FOOTNOTES[1]William Gilbert,De magnete, magneticisque corporibus et de magno magnete tellure; physiologia nova, plurimis & argumentis, & experimentis, demonstrata, London, 1600, 240 pp., with an introduction by Edward Wright. All references to Gilbert in this article, unless otherwise noted, are to the American translation by P. Fleury Mottelay, 368 pp., published in New York in 1893, and are designated by the letter M. However, the Latin text of the 1600 edition has been quoted wherever I have disagreed with the Mottelay translation.A good source of information on Gilbert is Dr. Duane H. D. Roller's doctoral thesis, written under the direction of Dr. I. B. Cohen of Harvard University. Dr. Roller, at present Curator of the De Golyer Collection at the University of Oklahoma, informed me that an expanded version of his dissertation will shortly appear in book form. Unfortunately his researches were not known to me until after this article was completed.[2]Alexandre Koyré,Études galiléennes, Paris, 1939.[3]Alfred N. Whitehead,Science and the modern world, New York, 1925, ch. 3; Ernst Cassirer,Das Erkenntnisproblem, ed. 3, Berlin, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 314-318, 352-359.[4]However, see M: pp. 161, 162, 168, 335.[5]For example, William Whewell,History of the inductive sciences, ed. 3, New York, 1858, vol. 2, pp. 192 and 217; Charles Singer,A short history of science to the nineteenth century, Oxford, 1943, pp. 188 and 343; and A. R. Hall,The scientific revolution, Boston, 1956, p. 185.[6]Petri Peregrini maricurtenis, de magnete, seu rota perpetui motus, libellus, a reprint of the 1558 Angsburg edition in J. G. G. Hellmann,Rara magnetica, Berlin, 1898, not paginated. A number of editions of Peregrinus, work, both ascribed to him and plagiarized from him, appeared in the 16th century (see Heinz Balmer,Beiträge zur Geschichte der Erkenntnis des Erdmagnetismus, Aarau, 1956, pp. 249-255).[7]Hellmann,ibid., Robert Norman,The newe attractive, containyng a short discourse of the magnes or lodestone, and amongest other his vertues, of a newe discovered secret and subtill propertie, concernyng the declinyng of the needle, touched therewith under the plaine of the horizon. Now first founde out by Robert Norman Hydrographer. London, 1581. The possibility is present that Norman's work was a direct stimulus to Gilbert, for Wright's introduction toDe magnetestated that Gilbert started his study of magnetism the year following the publication of Norman's book.[8]Hellman,ibid., William Borough,A discourse of the variation of the compasse, or magneticall needle. Wherein is mathematically shewed, the manner of the observation, effects, and application thereof, made by W. B. And is to be annexed to the newe attractive of R. N.London, 1596.[9]Hellman,ibid., Simon Stevin,De havenvinding, Leyden, 1599. It is interesting to note that Wright translated Stevin's work into English.[10]As Edward Wright was to call him in his introduction.[11]Aristotle,On the soul, translated by W. S. Hett, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1935, 405a20 (see also 411a8: "Some think that the soul pervades the whole universe, whence perhaps came Thales' view that everything is full of gods").[12]Plato,Ion, translated by W. R. M. Lamb, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1925, 533 (see also 536).[13]Plato,Timaeus, translated by R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1929, 80. It is difficult to determine which explanation Plato preferred, for in both cases the speaker may be only a foil for Plato's opinion rather than an expression of these opinions.[14]Lucretius,De rerum natura, translated by W. H. D. Rouse, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1924, bk. VI, lines 998-1041.[15]Galen,On the natural faculties, translated by A. S. Brock, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1916, bk. 1 and bk. 3. A view similar to this appeared in Plato,Timaeus, 81 (seefootnote 13).[16]This same concept was to reappear in the Middle Ages as theinclinatio ad simile.[17]The background for much of the following was derived from Annaliese Maier,An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenchaft, ed 2, Rome, 1952.[18]St. Thomas' epistemology for the natural inanimate world was based upon Aristotle's dictum: that which is in the mind was in the senses first.[19]René Descartes,Oeuvres, Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, Paris, 1897-1910, vol. 2, p. 597 (letter to Mersenne, 16 Oct., 1639), and vol. 11 (Le Monde), p. 39. The original definition can be found in Aristotle,Physics, translated by P. H. Wickstead and F. M. Cornford, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1934, 201a10. Aquinas rephrases the definition as "Motus est actus existentis in potentia secundum quod huius modi." See St. Thomas Aquinas,Opera omnia, Antwerp, 1612, vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 3, lect. 2, cap. a, p. 29.[20]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 9,Summa contra gentiles, lib. 3, cap. 92 (Quo modo dicitur aliquis bene fortunatus et quo modo adjuvatur homo ex superioribus causis), p. 343.[21]St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit. (footnote 19), vol. 17Opuscula, De operationibus occultis naturae ad queindam militem ultramontem, pp. 213-224.[22]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol 7,Scriptum in quartum librum sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, lib. 4, disq. 33 (De diversis coniugii legibus), art. 1 (Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae), p. 168. The same statement occurs in one of his most mature works,op. cit.vol. 20,Summa theologica, pars 3 (supplementum), quaestio 65 (De pluralitate uxorum in quinque articulos divisa), art. 1 (Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae), p. 107.[23]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 8,Quaestio unica: de spiritualibus creaturis, art. 2 (Utrum substantia spiritualis possit uniri corpori), p. 404. See also vol. 9,Summa contra gentiles, lib. 3, cap. 92 (Quomodo dicitur aliquis bene fortunatus, et quomodo adjuvatur homo ex superioribus causis), p. 344; and vol. 17,Opuscula, De operationibus occultis naturae ad queindam militem ultramontem, pp. 213-214.[24]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 8,Quaestio unica: de anima, art. 1 (Utrum anima humana possit esse forma et hoc aliquid), p. 437. See also vol. 8,Quaestio: De veritate, quaestio 5 (De providentia), art. 10 (Utrum humani actus a divina providentia gubernentur mediis corporibus coelestibus), p. 678.[25]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 7, lect. 3, cap. g (Probatur in motu locali quod movens et motum oportet esse simul), p. 97 (quoted in Gilbert, M: p. 104).[26]Hellmann,op. cit.(footnote 6), Peregrinus, pt. 1, ch. 8. The magnet attracts the iron "secundum naturalem appetitum lapidis ... sine resistentia." There is no natural resistence to this motion since it is no longer contrary to the nature of the iron. The nature of the iron has changed.[27]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.[28]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.[29]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 8.[30]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.[31]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9. See alsofootnote 27.[32]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10. See also ch. 4.[33]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10. See also ch. 4.[34]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10.[35]However, he may not always have approved of him. See M:74; "Overinquisitive theologians, too, seek to light up God's mysteries and things beyond man's understanding by means of the loadstone and amber."[36]Nicholas of Cusa (Nicolaus Cusaneus),Nicolaus von Cues, Texte seiner philosophischen Schriften, ed. A. Petzelt, Stuttgart, 1949, bk. 1,Idiota de sapientia, p. 306 (quoted in Gilbert, M:104). It is interesting that Cusa held that the loadstone has an inclination to iron, as well as the converse![37]Cusa,Cusa Schriften, vol. 8,De pace fidei, translated by L. Mohler, Leipzig, 1943, ch. 12, p. 127.[38]Cusa,Exercitationes, ch. 7, 563 and 566, quoted in, F. A. Scharpff,Des Cardinals und Bischofs Nicolaus Von Cusa Wichtigste Schriften in Deutscher Uebersetzung, Freiburg, 1862, p. 435. See also Martin Billinger,Das Philosophische in Den Excitationen Des Nicolaus Von Cues, Heidelberg, 1938, andCusa Schriften(seefootnote 37), vol. 8, p. 209, note 105. Gilbert (M: p. 223) called the compass "the finger of God."[39]Hellmann,op. cit.(footnote 6), Norman, bk. 1, ch. 8.[40]M: p. 14.[41]Richard Hooker.Of the laws of ecclesiastical polity, bk. 1, ch. 3, sect. 4 (Works, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1865, vol. 1, p. 157)[42]Francis Bacon,De augmentis scientiarum, bk. 3, ch. 4, inWorks, ed. J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. Heath, Boston, n.d. (1900?), vol. 2, p. 267.[43]The poems of John Donne, ed. H. J. C. Grierson, London, Oxford University Press, 1933, p. 175 ("To the Countesse of Bedford, On New Yeares Day").[44]M: pp. 33, 34.[45]M: pp. 34, 35. Aristotle,Works, ed. W. D. Ross, Oxford, 1908—1952, vol. 2,De generatione et corruptione, translated by H. H. Joachim, 1930, vol. 3,Meteorologica, translated by E. W. Webster, 1931.[46]M: pp. 34, 35, 64, 65, 69, 81. Dr. H. Guerlac has kindly brought to my attention the similarity between the explanation given in Gilbert and that given in theMeteorologica, bk. 3, ch. 6. p. 378.[47]M: p. 83.[48]A statement of the relation between Aristotle's four elements and place can be found in Maier,op. cit.(footnote 17), pp. 143-182.[49]M: pp. 21, 34, 35, 36, 45.[50]M: pp. 35, 36, 38, 69; see, however, pp. 42-43: "Iron ore, therefore, as also manufactured iron, is a metal slightly different from the homogenic telluric body because of the metallic humor it has imbibed ..."[51]M: pp. 19, 34, 36, 37, 42, 69.[52]M: pp. 35, 36, 37, 38.[53]M: pp. 38, 63, 69, 84; on p. 34 he says that iron is "more truly the child of the earth than any other metal"; it is the hardest because of "the strong concretion of the more earthy substance."[54]M: pp. 21, 35, 37, 38.[55]M: pp. 35, 63.[56]M: pp. 45, 46.[57]Gilbert's terminology strongly suggests that he was familiar with alchemical literature, as well as that of medical chemistry. He has been credited as being highly skilled in chemistry. See Sir Walter Langdon-Brown, "William Gilbert: his place in the medical world,"Nature, vol. 154, pp. 136-139, 1944.[58]Ibid., p. 37.[59]M: pp. 35, 36, 53, 59. See also Galen,op. cit.(footnote 15) bk. 2, ch. 3.[60]M: pp. 16, 59.[61]M: pp. 20, 21, 32, 61, 63, 66, 70.[62]M: p. 59.[63]M: p. 84.[64]M: pp. 310, 311, 312.[65]M: p. 338. A somewhat different opinion, although not necessarily inconsistent is expressed on p. 66, where he says the surface is due to the action of the atmosphere, the waters, and the radiations and other influences of heavenly bodies.[66]Aristotle,op. cit.(footnote 45),De generatione et corruptione, bk. 2, ch. 10.[67]M: pp. 311, 334, 338.[68]M: pp. xlvii, 309, 328.[69]M: pp. 18, 20, 44, 46, 69.[70]M: pp. 59, 61, 63.[71]M: pp. 60, 63.[72]M: p. 110.[73]M: pp. 60, 61.[74]M: p. 62.[75]M: p. 63.[76]M: p. 60.[77]M: pp. 19, 21, 43, 53, 61, 63, 184.[78]M: p. 61.[79]M: pp. 66, 67.[80]M: p. 69. Gilbert is confusing Aristotelian matter and an element. He includes cold and dry, with formless and inert! See also Maier,op. cit.(footnote 17).[81]M: p. 63; bk. 1, ch. 17.[82]M: pp. 67, 181-183, 235-240, 281-289, 313-314.[83]M: p. 71. See also pp. 314 and 331. It is not clear, at this point, whether he believed a "properly balanced" terrella would be aperpetuum mobile.[84]M: pp. 68, 70-71, 97, 129, 179-180, 311, 315, 317-335 Gilbert implied (M: p. 166), that a terrella does not rotate as Peregrinus said, due to resistance (M: p. 326), or due to the mutual nature of coition (M: p. 166); or even to the rotation of the earth (M: p. 332). However (M: p. 129), he also mentioned that a terrella would revolve by itself![85]M: pp. 78, 82, 84, 86.[86]M: pp. 78, 89, 91.[87]M: pp. 89, 95.[88]M: pp. 83, 86.[89]M: pp. 81, 86, 87.[90]M: pp. 80, 81, 86, 87.[91]M: p. 79.[92]M: pp. 77-78, 79.[93]M: p. 78. The definition Gilbert gave of an electric in the glossary at the beginning of his treatise was not an experimental one: "Electricae, quae attrahunt eadem ratione ut electrum."[94]M: pp. 86, 91, 135.[95]M: pp. 96, 135.[96]M: p. 89.[97]M: pp. 90, 92, 95.[98]M: pp. 83, 84, 85.[99]M: p. 84.[100]M: pp. 84, 89. See also Aristotle,op. cit.(footnote 45),Meteorologica, bk. 4.[101]M: p. 90.[102]M: pp. 84, 85.[103]M: p. 84.[104]M: p. 90. See also p. 95.[105]M: pp. 78, 85-86, 91. (see particularly the heated amber experiment described on p. 86).[106]M: p. 87.[107]M: p. 92.[108]Aristotle,Physics, translated by P. H. Wicksteed and F. M. Cornford, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1934, bk. 7, ch. 1, 242b25.[109]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 7, lect. 2 (In moventibus et motis non potest procedi in infinitum, sed oportet devenire ad aliquid primum movens immobile), cap. d, p. 96.[110]M: p. 94.[111]M: p. 95.[112]M: p. 93.[113]M: pp. 92, 93.[114]M: p. 93.[115]M: p. 94.[116]M: p. 94.[117]M: p. 97.[118]M: p. 92 (see also p. 339). Although Gilbert does not make it explicit, this would solve the medieval problem of gravitation without resorting to a Ptolemaic universe. In addition, since coacervation is electric, and electric forces can be screened, it should have been possible to reduce the downward motion of a body by screening![119]M: pp. 91, 92: "This unity is, according to Pythagoras, the principle, through participation, in which a thing is said to be one" (seefootnotes 30and122).[120]"Sense" is probably too strong a term, and yet the change following contact is difficult to describe in Gilbert's phraseology without some such subjective term. See Gilbert's argument on the soul and organs of a loadstone, M: pp. 309—313.[121]M: pp. 112, 113.[122]Gilbert,De magnete, London, 1600, bk. 2, ch. 2, pp. 56-57.[123]Ibid., ch. 1, pp. 45-46.[124]M: pp. 110, 314.[125]M: pp. 82, 105, 170, 172, 217.[126]M: p. 98.[127]M: pp. 100, 112, 113, 143, 148. It need hardly be pointed out that coitus is not an impersonal term.[128]M: p. 110.[129]M: p. 110.[130]M: pp. 109, 115, 148, 149, 155, 166, 174.[131]M: pp. 110, 155.[132]M: pp. 166, 332. See alsofootnote 84.[133]M: pp. 90, 106, 107, 108, 113, 132, 135, 136, 158. This is, of course, contrary to modern experience.[134]M: pp. 106, 107, 108, 114, 134, 136, 140, 162.[135]M: pp. 106, 109, 114, 159, 162.[136]M: pp. 137-140.[137]M: p. 109.[138]M: p. 105, and Gilbert,De magnete, London, 1600, bk. 2 ch. 4, p. 65.[139]M: p. 105.[140]M: pp. 289, 322.[141]M: pp. 26, 68, 105, 179, 198, 307, 335, 343. For rotation, seefootnote 147.[142]M: pp. 67, 71. That each part is informed with the properties of the whole is an argument favoring an animistic explanation of the nature of this form.[143]M: p. 109.[144]M: pp. 111, 188.[145]M: pp. 67, 105, 179, 183.[146]M: pp. 101, 105, 217.[147]M: pp. 179, 304, 305, 311, 322, 326, 328, 330-334, 338-343.[148]M: pp. 142, 179; see also electric attraction, p. 97.[149]M: pp. 308, 317-343.[150]M: pp. 106, 340.[151]M: pp. 308, 309, 311, 330, 333, 344, 347.[152]M: pp. 136, 334, 345.[153]M: pp. 184-186, 190, 232. This is not quite the same argument as that the powers of the loadstone are identical with those of the earth. Seefootnote 78.[154]M: pp. 125, 180.[155]M: p. 151.[156]M: pp. 121, 150.[157]M: pp. 115, 151, 165.[158]M: pp. 106, 118, 151, 191, 205, 221, 243.[159]M: pp. 116, 117, 119, 131, 183, 188, 221.[160]M: p. 31.[161]M: pp. 116, 151, 200.[162]M: pp. 131, 132, 153-158.[163]M: pp. 141, 152, 153, 158, 161, 191, 222.[164]M: p. 146.[165]M: p. 165.[166]M: p. 153.[167]M: pp. 121, 123, 124, 304, 305, 306, 307, 309.[168]Gilbert defined theorbis virtutisin the glossary at the beginning of his treatise as, "... totum illud spatium, per quod quaevis magnetis virtus extenditur." This is the core of the difference between electric and magnetic forces. The substantial form of an electric could not be "effused," but was "imprisoned" in matter (as the Neoplatonic soul in the human body); while the primary form of a magnet did not require a material carrier and its effusion was similar to the propagation of a species in light.[169]M: pp. 124, 150, 151.[170]M: pp. 123, 307.[171]M: pp. 304-307. See also p. 310, where it is stated that the sun and earth could awaken souls.[172]M: pp. 101, 110, 112, 123, 148, 149, 304, 305. This awakening of the iron within the "orbis virtutis" is comparable (pp. 216, 350) to the birth of a child under the influence of the stars.[173]M: pp. 110, 111, 112, 189, 216, 217. See alsofootnote 36.[174]M: p. 106.[175]M: pp. 106, 109, 110.[176]M: pp. 113, 114.[177]M: pp. 190, 192, 210-216.[178]M: p. 209.[179]M: pp. 107, 110, 111.[180]M: p. 108.[181]M: pp. 111, 112, 113.[182]M: pp. 109, 111, 112, 148, 149.[183]M: pp. 112, 149.[184]M: pp. 142, 189.[185]M: p. 190.[186]M: pp. 85, 105, 113, 143, 226.[187]M: p. 84.[188]M: p. 186.[189]M: pp. 185-188. See alsofootnote 31.[190]M: pp. 186, 193.[191]M: pp. 199-200.[192]M. p. 111.[193]M: p. 112.[194]See, however, M: pp. 112, 113.[195]M: pp. 109, 312.[196]M: p. 109.[197]M: p. 309.[198]M: pp. 311-312.[199]M: p. 108.[200]M: p. 110.[201]M: p. 216.[202]M: p. 311.[203]M: pp. 310, 311.[204]M: p. 312.[205]Francis Bacon,op. cit.(footnote 42), vol. 1,Novum organum, bk. 1, ch. 95, p. 306.[206]Ibid., ch. 54 and ch. 64 (pp. 259 and 267).[207]Sir Thomas Browne,Pseudodoxia epidemica, ed. 3, London, 1658, bk. 2, ch. 2, 3, 4.[208]Robert Boyle,Experiments and notes about the mechanical production of magnetism, London, 1676.[209]Nicolaus Cabeaus,Philosophia magnetica, Ferarra, 1629.[210]Galileo Galilei,Dialogue on the great world systems, in the translation of T. Salusbury, edited and corrected by G. de Santillana, University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 409-423.[211]Cassirer,op. cit.(footnote 3), vol. 1, p. 359-367.[212]Because the earth has the same nature as a celestial globe, its revolution and circular inertia require no more explanation than those of any other heavenly body.[213]One wonders if Bruno might not have been another of the stimuli for Gilbert. The latter's interest in magnetism began shortly before Bruno visited England and lectured on his interpretation of the Copernican theory.
[1]William Gilbert,De magnete, magneticisque corporibus et de magno magnete tellure; physiologia nova, plurimis & argumentis, & experimentis, demonstrata, London, 1600, 240 pp., with an introduction by Edward Wright. All references to Gilbert in this article, unless otherwise noted, are to the American translation by P. Fleury Mottelay, 368 pp., published in New York in 1893, and are designated by the letter M. However, the Latin text of the 1600 edition has been quoted wherever I have disagreed with the Mottelay translation.A good source of information on Gilbert is Dr. Duane H. D. Roller's doctoral thesis, written under the direction of Dr. I. B. Cohen of Harvard University. Dr. Roller, at present Curator of the De Golyer Collection at the University of Oklahoma, informed me that an expanded version of his dissertation will shortly appear in book form. Unfortunately his researches were not known to me until after this article was completed.
[1]William Gilbert,De magnete, magneticisque corporibus et de magno magnete tellure; physiologia nova, plurimis & argumentis, & experimentis, demonstrata, London, 1600, 240 pp., with an introduction by Edward Wright. All references to Gilbert in this article, unless otherwise noted, are to the American translation by P. Fleury Mottelay, 368 pp., published in New York in 1893, and are designated by the letter M. However, the Latin text of the 1600 edition has been quoted wherever I have disagreed with the Mottelay translation.
A good source of information on Gilbert is Dr. Duane H. D. Roller's doctoral thesis, written under the direction of Dr. I. B. Cohen of Harvard University. Dr. Roller, at present Curator of the De Golyer Collection at the University of Oklahoma, informed me that an expanded version of his dissertation will shortly appear in book form. Unfortunately his researches were not known to me until after this article was completed.
[2]Alexandre Koyré,Études galiléennes, Paris, 1939.
[2]Alexandre Koyré,Études galiléennes, Paris, 1939.
[3]Alfred N. Whitehead,Science and the modern world, New York, 1925, ch. 3; Ernst Cassirer,Das Erkenntnisproblem, ed. 3, Berlin, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 314-318, 352-359.
[3]Alfred N. Whitehead,Science and the modern world, New York, 1925, ch. 3; Ernst Cassirer,Das Erkenntnisproblem, ed. 3, Berlin, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 314-318, 352-359.
[4]However, see M: pp. 161, 162, 168, 335.
[4]However, see M: pp. 161, 162, 168, 335.
[5]For example, William Whewell,History of the inductive sciences, ed. 3, New York, 1858, vol. 2, pp. 192 and 217; Charles Singer,A short history of science to the nineteenth century, Oxford, 1943, pp. 188 and 343; and A. R. Hall,The scientific revolution, Boston, 1956, p. 185.
[5]For example, William Whewell,History of the inductive sciences, ed. 3, New York, 1858, vol. 2, pp. 192 and 217; Charles Singer,A short history of science to the nineteenth century, Oxford, 1943, pp. 188 and 343; and A. R. Hall,The scientific revolution, Boston, 1956, p. 185.
[6]Petri Peregrini maricurtenis, de magnete, seu rota perpetui motus, libellus, a reprint of the 1558 Angsburg edition in J. G. G. Hellmann,Rara magnetica, Berlin, 1898, not paginated. A number of editions of Peregrinus, work, both ascribed to him and plagiarized from him, appeared in the 16th century (see Heinz Balmer,Beiträge zur Geschichte der Erkenntnis des Erdmagnetismus, Aarau, 1956, pp. 249-255).
[6]Petri Peregrini maricurtenis, de magnete, seu rota perpetui motus, libellus, a reprint of the 1558 Angsburg edition in J. G. G. Hellmann,Rara magnetica, Berlin, 1898, not paginated. A number of editions of Peregrinus, work, both ascribed to him and plagiarized from him, appeared in the 16th century (see Heinz Balmer,Beiträge zur Geschichte der Erkenntnis des Erdmagnetismus, Aarau, 1956, pp. 249-255).
[7]Hellmann,ibid., Robert Norman,The newe attractive, containyng a short discourse of the magnes or lodestone, and amongest other his vertues, of a newe discovered secret and subtill propertie, concernyng the declinyng of the needle, touched therewith under the plaine of the horizon. Now first founde out by Robert Norman Hydrographer. London, 1581. The possibility is present that Norman's work was a direct stimulus to Gilbert, for Wright's introduction toDe magnetestated that Gilbert started his study of magnetism the year following the publication of Norman's book.
[7]Hellmann,ibid., Robert Norman,The newe attractive, containyng a short discourse of the magnes or lodestone, and amongest other his vertues, of a newe discovered secret and subtill propertie, concernyng the declinyng of the needle, touched therewith under the plaine of the horizon. Now first founde out by Robert Norman Hydrographer. London, 1581. The possibility is present that Norman's work was a direct stimulus to Gilbert, for Wright's introduction toDe magnetestated that Gilbert started his study of magnetism the year following the publication of Norman's book.
[8]Hellman,ibid., William Borough,A discourse of the variation of the compasse, or magneticall needle. Wherein is mathematically shewed, the manner of the observation, effects, and application thereof, made by W. B. And is to be annexed to the newe attractive of R. N.London, 1596.
[8]Hellman,ibid., William Borough,A discourse of the variation of the compasse, or magneticall needle. Wherein is mathematically shewed, the manner of the observation, effects, and application thereof, made by W. B. And is to be annexed to the newe attractive of R. N.London, 1596.
[9]Hellman,ibid., Simon Stevin,De havenvinding, Leyden, 1599. It is interesting to note that Wright translated Stevin's work into English.
[9]Hellman,ibid., Simon Stevin,De havenvinding, Leyden, 1599. It is interesting to note that Wright translated Stevin's work into English.
[10]As Edward Wright was to call him in his introduction.
[10]As Edward Wright was to call him in his introduction.
[11]Aristotle,On the soul, translated by W. S. Hett, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1935, 405a20 (see also 411a8: "Some think that the soul pervades the whole universe, whence perhaps came Thales' view that everything is full of gods").
[11]Aristotle,On the soul, translated by W. S. Hett, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1935, 405a20 (see also 411a8: "Some think that the soul pervades the whole universe, whence perhaps came Thales' view that everything is full of gods").
[12]Plato,Ion, translated by W. R. M. Lamb, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1925, 533 (see also 536).
[12]Plato,Ion, translated by W. R. M. Lamb, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1925, 533 (see also 536).
[13]Plato,Timaeus, translated by R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1929, 80. It is difficult to determine which explanation Plato preferred, for in both cases the speaker may be only a foil for Plato's opinion rather than an expression of these opinions.
[13]Plato,Timaeus, translated by R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1929, 80. It is difficult to determine which explanation Plato preferred, for in both cases the speaker may be only a foil for Plato's opinion rather than an expression of these opinions.
[14]Lucretius,De rerum natura, translated by W. H. D. Rouse, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1924, bk. VI, lines 998-1041.
[14]Lucretius,De rerum natura, translated by W. H. D. Rouse, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1924, bk. VI, lines 998-1041.
[15]Galen,On the natural faculties, translated by A. S. Brock, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1916, bk. 1 and bk. 3. A view similar to this appeared in Plato,Timaeus, 81 (seefootnote 13).
[15]Galen,On the natural faculties, translated by A. S. Brock, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1916, bk. 1 and bk. 3. A view similar to this appeared in Plato,Timaeus, 81 (seefootnote 13).
[16]This same concept was to reappear in the Middle Ages as theinclinatio ad simile.
[16]This same concept was to reappear in the Middle Ages as theinclinatio ad simile.
[17]The background for much of the following was derived from Annaliese Maier,An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenchaft, ed 2, Rome, 1952.
[17]The background for much of the following was derived from Annaliese Maier,An der Grenze von Scholastik und Naturwissenchaft, ed 2, Rome, 1952.
[18]St. Thomas' epistemology for the natural inanimate world was based upon Aristotle's dictum: that which is in the mind was in the senses first.
[18]St. Thomas' epistemology for the natural inanimate world was based upon Aristotle's dictum: that which is in the mind was in the senses first.
[19]René Descartes,Oeuvres, Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, Paris, 1897-1910, vol. 2, p. 597 (letter to Mersenne, 16 Oct., 1639), and vol. 11 (Le Monde), p. 39. The original definition can be found in Aristotle,Physics, translated by P. H. Wickstead and F. M. Cornford, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1934, 201a10. Aquinas rephrases the definition as "Motus est actus existentis in potentia secundum quod huius modi." See St. Thomas Aquinas,Opera omnia, Antwerp, 1612, vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 3, lect. 2, cap. a, p. 29.
[19]René Descartes,Oeuvres, Charles Adam and Paul Tannery, Paris, 1897-1910, vol. 2, p. 597 (letter to Mersenne, 16 Oct., 1639), and vol. 11 (Le Monde), p. 39. The original definition can be found in Aristotle,Physics, translated by P. H. Wickstead and F. M. Cornford, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1934, 201a10. Aquinas rephrases the definition as "Motus est actus existentis in potentia secundum quod huius modi." See St. Thomas Aquinas,Opera omnia, Antwerp, 1612, vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 3, lect. 2, cap. a, p. 29.
[20]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 9,Summa contra gentiles, lib. 3, cap. 92 (Quo modo dicitur aliquis bene fortunatus et quo modo adjuvatur homo ex superioribus causis), p. 343.
[20]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 9,Summa contra gentiles, lib. 3, cap. 92 (Quo modo dicitur aliquis bene fortunatus et quo modo adjuvatur homo ex superioribus causis), p. 343.
[21]St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit. (footnote 19), vol. 17Opuscula, De operationibus occultis naturae ad queindam militem ultramontem, pp. 213-224.
[21]St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit. (footnote 19), vol. 17Opuscula, De operationibus occultis naturae ad queindam militem ultramontem, pp. 213-224.
[22]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol 7,Scriptum in quartum librum sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, lib. 4, disq. 33 (De diversis coniugii legibus), art. 1 (Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae), p. 168. The same statement occurs in one of his most mature works,op. cit.vol. 20,Summa theologica, pars 3 (supplementum), quaestio 65 (De pluralitate uxorum in quinque articulos divisa), art. 1 (Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae), p. 107.
[22]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol 7,Scriptum in quartum librum sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi, lib. 4, disq. 33 (De diversis coniugii legibus), art. 1 (Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae), p. 168. The same statement occurs in one of his most mature works,op. cit.vol. 20,Summa theologica, pars 3 (supplementum), quaestio 65 (De pluralitate uxorum in quinque articulos divisa), art. 1 (Utrum habere plures uxores sit contra legem naturae), p. 107.
[23]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 8,Quaestio unica: de spiritualibus creaturis, art. 2 (Utrum substantia spiritualis possit uniri corpori), p. 404. See also vol. 9,Summa contra gentiles, lib. 3, cap. 92 (Quomodo dicitur aliquis bene fortunatus, et quomodo adjuvatur homo ex superioribus causis), p. 344; and vol. 17,Opuscula, De operationibus occultis naturae ad queindam militem ultramontem, pp. 213-214.
[23]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 8,Quaestio unica: de spiritualibus creaturis, art. 2 (Utrum substantia spiritualis possit uniri corpori), p. 404. See also vol. 9,Summa contra gentiles, lib. 3, cap. 92 (Quomodo dicitur aliquis bene fortunatus, et quomodo adjuvatur homo ex superioribus causis), p. 344; and vol. 17,Opuscula, De operationibus occultis naturae ad queindam militem ultramontem, pp. 213-214.
[24]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 8,Quaestio unica: de anima, art. 1 (Utrum anima humana possit esse forma et hoc aliquid), p. 437. See also vol. 8,Quaestio: De veritate, quaestio 5 (De providentia), art. 10 (Utrum humani actus a divina providentia gubernentur mediis corporibus coelestibus), p. 678.
[24]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 8,Quaestio unica: de anima, art. 1 (Utrum anima humana possit esse forma et hoc aliquid), p. 437. See also vol. 8,Quaestio: De veritate, quaestio 5 (De providentia), art. 10 (Utrum humani actus a divina providentia gubernentur mediis corporibus coelestibus), p. 678.
[25]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 7, lect. 3, cap. g (Probatur in motu locali quod movens et motum oportet esse simul), p. 97 (quoted in Gilbert, M: p. 104).
[25]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 7, lect. 3, cap. g (Probatur in motu locali quod movens et motum oportet esse simul), p. 97 (quoted in Gilbert, M: p. 104).
[26]Hellmann,op. cit.(footnote 6), Peregrinus, pt. 1, ch. 8. The magnet attracts the iron "secundum naturalem appetitum lapidis ... sine resistentia." There is no natural resistence to this motion since it is no longer contrary to the nature of the iron. The nature of the iron has changed.
[26]Hellmann,op. cit.(footnote 6), Peregrinus, pt. 1, ch. 8. The magnet attracts the iron "secundum naturalem appetitum lapidis ... sine resistentia." There is no natural resistence to this motion since it is no longer contrary to the nature of the iron. The nature of the iron has changed.
[27]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.
[27]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.
[28]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.
[28]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.
[29]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 8.
[29]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 8.
[30]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.
[30]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9.
[31]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9. See alsofootnote 27.
[31]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 9. See alsofootnote 27.
[32]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10. See also ch. 4.
[32]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10. See also ch. 4.
[33]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10. See also ch. 4.
[33]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10. See also ch. 4.
[34]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10.
[34]Ibid., pt. 1, ch. 10.
[35]However, he may not always have approved of him. See M:74; "Overinquisitive theologians, too, seek to light up God's mysteries and things beyond man's understanding by means of the loadstone and amber."
[35]However, he may not always have approved of him. See M:74; "Overinquisitive theologians, too, seek to light up God's mysteries and things beyond man's understanding by means of the loadstone and amber."
[36]Nicholas of Cusa (Nicolaus Cusaneus),Nicolaus von Cues, Texte seiner philosophischen Schriften, ed. A. Petzelt, Stuttgart, 1949, bk. 1,Idiota de sapientia, p. 306 (quoted in Gilbert, M:104). It is interesting that Cusa held that the loadstone has an inclination to iron, as well as the converse!
[36]Nicholas of Cusa (Nicolaus Cusaneus),Nicolaus von Cues, Texte seiner philosophischen Schriften, ed. A. Petzelt, Stuttgart, 1949, bk. 1,Idiota de sapientia, p. 306 (quoted in Gilbert, M:104). It is interesting that Cusa held that the loadstone has an inclination to iron, as well as the converse!
[37]Cusa,Cusa Schriften, vol. 8,De pace fidei, translated by L. Mohler, Leipzig, 1943, ch. 12, p. 127.
[37]Cusa,Cusa Schriften, vol. 8,De pace fidei, translated by L. Mohler, Leipzig, 1943, ch. 12, p. 127.
[38]Cusa,Exercitationes, ch. 7, 563 and 566, quoted in, F. A. Scharpff,Des Cardinals und Bischofs Nicolaus Von Cusa Wichtigste Schriften in Deutscher Uebersetzung, Freiburg, 1862, p. 435. See also Martin Billinger,Das Philosophische in Den Excitationen Des Nicolaus Von Cues, Heidelberg, 1938, andCusa Schriften(seefootnote 37), vol. 8, p. 209, note 105. Gilbert (M: p. 223) called the compass "the finger of God."
[38]Cusa,Exercitationes, ch. 7, 563 and 566, quoted in, F. A. Scharpff,Des Cardinals und Bischofs Nicolaus Von Cusa Wichtigste Schriften in Deutscher Uebersetzung, Freiburg, 1862, p. 435. See also Martin Billinger,Das Philosophische in Den Excitationen Des Nicolaus Von Cues, Heidelberg, 1938, andCusa Schriften(seefootnote 37), vol. 8, p. 209, note 105. Gilbert (M: p. 223) called the compass "the finger of God."
[39]Hellmann,op. cit.(footnote 6), Norman, bk. 1, ch. 8.
[39]Hellmann,op. cit.(footnote 6), Norman, bk. 1, ch. 8.
[40]M: p. 14.
[40]M: p. 14.
[41]Richard Hooker.Of the laws of ecclesiastical polity, bk. 1, ch. 3, sect. 4 (Works, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1865, vol. 1, p. 157)
[41]Richard Hooker.Of the laws of ecclesiastical polity, bk. 1, ch. 3, sect. 4 (Works, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1865, vol. 1, p. 157)
[42]Francis Bacon,De augmentis scientiarum, bk. 3, ch. 4, inWorks, ed. J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. Heath, Boston, n.d. (1900?), vol. 2, p. 267.
[42]Francis Bacon,De augmentis scientiarum, bk. 3, ch. 4, inWorks, ed. J. Spedding, R. L. Ellis, and D. D. Heath, Boston, n.d. (1900?), vol. 2, p. 267.
[43]The poems of John Donne, ed. H. J. C. Grierson, London, Oxford University Press, 1933, p. 175 ("To the Countesse of Bedford, On New Yeares Day").
[43]The poems of John Donne, ed. H. J. C. Grierson, London, Oxford University Press, 1933, p. 175 ("To the Countesse of Bedford, On New Yeares Day").
[44]M: pp. 33, 34.
[44]M: pp. 33, 34.
[45]M: pp. 34, 35. Aristotle,Works, ed. W. D. Ross, Oxford, 1908—1952, vol. 2,De generatione et corruptione, translated by H. H. Joachim, 1930, vol. 3,Meteorologica, translated by E. W. Webster, 1931.
[45]M: pp. 34, 35. Aristotle,Works, ed. W. D. Ross, Oxford, 1908—1952, vol. 2,De generatione et corruptione, translated by H. H. Joachim, 1930, vol. 3,Meteorologica, translated by E. W. Webster, 1931.
[46]M: pp. 34, 35, 64, 65, 69, 81. Dr. H. Guerlac has kindly brought to my attention the similarity between the explanation given in Gilbert and that given in theMeteorologica, bk. 3, ch. 6. p. 378.
[46]M: pp. 34, 35, 64, 65, 69, 81. Dr. H. Guerlac has kindly brought to my attention the similarity between the explanation given in Gilbert and that given in theMeteorologica, bk. 3, ch. 6. p. 378.
[47]M: p. 83.
[47]M: p. 83.
[48]A statement of the relation between Aristotle's four elements and place can be found in Maier,op. cit.(footnote 17), pp. 143-182.
[48]A statement of the relation between Aristotle's four elements and place can be found in Maier,op. cit.(footnote 17), pp. 143-182.
[49]M: pp. 21, 34, 35, 36, 45.
[49]M: pp. 21, 34, 35, 36, 45.
[50]M: pp. 35, 36, 38, 69; see, however, pp. 42-43: "Iron ore, therefore, as also manufactured iron, is a metal slightly different from the homogenic telluric body because of the metallic humor it has imbibed ..."
[50]M: pp. 35, 36, 38, 69; see, however, pp. 42-43: "Iron ore, therefore, as also manufactured iron, is a metal slightly different from the homogenic telluric body because of the metallic humor it has imbibed ..."
[51]M: pp. 19, 34, 36, 37, 42, 69.
[51]M: pp. 19, 34, 36, 37, 42, 69.
[52]M: pp. 35, 36, 37, 38.
[52]M: pp. 35, 36, 37, 38.
[53]M: pp. 38, 63, 69, 84; on p. 34 he says that iron is "more truly the child of the earth than any other metal"; it is the hardest because of "the strong concretion of the more earthy substance."
[53]M: pp. 38, 63, 69, 84; on p. 34 he says that iron is "more truly the child of the earth than any other metal"; it is the hardest because of "the strong concretion of the more earthy substance."
[54]M: pp. 21, 35, 37, 38.
[54]M: pp. 21, 35, 37, 38.
[55]M: pp. 35, 63.
[55]M: pp. 35, 63.
[56]M: pp. 45, 46.
[56]M: pp. 45, 46.
[57]Gilbert's terminology strongly suggests that he was familiar with alchemical literature, as well as that of medical chemistry. He has been credited as being highly skilled in chemistry. See Sir Walter Langdon-Brown, "William Gilbert: his place in the medical world,"Nature, vol. 154, pp. 136-139, 1944.
[57]Gilbert's terminology strongly suggests that he was familiar with alchemical literature, as well as that of medical chemistry. He has been credited as being highly skilled in chemistry. See Sir Walter Langdon-Brown, "William Gilbert: his place in the medical world,"Nature, vol. 154, pp. 136-139, 1944.
[58]Ibid., p. 37.
[58]Ibid., p. 37.
[59]M: pp. 35, 36, 53, 59. See also Galen,op. cit.(footnote 15) bk. 2, ch. 3.
[59]M: pp. 35, 36, 53, 59. See also Galen,op. cit.(footnote 15) bk. 2, ch. 3.
[60]M: pp. 16, 59.
[60]M: pp. 16, 59.
[61]M: pp. 20, 21, 32, 61, 63, 66, 70.
[61]M: pp. 20, 21, 32, 61, 63, 66, 70.
[62]M: p. 59.
[62]M: p. 59.
[63]M: p. 84.
[63]M: p. 84.
[64]M: pp. 310, 311, 312.
[64]M: pp. 310, 311, 312.
[65]M: p. 338. A somewhat different opinion, although not necessarily inconsistent is expressed on p. 66, where he says the surface is due to the action of the atmosphere, the waters, and the radiations and other influences of heavenly bodies.
[65]M: p. 338. A somewhat different opinion, although not necessarily inconsistent is expressed on p. 66, where he says the surface is due to the action of the atmosphere, the waters, and the radiations and other influences of heavenly bodies.
[66]Aristotle,op. cit.(footnote 45),De generatione et corruptione, bk. 2, ch. 10.
[66]Aristotle,op. cit.(footnote 45),De generatione et corruptione, bk. 2, ch. 10.
[67]M: pp. 311, 334, 338.
[67]M: pp. 311, 334, 338.
[68]M: pp. xlvii, 309, 328.
[68]M: pp. xlvii, 309, 328.
[69]M: pp. 18, 20, 44, 46, 69.
[69]M: pp. 18, 20, 44, 46, 69.
[70]M: pp. 59, 61, 63.
[70]M: pp. 59, 61, 63.
[71]M: pp. 60, 63.
[71]M: pp. 60, 63.
[72]M: p. 110.
[72]M: p. 110.
[73]M: pp. 60, 61.
[73]M: pp. 60, 61.
[74]M: p. 62.
[74]M: p. 62.
[75]M: p. 63.
[75]M: p. 63.
[76]M: p. 60.
[76]M: p. 60.
[77]M: pp. 19, 21, 43, 53, 61, 63, 184.
[77]M: pp. 19, 21, 43, 53, 61, 63, 184.
[78]M: p. 61.
[78]M: p. 61.
[79]M: pp. 66, 67.
[79]M: pp. 66, 67.
[80]M: p. 69. Gilbert is confusing Aristotelian matter and an element. He includes cold and dry, with formless and inert! See also Maier,op. cit.(footnote 17).
[80]M: p. 69. Gilbert is confusing Aristotelian matter and an element. He includes cold and dry, with formless and inert! See also Maier,op. cit.(footnote 17).
[81]M: p. 63; bk. 1, ch. 17.
[81]M: p. 63; bk. 1, ch. 17.
[82]M: pp. 67, 181-183, 235-240, 281-289, 313-314.
[82]M: pp. 67, 181-183, 235-240, 281-289, 313-314.
[83]M: p. 71. See also pp. 314 and 331. It is not clear, at this point, whether he believed a "properly balanced" terrella would be aperpetuum mobile.
[83]M: p. 71. See also pp. 314 and 331. It is not clear, at this point, whether he believed a "properly balanced" terrella would be aperpetuum mobile.
[84]M: pp. 68, 70-71, 97, 129, 179-180, 311, 315, 317-335 Gilbert implied (M: p. 166), that a terrella does not rotate as Peregrinus said, due to resistance (M: p. 326), or due to the mutual nature of coition (M: p. 166); or even to the rotation of the earth (M: p. 332). However (M: p. 129), he also mentioned that a terrella would revolve by itself!
[84]M: pp. 68, 70-71, 97, 129, 179-180, 311, 315, 317-335 Gilbert implied (M: p. 166), that a terrella does not rotate as Peregrinus said, due to resistance (M: p. 326), or due to the mutual nature of coition (M: p. 166); or even to the rotation of the earth (M: p. 332). However (M: p. 129), he also mentioned that a terrella would revolve by itself!
[85]M: pp. 78, 82, 84, 86.
[85]M: pp. 78, 82, 84, 86.
[86]M: pp. 78, 89, 91.
[86]M: pp. 78, 89, 91.
[87]M: pp. 89, 95.
[87]M: pp. 89, 95.
[88]M: pp. 83, 86.
[88]M: pp. 83, 86.
[89]M: pp. 81, 86, 87.
[89]M: pp. 81, 86, 87.
[90]M: pp. 80, 81, 86, 87.
[90]M: pp. 80, 81, 86, 87.
[91]M: p. 79.
[91]M: p. 79.
[92]M: pp. 77-78, 79.
[92]M: pp. 77-78, 79.
[93]M: p. 78. The definition Gilbert gave of an electric in the glossary at the beginning of his treatise was not an experimental one: "Electricae, quae attrahunt eadem ratione ut electrum."
[93]M: p. 78. The definition Gilbert gave of an electric in the glossary at the beginning of his treatise was not an experimental one: "Electricae, quae attrahunt eadem ratione ut electrum."
[94]M: pp. 86, 91, 135.
[94]M: pp. 86, 91, 135.
[95]M: pp. 96, 135.
[95]M: pp. 96, 135.
[96]M: p. 89.
[96]M: p. 89.
[97]M: pp. 90, 92, 95.
[97]M: pp. 90, 92, 95.
[98]M: pp. 83, 84, 85.
[98]M: pp. 83, 84, 85.
[99]M: p. 84.
[99]M: p. 84.
[100]M: pp. 84, 89. See also Aristotle,op. cit.(footnote 45),Meteorologica, bk. 4.
[100]M: pp. 84, 89. See also Aristotle,op. cit.(footnote 45),Meteorologica, bk. 4.
[101]M: p. 90.
[101]M: p. 90.
[102]M: pp. 84, 85.
[102]M: pp. 84, 85.
[103]M: p. 84.
[103]M: p. 84.
[104]M: p. 90. See also p. 95.
[104]M: p. 90. See also p. 95.
[105]M: pp. 78, 85-86, 91. (see particularly the heated amber experiment described on p. 86).
[105]M: pp. 78, 85-86, 91. (see particularly the heated amber experiment described on p. 86).
[106]M: p. 87.
[106]M: p. 87.
[107]M: p. 92.
[107]M: p. 92.
[108]Aristotle,Physics, translated by P. H. Wicksteed and F. M. Cornford, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1934, bk. 7, ch. 1, 242b25.
[108]Aristotle,Physics, translated by P. H. Wicksteed and F. M. Cornford, Loeb Classical Library, London, 1934, bk. 7, ch. 1, 242b25.
[109]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 7, lect. 2 (In moventibus et motis non potest procedi in infinitum, sed oportet devenire ad aliquid primum movens immobile), cap. d, p. 96.
[109]St. Thomas Aquinas,op. cit.(footnote 19), vol. 2,Physicorum Aristotelis expositio, lib. 7, lect. 2 (In moventibus et motis non potest procedi in infinitum, sed oportet devenire ad aliquid primum movens immobile), cap. d, p. 96.
[110]M: p. 94.
[110]M: p. 94.
[111]M: p. 95.
[111]M: p. 95.
[112]M: p. 93.
[112]M: p. 93.
[113]M: pp. 92, 93.
[113]M: pp. 92, 93.
[114]M: p. 93.
[114]M: p. 93.
[115]M: p. 94.
[115]M: p. 94.
[116]M: p. 94.
[116]M: p. 94.
[117]M: p. 97.
[117]M: p. 97.
[118]M: p. 92 (see also p. 339). Although Gilbert does not make it explicit, this would solve the medieval problem of gravitation without resorting to a Ptolemaic universe. In addition, since coacervation is electric, and electric forces can be screened, it should have been possible to reduce the downward motion of a body by screening!
[118]M: p. 92 (see also p. 339). Although Gilbert does not make it explicit, this would solve the medieval problem of gravitation without resorting to a Ptolemaic universe. In addition, since coacervation is electric, and electric forces can be screened, it should have been possible to reduce the downward motion of a body by screening!
[119]M: pp. 91, 92: "This unity is, according to Pythagoras, the principle, through participation, in which a thing is said to be one" (seefootnotes 30and122).
[119]M: pp. 91, 92: "This unity is, according to Pythagoras, the principle, through participation, in which a thing is said to be one" (seefootnotes 30and122).
[120]"Sense" is probably too strong a term, and yet the change following contact is difficult to describe in Gilbert's phraseology without some such subjective term. See Gilbert's argument on the soul and organs of a loadstone, M: pp. 309—313.
[120]"Sense" is probably too strong a term, and yet the change following contact is difficult to describe in Gilbert's phraseology without some such subjective term. See Gilbert's argument on the soul and organs of a loadstone, M: pp. 309—313.
[121]M: pp. 112, 113.
[121]M: pp. 112, 113.
[122]Gilbert,De magnete, London, 1600, bk. 2, ch. 2, pp. 56-57.
[122]Gilbert,De magnete, London, 1600, bk. 2, ch. 2, pp. 56-57.
[123]Ibid., ch. 1, pp. 45-46.
[123]Ibid., ch. 1, pp. 45-46.
[124]M: pp. 110, 314.
[124]M: pp. 110, 314.
[125]M: pp. 82, 105, 170, 172, 217.
[125]M: pp. 82, 105, 170, 172, 217.
[126]M: p. 98.
[126]M: p. 98.
[127]M: pp. 100, 112, 113, 143, 148. It need hardly be pointed out that coitus is not an impersonal term.
[127]M: pp. 100, 112, 113, 143, 148. It need hardly be pointed out that coitus is not an impersonal term.
[128]M: p. 110.
[128]M: p. 110.
[129]M: p. 110.
[129]M: p. 110.
[130]M: pp. 109, 115, 148, 149, 155, 166, 174.
[130]M: pp. 109, 115, 148, 149, 155, 166, 174.
[131]M: pp. 110, 155.
[131]M: pp. 110, 155.
[132]M: pp. 166, 332. See alsofootnote 84.
[132]M: pp. 166, 332. See alsofootnote 84.
[133]M: pp. 90, 106, 107, 108, 113, 132, 135, 136, 158. This is, of course, contrary to modern experience.
[133]M: pp. 90, 106, 107, 108, 113, 132, 135, 136, 158. This is, of course, contrary to modern experience.
[134]M: pp. 106, 107, 108, 114, 134, 136, 140, 162.
[134]M: pp. 106, 107, 108, 114, 134, 136, 140, 162.
[135]M: pp. 106, 109, 114, 159, 162.
[135]M: pp. 106, 109, 114, 159, 162.
[136]M: pp. 137-140.
[136]M: pp. 137-140.
[137]M: p. 109.
[137]M: p. 109.
[138]M: p. 105, and Gilbert,De magnete, London, 1600, bk. 2 ch. 4, p. 65.
[138]M: p. 105, and Gilbert,De magnete, London, 1600, bk. 2 ch. 4, p. 65.
[139]M: p. 105.
[139]M: p. 105.
[140]M: pp. 289, 322.
[140]M: pp. 289, 322.
[141]M: pp. 26, 68, 105, 179, 198, 307, 335, 343. For rotation, seefootnote 147.
[141]M: pp. 26, 68, 105, 179, 198, 307, 335, 343. For rotation, seefootnote 147.
[142]M: pp. 67, 71. That each part is informed with the properties of the whole is an argument favoring an animistic explanation of the nature of this form.
[142]M: pp. 67, 71. That each part is informed with the properties of the whole is an argument favoring an animistic explanation of the nature of this form.
[143]M: p. 109.
[143]M: p. 109.
[144]M: pp. 111, 188.
[144]M: pp. 111, 188.
[145]M: pp. 67, 105, 179, 183.
[145]M: pp. 67, 105, 179, 183.
[146]M: pp. 101, 105, 217.
[146]M: pp. 101, 105, 217.
[147]M: pp. 179, 304, 305, 311, 322, 326, 328, 330-334, 338-343.
[147]M: pp. 179, 304, 305, 311, 322, 326, 328, 330-334, 338-343.
[148]M: pp. 142, 179; see also electric attraction, p. 97.
[148]M: pp. 142, 179; see also electric attraction, p. 97.
[149]M: pp. 308, 317-343.
[149]M: pp. 308, 317-343.
[150]M: pp. 106, 340.
[150]M: pp. 106, 340.
[151]M: pp. 308, 309, 311, 330, 333, 344, 347.
[151]M: pp. 308, 309, 311, 330, 333, 344, 347.
[152]M: pp. 136, 334, 345.
[152]M: pp. 136, 334, 345.
[153]M: pp. 184-186, 190, 232. This is not quite the same argument as that the powers of the loadstone are identical with those of the earth. Seefootnote 78.
[153]M: pp. 184-186, 190, 232. This is not quite the same argument as that the powers of the loadstone are identical with those of the earth. Seefootnote 78.
[154]M: pp. 125, 180.
[154]M: pp. 125, 180.
[155]M: p. 151.
[155]M: p. 151.
[156]M: pp. 121, 150.
[156]M: pp. 121, 150.
[157]M: pp. 115, 151, 165.
[157]M: pp. 115, 151, 165.
[158]M: pp. 106, 118, 151, 191, 205, 221, 243.
[158]M: pp. 106, 118, 151, 191, 205, 221, 243.
[159]M: pp. 116, 117, 119, 131, 183, 188, 221.
[159]M: pp. 116, 117, 119, 131, 183, 188, 221.
[160]M: p. 31.
[160]M: p. 31.
[161]M: pp. 116, 151, 200.
[161]M: pp. 116, 151, 200.
[162]M: pp. 131, 132, 153-158.
[162]M: pp. 131, 132, 153-158.
[163]M: pp. 141, 152, 153, 158, 161, 191, 222.
[163]M: pp. 141, 152, 153, 158, 161, 191, 222.
[164]M: p. 146.
[164]M: p. 146.
[165]M: p. 165.
[165]M: p. 165.
[166]M: p. 153.
[166]M: p. 153.
[167]M: pp. 121, 123, 124, 304, 305, 306, 307, 309.
[167]M: pp. 121, 123, 124, 304, 305, 306, 307, 309.
[168]Gilbert defined theorbis virtutisin the glossary at the beginning of his treatise as, "... totum illud spatium, per quod quaevis magnetis virtus extenditur." This is the core of the difference between electric and magnetic forces. The substantial form of an electric could not be "effused," but was "imprisoned" in matter (as the Neoplatonic soul in the human body); while the primary form of a magnet did not require a material carrier and its effusion was similar to the propagation of a species in light.
[168]Gilbert defined theorbis virtutisin the glossary at the beginning of his treatise as, "... totum illud spatium, per quod quaevis magnetis virtus extenditur." This is the core of the difference between electric and magnetic forces. The substantial form of an electric could not be "effused," but was "imprisoned" in matter (as the Neoplatonic soul in the human body); while the primary form of a magnet did not require a material carrier and its effusion was similar to the propagation of a species in light.
[169]M: pp. 124, 150, 151.
[169]M: pp. 124, 150, 151.
[170]M: pp. 123, 307.
[170]M: pp. 123, 307.
[171]M: pp. 304-307. See also p. 310, where it is stated that the sun and earth could awaken souls.
[171]M: pp. 304-307. See also p. 310, where it is stated that the sun and earth could awaken souls.
[172]M: pp. 101, 110, 112, 123, 148, 149, 304, 305. This awakening of the iron within the "orbis virtutis" is comparable (pp. 216, 350) to the birth of a child under the influence of the stars.
[172]M: pp. 101, 110, 112, 123, 148, 149, 304, 305. This awakening of the iron within the "orbis virtutis" is comparable (pp. 216, 350) to the birth of a child under the influence of the stars.
[173]M: pp. 110, 111, 112, 189, 216, 217. See alsofootnote 36.
[173]M: pp. 110, 111, 112, 189, 216, 217. See alsofootnote 36.
[174]M: p. 106.
[174]M: p. 106.
[175]M: pp. 106, 109, 110.
[175]M: pp. 106, 109, 110.
[176]M: pp. 113, 114.
[176]M: pp. 113, 114.
[177]M: pp. 190, 192, 210-216.
[177]M: pp. 190, 192, 210-216.
[178]M: p. 209.
[178]M: p. 209.
[179]M: pp. 107, 110, 111.
[179]M: pp. 107, 110, 111.
[180]M: p. 108.
[180]M: p. 108.
[181]M: pp. 111, 112, 113.
[181]M: pp. 111, 112, 113.
[182]M: pp. 109, 111, 112, 148, 149.
[182]M: pp. 109, 111, 112, 148, 149.
[183]M: pp. 112, 149.
[183]M: pp. 112, 149.
[184]M: pp. 142, 189.
[184]M: pp. 142, 189.
[185]M: p. 190.
[185]M: p. 190.
[186]M: pp. 85, 105, 113, 143, 226.
[186]M: pp. 85, 105, 113, 143, 226.
[187]M: p. 84.
[187]M: p. 84.
[188]M: p. 186.
[188]M: p. 186.
[189]M: pp. 185-188. See alsofootnote 31.
[189]M: pp. 185-188. See alsofootnote 31.
[190]M: pp. 186, 193.
[190]M: pp. 186, 193.
[191]M: pp. 199-200.
[191]M: pp. 199-200.
[192]M. p. 111.
[192]M. p. 111.
[193]M: p. 112.
[193]M: p. 112.
[194]See, however, M: pp. 112, 113.
[194]See, however, M: pp. 112, 113.
[195]M: pp. 109, 312.
[195]M: pp. 109, 312.
[196]M: p. 109.
[196]M: p. 109.
[197]M: p. 309.
[197]M: p. 309.
[198]M: pp. 311-312.
[198]M: pp. 311-312.
[199]M: p. 108.
[199]M: p. 108.
[200]M: p. 110.
[200]M: p. 110.
[201]M: p. 216.
[201]M: p. 216.
[202]M: p. 311.
[202]M: p. 311.
[203]M: pp. 310, 311.
[203]M: pp. 310, 311.
[204]M: p. 312.
[204]M: p. 312.
[205]Francis Bacon,op. cit.(footnote 42), vol. 1,Novum organum, bk. 1, ch. 95, p. 306.
[205]Francis Bacon,op. cit.(footnote 42), vol. 1,Novum organum, bk. 1, ch. 95, p. 306.
[206]Ibid., ch. 54 and ch. 64 (pp. 259 and 267).
[206]Ibid., ch. 54 and ch. 64 (pp. 259 and 267).
[207]Sir Thomas Browne,Pseudodoxia epidemica, ed. 3, London, 1658, bk. 2, ch. 2, 3, 4.
[207]Sir Thomas Browne,Pseudodoxia epidemica, ed. 3, London, 1658, bk. 2, ch. 2, 3, 4.
[208]Robert Boyle,Experiments and notes about the mechanical production of magnetism, London, 1676.
[208]Robert Boyle,Experiments and notes about the mechanical production of magnetism, London, 1676.
[209]Nicolaus Cabeaus,Philosophia magnetica, Ferarra, 1629.
[209]Nicolaus Cabeaus,Philosophia magnetica, Ferarra, 1629.
[210]Galileo Galilei,Dialogue on the great world systems, in the translation of T. Salusbury, edited and corrected by G. de Santillana, University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 409-423.
[210]Galileo Galilei,Dialogue on the great world systems, in the translation of T. Salusbury, edited and corrected by G. de Santillana, University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 409-423.
[211]Cassirer,op. cit.(footnote 3), vol. 1, p. 359-367.
[211]Cassirer,op. cit.(footnote 3), vol. 1, p. 359-367.
[212]Because the earth has the same nature as a celestial globe, its revolution and circular inertia require no more explanation than those of any other heavenly body.
[212]Because the earth has the same nature as a celestial globe, its revolution and circular inertia require no more explanation than those of any other heavenly body.
[213]One wonders if Bruno might not have been another of the stimuli for Gilbert. The latter's interest in magnetism began shortly before Bruno visited England and lectured on his interpretation of the Copernican theory.
[213]One wonders if Bruno might not have been another of the stimuli for Gilbert. The latter's interest in magnetism began shortly before Bruno visited England and lectured on his interpretation of the Copernican theory.