| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Searles O'Dubhain
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 15, 2004 10:07 pm Post subject: An Irish Astronomical Tract |
 |
|
Here are two links to a treatise on Astronomy that was translated and
amended in Irish:
http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/G600030/
http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/adt/public_html/adt-NU/public/adt-NU20030430.161139/index.html/
The importance of this treatise is not in its Irish origins but in the
ways that the Irish saw it based on their existing knowledge. It was a
text of the Irish schools when Irish culture was still surviving in a
relatively unblemished state from the onslaught of English conquest,
Cromwellian atrocities, oppressive laws and a Famine which was largely
avoidable if those who had the upper hand also have a pittance of
understanding. All of these latter factors created a vacuum for native
learning/tradition and also decreased the standing of the Filidh and
secular education, while serving to elevate the role of the Catholic
Church and its religious teachings among the survivors. But for all
these, there would still be schools of the Filidh in Ireland today.
Searles |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Searles O'Dubhain
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:51 am Post subject: Re: An Irish Astronomical Tract |
|
|
Here's a sample of what is said in these texts:
3. DICUNT PHILOSOPHI, ET CETERA.
The philosophers declare that there are three motions, i.e., the motion
from the centre, the motion towards the centre, and the motion around
the centre.
Motion from the centre is the motion that proceeds equally out from the
earth
to every portion of the surrounding circle. Motion to the centre is the
motion
that proceeds downwards from the surrounding circle to the earth. Motion
around the centre is the motion that revolves with the circle, and from
its
prime motions is produced every motion that is in the world, and one of
these
is the motion of the four elements, for some of them move from the
centre,
and some to the centre, and nothing moves around the centre naturally
but the
firmament or some portion of it.
Of the two elements that move to the centre, earth and water, the motion
to the
centre is swifter in earth than in water. Of the two elements that move
from the
centre, air and fire, fire moves more swiftly from the centre than air.
And thus
the elements that move to the centre are heavy, and the elements that
move
from the centre are light. From these facts let us conclude that earth
is the
heaviest element and fire the lightest. And although the water and the
air are
temperate between them, compared with each other and with the other
elements, heaviness and lightness are found in them, for, although water
is
heavy compared to air, it is light compared to earth, and thus though
air is
light compared to water, it is heavy compared to fire.
4. CALOR ET FRIGIDITAS, ET CETERA.
Heat and cold, wetness and dryness, are the four principal properties of
the four elements, and they are accidents inseparable from them, and
two of these properties are active, i.e., heat and cold. The reason why
they are
designated active qualities is that when we touch them, they make known
to us
then immediately at that very moment their own essence, for when we
touch
fire, it makes known to us then the essence of its heat. So, when we
touch hoar
frost it makes known to us then immediately at that same moment the
essence
of its coldness. The reason why we feel those immoderate things is that
we
have a moderate nature.
The remaining two properties are passive, and the reason why they are
designated passive qualities here is because they do not make known
their
powers when touched, for when we touch a wet object or a dry object we
do
not feel its wetness or its dryness suddenly as we feel the heat of the
fire or the
cold of the hoarfrost. That is why some of those properties are said to
be active
and some passive. Every body from the sphere of fire downwards is
compounded of these (qualities) and they themselves (the bodies) are
simple,
even though they are said to be compounded of their own properties as
hot,
dry fire is a compound of those two properties [i.e., of heat and
dryness], since
it is those two properties that preponderate in fire. And air is a
compound of
dryness and dampness, because it is they that preponderate in it and
thus is the
preponderance of the other two elements with regard to their own
properties.
Although these four elements are compounded of the principal properties,
they
are termed simple in comparison with the elemental bodies that are
compounded of themselves. Thus these four are both compound and simple.
Simple compared to every object that is compounded of themselves.
Compound compared to the prime qualities which are essential. Thus it is
fitting for a simple body to have a simple motion, and for a compound
body to
have a compound motion.
And it is clear, that every body in which heat preponderates, moves from
the
centre upwards; and every body in which cold preponderates, moves in the
direction of the centre. It is the heat that causes lightness in the
natural bodies
and it is the cold that causes heaviness and it is the dryness that
causes rapidity
of movement towards their natural place in light bodies. In the same way
dampness causes slowness of motion in the bodies in which it is. From
these
statements we conclude that it is the nature of every one of those
elements to
remain in its own natural position in which is the end of its own
motion,
because if one of those elements were displaced by force from its own
natural
position, the nature of it would draw it again to the same position.
*** End of quoted text ***
It's clear from these texts that ancient philosophers and scientists saw
all things as being relative to the Earth and to the individual. This
is again a reflection of the center and the periphery of existence where
order is formed through sources and extremes. Modern points if view see
cosmology from entirely different viewpoints. One wonders what the
viewpoints of thought will be in the future when our own science and
knowledge are seen as archaic? The fringe of such thought is no
considering multidimensional space and dimensions that allow for a
simplification of field theory and the changes that can exist between
matter and energy. An excellent book on the topic is:
Hyperspace, A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time-Warps
and the 10th Dimension, by Michio Kaku
In this book, Kaku's theme is to demonstrate that the essence of the
universe is not how it appears or is sensed, but that it can be
discovered through a mathematical and scientific "peeling" of the layers
of appearances as we encounter them. It is IMO this peeling and
expanding process that takes the ancient knowledge forward to the realms
of solution and understanding. When we understand a layer, it is time to
go beyond and peel another layer or expand an additional understanding.
That is IMO the work of the Druid Way in all things, for all times, and
within every form of knowledge. First we study what is known; then we
look beneath the surface for understanding; we expand beyond what is
known to inquire into the unknown; we discover the wisdom that exists
beyond the ordinary, forming the bridge between what is learned and that
which can be known.
In this approach we emulate the ancient philosophers:
The philosophers declare that there are three motions, i.e., the motion
from the centre, the motion towards the centre, and the motion around
the centre.
Searles |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:37 am Post subject: Re: An Irish Astronomical Tract |
|
|
"Searles O'Dubhain" <odubhain@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tP6dnX5KdJewzlLdRVn-uw@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Here's a sample of what is said in these texts:
3. DICUNT PHILOSOPHI, ET CETERA.
The philosophers declare that there are three motions, i.e., the motion
from the centre, the motion towards the centre, and the motion around
the centre.
Motion from the centre is the motion that proceeds equally out from the
earth
to every portion of the surrounding circle. Motion to the centre is the
motion
that proceeds downwards from the surrounding circle to the earth. Motion
around the centre is the motion that revolves with the circle, and from
its
prime motions is produced every motion that is in the world, and one of
these
is the motion of the four elements, for some of them move from the
centre,
and some to the centre, and nothing moves around the centre naturally
but the
firmament or some portion of it.
Of the two elements that move to the centre, earth and water, the motion
to the
centre is swifter in earth than in water. Of the two elements that move
from the
centre, air and fire, fire moves more swiftly from the centre than air.
And thus
the elements that move to the centre are heavy, and the elements that
move
from the centre are light. From these facts let us conclude that earth
is the
heaviest element and fire the lightest. And although the water and the
air are
temperate between them, compared with each other and with the other
elements, heaviness and lightness are found in them, for, although water
is
heavy compared to air, it is light compared to earth, and thus though
air is
light compared to water, it is heavy compared to fire.
4. CALOR ET FRIGIDITAS, ET CETERA.
Heat and cold, wetness and dryness, are the four principal properties of
the four elements, and they are accidents inseparable from them, and
two of these properties are active, i.e., heat and cold. The reason why
they are
designated active qualities is that when we touch them, they make known
to us
then immediately at that very moment their own essence, for when we
touch
fire, it makes known to us then the essence of its heat. So, when we
touch hoar
frost it makes known to us then immediately at that same moment the
essence
of its coldness. The reason why we feel those immoderate things is that
we
have a moderate nature.
The remaining two properties are passive, and the reason why they are
designated passive qualities here is because they do not make known
their
powers when touched, for when we touch a wet object or a dry object we
do
not feel its wetness or its dryness suddenly as we feel the heat of the
fire or the
cold of the hoarfrost. That is why some of those properties are said to
be active
and some passive. Every body from the sphere of fire downwards is
compounded of these (qualities) and they themselves (the bodies) are
simple,
even though they are said to be compounded of their own properties as
hot,
dry fire is a compound of those two properties [i.e., of heat and
dryness], since
it is those two properties that preponderate in fire. And air is a
compound of
dryness and dampness, because it is they that preponderate in it and
thus is the
preponderance of the other two elements with regard to their own
properties.
Although these four elements are compounded of the principal properties,
they
are termed simple in comparison with the elemental bodies that are
compounded of themselves. Thus these four are both compound and simple.
Simple compared to every object that is compounded of themselves.
Compound compared to the prime qualities which are essential. Thus it is
fitting for a simple body to have a simple motion, and for a compound
body to
have a compound motion.
And it is clear, that every body in which heat preponderates, moves from
the
centre upwards; and every body in which cold preponderates, moves in the
direction of the centre. It is the heat that causes lightness in the
natural bodies
and it is the cold that causes heaviness and it is the dryness that
causes rapidity
of movement towards their natural place in light bodies. In the same way
dampness causes slowness of motion in the bodies in which it is. From
these
statements we conclude that it is the nature of every one of those
elements to
remain in its own natural position in which is the end of its own
motion,
because if one of those elements were displaced by force from its own
natural
position, the nature of it would draw it again to the same position.
*** End of quoted text ***
It's clear from these texts that ancient philosophers and scientists saw
all things as being relative to the Earth and to the individual. This
is again a reflection of the center and the periphery of existence where
order is formed through sources and extremes. Modern points if view see
cosmology from entirely different viewpoints. One wonders what the
viewpoints of thought will be in the future when our own science and
knowledge are seen as archaic? The fringe of such thought is no
considering multidimensional space and dimensions that allow for a
simplification of field theory and the changes that can exist between
matter and energy. An excellent book on the topic is:
Hyperspace, A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time-Warps
and the 10th Dimension, by Michio Kaku
In this book, Kaku's theme is to demonstrate that the essence of the
universe is not how it appears or is sensed, but that it can be
discovered through a mathematical and scientific "peeling" of the layers
of appearances as we encounter them. It is IMO this peeling and
expanding process that takes the ancient knowledge forward to the realms
of solution and understanding. When we understand a layer, it is time to
go beyond and peel another layer or expand an additional understanding.
That is IMO the work of the Druid Way in all things, for all times, and
within every form of knowledge. First we study what is known; then we
look beneath the surface for understanding; we expand beyond what is
known to inquire into the unknown; we discover the wisdom that exists
beyond the ordinary, forming the bridge between what is learned and that
which can be known.
In this approach we emulate the ancient philosophers:
The philosophers declare that there are three motions, i.e., the motion
from the centre, the motion towards the centre, and the motion around
the centre.
|
Interesting. Hmm! Could wish that I'd had that text to hand when writing the
book, by way of illustrating some ideas. No mind - the ideas are in there.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:06 am Post subject: Re: An Irish Astronomical Tract |
|
|
"Searles O'Dubhain" <odubhain@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tP6dnX5KdJewzlLdRVn-uw@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Here's a sample of what is said in these texts:
3. DICUNT PHILOSOPHI, ET CETERA.
|
Just had a look at it in some depth - that is one hell of a competent work
on astronomy and cosmology.
I'd disagree with the dating though. CELT puts it at 14th-15th century.
There's one or two problems with that. The text put the order of the planets
as - going away from earth - as Moon, Mercury, Venus, that is, Mercury is
closer to us than Venus. Now in antiquity the speed of motion of a planet
was taken as an indication of its proximity, therefore Mercury was thought
to be closer. However, somewhere between the 2nd century BC and the
beginning of the Common Era it was deduced that Venus was in fact closer.
Now it is argued that its a re-rendering of a work by a Jewish astronomer of
Alexandria dated 800 AD - which suggests some very Hellenised astronomy.
Consequently the dating may be dubious - I would have expected an
Alexandrian astronomer to have got the order right, though I'd have to dig
up the supposed Latin original to be certain. Again, arguments about the
spherical nature of the world are known from the 8th century in Ireland, and
the arguments in the text are based from an Irish POV - arguments about the
sphericity of the earth go back to Classical Greece. It is also taking into
account early medieval - not 14th-15th century - ecclesiastical objections
to the theory, and using arguments similar to those found in one way or
another in Irish materials perhaps 100 years before the supposed source. The
explanation of lunar eclipses pretty much encompasses Classical Greek
explanation as well. And again, the order of the elements disagrees with the
Greek ideas established since Plato.
The argument that the scribe made a mistake when giving the value of pi is
definitely reaching:
"It runs tri mile & feth. It is evident that the scribe intended to write s
instead of f and, if we read tri mile & seachtmadh, we get the fraction
correctly."
Poppycock - that is assuming a priori that the Alexandrian work is the
source and assuming a scribal error to prove it. The necesary argument of
dependence on the Alexandrian work is undermined by the observation that
"the habitable regions of the earth are carried further north than they
would have been in Messahalah's time," - no they would have been in exactly
the same places are far as the Irish were concerned - and that "some
statements in these chapters [are] contradictory to the teachings of
Messahalah." Well, how can Messahalah be the source if the author is
disagreeing with him in some substantial palces? The article goes on "It is
noteworthy that the interesting chapters on geology ( , that on mineral
springs (9), that on volcanoes (10), on the tides (11), on the Nile (12),
the seven habitable regions (36) are non-Messahalic and non-astronomical, so
it would seem that the source from which these chapters were taken was
cosmographical rather than purely astronomical." In short, there are
substantial places where the Alexandrian is most definitely *not* the
source, which rather screws the idea that the whole thing was inspired by
Messahalah. Nevertheless, the writer assumes another unidentified Latin
source, but this assumes that the Irish couldn't think for themselves. A
fairly standard Romanocentric argument on his part.
In fact the earliest value for pi was 3 until later Greek mathematicians
refined it - 3 is, however, a fairly good engineering approximation for
things like earthworks. It's not in the least improbable that the Irish
might have used that value.
All in all, it suggests the info it contains is much earlier than the
proposed date of translation, and in fact points to a date predating the 9th
century Alexandrian astronomer. I'd have a guess, based on the order of the
planets, that it was no later than the beginning of the Common Era, or maybe
800-1000 years before the Alexandrian work, and pretty old-fashioned with
regards to the order of the elements and the planets even then.
Now that's as far as I'll go on what can be demonstrated. I would however
doubt that anything in there was a great surprise to the Irish learned
class. I would dount that the Irish scholar misunderstood the work - I
suspect that where there are differences, it was due to disagreement. It is
interesting to note that the work is not considered to be dependent upon the
1504 Latin version edited by Stabius or the 1549 version by Heller. It is
also remarked that it is not a literal translation of Stabius, but an
adaptation, and practically every chapter contains material that differs
from the Latin work. One might suggest that it is an original work,
depending upon indigenous thought, that has been influenced at a later date
by a Latin work, rather than the lLtin work being the source. Quite frankly
I don't think the idea that the Latin text is the source is tenable - I'd
also be rather dubious of suggestions that Messahalah was more than an
influence.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: An Irish Astronomical Tract |
|
|
"Searles O'Dubhain" <odubhain@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tP6dnX5KdJewzlLdRVn-uw@giganews.com...
| Quote: | The philosophers declare that there are three motions, i.e., the motion
from the centre, the motion towards the centre, and the motion around
the centre.
|
Interesting. That is certainly an observable natural law, and a basic
principle of Aikido movement, too!  Spirals and circles.
Leigh |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
