|
Post by timoneill on Jun 18, 2015 1:21:32 GMT
So I have a guy on Quora fighting a rearguard action against this newfangled idea that people in the Middle Ages didn't believe the earth was flat. He has to accept that this is true, of course, but he's leaped on some comments tucked away in footnotes in Jeffrey Burton Russell, which he is trying to inflate as much as he can to insist that there were still some educated people who argued against a spherical earth. He highlights Russell's note that Alfonso Tostado may have been an "anomaly" in this regard and insists that this shows at least some theologians rejected the idea as late as the fifteenth century. The only references to Tostado I can find in relation to anything like the question say that he argued against an inhabited antipodes, an argument that only works if you understand the earth to be round. He replies that the only source for this is White's notorius Warfare (it isn't, but anyway) and then says: "Whewell has earlier written that what Tostado considered "unsafe" was sphericity itself. And he gives a reference to the prologue by Montfaucon to his translation of Cosmas's Topography, a passage that I can locate online. My Latin is no great shakes, but it seems to me that Whewell quoted Montfaucon correctly, and Montfaucon was a Catholic monk writing in 1708, with no incentive at all to propagate a flat Earth legend" He then gives this screenshot of the passage he says supports this: This is well beyond my Latin, so can anyone work out if this supports what he's claiming?
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jun 18, 2015 18:15:58 GMT
This passage on Tostado from a modern book only mentions that Tostado was at odds with the idea that the antipodes were inhabited as you say: books.google.nl/books?id=e0K_8rMyRaUC&lpg=PA14&ots=7af82okmiK&pg=PA14#v=onepage&f=falseFrom what I can tell, the reference to Tostado is that he claimed that the other hemisphere was visited by only few and that "the opinion of the sphere" was indeed unsafe and reckless. It depends a lot on what "the opinion of the sphere" meant in the original context. Surely a savant like Tostado having crankish views would have drawn the attention of natural philosophers and modern historians? It seems very incredible.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 18, 2015 20:50:09 GMT
This passage on Tostado from a modern book only mentions that Tostado was at odds with the idea that the antipodes were inhabited as you say: books.google.nl/books?id=e0K_8rMyRaUC&lpg=PA14&ots=7af82okmiK&pg=PA14#v=onepage&f=falseFrom what I can tell, the reference to Tostado is that he claimed that the other hemisphere was visited by only few and that "the opinion of the sphere" was indeed unsafe and reckless. It depends a lot on what "the opinion of the sphere" meant in the original context. Surely a savant like Tostado having crankish views would have drawn the attention of natural philosophers and modern historians? It seems very incredible. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I am getting a starving undergraduate to translate the whole passage for me, so hopefully that will add some light. But given the context, I agree that the idea that the "opinion of the sphere" refers to the idea that the earth is a sphere is very unlikely. The reference to Tostado's position on the sphere as an possible "anomaly" in Russell is to "Commentaria in Genesim", but he gives no specific cite of where in that (long) work he's referring to. meanwhile several books say that Tostado made some objection to Columbus' proposed voyage on the basis of ideas against the antipodes. The reference there is to The life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand, trans. Benjamin Keen, p. 62. But the only copy of Keen's translation of that book in my university's library is out so I can't check what that says either. Does anyone have access to a copy? Google Books is being unhelpful.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 19, 2015 7:52:08 GMT
Here is the translation of Montfaucon prologue to his edition of Cosmas:
"But then, fairly well all the Christian writers, embracing the common opinion, recoiled from the term “sphere,” and, influenced by both the judgment of many Ancients and by a good number of passages from the Holy Scripture, which they thoughts could not be reconciled with the idea of a sphere, deemed that the surface of the earth was flat. Thus Lactantius, book 3, chapter 24: “What else do those men who think that the Antipodes are contrary to our footprints not say? Or is there anyone so incompetent that he believes there are men whose are footprints are higher than their heads? Or that what lies beside us there hangs upside-down there? That the fruits and trees grow in a downwards direction? That the rain and snow and hail fall up to the earth? And does anyone wonder that hanging gardens are spoken of among the seven wonders, when philosophers make both fields and seas and cities and mountains to hang?” And other things, which he pursues there at greater length. Things similar to these are related by Augustine (City of God, book 16, chapter 9), Chrysostom (Letter to the Hebrews), Severian of Gabala (sermon 2 on the creation of the world), Bede, and many others, whom it would be pointless to recount, because the matter is well-worn and not unknown to anyone. Likewise, there was another thing which moved the Holy Fathers away from the spherical opinion—namely, the passages in the Holy Scripture that seem to reject a spherical form for the heavens and the earth. But in this matter, two things in particular must be considered: first, that such locations are not described so clearly that they do not allow some explanation; and second, that the Holy Scripture, whose one and only goal is to fashion men towards piety and a disdain for fleeting wordly things, mentioned that matter in the common opinion of the nations.
Yet, as Basil says, it is of no interest to us whether the earth is a sphere, or a cylinder, or something like a disc that turns constantly in an equal circular shape, or is something like a fan and is hollow in the middle. Because Moses said nothing about the course of the earth, about eclipses, and other similar things, thus the oracles of the Holy Spirit must not be deemed lesser for understanding of this world; nay, rather he must give thanks who did not allow our mind to be snared by the teachings of vain and futile philosophy, but so long as he wanted to write those things which he had sensed would be chiefly useful for instructing our souls and putting them in a calm state. But judgment on the flat shape of the earth has been challenged up to the fifteenth century by the majority of theologians, so that Tostatus himself, a few years before he was directed to the other hemisphere, rejected the spherical argument as though it were rash and not secure in faith."
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jun 19, 2015 9:55:24 GMT
Thanks Tim. Interesting. It seems our 18th century monk is mistaken about several of the authors he cites.
Augustine was a wicked globalist but did reject an inhabited antipodes. He thought the other side of the world might just be a vast ocean. Here's City of God 16 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm).
It is not controversial that Bede is also a believer in the spherical heresy.
John Chrysostom and Severian were both clean-living flat earthers, although this is clearer for Severian than Chrysostom. St Basil did, I think, depart from true doctrine but wickedly didn't believe it mattered much. The key passage is this sermon (http://www.fisheaters.com/hexaemeron1.html) where he gives an accurate account of that infidel Aristotle's argument for why the earth is a sphere and says it is fine to believe it. He just doesn't think it should matter much to his audience of common people.
So the question is whether Montfaucon has misrepresented Tostatus, which we can only establish by reading the man himself.
I would date the myth that the sphericalist heresy wasn't all pervasive in the Middle Ages to Francis Bacon in the early 17th century, so it is quite possible that Montfaucon simply believed this uncritically.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jun 22, 2015 14:48:48 GMT
It seems that Tostatus's Commentary on Genesis was sufficiently popular to be printed up to the 18th century and get excerpted into various publications prior to that date. Some suggestion that Ralegh, Browne and Milton would have been familiar with him, at least second hand. Info from "Commentaries on Genesis as a Basis for Hexaemeral Material in the Literature of the Late Renaissance" Arnold Williams, Studies in Philology, 34:2 (1937), pp. 191-208.
It's not much but if I was still a student would be easy to pop into the library and look him up.
J
|
|
|
Post by domics on Jun 25, 2015 9:12:45 GMT
OK, from what I understand the 'spherical argument' Tostado denied it was in the sense that there were people he considered ignorant who said that before the Flood the earth had no mountains and valleys that is it was a 'sphere' in a strict sense. He did not denied that the earth was round but he denied that people could live 'ultra aequinoxtialem'.
|
|
labarum
Master of the Arts
Posts: 122
|
Post by labarum on Jun 29, 2015 14:27:26 GMT
It appears that Tim's opponent never bothered listing Whewell's context. The only mention I can find of Whewell citing Montfaucon is in Volume I of his History of the Inductive Sciences. The context was not a flat earth but rather the question of people living at the Antipodes (on the other side of a spherical world). That WAS a popular topic in medieval times but it assumed a spherical earth. Here is Whewell's text:
7. Question of Antipodes.—With such habits of thought, we are not to be surprized if the relations resulting from the best established theories were apprehended in an imperfect and incongruous manner. We have some remarkable examples of this; and a very notable one is the celebrated question of the existence of Antipodes, or persons inhabiting the opposite side of the globe of the earth, and consequently having the soles of their feet directly opposed to ours. The doctrine of the globular form of the earth results, as we have seen, by a geometrical necessity, from a clear conception of the various points of knowledge which we obtain, bearing upon that subject. This doctrine was held distinctly by the Greeks; it was adopted by all astronomers, Arabian and European, who followed them; and was, in fact, an inevitable part of every system of astronomy which gave a consistent and intelligible representation of phenomena. But those who did not call before their minds any distinct representation at all, and who referred the whole question to other relations than those of space, might still deny this doctrine; and they did so. The existence of inhabitants on the opposite side of the terraqueous globe, was a fact of which experience alone could teach the truth or falsehood; but the religious relations, which extend alike to all mankind, were supposed to give the Christian philosopher grounds for deciding against the possibility of such a race of men. Lactantius" in the fourth century, argues this ...
'- Brwker. iii. 317. 'Pra-p. Ev. xv. fil 7 Inst. 1. iii. init.
"Inst. 1. iii. 23.
matter, in a way very illustrative of that impatience of such speculations, and consequent confusion of thought which we have mentioned. "Is it possible," he says, "that men can be so absurd as to believe that the crops and trees on the other side of the earth hang downwards, and that men there have their feet higher than their heads? If you ask of them how they defend these monstrosities ?—how things do not fall away from the earth on that side? they reply, that the nature of things is such that heavy bodies tend towards the center, like the spokes of a wheel, while light bodies, as clouds, smoke, fire, tend from the center towards the heavens on all sides. Now I am really at a loss what to say of those who, when they have once gone wrong, steadily persevere in their folly, and defend one absurd opinion by another." It is obvious that so long as the writer refused to admit into his thoughts the fundamental conception of their theory, he must needs be at a loss what to say to their arguments, without being on that account in any degree convinced of their doctrines.
In the sixth century, indeed, in the reign of Justinian, we find a writer (Cosmas Indicopleustes9) who does not rest in this obscurity of representation; but in this case, the distinctness of his pictures only serves to show his want of any clear conception as to what suppositions would explain the phenomena. He describes the earth as an oblong floor, surrounded by upright walls, and covered by a vault, below which the heavenly bodies perform their revolutions, going round a certain high mountain, which occupies the northern parts of the earth, and makes night by intercepting the light of the sun. In Augustin10 (who flourished A.d. 400) the opinion is treated on other grounds; and without denying the globular form of the earth, it is asserted that there are no inhabitants on the opposite side, because no such race is recorded by Scripture among the descendants of Adam (l). Considerations of the same kind operated in the well-known instance of Virgil, bishop of Salzburg, in the eighth century. When he was reported to Boniface, archbishop of Mentz, as holding the existence of Antipodes, the prelate was shocked at the assumption, as it seemed to him, of a world of human beings, out of the reach of the conditions of salvation; and application was made to Pope Zachary for a censure of the holder of this dangerous doctrine. It does not however appear that this led to any severity; and the story of the deposition of Virgil from his bishopric, which is circulated by Kepler and by more modern writers, is undoubtedly altogether false. The same scruples continued to prevail among Christian writers to a later period; and Tostatus" notes the opinion of the rotundity of the earth as an "unsafe" doctrine, ...
* Montfaucon, Collectio Nova Patrum, t. ii. p. 113. Cosmas Indicopleustes. Christianorum Opinioncs de Mundo, sive Topographia Christiana.
10 Civ. D. xvi. 9. "Montfauc. Patr. t. ii.
only a few years before Columbus visited the other hemisphere.
|
|
|
Post by domics on Jul 1, 2015 8:56:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 9, 2015 9:22:08 GMT
I tracked down an English translation and found the same thing. Just shows you need to check references. Meantime I may have tracked down what Tostado did say, though this is well beyond my Latin skills:
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 12, 2015 14:34:02 GMT
Here's my attempt, keeping as much of the Latin punctuation as possible. It is definitely rough and crummy, but the crucial observation is that it clearly means Tostado supported rather than denied the Earth's general sphericity: he is solely concerned with demonstrating that the Earth is not a perfectly smooth sphere.
Into one place: Because before {speaking of early creation} all matter was [made] of water, or water itself stood spread out over the entire surface of the spherical earth, and it doesn't gather/congregate here like future animals and plants [would]; therefore the waters are said to have been made either on the second day, or on the third day, it rather appears to me that they were brought forth at an earlier time, [and] then they were gathered, because gathering supposes existence: And it carries greatest probability to this, even necessity, because we have said above, that is to say, because the spirit of the Lord was carried above the waters, that is to say, he stood above the waters until the separation, or at least until the divergence [of the waters]. Wheresoever it were just then, necessary is that there was water over the entire surface of the earth, before it would be gathered into one place. Until that confluence of water (actually "waters") God made certain large hollow places (lit. "hollownesses") and depths in the earth, so that the earth would not be a sphere, [so? and?] water would flow away over the whole earth.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 13, 2015 5:50:48 GMT
Here's my attempt, keeping as much of the Latin punctuation as possible. It is definitely rough and crummy, but the crucial observation is that it clearly means Tostado supported rather than denied the Earth's general sphericity: he is solely concerned with demonstrating that the Earth is a perfectly smooth sphere. Into one place: Because before {speaking of early creation} all matter was [made] of water, or water itself stood spread out over the entire surface of the spherical earth, and it doesn't gather/congregate here like future animals and plants [would]; therefore the waters are said to have been made either on the second day, or on the third day, it rather appears to me that they were brought forth at an earlier time, [and] then they were gathered, because gathering supposes existence: And it carries greatest probability to this, even necessity, because we have said above, that is to say, because the spirit of the Lord was carried above the waters, that is to say, he stood above the waters until the separation, or at least until the divergence [of the waters]. Wheresoever it were just then, necessary is that there was water over the entire surface of the earth, before it would be gathered into one place. Until that confluence of water (actually "waters") God made certain large hollow places (lit. "hollownesses") and depths in the earth, so that the earth would not be a sphere, [so? and?] water would flow over the whole earth. So what he is saying, if I read you correctly, is that God made hollow places in the surface of the earth for water to gather (so that the earth would not be a sphere) because if it was a "perfect sphere" water would cover the whole surface. But if he made hollows for water to gather (but it still remains roughly spherical) then it would not be "a perfect or smooth" sphere but it would be functionally better by not being a perfectly smooth sphere. I know, I sound a bit like John H. Walton with that last sentence.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jul 13, 2015 6:55:38 GMT
Here's my attempt, keeping as much of the Latin punctuation as possible. It is definitely rough and crummy, but the crucial observation is that it clearly means Tostado supported rather than denied the Earth's general sphericity: he is solely concerned with demonstrating that the Earth is a perfectly smooth sphere. Into one place: Because before {speaking of early creation} all matter was [made] of water, or water itself stood spread out over the entire surface of the spherical earth, and it doesn't gather/congregate here like future animals and plants [would]; therefore the waters are said to have been made either on the second day, or on the third day, it rather appears to me that they were brought forth at an earlier time, [and] then they were gathered, because gathering supposes existence: And it carries greatest probability to this, even necessity, because we have said above, that is to say, because the spirit of the Lord was carried above the waters, that is to say, he stood above the waters until the separation, or at least until the divergence [of the waters]. Wheresoever it were just then, necessary is that there was water over the entire surface of the earth, before it would be gathered into one place. Until that confluence of water (actually "waters") God made certain large hollow places (lit. "hollownesses") and depths in the earth, so that the earth would not be a sphere, [so? and?] water would flow over the whole earth. So what he is saying, if I read you correctly, is that God made hollow places in the surface of the earth for water to gather (so that the earth would not be a sphere) because if it was a "perfect sphere" water would cover the whole surface. But if he made hollows for water to gather (but it still remains roughly spherical) then it would not be "a perfect or smooth" sphere but it would be functionally better by not being a perfectly smooth sphere. I know, I sound a bit like John H. Walton with that last sentence. Yes, that is a reasonable interpretation. I am not sure how to translate the last dependent clause, but it seems natural that the caverns and the depths (that surely must be seas and oceans) are what make the dry land appear in his theory. There aren't any other hints at a solution in this passage. I've made a few edits to the post you quoted to remove some errors. Tostado of course believes that the Earth isn't a perfect sphere and "flow out/away" is a better translation for effluere.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 13, 2015 7:05:27 GMT
Here's my attempt, keeping as much of the Latin punctuation as possible. It is definitely rough and crummy, but the crucial observation is that it clearly means Tostado supported rather than denied the Earth's general sphericity: he is solely concerned with demonstrating that the Earth is not a perfectly smooth sphere. Into one place: Because before {speaking of early creation} all matter was [made] of water, or water itself stood spread out over the entire surface of the spherical earth, and it doesn't gather/congregate here like future animals and plants [would]; therefore the waters are said to have been made either on the second day, or on the third day, it rather appears to me that they were brought forth at an earlier time, [and] then they were gathered, because gathering supposes existence: And it carries greatest probability to this, even necessity, because we have said above, that is to say, because the spirit of the Lord was carried above the waters, that is to say, he stood above the waters until the separation, or at least until the divergence [of the waters]. Wheresoever it were just then, necessary is that there was water over the entire surface of the earth, before it would be gathered into one place. Until that confluence of water (actually "waters") God made certain large hollow places (lit. "hollownesses") and depths in the earth, so that the earth would not be a sphere, [so? and?] water would flow away over the whole earth. Ok. That makes more sense.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 15, 2015 11:42:48 GMT
I had someone else translate the passage above and theirs pretty much supports the same conclusion. Here is my summary of what Tostado is saying:
"Let's look at what Tostado actually says. First he says at the end of IX, in commentary on Genesis 1:9 - "And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.'" Commenting on the phrase "in one place" Tostado says:
"Because before all the substance of the water, or the water itself, spread out over the entire spherical surface of the earth, and this was not in accordance with the animals and grasses that were to come. Therefore, whether the waters were said to have been made on the second day or the third, it seems more important to me that they were made before they were grouped together, because gathering suggests existence, and what we said above gives this the greatest likelihood—nay, necessity—that is, that the spirit of the Lord was borne above the waters, that is, it stood above the waters for their separation, or at least for the drying out. However it may be, it is necessary for there to have been water over the entire surface of the earth because it was gathered into one place. For this gathering of water, God made certain great hollows and depths in the earth, so that, if the earth were flat, water would not flow off over the entire earth."
This is pretty stilted but the sense of it is (especially in light of what follows), that this "gathering of the waters" involved God creating "certain great hollows and depths in the earth" into which the waters on the face of the earth could flow to expose dry land. Before this the water "spread out over the entire spherical surface of the earth" and after it there were parts of the surface which were not covered in water and other parts - Tostado's "great hollows and depths" - which were full of water.
If we then turn to XX, he continues on this theme:
"And based on this, some ignorant men take issue, saying that before the flood, the entire world was spherical, but the waters of the flood made hollows and mountains"
So what these "ignorant men" are saying is that the earth was an almost entirely smooth sphere prior to the flood and it was the flood that created "hollows and mountains". Tostado says this early form of what modern Creationists call "Flood Geology" is mistaken and that the "hollows and mountains" were created in the "gathering of the waters" on the second day of creation, not much later during the Great Flood.
He presents his arguments against these "ignorant men" by showing that there had to have been "hollows and mountains" long before the Great Flood:
"If this were true, where were the Oceans before they washed over the whole world? And if they should say that there were hollow places in the sea, but the earth was appearing entirely flat, without water. But if this is true, where was the earthly paradise which is said to have reached the body of the moon? Also, the Scripture itself challenges them below in the seventh chapter, where it is said that the water of the flood surpassed the tallest mountains of the earth by fifteen cubits, and that the ark sat on Mt. Ararath. Also, because it is quite fitting with nature that there be mountains, because without mountains, the earth is not terribly fertile, nor does it have a good influence; for the earth would be terribly dry, because springs cannot naturally arise unless the place of origin is roughly equal to the place where it emerges, since water can only climb at a level, and it is clear, according to the Philosopher, in the second book of Meterology.But given a spherical earth, since water should break out from under the earth and arise there, it could never break out, because the place of origin would always be below the place where the spring bubbles forth. Likewise, because tall mountains make nearby valleys be well-watered, because the source of the spring begins in the mountains and moves to the flatter areas. Mountains also make it that there are diverse influences in the land based on the varying means of receiving the light of the sun and of other stars, whence it happens that, in valleys that have mountains that are exposed to sunlight, fruit tends to mature faster than in places connected to flatter areas. Many other usages arise from mountains; thus, God would not have robbed that first age of such great benefits, since it is said that it was the most wonderful of all, like eternal spring."
So when Tostado is talking about the earth not being "spherical" before the Flood he is not saying it was flat rather than round. He is talking about it being a smooth sphere, as opposed to one with "hollows and mountains". He is arguing that those "hollows and mountains" existed long before the Flood, contrary to the opinions of these "ignorant men"."
My opponent is not giving in just yet though. He has just informed me that my analysis of what Tostado says above is "not tenable" , as he will "demonstrate" though only when he "gets time". Er, yup.
|
|