8): Ergo si continuum est infinitae partes, est infinitae partes extensae. 2, §§ 8–10.įor the literature on Crathorn and a discussion of the date of his Oxford lectures, see Courtenay, Adam Wodeham, pp. Courtenay, Adam Wodeham (Leiden, 1978), pp. Baudry, ‘Gauthier de Chatton’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 18 (1943–45), 353 But Dale also somewhat misleadingly says that “Grosseteste’s own words nowhere assert or clearly imply that a line is constituted of an infinite number of points.” Dales in ‘Robert Grosseteste’s Place’, p. Baur, in Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, BGPM 9: 53–54 Robert Grosseteste, De luce seu de inchoatione formarum, ed. Dales, ‘Robert Grosseteste’s Place in Medieval Discussions of the Eternity of the World’, Speculum 61 (1986), p. du moyen âge 50, 247) Harclay cites Thomas’s Quaestiones disputatae de veritate, q. Dales, ‘Henricus de Harclay’, Archives d’histoire doctr. 12, ‘Utrum mundus potuit fuisse ab aeterno’ (Vatican MS Borgh. Harclay quotes Thomas Aquinas as well as Grosseteste in support of his opinion. Gualterus Burley, In Physicam Aristotelis, VI, tc. Roberti Grosseteste Commentarius in VIII libros Physicorum Aristotelis, ed. 50 (1983), 231–55, deals chiefly with the properties of infinite sets and had little influence on the dispute about indivisibles as parts of continua.Īdam de Wodeham, De indiv., q. Harclay’s Utrum mundus potuit fuisse ab aeterno ed. Murdoch who subsequently located another, better manuscript (Tortosa, Cathedral Library MS 88, fols. 94r–101v) was discovered in 1961 by John E.
Though Harclay’s views were known through extensive quotation in the works of William of Alnwick, manuscripts of the work itself were only recently discovered the first (Florence, National Library, Fondo principale MS II. Synan, ‘Two Questions on the Continuum: Walter Chatton(?), O. Weinberg, Nicholaus of Autrecourt (Princeton, 1949). O’Donnell, in ‘Nicholas of Autrecourt’, Mediaeval Studies 1 (1939), 179–280 Ĭf. Nicholas de Autrecourt, Exigit ordo executionis, ed. Zoubov, ‘Walter Chatton, Gerard d’Odon et Nicolas Bonet’, Physis 1 (1959), 263–267 In fact, there were two medieval indivisibilists who maintained that indivisibles were not extensionless, Nicholas Bonet and Nicholas of Autrecourt. But like Wodeham, Bradwardine knew of no medieval authors who held this position and ascribed it only to an ancient author, Democritus. 265s.īradwardine also described the view of the physical atomist, according to whom extended objects and continuous qualities were composed of physically indivisible but extended bodies. 576, n.36 and Zoubov, as cited in n.2, p. Murdoch in ‘Infinity and Continuity’, Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, 1982), p. Thomas Bradwardine, Tractatus de continuo, conclusio 31, Erfurt, Amplon. De indiv., 1, note 84, 98 Thomas Apuinas, Commentaria in octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis, VI, c.6, lect.