ZusammenfassungCopernicus versucht, die Ptolemäischen Konstruktionen auf konzentrische Kreise und Epizykel zu reduzieren und aus ihnen ein wirklich einheitliches System zu schaffen. Bei der Umordnung, die er dazu vornimmt, bemüht er sich aber, so viel wie möglich vom Ptolemäischen System zu erhalten. Das punctum aequans ersetzt er bei den äußeren Planeten durch eine Näherungskonstruktion mit Hilfe eines Epizykels. Im Fall des Ptolemäischen Deferenten der Venus, der nach seinen Vorstellungen die Erdbahn wiedergibt, muß er einen dem punctum aequans annähernd gleichwertigen Epizykelmechanismus auf (...) die Venusbahn verpflanzen. (shrink)

In 1454 Georg Peurbach taught astronomy at the Collegium Civium in Vienna by reading a work of his own: the Theoricae novae planetarum. In 1483 Albert of Brudzewo, teaching astronomy at Cracow University, adopted Peurbach’s text together with a commentariolum of his own. Among the numerous commentaries preserved both in manuscript and in printed form, Brudzewo’s stands out because it submits Peurbach’s work to a subtle analysis that, while recognising the merits for which it was widely accepted, also focuses on (...) the limitations of the celestial spheres described in it. Budzewo’s commentary is of interest, in itself both for its criticism of Peurbach’s descriptions of solar, lunar and planetary theory and also for its importance to Copernicus’s own planetary theory. For Copernicus makes clear in the Commentariolus that his concern was the very same issue, violation of uniform circular motion by the rotation of spheres, that Brudzewo criticises in detail. In this way, Brudzewo’s commentary stands as the original motivation for the investigation of the motion of the planets that was eventually to lead Copernicus to a planetary theory based strictly upon uniform rotation of spheres, and through that investigation to the motion of the Earth and the heliocentric theory. (shrink)

RésuméLe modèle complexe de Mercure dans le De revolutionibus de Copernic est virtuellement identique, géométriquement, à celui d'Ibn al-Šāṭir. Cependant, le modèle, antérieur, du Commentariolus est différent et il fonctionne mal. Certains en ont déduit que le jeune Copernic n'avait pas compris le modèle de son pré- décesseur; d'autres ont affirmé que l'œuvre de Copernic était totallement indépendante d'Ibn al-Šāṭir. Nous soutenons que Copernic avait les modèles d'Ibn al-Šāṭir mais qu'il a dû les modifier pour les rendre “quasi-homocentriques” dans (...) le Commentariolus. Cette modification et le passage d'une cosmologie géocentrique à une cosmologie héliocentrique étaient rendus aisés par le “biais héliocentrique” des modèles d'Ibn al-Šāṭir, pour qui la Terre était le centre effectif du mouvement moyen, contrairement à Ptolémée et à la plupart des astronomes islamiques. Nous montrons que : 1) Ibn al-Šāṭir a cherché à reproduire les élongations critiques à ±120° de l'apogée, mais il a changé les valeurs ptoléméennes à 0, ±90 et 180° ; 2) dans le Commentariolus, Copernic n'essaie pas de reproduire des élongations viables pour Mercure;et 3) au moment de la rédaction du De revolutionibus, Copernic contrôle pleinement le modèle de Mercure et il est capable de reproduire les élongations de Ptolémée aux points critiques. Nous soutenons aussi que les arguments concernant des solutions “naturelles” qui excluent la transmission sont niés par l’évidence historique. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Notes and Discussions AGOSTINO NIFO'S EARLY VIEWS ON IMMORTALITY Various historians of Renaissance philosophy have taken some notice of the prolific author and important philosopher of the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Agostino Nifo (1470-1538), x but no one has yet studied his writings in a methodical and exhaustive fashion. 2 He not only published philosophical works in logic, physics, psychology and metaphysics, but he also authored treatises (...) on humanist topics? Recent scholars have tended to concentrate their attention on his psychological doctrines, no doubt because he was one of the major opponents of Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525) during the immortality controversy.4 Nifo published his De Immortalitate Animae in 1518 as a reply to the De lmmortalitate Ardmae, On the year of Nifo)s birth, see Bruno Nardi, Saggi sull'aristotelismo padovano dal secolo xav al xvl ('Florence, 1958), p. 284, n. 8. There is contemporary evidence that he died on January 18, 1538. See Bartolommeo Capasso, "Le cronache de li antiqui ri del regno di Napoli di D. Gaspare Fuscolill0," Archivio storico per le province napoletane, I (1876), p. 538. The standard bio-bibliography still remains Pasquale Tuozzi, "Agostino Nifo 9 le sue opere," Atti e memorie della R. Accademia di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti in Padova, Nuova scrie, XX (Padua, 1904), pp. 63-86. But see also Giuseppr Tommasino, Tra umanisti e filosoft (Maddaloni, 1921), Porte I, pp. 123-147; and Edward P. Mahoney, "A Note on Agostino Nifo," Philological Quarterly (forthcoming). z See Franeeseo Fiorentino, Pietro Pomponazzi; Studi storici su la scuola bolognese e padovana del secolo xvI (Florence, 1868); Carlo Giacon, La seconda scolastica: 1 grandi commentatori di San Tommaso (Milan, 1944); Etienne Gilson, "L'affaire de l'immortalit6 de l'fime ~t Venise at* d6but du xvIe si~ele," in Umanesirno europeo e uraanesimo veneziano, ed. Vittore Branea (Florence, 1963), pp. 31-61; Miehele Giorgiantonio, "Un nostro filosofo dimentieato dcl '400 (Luea Prassicio e Agostino Nifo)," Sophia, XVI (1948), pp. 212-214 and 303-312; Bruno Nardi, Saggi sulraristotelismo padovano dal secolo x]v al xvI (Florence, 1958); idem, Sigieri di Brabante nel pensiero del Rinascimento Italiano (Rome, 1945); Giovanni di NapoH, L'immortalitd delranima nel Rinascimento ('Turin, 1963); John Herman Randall, Jr., The School of Padua and the Emergence of Modern Science (Padua, 1961); Wilhelm Risse, Die Logik der Neuzeit, I (Stuttgart, 1964); Eugenio Garin, La cultura [ilosofica del Rinascimento Italiano (Florence, 1961); idem, Storia della filosofia italiana, II (Turin, 1966). See Nifo's De Armorum Literarumque Comparatione Commentariolus (Naples, 1526); De Pulchro et Amore (Rome, 1531); De Re Aulica (Naples, 1534); and Prima Pars Opusculorum (Venice, 1535). The second of these works has been studied by Jules Houdoy, La beaut~ des femmes dans la litt#rature et darts rart du xII" au xvIe si~cle; Analyse du livre de A. Niphus du Beau et de l'amour (Paris, 1876). 4 For recent discussion of the immortality controversy, see Etienne Gilson, "Autour de Pomponazzi, ProbMmatique de l'immortalit~ de l'~me en Italic au d~but du xvIe si~.cle," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litt~raire du moyen dge, Ann6e 1961, pp. 163-179; Giovanni di Napoli, op. cit., especially pp. 227-338; Paul Oskar Kristeller, Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance (Stanford, 1964), pp. 72-90; Bruno Nardi, Studi su Pietro Pomponazzi (Florence, 1965); Martin Pine, "Pomponazzi and the Problem of 'Double Truth'," Journal ot the History of Ideas, XXIX (1968), pp. 163-176; Harold Shulsky, "Paduan Epistemology and the Doctrine of the One Mind," lournal of the History of Philosophy, VI (1968), pp. 341-361. [451] 452 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY (1516) of Pomponazzi, who had argued that personal immortality cannot be philosophically demonstrated, s But while these scholars correctly point out that Nifo abandoned an Averroist interpretation of Aristotle concerning the unity of the intellect and the immortality of the soul for the position which they assume to be Thomistic, they are not precise as to just when Nile made the shift.6 They have not observed that in his first two printed works, namely, the commentary on Averroes' Destructio Destructionum (1497) and the early commentary on the De Anima (1503), Nifo explicitly accepts Averroes as the... (shrink)

Through a collection of works from key thinkers in natural philosophy, the second edition of The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy illuminates the central role scientific writing played in developing modern philosophical thought. This revised and expanded edition includes many new translations and incorporates works by foundational eighteenth- and nineteenth-century thinkers not in the first edition, including selections from works by Jean-Baptiste, le Rond d’Alembert, Denis Diderot, Émilie Du Châtelet, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Joseph Priestley, Immanuel Kant, Carl Linnaeus, William Paley, and (...) Charles Robert Darwin. These new additions provide students with a more comprehensive understanding of the scientific context in which the major philosophical works of the modern era were written and complement the selections from works by Nicolaus Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Robert Boyle, Christiaan Huygens, and Isaac Newton that are retained from the first edition. (shrink)