![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The article provides insight into the epistemological and anthropological aspect of the origination of the idea of scientific progress. It focuses on the relationship between individual's limited lifetime and the immensity of nature. The basic assumption is that the idea of scientific progress offers a solution of the epistemological problem stemming from the finding that there is no (teleological) coincidence between human cognitive abilities and the extent of nature. In order to facilitate the understanding of the origin of the idea of scientific progress, I propose distinction between the descriptive and prescriptive concepts of progress. While the descriptive notion of progress expresses the cumulative character of scientific knowledge and the superiority of the present over preceding generations, the prescriptive concept pertains to progressivist epistemology directing scientific research at the future development of knowledge. This article claims that the prevalent concept in Antiquity was the descriptive concept of scientific progress. The prescriptive notion had developed only in ancient astronomy. Early modern science was faced with similar issues as ancient astronomy – mainly the empirical finding related to the inexhaustible character of nature. Consequently to the introduction of the idea of progress, the progress of sciences became a purpose in itself – hence becoming infinite.
Acknowledgement
I thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped me to improve the manuscript.
Notes
1Warren W. Wagar’s overview from the 1960s mentions five main representatives behind the secularisation hypothesis: K. Löwith, R. Niebuhr, J. Baillie, E. Voegelin and E. Brunner. See Warren W. Wagar, ‘Modern Views of the Origins of the Idea of Progress’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 28 (1967), 55–70 (p. 64). Cf. Reinhardt Koselleck, Zeitschichten. Studien zur Historik (Frankfurt a.M., 2003), pp. 185--95, Friedrich Rapp, Fortschritt: Entwicklung und Sinngehalt einer philosophischen Idee (Darmstadt, 1992), pp. 119–28; Jean-Claude Monod, La querelle de la sécularisation de Hegel à Blumenberg (Paris, 2002), pp. 230–79; Arno Seifert, ‘Von der heiligen zur philosophischen Geschichte’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 68 (1986), 81–117.
2Ludwig Edelstein, The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity (Baltimore, 1967), pp. 144–54; Alistair C. Crombie, ‘Some Attitudes to Scientific Progress: Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern’, History of Science, 13 (1975), 213–20. When interpreting the history of the general idea of progress, Nisbet combines the two theories of its origin, the Greek and the secularist. See Robert Nisbet, History of the Idea of Progress (New Brunswick, 2009), pp. 3–76.
3Edgar Zilsel, ‘The Genesis of the Idea of Scientific Progress’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 6 (1945), 325–49. Zilsel was followed by Paulo Rossi and Alex Keller in 1960s and 1970s. See Rossi, Philosophy, Technology and the Arts in the Early Modern Era, trans. by A. Attansio (London, 1970), pp. 63–99; Keller, ‘Zilsel, the Artisans, and the Idea of Progress in the Renaissance’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 11 (1950), 235–40; idem, ‘Mathematical Technologies and the Growth of the Idea of Technical Progress in the Sixteenth Century’, in Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance, ed. by Allen G. Debus (London, 1972), pp. 11–27. Regarding the Marxist underpinnings behind Zilsel’s approach, see Wolfgang Krohn, ‘Zur soziologischen Interpretation der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaft’, in Zilsel, Die sozialen Ursprünge der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaft, ed. Wolfgang Krohn (Frankfurt a.M., 1976), pp. 8–42.
4Both these terms are mentioned in relation to progress by Alistair C. Crombie, ‘Philosophical Commitments and Scientific Progress’, in The Idea of Progress, ed. by Arnold Burgen, Peter McLaughlin, Jürgen Mittelstrass (Berlin – New York, 1997), pp. 47–63 (p. 48).
5See, namely L. Edelstein (note 2); Klaus Thraede, ‘Fortschritt’, in Das Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, ed. by Ernst Dassmann, 25 vols (Stuttgart, 1950-2013), VIII, 141–82; Klaus Thraede, ‘Erfinder’, Das Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, V, 1192–278; Christian Meier, ‘Fortschritt II: Fortschritt in der Antike’, in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland, ed. by Otto Brunner, Werner Conze, Reinhart Koselleck, 8 vols (Stuttgart, 1974–1998), II, 353–63; Joachim Ritter, ‘Fortschritt’, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. by Joachim Ritter and others, 13 vols (Basel, 1971–2007), II, 1032–59 (especially cols. 1032–4); Walter Burkert, ‘Impact and Limits of the Idea of Progress in Antiquity’, in The Idea of Progress (note 4), pp. 19–45. Cf. Albrecht Dihle, ‘Fortschritt und goldene Urzeit’, in Kultur und Gedächtnis, ed. by Jan Assmann and Tonio Hölscher (Frankfurt a.M., 1988), pp. 150–69; Eric R. Dodds, The Ancient Concept of Progress and other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford, 1978), pp. 3–25; Wilfried Nippel, ‘Fortschrittsgedanke’, Der Neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. by Hubert Cancik, 16 vols (Stuttgart, 1996-2004), IV, 594–8; Alexander Demandt, Philosophie der Geschichte. Von der Antike zur Gegenwart (Köln – Weimar – Wien, 2011), pp. 55–72.
6For details see Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience. Studies in the Origins and Development of Greek Science (London, 1999), pp. 169–201; Owen Gingerich, The Eye of Heaven. Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler (New York, 1993), pp. 55–80; Gerd Grasshoff, The History of Ptolemy's Star Catalogue (New York, 1990).
7Pliny, Naturalis Historia II,95; quoted from Pliny, Natural History I-II, trans. by Harris Rackham (Cambridge, Mass. – London, 1957), p. 239.
8Hugh Thurston, Early astronomy (New York – Berlin, 1994), p. 124. Doubts are mostly based on an analysis made by J. K. Fotheringham, ‘The New Star of Hipparchus and the Dates of Birth and Accession of Mithridates’, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 79 (1919), 163–7. Cf. James Evans, The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy (New York – Oxford, 1998), pp. 259–75.
9Hans Blumenberg, Lebenszeit und Weltzeit (Frankfurt a.M., 1986), p. 104.
10Claudius Ptolemy, Ptolemy's Almagest VII,3, trans. by Gerald J. Toomer (Princeton, 1998), p. 329 (information in brackets are translator's comments). Cf. a comment in Blumenberg (note 9), 108–10.
11 Ptolemy's Almagest, VII,2, p. 328.
12 Ptolemy's Almagest, VII,1, p. 321.
13Ptolemy's Almagest, IX,2, p. 420.
14Ptolemy's Almagest, IX,2, p. 421.
15 Ptolemy's Almagest, I,1, p. 37; cf. XIII,11, p. 647.
16 Ptolemy's Almagest, VII,3, p. 329.
17Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones VII, 25, 3–5: veniet tempus illud quo posteri nostri tam aperta nos nescisse mirentur. Quoted from Seneca, Natural Questions, trans. by Harry M. Hine (Chicago – London, 2010), p. 130. Cf. Anna L. Motto, ‘The Idea of Progress in Senecan Thought’, The Classical Journal, 79 (1984), 225–40.
18Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones VII, 3, 1; quoted from Seneca, Natural Questions, p. 116.
19See e.g. Liba Taub, Ptolemy's Universe. The Natural Philosophical and Ethical Foundations of Ptolemy's Astronomy (Chicago, 1993), pp. 135–52.
20Cf. e.g. Andrea W. Nightingale, Spectacles of Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy. Theoria in its Cultural Context (Cambridge, 2004); Hannelore Rausch, Theoria. Von ihrer sakralen zur philosophischen Bedeutung (München, 1982).
21Cf. Franz J. Worstbrock, ‘Translatio artium. Über die Herkunft und Entwicklung einer kulturhistorischen Theorie’, Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 47 (1957), 1–22.
22Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life. Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault (Oxford, 1995), p. 60.
23Many of them quoted in L. Edelstein (note 2), pp. 144–54. Cf. Jean Delvaille, Essai sur l’histoire de l’idée de progrès. Jusqu’a la fin du XVIIIe siècle (Paris, 1910), pp. 53–74.
24As noted by Dihle and Dodds in their reviews of Edelstein's publication; Albrecht Dihle, ‘The Idea of Progress in Classical Antiquity by Ludwig Edelstein’, Gnomon, 41 (1969), 433–9; Eric. R. Dodds, ‘Review: The Idea of Progress by Ludwig Edelstein’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 29 (1968), 453–7.
25Cf. Albrecht Dihle, ‘Fortschritt und goldene Urzeit’, in Kultur und Gedächtnis, ed. by Jan Assmann – Tonio Hölscher (Frankfurt a.M., 1988), pp. 150–69 (p. 159); E. R. Dodds (note 5), p. 22n.
26Christian Meier, ‘Ein Antikes Äquivalent des Fortschrittsdenkens’, Historische Zeitschrift, 226 (1978), 264–316, zvl. 275–288; cf. similarly John B. Bury, The Idea of Progress. An Inquiry into its Origin and Growth (London, 1920), pp. 13–15; Helga Scholten, ‘Technischer Fortschritt im Denken Vitruvs’, Archiv für Kultugeschichte, 91 (2009), 21–44.
27Ch. Meier, (note 5), pp. 353–63; J. Ritter (note 5), cols. 1032–4.
28F. Rapp (note 1), p. 107; cf. Arno Borst, The Ordering of Time. From the Ancient Computus to the Modern Computer (Cambridge – Oxford, 1993), pp. 6–15.
29Reinhardt Koselleck, ‘Progress and Decline’, in idem, The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts, trans. by Todd Samuel Presner and others (Stanford, 2002), pp. 221–2.
30K. Thraede (note 5), p. 160f. Cf. Joachim Friese, ‘Die Denkformen von Kreislauf und Fortschritt und die Weltgeschichte’, Studium Generale, 11 (1958), 219–37.
31Karl-Ernst Petzold, Geschichtsdenken und Geschichtschreibung. Kleine Schriften zur griechischen und römischen Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1999), p. 51. Cf. Alois Kehl – Henri-Irene Marrou, ‘Geschichtsphilosophie’, in Realexikon für Antike und Christentum, X, pp. 703–79 (especially pp. 710–2, 743–6); Bodo Gatz, Weltalter, goldene Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen (Hildesheim, 1967), p. 144–64; similarly A. Demandt (note 5), pp. 34–90.
32W. Burkert (note 5), p. 31.
33Aristotle, Metaphysics 1074b10--12, cf. Politics 1329b26.
34Leonid Zhmud, The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity, trans. by Alexander Chernoglazov (Berlin – New York, 2006), p. 79, cf. pp. 58, 114, 121, 210–3. The same feature of Greek thinking about scientific progress was also noted by Ch. Meier (note 5), 291f., 297f.; W. Burkert (note 5), 33f.; F. Rapp (note 1), 114.
35L. Zhmud (note 34), p. 60; E. R. Dodds (note 5), p. 15.
36Geoffrey E. R. Lloyd, The Revolutions of Wisdom: Studies in the Claims and Practice of Ancient Greek Science (Berkeley, 1995), p. 331, note 147.
37The history of this idea was described by Pierre Hadot, The Veil of Isis. An Essay on the History of the Idea of Nature, trans. by Michael Chase (Cambridge, MA, 2006), see especially pp. 166–81.
38Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones VII, 30, 5--31, 1, quoted from Seneca, Natural Questions (note 17), p. 134.
39See comments on these passages in Florence J. G. Limburg, Aliquid ad mores. The prefaces and epilogues of Seneca's Naturales Quaestiones, PhD. Thesis (Leiden, 2007), pp. 344–76; Gareth D. Williams, The Cosmic Viewpoint. A Study of Seneca's Natural Questions (Oxford – New York, 2012), pp. 265–70.
40Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones VI, 5, 3, quoted from Seneca, Natural Questions (note 17), p. 92. Cf. Seneca, Epistulae 64, 7–8: ‘There is still a lot of work to do, and there will be, and no man born after a thousand generations will be denied the opportunity of adding something else.’ Quoted from Seneca, Selected Letters, trans. Elaine Fantham (New York, 2010), p. 99. Cf. Epistulae 33, 10: ‘The men who raised these topics before us are not our masters but our guides. The truth is open to all; it has not yet been appropriated, and much of it is left even for those still to come.’ Quoted from Seneca, Selected Letters, p. 54. Pliny made a similar statement in relation to the movement of the planets: ‘only nobody must abandon the hope that the generations are constantly making progress’ (ne quis desperet saecula proficere semper). Pliny, Naturalis historia II, 62; quoted from Pliny, Natural History I-II (note 7), 211.
41See, for example, Seneca, De otio V, 4--5, De beneficiis VI, 23, 6.
42Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones VII, 30, 3, quoted from Seneca, Natural Questions, (note 17), p. 133: ‘How many things besides comets follow remote paths, never appearing to human eyes! For god did not make everything for human beings. How small a part of this vast creation is entrusted to us!’
43George Molland, ‘Medieval Ideas of Scientific Progress’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 39 (1978), 561–77; George Molland, ‘Nicole Oresme and Scientific Progress’, in Antiqui und moderni: Traditionbewusstsein und Fortschrittsbewusstsein im späten Mittelalter, ed. Albert Zimmermann (Berlin – New York, 1974), pp. 206–20; Plinio Prioreschi, ‘The Idea of Scientific Progress in Antiquity and in the Middle Ages’, Vesalius, 8 (2002), 34–44.
44See many examples in E. Zilsel (note 3), P. Rossi (note 3), pp. 63–99; J. Delvaille (note 23), 142–65; J. Bury (note 26), 38–48.
45Karl Löwith, Meaning in History (Chicago – London, 1949), pp. 104–44; Charles Webster, The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine and Reform, 1626 – 1660 (London, 1975), pp. 1–99.
46Peter Harrison, ‘Subduing the Earth: Genesis 1, Early Modern Science and the Exploition of Nature’, The Journal of Religion, 79 (1999), 86–109; Peter Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 207–67.
47Lorraine Daston, ‘On Scientific Observation’, Isis (2008) 99, pp. 97–110; Lorraine Daston, ‘The Empire of Observation, 1600-1800’, in Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck (eds.), Histories of Scientific Observation, (Chicago – London), pp. 81–113.
48Steven Shapin – Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-pump (2nd ed., Princeton, 1989); Steven Shapin, The Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, 1995).
49Lorraine Daston, ‘The Moral Economy of Science’, Osiris, 10 (1995), 3–24; Stephen Gaukroger, The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210–1685 (Oxford, 2006), pp. 198–249; Stephen Gaukroger, Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy (Cambridge, 1998).
50See e.g. The Philosopher in Early Modern Europe. The Nature of a Contested Identity, ed. by Conal Condren, Stephen Gaukroger, Ian Hunter (Cambridge, 2006).
51Jochen Schlobach, Zyklentheorie und Epochenmetaphorik. Studien zur bildlichen Sprache der Geschichtsreflexion in Frankreich von der Renaissance bis zur Frühaufklärung (München, 1980), pp. 304–43; Krzystof Pomian, L’ordre du temps (Paris, 1988), pp. 116–129; F. Rouvillois, L’invention du progrès, 1680-1730 (Paris, 2010), pp. 110–65.
52Regarding the theory of trepidation, see Bernard R. Goldstein, ‘On the theory of trepidation according to Thabit b. Qurra and al-Zarquallu and the implication for homocentric planetary theory’, Centaurus, 10 (1964/65), 232–47; Goldstein, ‘Historical Perspectives on Copernicus’ Account of Precession’, Journal for the history of astronomy, 25 (1994), pp. 189–97; cf. José Chabás and Bernard R. Goldstein, A Survey of European Astronomical Tables in the Late Middle Ages (Leiden, 2012), pp. 143–7.
53 Rudimenta astronomica Alfragrani item Albategnius … De motu stellarum (Norimbergae, 1537), cap. 52, fol. 81r.
54Raymond de Marseille, Opera omnia, Tome I: Traité de l’astrolabe. Liber cursuum planetarum, ed. by Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, Charles Burnett, Emmanuelle Poulle (Paris, 2009), pp. 145–9.
55 The Alfonsine Tables of Toledo, ed. by José Chabas and Bernard R. Goldstein (Dordrecht, 2003), p. 136.
56Johannes Regiomontanus, Epytoma in Almagestum Ptolemei (Venetijs, 1496), lib. vii, prop. 6 (non-paginated): ‘At si ocultum illum motum inesse stellis estimabimus: expediet oculum ad stellas fixas habere assiduum. Posterosque itidem scriptas considerationes liberare.’
57Nicolaus Copernicus, On the revolutions, in Nicolaus Copernicus, Complete works, ed. by Jerzy Dobrzycki, trans. and comm. by Edward Rosen, 2 vols (Warsaw – Cracow, 1978), II, p. 8. Cf. Nicolaus Copernicus, De revolutionibus, in Nicolaus Copernicus, Opera omnia, ed. by Richard Gansiniec, 2 vols (Warsaw and Cracow, 1975), II, p. 8.
58N. Copernicus, On the revolutions, II, p. 8. Cf. N. Copernicus, De revolutionibus, II, 8: ‘ … cum tanto plura habeamus adminicula, quae nostrae subueniant institutioni, quanto maiori temporis intervallo huius artis auctores nos praecesserunt.’ Cf. Hans Blumenberg, Kopernikus im Selbstverständnis der Neuzeit (Wiesbaden, 1965), pp. 357–9.
59Here, I draw on the analysis by H. Blumenberg (note 9), pp. 115–29.
60N. Copernicus, On the revolutions, II, p. 25; Copernicus, De revolutionibus, II, p. 24.
61Joachim Rheticus, Narratio prima, in Three copernican treatises, trans. by Edward Rosen, 3rd and revised edition, (New York, 1971), p. 132. Cf. J. Rheticus, Narratio prima, ed. by Henri Hugonnard-Roche and Jean-Pierre Verdet, (Wroclaw et al., 1982 = Studia copernicana xx), p. 52.
62Erasmus Reinhold, ‘Declaratio motuum octavae sphaerae’, in Georg Peurbach, Theoricae novae planetarum, ed. by Erasmus Reinholdus (Witebergae, 1604), fol. L6r: … ut siderum inerratium loca certius signaverunt, eiusque rei memoriam posteris proderent, ut de progressu motuque inerrantium stellarum expeditius certiusque iudicare possent.
63Tycho Brahe, Progymnasmata astronomiae instauratae, in Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera Omnia, ed. by Julius L. Dreyer, 15 vols (Copenhagen, 1913–1929, hereafter cited as TBOO), II, p. 159: … veterum arduos conatus, quos semper magnifeci, & sine quibus nunc, vel nihil, vel admodum parum in Arte hac restauranda praestari possit … cf. II, 302.
64Michael Mästlin, Epitome astronomiae (Tubingae, 1588), p. 490.
65J. Schlobach (note 50), pp. 304–345; K. Pomian (note 50), pp. 45–55; F. Rouvillois (note 50), pp. 107–44.
66See Daniel Špelda, ‘The Search for Antediluvian Astronomy: Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Astronomers’ Conceptions of the Origin of Science’, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 44 (2013), 337–62; Daniel Špelda, ‘From closed cycles to infinite progress: Early modern historiography of astronomy’, History of Science, 53 (2015), 209–33.
67Tycho Brahe, Instruments of the Renewed Astronomy, trans. Hans Raeder, Elis Strømgren, Bengt Strømgren, rev. with commentary by Alena Hadravova, Petr Hadrava, and Jole Shackleton, (Prague, 1996), p. 10; cf. TBOO V, p. 9. Cf. TBOO II, p. 16, 302.
68Johannes Hevelius, Machina coelestis, 2 vols (Gedani, 1673), I, 18; Joseph Glanvill, Plus ultra, or the Progress and Advancement of Knowledge Since the Days of Aristotle (London, 1668), pp. 64, 91; Dominique Cassini, De l’origine et du progrès de l’astronomie (1693), in Mémoirs de l’Academie Royale des sciences. Depuis 1666 jusquà 1699, Tome VIII: Oeuvres diverses de M. I. D. Cassini (Paris, 1730), p. 18. Cf. Christiaan Huygens, Pensées meslees, in Christiaan Huygens, Oeuvres complètes, 22 vols (Hague, 1888–1950), XX1, 357; Pierre Gassendi, De Mercurio in Sole viso, in Pierre Gassendi, Opera omnia, 6 vols (Lyon, 1658), IV, 504; John Wilkins, A Discourse Concerning a new Planet, in John Wilkins, The Mathematical and Philosophical Works, 2 vols (London, 1802), I, 110.
69See Albert van Helden, Measuring the Universe. Cosmic Dimensions from Aristarchus to Halley (Chicago – London, 1985), pp. 28–117; Harald Siebert, Die grosse kosmologische Kontroverse: Rekonstruktionversuche anhand des Itinerarium exstaticum von Athanasius Kircher, SJ (1602-1680) (Stuttgart, 2006), pp. 67–86; Michel-Pierre Lerner, Le monde des sphères, 2 vols (Paris, 2008), II, pp. 85–135; W. G. L. Randles, The Unmaking of the Medieval Christian Cosmos 1500-1760. From Solid Heavens to Boundless Aether (Aldershot, 1999), pp. 106–32.
70Philippe Hamou, La mutation du visible. Essai sur la portée épistemologique des instruments d’optique au XVIIe siècle, 2 vols (Paris, 1999), I, pp. 29–56, 144–70; II, pp. 39–91.
71Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican, trans. by Stillman Drake (New York, 2001), p. 116; René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode, in Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. by Charles Adam, Paul Tannery, 13 vols (Paris, 1897–1913), VI, 67, 73; John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding IV, 3, 23, ed. by Peter H. Nidditch, (Oxford, 1975), p. 544; Bernard de Fontenelle, ’Préface sur l’utilité des Mathématiques et da la Physique’, in Bernard de Fontenelle, Oeuvres complètes, edited by Alain Niderst, 9 vols (Paris, 1990–2001), VI, 47; J. Wilkins, The World in the Moone, Works, p. 101; A. van Leeuwenhoek, Letter to C. Huygens, May 20th 1679, in A. van Leeuwenhoek, Alle de brieven, 15 vols, (Amsterdam, 1939–1999), III, 66; Richard Westfall, Never at Rest. A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge 1980, 2d ed. 2010), p. 863.
72Lorraine Daston, ‘How Nature Became the Other: Anthropomorphism and Anthropocentrism in Early Modern Natural Philosophy,’ in Biology as Society, Society as Biology, ed. by Sabine Maasen, Everett Mendelsohn, Paul Weingart (Dordrecht, 1995), pp. 37–56; Margaret Osler, ‘Whose Ends? Teleology in Early Modern Natural Philosophy’, Osiris, 16 (2001), 151–8.
73Kepler, De stella nova, in Johannes Kepler, Gesammelte Werke, ed. by Walther von Dyck, Max Caspar et al., 22 vols (München, 1938–1999), I, 260.
74Galileo Galilei and Christoph Scheiner, On Sunspots, tr. Eileen Reeves and Albert van Helden (Chicago – London, 2010), p. 128; cf. pp. 266, 291, 294, 357. We can find the same argument in Bernier's retelling of Gassendi's philosophy; see Francois Bernier, Abrégé de la philosophie de Gassendi, 8 vols (Lyon, 1684), IV, 339. The argument is not present in the original text of Gassendi; see P. Gassendi, Opera omnia, I, 517a. Cf. P. Hamou (note 70), I, p. 56f.
75G. Galilei (note 71), p. 527f.
76G. Galilei (note 71), p. 528.
77J. Glanvil (note 68), p. 76.
78Joseph Glanvil, Scepsis scientifica, edited by John Owen (London, 1885), p. 120.
79Wilkins, A Discourse Concerning new Planet, Works, p. 144.
80Blaise Pascal, Préface sur le Traité du vide, in Blaise Pascal, Oeuvres complètes, edited by Michel Le Guern, 2 vols (Paris, 1998), I, 456; quoted from Blaise Pascal, Thoughts. Letters. Minor Works, trans. by Owen W. Wight (New York, 1910), p. 449.
81B. de Fontenelle, Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes, Oeuvres, II, 111. Quoted from Bernard de Fontenelle, Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, trans. by H. A. Hargreaves (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London, 1990), p. 72.
82Ibidem.
83B. de Fontenelle, Digression sur les anciens et des modernes, Oeuvres, II, 426; cf. B. de Fontenelle, ‘Préface sur l’utilité des Mathématiques et da la Physique’, Oeuvres, VI, 47.
84Francis Bacon, Instauratio magna, in The Oxford Francis Bacon, ed. by Graham Rees et al., 15 vols (London, 1996–), XI, 38.
85Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society (fifth edition, London, 1734), s. 154; cf. Robert Hooke, Micrographia (London,1665), p. 93; Christiaan Huygens, Cosmotheoros, Oeuvres complètes, XXI, 739; Domenique Cassini (note 68), p. 19; Johannes Hevelius (note 68), I, 18: ‘Arduae enim res multique laboris, ac operae, lentissimo procedunt gradu, nodumque maximam cum difficultate solutilem habent’.
86Robert Boyle, Usefulness of Experimental Natural Philosophy, Works, II, p. 10; cf. similarly John Ray, The Wisdom of God (tenth edition, London, 1735), p. 369.
87H. Blumenberg (note 9), p. 173.
88Francis Bacon, Valerius Terminus, in The Works of Francis Bacon, ed. by James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis and Douglas D. Heath, 14 vols (London, 1858–74), III, 222.
89R. Descartes, Discourse sur la méthode, Oeuvres, VI, 67; cf. letter to Picot at the beginning of the French edition of the Les Principes de la philosophie, Oeuvres, IX-2, 2.
90B. Pascal, ‘Préface sur le Traité du vide’, in Oeuvres I, 453; quoted from Works (note 80), p. 446.
91H. Blumenberg (note 9), p. 147.