Izvorni znanstveni članak
Is Astrology Mathematics or Metaphysics? Raguseius’ Letter to Medo
Mihaela Girardi-Karšulin
Sažetak
This article elucidates a letter written by Georgius Raguseius to Antun Medo on 10 October 1601, which, under the title “De circulis eccentricis et epicyclis,” was included into his manuscript Epistolae morales, dialecticae et mathematicae, kept at the British Library. In this letter Raguseius rejects Medo’s criticism of Ptolemy, that is, his criticism of epicycles and excentres. It has not been established whether Medo and Raguseius ever met or exchanged letters (which is plausible), yet in Chapter 8 of his commentary In duodecimum librum Metaphysicae Aristotelis expositio (1598) Medo refutes Ptolemy and his mathematical approach to astrology. Hence, in this article Raguseius’ letter to Medo is viewed as a criticism of Medo’s commentary.
Contrary to Medo, Raguseius promotes astrology as a mathematical discipline, by which the excenters and epicycles are necessary in order “to save phenomena,” i. e., the regularity of celestial movements and irregularity of the planetary motions.
Medo refuses to accept astrology as mathematics, but classifies it under metaphysics.
Both philosophers, however, reject judicial astrology. Both philosophers are Aristotelians who strive to save Aristotelianism, though each in his own way. In view of the development of early modern natural science, both attempts were doomed to failure.
Yet the attempts of Georgius Raguseius and Antun Medo are not insignificant, because by pointing to the limits of Aristotelianism, they also emphasised its meaning, character, and achievements.
Ključne riječi
Georgius Raguseius; Antun Medo / Antonius Medus; excentric circles; epicycle; isagogic astrology; judicial astrology; mathematics; metaphysics
Hrčak ID:
192491
URI
Datum izdavanja:
12.1.2018.
Posjeta: 1.234 *