat man, at I..., in thelorm 01 awrov.' .

I am. thu" mo""y certain th .. Clarke commun ic"ed to Newton both leibnil'.
letters aOO hi. <tWn 'epl ie s to them. K i. Indeed unthinka ble ' ha' In 'he midst of hi.
bitte r fiRnt w~h l e ibnl, .boullhe p riority 01 t"" Inve ntion of 'he calculu;, Newton
who "aide d" both Kelll.oo Raph",n In t hel' . ".ch against l.cibni" .s he ". ided"
De. Mal.eou> some y03rs lale , in I"e p,eparation of hi. eclition of I""
· Collection
of p.".,," Ilh • ..,cond volum. of hi' . diti"" c........ the hi'to ..... of ' '''' c.lculu;
contr".e r<v by publishing tra n,lalion, of . e lecte d piece. o f Ihe Comme rcium
epi,'ol icum). should 'oma in .Ioof . nd di,in'e.. "ed in t he laee of an a... ult upon
hi. ," igiou, view and an a«u,",iOn. pr,"iC.;tlly. of .,hei.m, by 'he .. 11s.me
lelbnl .. ...... mane, of fact, 'h. P,inces, 01 W.'e, Info' med lelbnl. lCa ,ollne '0
l ,,' bn i. , Jon. 10. 1716, In O. Klopp, 0 .. Werke VOn leibni" Hanove,. 1864·84, ,01 .
• i. p . 71, quoted in The lelbnl. ·(larke conewoodenee. Ma"""">t.r Uni• . Pre ...
19S6, p. 193) th., he wa. 'Ight In hi. ,"ppos~iOn 'h at lhe.., lene" were nol
wrin. n withoul th ~ "".ice 01 Ne wtOn. Str.n8e a, ~ m.y , eem, t he Importance of
( lar1<e ', pape rs a, representing lite rally Ihe me taphy,lul . iew. of Newton ha,
never be<:n re<<>gni,ed, with Ihe ,esu lt that the ir study wa, completely ne gle<ted
by the histori. n, both of Newton .nd of leibni • . Thu" lor in<l.nee, L. T. Mo'e, op.
c~" p. 649: "It seem, p<oba ble 'hat Newton 010< ..... n more . .... perote d by
l el bni ,'. o"ack On tho a nl i·Chri<l ion influence 01 t he Pri ncipia t h. n by the
Con"oyersy oyer ,h. in.ention 01 the co lculu • . To ju,,'IV hlm,elf he guided Des
Mol.eou. in p"ep.a' ing fo. publicot io n tne long debale belw""n l e ibni. and Samue l
CI.r1<e on Ihe ,e l"iou' 'ie:niflCa nce of the Ne wtonian Pt.ilosophy. For this purpose
'0
he g''''' Ihe author 'he documents re latin, to the centro. e"y •• nd a " i "~ d him
In preparini an hl"orico l p'efa« which r.... wed t he whole affai'" !p. Ill)

"'Cf. ,upra, pp. 181·89. lp. 172)

ll> "Or. Clark.', ro", ' e ply." A colle<l ion of pape" .. "pp. IS ,q. lp. 112)
". The Socini.n . did not b<;1i..... in predeslination. no, in Ihe Trinity. (p_173)

''' " M'. lelcnl, ', ' e<ond pape,." ibid_, p . 2S_ lp, 174 1

.... Ibid., p. 33. Ip. 1741

no E' peclally hi' allu,iOn 10 Soclnla ni,m, becau, •••, . mailer of fact both SI , I,a ac
Newton and Dr. S3muel CI., ~ . were much ne are r to S.oc in ianl.m Ih. n '0 the
teachin, of the Esta blished Ch urch ; neit"". of the m, Ind. ed, accepted the
Trinitaria n conception (1/ God ; they wer. bo,h-., .1", John l<>< I< ~ - lJnrt a rio n l; d .
H. Mclachl.n. The rej igiou, opinion, of Milton. lo<l<e and N.wton. Manch ... ter.
1941. On Newton·' m .... ph\'1 ical . nd ,ellg,,", . i. ..... <I. Hel'ne Me use,.
Altract"n uni •• rsene et rel igion nOl"roll<, pari', 1938, 3nd E. W. Strong, "NewtOn
a nd God." Jour",,1 of .1>o History of Ide •••• 01 . • iii. 1951 . (p. 175)

1>0 0,. a t Ie.". p<0<,.,1", •. (p. 175)

"' " Or. CI"~e·' ,«ond ",ply." ibid .• p. 41 . Inte llige ntia supfOm"nda na. o r mo",
e . actly. " . ". munda n •• I, .n
.'pr.... ion of leibnil; d . Tt.eodd". §211. (p. 176)

on Ibid .• p. 4S. (p. 176)

'" "Mr. ' . ibni,·, t nird po per." ibid .• p . 57. (p . 176)

"',bid., p. 59. (p. 177)

'''Ibid., p. 69. (p. 177)

, ,. "Dr. Clark. ', third ," ply," ibid., p. 77. Dr. Clorke use. the term "p<op<rty" In his
own "",pli.." . , well ., in the tra n,""ion of l. ibn i,', "pape ,,"- .nd one
understa nd, full well why lie dO<!. not u •• ,he mo re corr«, o n". "."ribU' e ", just
~ «ou>e L.ibni. hos ",. nlloned Spino,". But ~ I bnb him.elf u.e, t he t erm

".,tribute"; moreO • ., ,h. Frf!nch tron" .tion of ( 13r •• ·' "rf!plie," ,eviewed 3nd
.,knowledged by Clarke nim>eM. use, ".,tribut,,· for · prope rty.· (p. 179)

'» The u•• 01 tn. principle 01 ine"l. In tl>o disc"'''''n of the old 1><oblo m wne t he,
God «on mO. e t he world in •• t .. liht line 1<1. my paper quoted , upr>, ca p. iii. n.
43) i..., I>or ingeniou,. (p. 179)

... "Dr. CI",~e·, third repty: ibid., p. 85. (p. 179)

, .. For t. ibni, re.l~y . nd ind "'iclu.lity are insep ... bl<. Ip. 1811

..0 " Mr. t . ibni, ·, fourth p3per." ibid .• p. 97 . Ip. 1811

><, Ibid .• p. 1D3 . lp. 1811

'" Th">, pr;Ktk~lty. lO ibn i, and o.,,>" e , a re In fun >greemenl. Ip. IS11

.... "Mr. Leibnl'" founh paper: ibid .• p\>. 115 sq. (p. 1811

-'bidem. Ip. 181 1

,. ••
 ~ 11 •

.. , Ib idem . teibni, will ment >on Hen,,! More in h;, fift~ ~pe', n . 48: "To eo"dude .
If I~ e 'pace (which Ih ~ "ulho, foneie.( VO"' of bodi ... i, nol o ~Oielh" empIV: what
is il lhen full 011 11 il full of extendod 1pi,it< pe,haps, 0 , i",,,,a .. ';ol , uMla",e.,
""pa ble of .. t e nding a nd <oo"o"ing of them.e lve.; whkh move 'he ' ein a nd
pe",,". ' e eo<h o,he ' wi'hou, ' ''Y incon.eniency, a. 'he .hadow. 01 'wo bodie.
pe"",ro,. one anot he , upon 'he surface 01 • wall? M.'hlnks I "'" t he ,,,,,,,,.1 of 'he
odd Im'K inalion< of D,. fien "! Mo,e (otherwise. ",.,nod and well meonini ma n)
and 01 ",me othe rs who la ndod t hat , hose ,piri" can ma ~ e ,he m..,I• • , impenetr_
a ble whene •• , t hev p le ... ."lp. 181)

- Ibidem. 10. 181)

.. ' Ibidem. 10' 181)

"' lbOd., p. iOl.lp . 181)

- Ibk!em. Ip. 183)

»0 -Dr. CI",~e', fourth 'eply." Ibid" p. 111.lp. 183)

'" We e.en ~ave 10 , uP!>O'" ~ if we want to lin~ .tomi,m with m"hemotle. 1

phllo"",hy.(p.183(

'" Ibi<l .. p. 12S.lp · 183)

>I' lbk!em.lp. 184)

'" Ibk!em. lp. 184)

>I. IbOd., p. 127. Ip. 184)

"" Ibkl .. p. 131.(p . 185)

," I, i, ,.,her inte,"" inK to .ee Dr. Cla,ke u.., Hen,,! Mo,e', f.mo", <"",ept a nd
te ,m . (p. 185)

'" Ibkl .. p. 127.lp. 185)

"· Ibi<l .• p. 135. (p . 185)

"' lbOd., p. n9. (p. 186)

,. ••
"' ,bid .• p. 139Ip. 1861

- Ibid .• p. 141. Ip. 1861

'" Ibid., p. 149. lp_1861

... Ibid., p. IS 1. Ip. 186)

... Thi, I.lte r beh''''our is, more often t hon no'. br~J>ded ~, "~rbtrori "" .. -" ) p.
188)

... "Mr. l e ibni'" fift h paper, " ibid_, p. ISl.lp. 18.8)

,., Ibidem . lp. 1881

... Ibid., p. 211 . Ip. IS91

""bld" p. 183. Ip. 189)

"" Ibid., p. 207. Ip. 190)

'" Ibid_, p. Ht . Ip. 1901

'" Ibid., p. IS9 . lp. 1901

'" Ibid.; p. 19l. lp. 191)

'" Ibid., p. 195. Ip. 1911

'" Ibidem. Ip. In)

"'Ibid., p. 2l5 . lp_1921

'" Ibid., p. 2S9. lp. 192)

"'Ibid., pp. 269 "I . Ip. 193)

,,. ·Or. CI.r'~·' fifth re ply, " ibid" p. 295. Ip. 194)

..
-'bid_, p_l13lp_1941

Ibid., pp. 301 "I. Ip. 195)

'I' ate
 ~ lH

., IbKl., p. 349. (p . 196)

., IbKl .• p.l67. (p . 196)

- lbKl., p. 335. (p . 19 1)

'I' ate