Gerald Odonis on the Plurality of Worlds*

viva rium Vivarium 47 (2009) 331-347 brill.nl/viv

Chris Schabel University of Cyprus

Abstract Pierre Duhem and Eugenio Randi have investigated the later-medieval history of the problem of whether the existence of more than one world is possible, determining that Aristotle’s denial of that possibility was rejected on theological grounds in the second half of the thirteenth century, but it was Nicole Oresme in the mid-fourteenth century who gave the strongest philosophical arguments against the Peripatetic stance, opting instead for Plato’s position. For diﬀ erent reasons, neither Duhem nor Randi was able to examine Gerald Odonis’ question on the subject. In this text, edited here, Odonis also opposes Aristotle for philosophical reasons and sides explicitly with Plato. Was Oresme aware of Odonis’ opinion?

Keywords Gerald Odonis, natural philosophy, cosmology, plurality of worlds, Aristotle, Plato, Nicole Oresme

In Pierre Duhem’s monumental and truly magniﬁ cent Le Système du monde, a signiﬁ cant section is devoted to the plurality of worlds in scholastic thought.1 Duhem’s scenario is familiar from other contexts in the history of medieval natural philosophy: although Aristotle’s opinion that a plurality of worlds is impossible had its rivals in antiquity, notably Plato’s position, it held sway in the thirteenth century when the Philosopher’s physical theories were fully absorbed by western university scholars. Since Aristotle’s denial of the possibility of other worlds seemed to put a limitation on God’s power, however, the

*) I would like to thank William Duba, Tiziana Suarez-Nani, the Biblioteca comunale of Sarnano, the Biblioteca de la Catedral of Valencia, and the University of Cyprus for their assistance. 1) Most accessible in P. Duhem, Medieval Cosmology. Th eories of Inﬁ nity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds, trans. R. Ariew (Chicago, 1985), part V, from vols. 6-7 of the ten-volume Le Système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic (Paris, 1913-59).

Condemnation of 1277 required scientists to assert that, on the contrary, a plurality of worlds is possible. More reasoned criticism of Aristotle’s stance developed at the University of Oxford after William of Ockham, but it is with the brilliant Nicole Oresme at Paris in the middle decades of the fourteenth century that we see a sophisticated revival of Plato’s position and a complete philosophical rejection of the Peripatetic stance. Duhem was a pioneer in many ways, one of which was in his focus on scholastic theologians for the history of science, employing a great many Quodli- beta and Sentences commentaries.2 Anneliese Maier would continue Duhem’s methods later, depositing still more theological texts in her treasury of sources on medieval science.3 Over the past few decades the history of medieval natural philosophy has progressed considerably, notably with the critical edition and English translation of the scientiﬁ c works of Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme. With all due respect to the few scholars who are exceptions to the rule—especially Eugenio Randi in this context—the period leading up to the two French scientists has not been well served.4 Since the traditional story for many individual problems in natural philosophy is that the real break with Aristotelianism came with Buridan, Oresme, and the Oxford Calculators, it is useful to focus on the authors who dominated the University of Paris in the years just prior to these innovators, namely the Franciscan theologians Peter Auriol, Landulph Caracciolo, Francis of Marchia, Francis of Meyronnes, and Gerald Odonis.5

2) For the plurality of worlds in the period after 1277, Duhem employed the Quodlibeta of Henry of Ghent, Godfrey of Fontaines, and Giles of Rome, and the Sentences commentaries of Richard of Menneville, William of Ware, John of Bassols, William of Ockham, Robert Holcot, and Th omas of Strasbourg. In other contexts Duhem used many other theological works of this sort, often in manuscript, notably the Sentences commentaries of Bonaventure, John Duns Sco- tus, Durand of St Pourçain, Peter Auriol, Francis of Marchia, Francis of Meyronnes, John Bacon- thorpe, Peter of Aquila, and Gregory of Rimini. 3) See A. Maier, Ausgehendes Mittelalter. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Geistesgeschichte des 14. Jahr- hundert, 3 vols. (Rome, 1964-77), and eadem, Studien zur Naturphilosophie der Spätscholastik, 5 vols. (latest edd. Rome, 1952-68). 4) For example, perceptive treatments by Edward Grant, notably Physical Science in the Middle Ages (New York, 1971), 24-29, and Planets, Stars, and Orbs. Th e Medieval Cosmos, 1200-1687 (Chicago, 1994), ch. 8, nevertheless do not add to the dramatis personae of Duhem’s study. Naturally, most general surveys, such as S.J. Dick, Plurality of Worlds: Th e Origins of the Extrater- restrial Life Debate from Democritus to Kant (Cambridge, 1982), 23-43, are less satisfactory. Cecilia Trifogli and Silvia Donati provide examples of a fruitful approach in their exhaustive examination of all available texts on certain themes in speciﬁ c periods. 5) I have tried to do this in small ways in two articles in this journal: ‘Place, Space, and the Phys- ics of Grace in Auriol’s Sentences Commentary’, Vivarium 38.1 (2000) (= Special Issue: Peter