Motion in a Vacuum and in a Plenum

in Richard Kilvington's Question:

"Utrum aliquod corpus simplex posset moveri aequae
velociter in vacuo et in pleno"
from the 'Commentary on the Physics'*

ELZBIETA JUNG-PALCZEWSKA (Lódz/Cambridge, Mass.)

Richard Kilvington, English philosopher and theologian, was probably born

between 1302—1305 and died in 1361 1 . In Kretzmanns' view Kilvington,
Bradwardine and Burley constituted the first academic generation of the Ox-
ford Calculators. The second generation was constituted by William Heytes-
bury, John Dumbleton and Richard Bilingham. Whereas all of the other Calcu-
lators were Fellows of Merton College, Kilvington he was a Fellow at Oriel2.
He is the author of five major opuscula: 1) 'Sophismata'3; 2) 'Quaestiones
super libros de generatione et corruptione'4; 3) 'Quaestiones super libros Physi-
corum'5; 4) 'Quaestiones morales super libros Ethicorum'6; 5) 'Commentary

* I would like to thank Prof. John Murdoch for his careful reading and his helpful and incisive
comments. I also would like to thank Anna Davenport and Marek Gensler who were kind
enough to correct my English.
1 On Kilvington cf., A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to

AD 1500, Oxford Univ. Press, 1057, 1050; Ch. H. Lohr, Medieval Latin Aristode Commen-
taries, in: Traditio 8 (1972), 392—393; Β. Kretzmann, Ν. Kretzmann, The Sophismata of
Richard Kilvington. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, New York 1990, (Introduc-
tion) 17 — 34; E. D. Sylla, The Oxford Calculators and the Mathematics of Motion 1320 -
1350. Physics and Measurement by Latitudes, New York - Londres 1991, 4 3 5 - 4 4 6 .
2 In Rigistrum Hamonis Hethe. Diócesis Roffensis (vol. I, 528) Kilvington is mentioned as "Prov.

of Oriel, Oxford" in 1333. Cf. Β., Ν. Kretzmann, op. cit., (Intr.) 25, note 28.
3 Cf. Richard Kilvington, Sophismata, ed. Ν. Kretzmann, London 1991.
4 For Information on manuscripts of this work, cf. Ch. H. Lohr, op. cit., 437. Besides those

manuscripts mentioned by Lohr there is one more contained in Jagiellonean Univ., Krakow,
BJ Cod. 648, ff. 40r—53r, in: Catalogue codicum manuscriptorum Medii Aevi Latinorum qui
in Bibliotheca Jagellonica Cracovie ascervantur, vol. IV, Wratislaviae, Varsaviae, Cracoviae
1988, 396.
5 A. Maier states that the manuscript: Vat. lat. 4353, ff. 125r-143v contains the apparently

lost set of Kilvington's questions from his commentary on the Physics. Cf., A. Maier, Aus-
gehendes Mittelalter, vol. I, Roma 1 9 6 4 - 6 7 , 2 5 3 - 2 5 4 . Cf., also Ch. H. Lohr, op. cit., 393;
Ν. Kretzmann, op. cit., (Intr.) 2 5 - 2 6 , note 33.
6 For information on manuscripts, cf. Ch. H. Lohr, op. cit., 392; N. Kretzmann, op. cit., 26,

note 34.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
180 Elzbieta Jung-Palczewska

on the Sentences'7. The first four works are the most likely to have been
written while Kilvington was in the Arts-faculty; the fifth one was certainly
written after he had become a bachelor of theology. In his commentary on
the 'Sentences', he refers to commentaries on the 'Physics' and the 'Ethics'8.
Because Kilvington was a bachelor of theology in 1335 and had lectured on
the 'Sentences' two years earlier, the commentaries on the 'Physics' and 'Ethics'
must have been written sometime before 1333. Kilvington may have lectured
on those books during his regency in arts, and if so, they can be dated to
between 1324—1326, along with his commentary on 'De generatione et cor-
ruptione'9.
Richard Kilvington is also the author of four questions on motion, which
are included by J. A. Weisheipl among the works attributed to Richard
Swineshead10. The four questions are contained in Ms. Venice, S. Marco,
lat. VI, 72 (2810), ff. 8 1 - 1 1 2 , 168-169, where we read the colophon: Haec
sunt quatuor quaestiones compilatae a reverendo viro magistro Ricardo super libros Physi-
corum. The questions are: 1) Whether in every motion the power of the mover
exceeds the power of what is moved; 2) Whether quality is susceptible to
more and less; 3) Whether a simple body can move equally fast in a vacuum
and in a plenum; 4) Whether everything changed is, at the beginning of its
transmutation, in that to which it is first changed11.

7 For information on manuscripts, cf. ibid., note 35. The Sentences commentary is being
prepared by John Van Dyk.
8 Cf. Ν. Kretzmann, op. cit., (Intr.) 26.
9 For more details, cf. ibid., 26 — 27.
10 J. A. Weisheipl refers to A. Maier as his source of information. Cf. J. A. Weisheipl, Ockham
and some Mertonians, in: Medieval Studies 30 (1968), 23; Id., Repertorium Mertoniense,
ibid., 31 (1969), 221; A. Maier, An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenschaft, in:
Studien zur Naturphilosophie der Spätscholastik, Vol. III, Roma 1952, 269. E. D. Sylla gives
three bits of evidence suggesting that the questions were written by Richard Kilvington and
not by Richard Swineshead. Among them, the third piece of evidence is the most persuasive:
in the first question on motion Magister Ricardus debates Bradwardine's function as he is
reported to have done. Cf., A. Maier, op. cit., 253; E. D. Sylla, op. cit., 438.
11 Ricardus Kilvington Ms. S. Marco, lat. VI, 72 (2810): 1) ff. 81ra-89rb Utrum in omni motu
potentia motoris exceditpotentiam rei motar, 2) ff. 89va— lOlva Utrum qualitas susdpit magis et minus·,
3) ff. 101 ra - 107vb Utrum aliquod corpus simplex possit moveri aeque veloríter in vacuo et in pieno-, 4)
ff. 107vb-112rb, 168va—169va Utrum omne transmutatum in transmutationìs inirío sit in eo ad
quodpnmitus transmutatur. The second question is also contained in four other manuscripts:
Ms. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 16401, ff. 149v - 1 6 6 v (inc.: Quaestio de intensione et remissione formarum)
attributed to Marsilius of Inghen; Ms. Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat. 6559, ff. 121ra-131ra (inc.: Ri-
chardi Kilvington quaestio est ista: utrum qualitas susdpit magis et minus)·, Ms. Vat. lat. 2148, ff. 71r—
75v ascribed to Walter Burley; Ms. Vat. lat. 4429 ff. 64r-70v; Ms. Oxford Bodl. canon.
Mise. 226, ff. 61v —65r ascribed to Thomas Wylton (coloph.: "Explirít quaestio de susceptione
magis et minus magistrum Tbomae de Anglia,r). I have examined all of the copies of the second
question and I can confirm that they all are copies of the same text. Part of q.l also appears
in Ms. Vatican, lat. 2198. In qu. 3 Kilvington refers to qu. 1 and qu. 4 and thereby definitely
confirms that he is the author of all questions ascribed to Magister Ricardus.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
 Motion in a Vacuum and in a Plenum 181

1. K i l v i n g t o n ' s q u e s t i o n on m o t i o n in a v a c u u m
and in a p l e n u m

Richard Kilvington begins the question with the formulation of the prob-
lem that is then discussed in four parts: Part I contains seven rationes princi-
pales-, Part II — contra — contains seven arguments based on the authority
of Aristode and of Averroes 12 ; Part III contains the replies to the rationes
principales; and Part IV, presented in four arguments, discusses the problem
of rarefaction of a medium 13 .
It is scarcely possible to find Kilvington's opinion on the main issue explic-
idy formulated anywhere in the question. The only clear remark, a determinatio,
is unexpectedly found at the beginning of Part II: Ad quaestionem dicitur quod
est vera eo modo quo probant tertium et sextum principalia istius quaestionis de corporibus
mixtis. Et quaestio est etiam vera de corporibus simplicibus motis in medio, quod in
medium movetur aeque veloáter sicut illud corpus simplex moverei per se in vacuo motu
successivo, quod est verum, ut probant primum et secundum principalia istius quaestionis.
The absence of a main determinatio, of polemics with some other philosophers,
suggests that Kilvington's question arose out of lectures on Aristode's 'Phys-
ics'. The structure of the question and the manner of presenting arguments
also confirms its "pedagogical" character.
Richard Kilvington's question does not contain much evidence of a live
debate. The format of the particular arguments of the question is similar to
the format of his 'Sophismata' 14 . It is true that the main subject of the
question is a physical and not a logical one, but the adopted technique of
so-called calculationes is similar to the technique used by Kilvington in his
'Sophismata'. The secundum imaginationem character of the question can be
confirmed by the fact that only two of a dozen arguments refer to what may
be called a 'natural situation'; the remaining ones are purely imaginary cases 15 .
The answers he gives to the problem analyzed in the question possess
characteristic features of the hypothetical language of the Calculators. To give
an example: "it is said that, according to imagination, the rarefaction of the

12 Richard Kilvington, Utrum ahquod corpus simplex possit moveri aeque veloáter in vacuo et in pleno,
Ms. Venice, S. Marco, lat. VI, 72 (2810), f. 103vb: "Ad oppositum arguitur per Aristotelem, IV
Physicorum et per expositionem Commentatoris textu commenti 72 et per Commentatorem eodem com-
mento." In Part II Kilvington cites Averroes' commentary 71, 72 on Book IV of the 'Physics';
commentary 3 on Book II; commentary 38 on Book VII; commentary 4 on Book VIII and
commentaries 102 and 103 on Book II of the 'De coelo'.
13 In this part we find the only reference to a work not by Aristotle or Averroes. Richard
Kilvington quotes the Tractatus de sphera' written by an anonymous magister.
14 In Sylla's opinion Kilvington's second question on remission and intention of forms is also
written in a logical manner and it resembles his commentary on 'De generatione et corrupti-
one'. Cf. E. D. Sylla, op. cit., 438.
15 To give an example, R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. 107ra: "Imaginaretur vacuum inter locum ignis et
centrum terrae"

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
182 Elzbieta Jung-Palczewska

medium proceeds infinitely so that if you imagine a medium which is twice

as rare as fire, it is not contradictory in itself. And therefore, any proposition
which does not include contradiction, is — according to the Commentator
and other major authors — essentially possible (per sé) and impossible by
accident (per acädens)16.
To establish his position and to argue against it, Kilvington presents the
"measure language" typical of the Calculators 17 . Using the proportions be-
tween the values characteristic of motion such as velocity, gravity, resistance,
distance, and time, he debates hypothetical cases (secundum imaginationem) and
considers the relation of infinite to finite and of divisible values to indivisible
ones. This specific use of proportions is similar to one described by Murdoch
and labelled 'Velocity Variation Assumption' 18 . Kilvington employs the tech-
nique of division into finite time intervals and space into proportional parts
according to a double proportion. He claims that if a simple body traversed
the same distance in each of the intervals of time decreased according to a
double proportion, the total distance traversed in the total interval of time
would be infinite. Consequently, the body would be speeding up infinitely.
The structure of the question — which is at times similar to the scheme
of a sophism — the mathematical proportions, logical language, and the
absence of clear engagement with other opinions on the issue suggest that
Kilvington's work belongs to the set of his 'Quaestiones super libros Phy-
sicorum'.

2. C o n c e p t s and d e f i n i t i o n s

The lack of a clear determinatio makes it difficult to extract Kilvington's

own opinion on the issue out of the numerous aporiae he presents in the
question. However, I shall try to present his definition of several physical
concepts that he uses to solve the main problem.

(a) Place

The term 'place' designates, first of all, a locus naturalis and appears often
when Kilvington considers the problem of the motion of a simple body, i. e.,

16 Ibid.: "Ideo dirítur quod subtiliatw medii procedit in infinitum secundum imaginationem, ita quod si
imaginatur medium in duplo subtìlius igne non sequitur contradictora per se ex illa imaginatìone. Et ideo
quaelibet propositio eritper se possibilis ad intellectum Commentaient et maiorem auctorum, et non ìncludit
contradictionem, ideo eadem est per se proposiúo possibilis et impossibilis per acädens."
17 On the characteristics of the Calculators' procedure, cf. J. E. Murdoch, E. D. Sylla, The
Cultural Context of Medieval Learning, in: Proceedings of the First International Colloquim
of Philosophy, Science and Theology in the Middle Ages - September 1973, in: Boston
Studies in the Philosophy of Science XXVI (1974), 289 sqq.
18 Cf. J. E. Murdoch, Infinite Times and Space in the Later Middle Ages (a paper edited in the
present volume).

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
 Motion in a Vacuum and in a Plenum 183

of one of the four elements. According to the traditional physics of Aristode,

Kilvington treats locus naturalis as a place toward which every body has an
inclination. Such a place is an external cause of a body's natural motion.
According to Aristode and Averroes, whose authorities are often invoked,
the four elements have their own natural places 19 and the sublunary world
is finite and enclosed between the sphere of the Moon and the surface of
the Earth. All physical phenomena concerning bodies occur in this finite
world. The natural places of the elements are stable and immobile, and these
are the most significant of their attributes, as stated by Aristode 20 .
The fact that elements have their prescribed natural places does not ex-
clude the purely conceivable possibility that any of their spheres is empty. In
order to solve the problem of motion in a vacuum, Kilvington frequently
conceives a hypothetical situation in which the places of fire, air, or water
are void 21 . It is beyond any doubt that such a situation can be considered
only secundum imaginationem and never happens in the real world.

(b) Medium

It is possible to infer that for Kilvington a locus naturalis can either be

empty or full. It is only when it is full, i. e., constitutes a plenum, that it is
called a medium. In the sublunary world, media should be filled successively
by earth, water, air and fire or, as naturally happens, by mixtures of these
elements. He concedes that a medium can be more or less dense and con-
siders the problem of the infinite rarefaction of a medium invoking (regretta-
bly without any clear reference) Burley's distinction between rarity and den-
sity understood as qualities and quantities. In the opinion of both, rarity in
the first sense is a quality consequent to cold and heat. In the second sense,
rarity is a relation based on quantity; the medium is rarer if the quantitative
parts are more distant 22 .

19 For a description of their natural places, see R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. lOlrb: "Ignis habet
inclinatiomm ad quieten in loco suo in quo est et terra habet inclinationem ut sit in low terrae."·, f. 101 vb:
"Ignis habet inclinationem ad motum versus sursum et terra nulUtm inclinationem habet versus sursum."
20 Cf., E. Grant, The Medieval Doctrine of Place: Some Fundamental Problems and Solutions,
in: Studi sul XIV secolo in memoria di Annelise Maier, Roma 1981, 59 sqq.
21 R. Kilvington, op. cit., lOlrb: "Imaginaretur iterum quod loca ignis et aeris sint vacua et non loca
terrae et aque." — ibid.: "Imaginaretur quod loca terrae et aquae sint vacua"
22 W Burley, Expositio super librum Physicorum: "Dicendum est quod raritas et densitas seu spissitudo
et subtiUtas uno modo sunt qualitates conséquentes calidum etfrigidum. Alio mode accrpiturpro approxima-
tion partium quantitatis ad invicem νel pro elongatione partium quantitatis ab invicem. Et sie vel sunt de
genere quantitatis vel sunt relationes necessario fundatae in quantitate" Ed. R. Wood, Walter Burley
on Motion in a Vacuum, in: Traditio XIV (1990), 213, 2 4 - 2 8 . R. Kilvington, op. cit.,
f. 107ra: "Partes ignis secundum istam superficiem magis distabuntur quam prius per consequens ignis
rarefieret" — ibid.: "Partes ignis plus distarent et per consequens ignis purus possit rartfacere." Cf., also
R. Wood, op. cit., 203.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
184 Elzbieta Jung-Palczewska

According to Kilvington it is possible accidentally that fire rarefies another

element, e.g., a piece of earth, without heating it. The rarefaction is here
identified with the enlarging of the distances between the homogeneous parts
of an element. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the fire is simulta-
neously condensed, and so that is why an infinite rarefaction of a medium
cannot occur in nature; it is only possible secundum imaginationem, Kilvington
insists 23 . The question of the possibility of infinite rarefaction of a medium
is considered by Kilvington with great care because a positive answer would
be tantamount to admitting the existence of a vacuum.

(c) Vacuum

An empty place, Kilvington concludes, is a vacuum. And the sole defini-

tion that can be found in his question is as simple as it can be: vacuum est
nihil24. Despite the lack of explicit comments on the characteristics of such
a void, one can trace certain latent presuppositions with respect to it: he
always assumes it to be "contained" only in a place vacated by an element,
spreading over a certain distance between, say, the sphere of the Moon and
the sphere of the Earth. Kilvington's term "vacuum" closely resembles the
definition of a void given by William Ockham, who says elsewhere that if a
vacuum exists, it is a place 25 .
In Part IV of the question, Richard Kilvington describes one experiment
in which it is possible to generate a vacuum. This experiment, first carried
out by the antiqui 26 , as he says, was well known by the Oxford philosophers.

23
R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. 107rb: "Ad quod respondeo concendendo conclmionem primam, si oporteret
quod necessario tantum condempsabit in aliqua materia, sicut rartfaceret materia terrae in qua aget ignis
et dico, quod illa alia materia condempsabitur ab igne per acädens, quia rarefieret materiam ilhus modicae
terrae per se. Et consimiliter dico, quod non est possibile quod aliquid rartfaceret aliquid nisi tantum
condempset de alia materia, sed hoc erit per acädens. Et ideo concedo quod ignis potest agere in aliquod
per acädens {ita} quod non calefaäet."
24
Ibid., f. 102ra.
25
R. Wood, op. cit., 203: " T h o u g h he holds that vacuum is a place if it exists, he also holds
that there is nothing really divisible in a vacuum, and no real distinction of parts within it.
According to Ockham, a vacuum could not be produced naturally but only supernaturally,
by God's removing the medium between limits without replacing the medium with anything
positive." Cf., also, W. Ockham, Expositio Physicorum IV c. 11, 1; 3, ed. V. Richter, GuiHelmi
de O c k h a m Opera Philosophies, Saint Bonaventure, N e w York 1985, 5, 122, 124; ibid. 5,
132,162; id., Quodlibet I, q. 8, ed. J. C. Wey, Guillelmi de Ockham, O p e r a Theologica vol. 9,
St. Bonaventure, N Y 1980, 4 5 - 4 8 .
26
It is probably one of a number of experiments done by Straten and then described by Hero
in the 'Pneumatic'. In the thirteenth century the experiments were presented in the 'Summa
philosophiae' ascribed to Robert Grosseteste. T h e author of 'Summa' speaks of the investi-
gation of vacuum made by Hero. Cf., L. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental
Science, N e w York, 1923, 189; La science antique et médiévale des origines à 1450, ed., R.
Taton, Paris 1957, vol. I, 3 7 5 - 3 7 6 .

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
 Motion in a Vacuum and in a Plenum 185

Probably it was the most significant argument for proving the possibility of
generation of a vacuum 27 . The experiment is as follows: "If the rarefaction
of the medium proceeded to infinity, it could be only either actually (de facto)
or imaginary (secundum imaginationem). I prove it is actual rarefaction: if I put
two flat stones in the air and one of them (A) is over the other (B), then B,
being outside its natural place, begins to descend and the air (C) either begins
to rarefy or not. If not, then a vacuum is generated. To prove the conse-
quence: (...) the air enters between the circumferential parts of A and Β
earlier than between the central parts, therefore, if Β is separated from A
immediately, the central parts of Β and A would be separated by a distance.
It would follow that there would be vacuum between them" 28 . Kilvington
rejects the possibility of the generation of a vacuum in this way, claiming
that: 1) in the central parts of A and Β the air rarefies and does not generate
a vacuum; 2) it is not true that the air appears earlier in the circumferential
parts of A and Β than in the central parts because air appears instantaneously
in every part between A and B. Consequendy, there is no experimental proof
of a possible generation of a vacuum; moreover, in nature, according to
Aristode, a vacuum does not exist. Finally Kilvington concludes: Ideo sequitur
quod subtiliatio medii in infinitum procedit secundum imaginationem29.

(d) Space

As we noted above, in Kilvington's view, a place is identified with a locus

naturalis which can either be full and so be a medium, or be empty, and so a
vacuum. It is possible to distinguish all the natural places occupied by simple
bodies in the sublunary world. It is also possible to imagine that elements
are not in their own places or that the natural places do not include any
element. Since a proper place is not only a point but also a sphere of ele-
ments, it is called a space — a room enclosed between two spheres, e.g.,
concavum lunae and centrum mundi, or the spheres of fire and Earth. One of the

27 Cf. M. Gensler, The Concept of Vacuum in a Scotist "Physics"-Commentary attributed to

Antonius Andreae (a paper edited in the present volume).
28 Cf. R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. 107ra: "Si subtiliatio medii in infinitum procedit vet hoc erit de facto vet
secundum imaginationem; quod de fado probo, quia copio duos lapides planos in aere quorum unum lapis
sit superior et alius inferior et descendat lapis superior (...) et sit aere médius inter duos lapides et sit A
superior Β vero inferior et C aer médius, tunc B est grave et extra suum locum naturalem, igìtur B descendit
vel incipit descendere, tunc arguo sic: Β incipit descendere vel igitur incipit C rarefacen ve! non. Si non
igitur generabitur vacuum. Consequentiam probo, quia capiantur partes centrales ipsius Β et aer sit inter
Β et A intrabit aliquis aer et prius est introitus in partes circumferentiales, quam in partes centrales, igitur
sine medio Β separabitur ab A, igitur <¡prius} erit aer in partibus arcunferentialibus Β et A, quam erit
interpartes centrales eorumdem etper consequens sine medio partes centrales B et A erunt distantes. Sequitur
quod inter ilia erit vacuum, quod est probandum."
29 Ibid., f. 107rb.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
186 Elzbieta Jung-Palczewska

dimensions of the space is measured by the distance between two spheres in

which it is enclosed.
Both a space and a vacuum cannot be imagined outside the sublunary
world. On the one hand, Kilvington uses interchangably the terms space and
place, which are measured in feet 30 . On the other hand, it must be stressed
that the term place denotes 'natural place', which has all those qualities char-
acteristic of the element that belongs to it; the term space denotes only the
distance which can be traversed by an element and it cannot be an external
cause either of natural motion of an element or of its inclination to remain
in rest.

3. M o t i o n in a v a c u u m and in a p l e n u m

Kilvington's question begins with the debate, presented in Part I, of two

main problems: Whether a simple body can move equally fast in a vacuum
and in a plenum, and whether mixed bodies can move equally fast in a
vacuum and in a plenum. The most important sources of his discussion are
Averroes' comments 71 and 72 on Book IV of the 'Physics'. Following the
Commentator, Kilvington derives two fundamental theses: first, that resis-
tance is necessary for successive motion 31 ; and second, that the speed of
motion is inversely proportional to the resistance it encounters and directly
proportional to the rarefaction of the medium 32 . He adds one more proposi-
tion which is a rule of motion, namely, that resistance is directly proportional
to the body's heaviness and inversely proportional to its inclinatìo to natural
place 33 .
Having accepted Averroes' first demand, Kilvington, in order to explain
the possible motion in a vacuum, has to introduce the term resistance. He
holds that in the case of motion in a vacuum, "which is nothing", one can
speak of internal resistance iresistentia intrinsecò) only. This resistance is closely

30 Ibid., f. 102vb: "Impossibile est quod per motum successimm pedalis quantitatis spatium sit pertransita
subito, sed loco aquae impleto et residuis lotis vacuis. Et A posito in loco ignis, sequitur quod A continue
, post movebitur successive quousque locus aquae sitpertransitus, ergo numquam locus aquae eritpertransitus
et non pertransiret A pedalem quantitatem vacui vel plus quam pedalem quantitatem, quae imaginatur
inter locum ignis et locum aquae"
31 Ibid., f. 101ra: "Tunc terra ex se non habet resistentem et non potest moveri sine resistentia, ut patet
per Commentatorem IV Physicorum commento 71; ergo A non indperet moveri quosquam non inciperet
habere resistentiam"
32 W. Burley holds the same opinion. Cf. W Burley, Expositio super totum librum Physicorum

IV, c. 71, tr. 2, c. 4, in: R. Wood, op. cit., 214, 3 5 - 4 0 . R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. 101ra: "Tunc
arguo sir. in prima parte proportionali horae A pertransibit aliquod spatium per suam resistentiam intri-
secam et in secunda parte proportionali A habebit resistentiam in duplo minorem vel plus quam in duplo
minorem, ergo in secunda parte proportionali in duplo veloáus movebitur quam in prima et per consequens
aequale spatium pertransibit in prima sicut in secunda"
33 Ibid., f. 104rb: "Pars inclinât minus versus deorsum quam totum, igitur quando aliqua pars minus

inclinât versus deorsum tanto plus resistit et per consequens pars maius resistit minus quam minus."

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
 Motion in a Vacuum and in a Plenum 187

connected with a moving body and results from a mutual action of two
simple bodies that have opposite qualities. For example, a fire can provoke
resistance in a piece of the earth (when the earth is in the sphere of fire) and
cause its downward motion 34 .
In addition, Kilvington concedes the case of the body's motion when the
motion of a simple body, e.g., earth, is caused by a mixed body, such as a
finger. In this case an internal resistance is given to a simple body by a heavy
mixed body, e. g., a finger35.
The internal resistance of a mixed body is caused by the preponderance
of heavy or light elements in the body. E. Grant, citing A. Maier, holds that
the theory of internal resistance of a mixed body appeared in the early 14th
century. This theory was different from Aristode's, which claims that in the
case of the free fall of a mixed body, the downward or upward motion is
caused by the predominance of heavy or light elements in the body. Scholas-
tics, however, altered the theory and stated that the motion depends on the
sum of degrees or parts of heaviness or lightness. For example, if a mixture
of three elements (e. g. water, air and earth) in a body were to be found in
the sphere of air, then the air in the body would be inactive, because the
element in its natural place has no inclination to go anywhere; consequently
the motion of the body would depend on the sum of degrees of the heavy
and light elements. If the sum of degrees of the heavy elements were higher
than the sum of degrees of the light elements, the body would fall; if it were
less, the body would rise 36 .
Put briefly, the successive motion of both a simple'and a mixed body is
possible because of resistance. In the case of motion in a medium, the resis-
tance is identified with the external resistance of the medium, and if the
medium is more dense, the resistance is greater. In a vacuum the resistance
must result from the mutual action of two elements, from the action of the
proper place on an element, or from the action of a mixed body on an
element. In the case of mixed bodies, the internal resistance is caused by the
elements contained in the body. With the aid of the terms thus presented,
Kilvington considers the problem of the speed of motion in a vacuum and
in a plenum in the succeeding three parts of the question.

34
Ibid., f. 101ra: "Imaginaretur vacuum inter locum ignis et centrum terrae et occupet ignis suam spheram
sicut nunc (...) A sit una terra pura et ponitur in inferiori parte sphere ignis, ita quod nullus ignis sit
sub A (...) terra incipit habere resistentiam ab igne agente in ipsam cum ignis sit contrariis illi terrae."
35
R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. lOlrb: "Sit circumferentia A terrae immediata illi situi ubi nunc est
contrarium terrae, tunc ponitur digitus Johannis supra terram et nitatur deprimere A terra (...) tunc A,
quae est terra mota, ut suppono, sine medio habebit aliquam partem eius moventem a centro terrae (...)
et ista pars ascendens résistif toti terrae descendenti'' - f. 101 va: "Posito tunc quod homo per digitum
nitatur deprimere A terram in vacuo et descendat A terra in vacuo, tunc sicut homo per digitum movet A
terram, ergo A terra restii motori''
36
Cf., A. Maier, op. cit., 237; E. Grant, Bradwardine and Galileo, in: Isis (1964), vol. 58, part 3,
348 sqq.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
188 Elzbieta Jung-Palczewska

(a) Parti

In Part I Kilvington presents a set of arguments which can be divided

into seven separate clusters, rationes prindpales. In each argument he solves
different doubts that arise from the problem. First, he gives a proof that the
motion of a simple body is equally fast in a vacuum and in a plenum if we
omit the external resistance of a medium. The proof is based on an imaginary
situation in which there is a piece of earth, call it A, in the sphere of fire,
and there is a vacuum between this sphere and the Earth. The fire causes
internal resistance, and the element A starts its successive motion. Then,
using the Velocity Variation Assumption, 37 Kilvington proves that the mo-
tion of A would increase infinitely in both cases (e. g., in a vacuum and in a
plenum); consequently, A would move equally fast 38 . The same method
serves to prove and then to refute some other arguments, constructed in all
likelihood by Kilvington himself, concerning the problem of motion in a
vacuum.
Second, Kilvington proves conclusively that a simple body must move
successively in a vacuum because it could not move instantaneously or remain
at rest 39 . He frequently invokes Aristotle's and Averroes' views and claims
that if a vacuum existed, it would be impossible that a simple body remain
at rest in it, because, as Kilvington says, recalling the authority of Averroes:
„if we presume that a vacuum exists, then a body would move infinitely fast,
which means, in fact, that it does not remain at rest" 40 .
Having stated that the body could not remain at rest in a vacuum, Kilving-
ton proves that it would be impossible that the body move infinitely fast. He
refers now, regrettably without explicit reference, to Ockham's sola distantia
theory, saying that it is impossible for a simple body to be simultaneously in
two different places a quo and ad quem, because if the body were first in the
limit a quo and then, without any interval of time, were in the limit ad quem,

37 Cf., note 16.

38 Ibid.: "A terra incipit habere resistentem ab igne agente (...) et incipit /noveri cum resistentia intrinseca
et tum A sine medio erit in loco terrae, probo quia si non, ergo aliquod tempus erit antequam A erit in
loco terrae, sic ergo, gratta exempli, quod hora (...) ergo A in tota hora, si moveretur cum resistentia
intrinseca quam habebit pertransibit spatium infinitum etper consequens hora non erit antequam pertransibit
spatium finitum, quod est inter locum ignis et locum terrae, quod estprobandum."
39 Kilvington presents a large debate on the problem (ff. 101 va— 102vb), which cannot be
quoted in toto; I present only part of his crucial opinion. R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. 103vb:
"Ex quibus patet, quod corpus simplex non potest quiescere in vacuo nec etiam moveri subito in vacuo et
per consequens posito vacuo sequitur quod corpus simplex movebitur successive, quodfuit probandum."
40 Ibid., f. 101 vb: "Aliter arguitur sic: si simplex non moveretur in vacuo sed quiesceret vel ergo quiesceret
naturaliter vel violenter. Non naturaliter quia iam est extra locum naturalem vel saltern non est in isto situ
ubi naturaliter foret suus locus naturalis, et per consequens non naturaliter quiescit. Nec quiesceret violenter,
quia nec a se ipso nec ab alio. Non ab alio quia nihil est ibi praeter vacuum et vacuum nihil est, ergo
nihil aliud ab ipsomet violentet nec ipsum violentât se, ergo etc"·, ibid., f. 102rb: "Item, Aristoteles et
Commentator IV Physicorum commento 71 probant, quod posito vacuo simplex movetur in eo in non
tempore, quod non esset verum si quiesceret in vacuo."

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
 Motion in a Vacuum and in a Plenum 189

then the motion would not occur at all, because, as a matter of fact, the body
would remain at rest all the time 41 .
The third argument claims that a mixed body of water and earth would move
equally fast in a vacuum and in air. Now Kilvington compares the motion of a
mixed body in a vacuum which is the proper place of water with the motion of the
body in the sphere of air. He concludes that if we presume that the external resis-
tance of the air would be equal to the internal resistance caused by the water in the
mixed body in the sphere of water, then the speed of the mixed body's motion
would in both cases be the same, because the internal and external resistances are
the same. Consequently, a mixed body would move equally fast in both 42 .
The next two arguments Kilvington solves by using proportions between infi-
nite and finite amounts of resistance and proves that a simple body could move in
a medium with infinite velocity in an interval of time but it could not move faster
in a vacuum; if so, it moves equally fast in both cases. Subsequently, he considers
the motion of mixed bodies and proportions between the sum of the degrees of
heaviness and lightness and traversed distance. Finally, he concludes that the mo-
tion of a mixed body would be a bit faster in a vacuum than in a plenum 43 .
The sixth argument is also based on Kilvington's definition of a successive
motion caused by a resistance. If we imagine that a mixed body moves as
fast as the medium in which it moves, then we must conclude that the me-
dium does not resist the body's motion, and, if so, the speed of the body's
motion in a medium is equal to the speed in a vacuum 44 .
Finally, Kilvington gives the following proof: if a body did not move
equally fast in a vacuum and in a plenum, it would be because the body
would have less resistance in the vacuum than in the plenum; consequendy,

41 Ibid., f. 102rb: "Restât ergo probare quod corpus simplex non movebitur subito in vacuo et hocprobo: quia
si simplex moveretur in vacuo υel ergo quia in eadem instanti foret in termino 'a quo' et termino 'ad quem' et
hoc est impossibile, sicut notum est. (...) Sed primum est falsum, probo quia sit una terra pura (...) et sit
vacuum inter concavum lunae et centrum terrae, tuncperprimum estpossibile quod sit nunc in loco ignis et quod
sine medio erit in loco terrae, sed hoc estfalsum, quia A nunc non movebitur, quia est in eodem situ in quod
praefuit, utpono, necA post hoc movebitur, quia continue post hoc quiescit in loco suo naturali."
42 Cf. ibid., f. 102vb — 103ra: "Corpus mixtum ex aqua et terra potest aeque velociter moveri in vacuo et
in pleno, quod probo, quia imaginaretur vacuum inter concavum lunae et centrum terrae et ponitur illud
mixtum ubi est nunc locus aquae et (...) tunc aqua in isto mixtu resistit terrae cum sit in suo loco naturali,
capio tunc aliquod medium aerum vel aliud, non est cura, ( e f ) cuius resistentia est tanta vel minor quam
resistentia aquae. Tunc ponitur illud mixtum in isto medio (...) istud mixtum non habet aliquam resisten-
tiam intrinsecam in isto medio, quia sibi non resistit in isto medio quia aqua in loco aeris non resistet
terrae cum utrumquae inclinent ad inferius et medius illud est tante resistentiae vel minoris quante foret
aqua in loco aquae, ergo illud mixtum movetur aeque velociter in medio sicut moveretur in vacuo."
43 Ibid., f. 103ra: "Quarto ad principale probo quod, aliquod corpus simplex movebitur in medio infinita
veloàtate per alicuius tempus quamlibet partem et non velocius potest moveri in vacuo, ergo quaestio est
vera." - ibid.: "Quinto ad principale, corpus mixtum potest moveri in pieno aliqua velocitate et minima
veloàtate maiori in vacuo, ut probabo, ergo quaestio est vera."
44 Ibid., f. 103va: "Pono ergo quod A sit aliquid grave quod ita veloáter descenderet in vacuo sicut aer
descendit et ponitur in medio aero, tune A mixtum movebitur aeque velociter in vacuo et in pieno quod
probo sic quia A mixtum aequalem resistentiam habebit in pieno et in vacuo cum in pieno aer sibi non
résistât, sed aeque veloáter descendit cum ipso, ergo A aeque velociter movetur in vacuo et in pieno."

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
190 Elzbieta Jung-Palczewska

bodies with the same resistance would have the same speed and a body with
less resistance would move faster, which is false 45 . Since the consequence is
false, the premise is false and we must conclude that the body would move
equally fast in a vacuum and in a plenum.
To sum up, having accepted Averroes' condition for successive motion,
i. e., the necessity of resistance, Kilvington debates the problem in a manner
typical of the Calculators. He proves, with the aid of proportions, that it is
conceivable and logically possible to state that both a simple and a mixed
body would have the same speed in a vacuum and in a medium. He devotes
his attention to the kinematic aspect of the problem and, above all, considers
the proportions between speed, internal resistance, path and time.

(b) P a r t i i

In Part II, Kilvington, invoking the authority of Aristotle and of Averroes,

presents the opposing arguments, although he stands by his opinion even in
this part. He begins with the following sentence — Ad oppositum arguitur per
Aristotelem et Commentatorem — and then remarks that the third and the sixth
arguments concerning the motion of a mixed body 46 , and also the first and
the second, concerning the successive motion of a simple body, persuasively
prove that motion in a vacuum could be as fast as motion in a plenum 47 .
In order to defend the opinions of authorities, Kilvington — like a Calcula-
tor — uses proportions and mathematical methods to argue against himself.
He recalls Averroes' commentary 71 on Book IV of the 'Physics' where the
latter presents the opinion of Avempace, who holds that a natural motion is
possible only in a vacuum 48 . Motion in a medium is always violent and
consequently the natural motion can occur only if a vacuum exists. Kilving-
ton's interpretation of Avempace's opinion is similar to Burley's49. Kilvington
suggests that simple bodies have, absolutely speaking, no natural motion;
they rather have a natural motion in relation to a medium 50 .
45 Ibid., f. 103va: "Séptimo ad prinrípale, si quaestio non sit vera tunc hoc esset quia corpus motum in
vacuo minus haberet de resistentia quam idem motum in pieno et per consequens corpora mota cum aeque
resistentia praecise, ceteris paribus, moverentur aeque velociter et etiam corpus motum cum minori resistentia,
ceteris paribus, moveretur veloáus, sed hoc est falsum"
46 Cf. p. 8 - 9 .
47 Cf. p. 9.
48 Cf., Averroes, Commentary in Physicam VIII, com., 71, in: Aristotelis opera cum Averrois
commentariis, Venetiis apud lunetas MDLXII, ff. 162 — 163.
49 Cf., Walter Burley, Expositio super totum libros Physicorum, IV, c. 71, c. 4, Venice 1501,
f. 115vb; R. Wood, op. cit., 204.
50 R. Kilvington, f. 103vb: 11 Si solum motus corporis simplicis in vacuo foret naturalis, igitur nullus motus
naturalis foret nisi vacuum esset et sic valet consequentia, et falsitas consequentis est satis manifesta. Unde
si Avempace dixisset, quod tam motus simplicis in vacuo quam motus eius in pleno foret naturalis, non
voluisset argumentum Commentatoris contra ipsum, cum consimile argumentum posset fieri de simpliä moto
in medio in duplo ration quam ignis sit. Arguendo in medio duplo subtiliori quam ignis, si esset, potest
simplex moveri aliqua velocitate et Mam velocitatem non potest iam habere, igitur est aliquis motus naturalis

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
 Motion in a Vacuum and in a Plenum 191

Part II ends with the debate on the problem of the motion of heavy simple
bodies in a vacuum. At its beginning Kilvington states that Aristotle and
Averroes introduce the term "vacuum" in order to explain the opinions of
other ancient philosophers who maintained that the vacuum is necessary for
motion to occur. The genuine opinion of the "authorities" is as follows:
Motion in a vacuum could not occur because it would not be successive
motion but rather an instantaneous transformation, i.e., local mutation51.
Having presented the popular scholastic explanation of Averroes' and Aris-
tode's view, Kilvington pays attention to the other — the dynamic — aspect
of the problem. He presents and, regrettably, rejects the correct opinion that
different bodies should move equally fast in a vacuum. Kilvington holds the
classical Aristotelian solution that a heavier body would move faster in a me-
dium but extends the consideration to the motion of a simple body in a vacuum.
He explains that if we omit the resistance of a medium, we must claim that the
velocity of motion does not change and the heavier body moves faster52.
In order to defend Aristotle's view, Kilvington considers different imaginary
cases of a simple body's motion in a vacuum, presenting proportions between
speed and gravity, levity and resistance. Nevertheless, it becomes apparent that he
has problems with a justification of the term "resistance". As has been said, for
scholastics the motion of a mixed body in a vacuum is possible because natural
forces — gravitas and levitas — play a double role. It can either be a motive force or
a resistance; this depends on the predominance of the degrees of heaviness or light-
ness only. With the motion of a simple body which does not have any other con-
trary elements, the situation is much more complicated. E. Grant maintains that
the medieval thinkers did not consider the case of a simple body's free fall in a
vacuum in any dynamic aspect, because they noticed this extraordinary difficulty53.
Nevertheless, Kilvington devotes considerable attention to the problem54.

simplicis, quod impossibile esset corpus simplex habere nisi foret aliquod medium in duplo subtilius quam
ignis et hoc non est impossibile. Et per consequens non foret corpus simplex habere aliquem motum in
vacuum, si esset, quod impossibile est nunc habere"
51 Ibid., f. 104va: "Ad quod respondeo, quod Aristoteles et Commentator non probant (...) nisi quod oportet
ponere vacuum propter velocitatem et tarditatem in motu, quod tamen voluerunt antiqui dicere boc ad
alium effectum probaverunt conclusiones ibidem;" - ibid., f. 104rb: "Aristoteles secundum expoútionem
Commentatoris textu commenti 71 et 72 et Commentator in eisdem commentis videturprobare quod vacuum
non est, quia tunc corpus simplex moveretur in instanti et non in tempore"
52 This opinion was held by Thomas Bradwardine and then by Galileo. Cf. E. Grant, Modon
in a Void and the Principle of Inertia in the Middle Ages, in: Archives for History of Exact
Sciences, vol. 2, 4 (1965), 352; R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. 104va: "Si simplex moveretur successive
in vacuo vel igitur corpus maius et corpus minus moveretur aeque velociter in vacuo vel unum moveretur
velocius alio. Non aeque velocior, probo, quia corpus maius velocius moveretur in vacuo quam minus, quod
probo: sit A terra maior et Β terra minor et moveantur in medio, tunc arguo sic: A velocius moveretur
quam Β et utraque est simplex, ergo dempto eodem communi, scilicet resistentia medii, sequitur quod motus,
qui praefuit velocior erit (velocior) et per consequens in vacuo corpus simplex maius velocius movebitur."
53 Cf. E. Grant, op. cit., 258.
54 R. Kilvington debates the problem on four folios (ff. 104va— 105va), however, it is hardly
possible to find a clear solution there.

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
192 Elzbieta Jung-Palczewska

The explanation of the term "internal resistance" that he gives here is not
satisfactory. He stresses that internal resistance must be caused by the dif-
ferent qualitative parts of a simple body, and, in order to explain this, he
invokes an analogous case of an unequally white body, in which one part —
more white — is "resistant" or opposite to the other, less white part. Now
the questions arise: 1) How should we understand a qualitative difference
between the parts of a simple body?; 2) How is it possible that a simple body
would have different parts in its successive motion?; 3) Is the difference
between the parts the difference between their heavinesses? It is hardly pos-
sible to find the answers for the questions posed above, because Kilvington
multiplies distinctions and ultimately does not solve the problem.
The only clear statement which can be drawn from this part is that, in a
vacuum, the resistance of a moving body does not impede downward motion
but rather promotes it. And in this case Averroes' rule, that if one wishes to
move a body which is aggregated of two others, he must use the force which
is a sum of the separate forces used to move each separate body, does not
apply, because in natural motion in a vacuum or in a plenum gravitas "aids"
and does not resist 55 .

(c) P a r t i l i

The shortest part of the question, Part III, contains the answers to the
rationes principales. Following the previous opinion, Kilvington maintains: 1)
that a simple body can move successively in a vacuum; 2) that if the external
and internal resistance are the same, a mixed body can move equally fast in
a vacuum and in a plenum; 3) that if we presume that a medium moves as
fast as a mixed body, then the speed of a mixed body's motion would be the
same in a vacuum and in a plenum 56 . On the other hand, he rejects the
solutions of three other arguments, saying that the proportions which are
presented in them do not have to be real, and that the conclusions drawn
do not result from the assumptions 57 .

55 R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. 105va: "Et ultima consequentia patetper Commentatorem VII Physicorum
commento 37, ubi ponit talem regulam quod si fuerunt plures potentiae motivae etpotentia motiva unius se
habet ad suam resistentiam, sicutpotentia motiva alterius ad suam resistentiam, tunc ipsa aggregata movebit
resistentiam aggregatam sicut una potentia movebit suam resistentiam. Ad quod dicitur, quod regula ista
habet intelligi de resistentia quae est impeditiva motus et de veloätate addita motui naturali, quam habet
simplex in vacuo, et non de tali resistentia simplices in vacuo et instantia apparet in exemplis praedictis."
56 Ibid., f. 105vb: "Adprimum argumentum (...) simplex descenderet motum successìvum in vacuo, si esset.·,
ibid.: Ad secundumprinàpalem concedìtur quod corpus simplex movetur successive in vacuo." — f. 106ra:
"Ad tertium prinàpale (...) quaestio est vera sicut patet in propositione'' - f. 106rb: "Ad sextam
prinàpale conceditur conclusio in tali casu ubi medium movetur ita velociter descendente sicut mixtum grave
positum in eo descendetur in vacuo et istud est in propositione."
57 Ibid., f. 106ra: "Ad quartam prinàpale concedo (...) quod corpus simplex supra positum A est infinitum
maioris virtutìs (...) Et concedendo negando consequentiam." - f. 106rb: "Ad quintamprinàpale videtur
per praedicta quod ubi potentia motiva in duplo plus excedit suam resistentiam non sequitur quod motus
erit in duplo veloàor sicut dictum estprius et super illudfundatur argumentum" — ibid.: "Ad septimam

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM
 Motion in a Vacuum and in a Plenum 193

Moreover, he adds there an interesting proof of Aristotle's statement con-

cerning a body's free fall. Aristotle holds that in a free fall the speed of
motion of a body mixed of all elements increases successively, and that the
nearer to Earth the body is, the higher is its speed. Kilvington, to the con-
trary, holds that motion would be slower nearer the Earth because the mixed
body, passing through natural places, must overcome the resistance caused
by them 58 .

4. C o n c l u s i o n s

Although Richard Kilvington considers many doubts that arise in his con-
sideration of the problem of motion in a vacuum and in a plenum, often
without clear solutions and with numerous aporiae, our analyses allow us to
formulate the following conclusions:
1. The question on motion in a vacuum and in a plenum belongs to the set
of questions from the commentary on the 'Physics' along with the other
three questions written by Kilvington.
2. The form and the tone of the question are similar to the form and the
tone of Richard Kilvington's 'Sophismata' and 'De generatione et corrupti-
one'. The question is fully developed and is not a literal commentary.
3. Undoubtedly, he knows well not only the "classical" works of Aristotle
and Averroes, but also the English philosophical tradition and contempo-
rary views on the subject; he cites the opinions of Grosseteste, Ockham,
Burley and an unidentified thinker who is probably Bradwardine.
4. The answer to the main problem of the question is negative. However,
Kilvington maintains that if a vacuum existed, a simple body would move
successively in it.
5. Similarly to Thomas Bradwardine in his Tractatus de proportionibus', he
considers the problem of the motion of simple and mixed bodies in a
vacuum and in a plenum under two different aspects: the kinematic and
the dynamic. Kilvington wrote his questions between 1324—1326 while
Bradwardine wrote his treatise in 1328; we can hypothesÌ2e that the first
impulse for such considerations was given by Kilvington. However, I am
not yet in a position to assess the influence of Kilvington's works.

conceditur quod A et Β nunc aeque velociter moventur in vacuo et hoc concedo. Et concedo ulterius quod A
velocius movetuT in vacuo quam Β et quod inclinatio eiusdem est velocior in vacuo quam inclinatio Β versus
deorsum. Et nego consequential:: igiturfacilius foret movere Β venus sursum."
58 Cf. R. Kilvington, op. cit., f. 106ra: "Sed ad hoc sequitur haec concinno, quod aliquod mixtum grave
quantum foret propinquus suo loco naturali tardius moveretur (...) probo, quia copio aliquod mixtum
compositum ex quatuor elementìs in quo mixto duratur terra et sit A illud mixtum et ponatur in loco
ignis, tunc in loco ignis illud mixtum non habet resistenHam nisi ab igne intrinseco, quia alia tria elementa
inclinant ubi suis inferius ve! saltern quolibet eorum minus resistit quam resisterei in suo loco naturali et
idem mixtum, si foret in loco aeris et aquae, in Ulis locis minoratur potentia motiva, igitur continue
tardabitur motus, quod est probandum."

Brought to you by | New York University Bobst Library Technical Services

Authenticated
Download Date | 6/10/15 11:04 PM