Furthermore many other obseruations in the Heauens most wonderfull and vn∣knowne for somany ages to all antiquity▪ are lately discouered by the helpe of a Per∣spectiue glasse inuented by a certaine Batauiā. As for example, that the body of the moone is spongious, consisting of some matter re∣sembling little locks of woll; that the star of Venus doth increase and decrease in light like the moone, crooking it self into hornes, as the moone doth; and when it Orbe is full of light, it is not opposed diametrically to the Sunne, as the Moone is, but is in small distance from the Sunne: from which ob∣seruation it may seeme to be necessarily in∣ferred, that the starre of Venus is carryed in a huge Epicycle about the Sunne; so as it is sometimes far higher then the Sunne, other tymes much lower. In lyke sort by the for∣mer instrument there are obserued, about the starre of Iupiter 4▪ small stars, sometimes going before, sometimes following Iupiter: at one tyme they all appeare, at another tyme but some of them, and at a third tyme other some; from whence also we may ga∣ther that the said starres do moue in little Epicycles about the starre of Iupiter. Againe, in the body of the Sunne there appeare cer∣taine spots, which notwithstanding do not euer retaine one and the same place in the Sunne, but daily change their situation; and at one tyme they appeare more in number, at another fewer. From which it is easily gathered, that these spots do not inhere in the body of the Sunne, but are little starres, which interpose themselues betweene the Sunne and our sight, and are moued in Epicycles about the body of the Sunne. I my selfe haue often obserued these varieties, with wonderfull admiration of the wise∣dome and power of God; who hath dispo∣sed the course of the starres with that stu∣pendious art and skill, as that they are in no sort subiect to the apprehension of mans vnderstāding. I here omit the infinite mul∣titude of Starres, which (being neuer dis∣couered to the Astronomers vntill this tyme) are by the helpe of the foresaid in∣strument most distinctly seene in the Hea∣uens.
To cōclude, in the eight Sphere (wher∣in the fixed Starres are) there is obserued a triple motion. The first from the Fast to the West, absoluing its whole course in 24. houres. The second from the West to the East, which is thought to go one degree in a hundred yeares. The third from the South to the North, and contrariwise; by force of which motion the beginning of Aries & Libra of the eight Sphere doth descrybe certaine small circles about the beginning of Aries and Libra of the ninth Sphere; which course is perfected in 7000. yeares. Now, who will maintayne, that so multi∣plicious, and so various a locall motion should proceed from nature, and not from some one most Wise and Excellent an Vn∣derstanding or Power, thus gouerning all the heauēs for the benefit of the sublunary or earthly bodies, and particulerly of man, to whome the rest are subiect and seruicea∣ble? Neither conduceth it any thing against our scope, whether it be replyed, that these motions are performed by diuers trā∣sient pushes (euen as the rowling about of a potters wheele is occasioned by the Pot∣ter) or els by certaine stable, firme & per∣mament forces, impressed in the celestiall Orbes (as some do affirme) for by whether meanes soeuer it is caused, it necessarily proceedeth from some incorporeall cause indued with a mynd and vnderstanding, & not from any peculiar propension and incli∣nation of nature. Now this Cause (which with so powerfull a hand, and so many wayes turneth about the heauenly Orbes) we call God, who either worketh this im∣mediatly of himselfe (which is the more probable opinion) or els by the ministery and help of inferiour Spirits, and Intelli∣gences, as many do hould. Leonard Lessius, (1612) De prouidentia numinis, pp. 23-26 in Ravvleigh his ghost. Or a feigned apparition of Syr VValter Rawleigh to a friend of his, for the translating into English, the booke of Leonard Lessius (that most learned man) entituled, De prouidentia numinis, & animi immortalitate: written against atheists, and polititians of these dayes. Translated by Edward Knott in 1631, [HT Brian Ogilvie, "Natural history, ethics, and physico-theology." Historia: Empiricism and Erudition in Early Modern Europe (2005): 93ff.]
Regular readers may know that I have an interest in the invention of open-ended political and scientific progress. A key move in that history, in my opinion, is the generative role that the Ecclesiasticus 43:32 plays in the early modern period (recall here on Clarke and here). It is treated as a prediction or prophecy of the possibility of more knowledge to be discovered. One context this articulation occurs is (as it is in Clarke) in the treatment of certain species of design arguments. There is a lot to be said about the role of scientific knowledge within a design argument, but I am going to ignore that momentarily (go read the links above).
But Clarke is post-Newtonian (or at least co-extensive) writing in the eighteenth century. By which time what we would call the scientific revolution is well under way. But this made me wonder in what context the fact that there are new scientific discoveries start to figure into (post-Copernican) design arguments. The quoted passage above is the earliest I have found so far.
In context of the quoted passage, Lessius (Leys), a Leuven Jesuit (who played a non-trivial in history of economics), is offering (his "second") reason for the claim that there is one "One Supreme Power, by whose Providence all things are governed" (corrected spelling; p. 11). I like the quote because he is clearly referencing Galileo's discoveries, but (like Galileo) credits the telescope to a certain Dutchmen. And while he talks in terms of epicycles, he seems to accept elements of the Copernican hypothesis. (It's possible, however, that his stance is compatible with the Tychonic system. I need to do more careful reading. Crucially, he seems to have reproduced or confirmed Galileo's findings (only two years before [see also Armstrong]).
Now, Leys acknowledges the existence of many new astronomical discoveries, and thinks these provide additional evidence of providential design. Strikingly, anticipating Newton and Clarke, he thinks the astronomical orbits provide special evidence for God's design despite lack of knowledge about the mechanism (either God's direct action, the operation of regular natural force, or mechanical impulses,* or the role of spirits.)
Now, it is a bit unclear why Lessius argues that the astronomical phenomena are for the benefit of mankind. But the key point today is that, anticipating Clarke and Newton (see the general scholium), he takes the trajectories of the newly discovered astronomical bodies as further evidence of God's design. But unlike Clarke and Newton (post Principia), he thinks that while the celestial bodies can be discovered, knowledge of the true orbits is beyond human knowledge, and so this itself is evidence for God's design. ("who hath dispo∣sed the course of the starres with that stu∣pendious art and skill, as that they are in no sort subiect to the apprehension of mans vnderstāding.") I have phrased it in this way because it's possible that Lessius is stipulating here that true motions of celestial orbits can never be known (so that the debate over the Copenican system is indecisive).+
The underlying principle seems to be that the cause of a (newly) discovered likely or apparent regularity** beyond human comprehension entails an omnipotent (or at least vastly more expansive) mind. Now, for this to be a convincing principle, alternative hypotheses for the origin of natural order (chance, necessity, etc.) need to be already implausible. The underlying metaphysical (or perhaps epistemological) idea seems to be that there is evidence the world is regular and intelligible some mind, that is, to its designer, and only fully intelligible to it. We see here the idea that the world is a stupendous artifice whose principles are unknowable to the agents within it even if they get better at mapping it. We may say, then, that the PSR here is restricted to maker's knowledge.
*The book as a whole has a strong anti-epicurean cast.
+Before he started writing the Principia, Newton famously also doubted this (see here George Smith on the so-called Copernican Scholium).
**I insert 'likely' because that these orbits are regular is, of course, unknowable.
I need some time to reflect on the analysis, but in the meantime, I have published a bit more on Lessius since that 2005 chapter:
Ogilvie, Brian W. “Stoics, Neoplatonists, atheists, politicians: Sources and uses of early modern Jesuit natural theology.” In For the sake of learning: Essays in honor of Anthony Grafton, edited by Ann Blair and Anja-Silvia Goeing, vol. 2, 761-79. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
I can share a link to a PDF should anyone have too much time on their hands.
Posted by: Brian Ogilvie | 01/10/2019 at 03:20 AM