|
ROBERT GROSSETESTE
ON LIGHT or THE BEGINNING OF FORMS Translated
by Clare C. Riedl
THE first corporeal form which some call
corporeity is in my opinion light. For light
of its very nature diffuses itself in every
direction in such a way that a point of light
will produce instantaneously a sphere of
light of any size whatsoever, unless some
opaque object stands in the way. Now the
extension of matter in three dimensions is
a necessary concomitant of corporeity, and
this despite the fact that both corporeity
and matter are in themselves simple substances
lacking all dimension. But a form that is
in itself simple and without dimension could
not introduce dimension in every direction
into matter, which is likewise simple and
without dimension, except by multiplying
itself and diffusing itself instantaneously
in every direction and thus extending matter
in its own diffusion. For the form cannot
desert matter, because it is inseparable
from it, and matter itself cannot be deprived
of form.--But I have proposed that it is
light which possesses of its very nature
the function of multiplying itself and diffusing
itself instantaneously in all directions.
Whatever performs this operation is either
light or some other agent that acts in virtue
of its participation in light to which this
operation belongs essentially. Corporeity,
therefore, is either light itself or the
agent which performs the aforementioned operation
and introduces dimensions into matter in
virtue of its participation in light, and
acts through the power of this same light.
But the first form cannot introduce dimensions
into matter through the power of a subsequent
form. Therefore light is not a form subsequent
to corporeity, but it is corporeity itself.
Furthermore, the first corporeal form is,
in the opinion of the philosophers, more
exalted and of a nobler and more excellent
essence than all the forms that come after
it. It bears, also, a closer resemblance
to the forms that exist apart from matter.
But light is more exalted and of a nobler
and more excellent essence than all corporeal
things. It has, moreover, greater similarity
than all bodies to the forms that exist apart
from matter, namely, the intelligences. Light
therefore is the first corporeal form.
Thus light, which is the first form created
in first matter, multiplied itself by its
very nature an infinite number of times on
all sides and spread itself out uniformly
in every direction. In this way it proceeded
in the beginning of time to extend matter
which it could not leave behind, by drawing
it out along with itself into a mass the
size of the material universe. This extension
of matter could not be brought about through
a finite multiplication of light, because
the multiplication of a simple being a finite
number of times does not produce a quantity,
as Aristotle shows in the De Caelo et Mundo.
However, the multiplication of a simple being
an infinite number of times must produce
a finite quantity, because a product which
is the result of an infinite multiplication
exceeds infinitely that through the multiplication
of which it is produced, Now one simple being
cannot exceed another simple being infinitely,
but only a finite quantity infinitely exceeds
a simple being. For an infinite quantity
exceeds a simple being by infinity times
infinity. Therefore, when light, which is
in itself simple, is multiplied an infinite
number of times, it must extend matter, which
is likewise simple, into finite dimensions.
It is possible, however, that an infinite
sum of number is related to an infinite sum
in every proportion, numerical and non-numerical.
And some infinites are larger than other
infinites, and some are smaller. Thus the
sum of all numbers both even and odd is infinite.
It is at the same time greater than the sum
of all the even numbers although this is
likewise infinite, for it exceeds it by the
sum of all the odd numbers. The sum, too,
of all numbers starting with one and continuing
by doubling each successive number is infinite,
and similarly the sum of all the halves corresponding
to the doubles is infinite. The sum of these
halves must be half of the sum of their doubles.
In the same way the sum of all numbers starting
with one and multiplying by three successively
is three times the sum of all the thirds
corresponding to these triples. It is likewise
clear in regard to all kinds of numerical
proportion that there can be a proportion
of finite to infinite according to each of
them.
But if we posit an infinite sum of all doubles
starting with one, and an infinite sum of
all the halves corresponding to these doubles,
and if one, or some other finite number,
be subtracted from the sum of the halves,
then, as soon as this subtraction is made,
there will no longer be a two to one proportion
between the first sum and what is left of
the second sum. Indeed there will not be
any numerical proportion, because if a second
numerical proportion is to be left from the
first as the result of subtraction from the
lesser member of the proportion, then what
is subtracted must be an aliquot part or
aliquot parts of an aliquot part of that
from which it is subtracted. But a finite
number cannot be an aliquot part or aliquot
parts of an aliquot part of an infinite number
Therefore when we subtract a number from
an infinite sum of halves there will not
remain a numerical proportion between the
infinite sum of doubles and what is left
from the infinite sum of halves
Since this is so, it is clear that light
through the infinite multiplication of itself
extends matter into finite dimensions that
are smaller and larger according to certain
proportions that they have to one another,
namely, numerical and non-numerical For if
light through the infinite multiplication
of itself extends matter into a dimension
of two cubits, by the doubling of this same
infinite multiplication it extends it into
a dimension of four cubits, and by the dividing
in half of this infinite multiplication,
it extends it into a dimension of one cubit.
Thus it proceeds according to numerical and
non-numerical proportions.
It is my opinion that this was the meaning
of the theory of those philosophers who held
that everything is composed of atoms, and
said that bodies are composed of surfaces,
and surfaces of lines, and lines of points.
This opinion does not contradict the theory
that a magnitude is composed only of magnitudes,
because for every meaning of the word whole,
there is a corresponding meaning of the word
part. Thus we say that a half is part of
a whole, because two halves make a whole.
We say, too, that a side is part of a diameter
but in a different sense; because no matter
how many times a side is taken it does not
make a diameter, but is always less than
the diameter. Again we say that an angle
of contingence is part of a right angle because
there is an infinite number of angles of
contingence in a right angle, and yet when
an angle of contingence is subtracted from
a right angle a finite number of times the
latter becomes smaller. It is in a different
sense, however, that a point is said to be
part of a line in which it is contained an
infinite number of times, for when a point
is taken away from a line a finite number
of times this does not shorten the line.
To return therefore to my theme, I say that
light through the infinite multiplication
of itself equally in all directions extends
matter on all sides equally into the form
of a sphere and, as a necessary consequence
of this extension, the outermost parts of
matter are more extended and more rarefied
than those within, which are close to the
center. And since the outermost parts will
be rarefied to the highest degree, the inner
parts will have the possibility of further
rarefaction.
In this way light, by extending first matter
into the form of a sphere, and by rarefying
its outermost parts to the highest degree,
actualized completely in the outermost sphere
the potentiality of matter, and left this
matter without any potency to further impression.
And thus the first body in the outermost
part of the sphere, the body which is called
the firmament, is perfect, because it has
nothing in its composition but first matter
and first form. It is therefore the simplest
of all bodies with respect to the parts that
constitute its essence and with respect to
its quantity which is the greatest possible
in extent. It differs from the genus body
only in this respect, that in it the matter
is completely actualized through the first
form alone. But the genus body, which is
in this and in other bodies and has in its
essence first matter and first form; abstracts
from the complete actualization of matter
through the first form and from the diminution
of matter through the first form,
When the first body, which is the firmament,
has in this way been completely actualized,
it diffuses its light (lumen) from every
part of itself to the center of the universe.
For since light (lux) is the perfection of
the first body and naturally multiplies itself
from the first body, it is necessarily diffused
to the center of the universe. And since
this light
(lux) is a form entirely inseparable from
matter in its diffusion from the first body,
it extends along with itself the spirituality
of the matter of the first body. Thus there
proceeds from the first body light (lumen),
which is a spiritual body, or if you prefer,
a bodily spirit. This light (lumen) in its
passing does not divide the body through
which it passes, and thus it passes instantaneously
from the body of the first heaven to the
center of the universe. Furthermore, its
passing is not to be understood in the sense
of something numerically one passing instantaneously
from that heaven to the center of the universe,
for this is perhaps impossible, but its passing
takes place through the multiplication of
itself and the infinite generation of light
(lumen). This light (lumen), expanded and
brought together from the first body toward
the center of the universe, gathered together
the mass existing below the first body; and
since the first body could no longer be lessened
on account of its being completely actualized
and unchangeable, and since, too, there could
not be a space that was empty, it was necessary
that in the very gathering together of this
mass the outermost parts should be drawn
out and expanded. Thus the inner parts of
the aforesaid mass came to be more dense
and the outer parts more rarefied; and so
great was the power of this light (lumen)
gathering together-and in the very act of
gathering, separating-that the outermost
parts of the mass contained below the first
body were drawn out and rarefied to the highest
degree. Thus in the outermost parts of the
mass in question, the second sphere came
into being, completely actualized and susceptible
of no further impression. The completeness
of actualization and the perfection of the
second sphere consist in this that light
(lumen) is begotten from the first sphere
and that light (lux) which is simple in the
first sphere is doubled in the second.
Just as the light (lumen) begotten from the
first body completed the actualization of
the second sphere and left a denser mass
below the second sphere, so the light (lumen)
begotten from the second sphere completed
the actualization of the third sphere, and
through its gathering left below this third
sphere a mass of even greater density. This
process of simultaneously gathering together
and separating continued in this way until
the nine heavenly spheres were completely
actualized and there was gathered together
below the ninth and lowest sphere the dense
mass which constitutes the matter of the
four elements. But the lowest sphere, he
sphere of the moon, which also gives forth
light (lumen) from itself, )y its light (lumen)
gathered together the mass contained below
itself and, by gathering it together, thinned
out and expanded its outermost parts. The
power of this light (lumen), however, was
not so great that by drawing together it
could expand the outermost parts of this
mass to the highest degree. On this account
every part of the mass was left imperfect
and capable of being gathered together and
expanded. The highest part of his mass was
expanded, although not to the greatest possible
extent. Nevertheless by its expansion it
became fire, although remaining still the
matter of the elements. This element giving
forth light from itself and drawing together
the mass contained below it expanded its
outermost parts, but not to as great an extent
as the fire was expanded, and in this way
it produced air. Air, also, in bringing forth
from itself, a spiritual body or a bodily
spirit, and drawing together what is contained
within itself, and by drawing together, expanding
its outer parts, produced water and earth.
But because water retained more of the power
of drawing together than of the power of
expanding, water as well as earth was left
with the attribute of weight.
In this way, therefore, the thirteen spheres
of this sensible world were brought into
being. Nine of them, the heavenly spheres,
are not subject to change, increase, generation
or corruption because they are completely
actualized. The other four spheres have the
opposite mode of being, that is, they are
subject to change, increase, generation and
corruption, because they are not completely
actualized. It is clear that every higher
body, in virtue of the light (lumen) which
proceeds from it, is the form
(species) and perfection of the body that
comes after it, And just as unity is potentially
every number that comes after it, so the
first body, through the multiplication of
its light, is every body that comes after
it.
Earth is all the higher bodies because all
the higher lights come together in it. For
this reason earth is called Pan by the poets,
that is 'the whole,' and it is also given
the name Cybele, which is almost like cubile,
from cube (cubus) that is, a solid. The reason
for this is that earth, that is to say, Cybele,
the mother of all the gods, is the most compact
of all bodies, because, although the higher
lights are gathered together in it, nevertheless
they do not have their source in the earth
through its own operations, but the light
(lumen) of any sphere whatever can be educed
from it into act and operation. Thus every
one of the gods will be begotten from it
as from a kind of mother. The intermediate
bodies have a twofold relationship. Towards
lower bodies they have the same relation
as the first heaven has to all other things,
and they are related to the higher bodies
as earth is related to all other things.
And thus in a certain sense each thing contains
all other things.
The form (species) and perfection of all
bodies is light, but in the higher bodies
it is more spiritual and simple, whereas
in the lower bodies it is more corporeal
and multiplied. Furthermore, all bodies are
not of the same form (species) even though
they all proceed from light, whether simple
or multiplied, just as all numbers are not
the same in form (species) despite the fact
that they are all derived from unity by a
greater or lesser multiplication.
This discussion may perhaps clarify the meaning
of those who say that 'all things are one
by the perfection of one light' and also
the meaning of those who say that 'things
which are many are many through the multiplication
of light itself in different degrees.'
But since lower bodies participate in the
form of the higher bodies, the lower body
because it participates in the same form
as the higher body, receives its motion from
the same incorporeal moving power by which
the higher body is moved. For this reason
the incorporeal power of intelligence or
soul, which moves the first and highest sphere
with a diurnal motion, moves all the lower
heavenly spheres with this same diurnal motion.
But in proportion as these spheres are lower
they receive this motion in a more weakened
state because in proportion as a sphere is
lower the purity and strength of the first
corporeal light is lessened in it.
But although the elements participate in
the form of the first heaven, nevertheless
they are not moved by the mover of the first
heaven with a diurnal motion. Although they
participate in that first light, they are
not subject to the first moving power since
that light in them is impure, weak, and far
removed from the purity which it has in the
first body, and also because they possess
the denseness of matter which is the principle
of resistance and stubbornness. Nevertheless,
there are some who think that the sphere
of fire rotates with a diurnal motion, and
they take the rotating motion of comets to
be an indication of this. They say also that
this motion extends even to the waters of
the sea, in such a way that the tide of the
seas proceeds from it. But all sound philosophers
say that the earth is free from this motion.
In this same way, too, the spheres that come
after the second sphere which is usually
called the eighth when we compute from the
earth upward, all share in the motion of
this second sphere because they participate
in its form. Indeed this motion is proper
to each of them in addition to the diurnal
motion.
But because the heavenly spheres are completely
actualized and are not receptive of rarefaction
or condensation, light (lux) in them does
not incline the parts of matter either away
from the center so as to rarefy them, or
toward the center to condense them. On this
account the heavenly spheres are not receptive
of up or down motion but only of circular
motion by an intellectual moving power, which
by directing its glance upon them in a corporeal
way revolves the spheres themselves in a
circular corporeal motion. But because the
elements are incompletely actualized and
subject to rarefaction and condensation,
the light (lumen) which is in them inclines
them away from the center so as to rarefy
them, or toward the center so as to condense
them. And on this account they are naturally
capable of being moved in an upward or downward
motion.
The highest body, which is the simplest of
all bodies, contains four constituents, namely
form, matter, composition and the composite.
Now the form being the simplest holds the
position of unity. But matter on account
of its twofold potency, namely its susceptibility
to impressions and its receptiveness of them,
and also on account of its' denseness which
belongs fundamentally to matter but which
is primarily and principally characteristic
of a thing which is a duality, is rightly
allotted the nature of a duality. But composition
has a trinity in itself because there appears
in it informed matter and materialized form
and that which is distinctive of the composition,
which is found in every composite as a third
Constituent distinct from matter and form.
And that which is the composite proper, over
and above these three constituents, is classed
as a quaternary. There is, therefore, in
the first body, in which all other bodies
exist virtually, a quaternary and therefore
the number of the remaining bodies is basically
not more than ten. For the unity of the form,
the duality of the matter, the trinity of
the composition and the quaternity of the
composite when they are added make a total
of ten. On this account ten is the number
of the bodies of the spheres of the world,
because the sphere of the elements, although
it is divided into four, is nevertheless
one by its participation in earthly corruptible
nature.
From these considerations it is clear that
ten is the perfect number in the universe,
because every perfect whole has something
in it corresponding to form and unity, and
something corresponding to matter and duality,
something corresponding to composition and
trinity, and something corresponding to the
composite and quaternity. Nor is it possible
to add a fifth to these four. For this reason
every perfect whole is ten.
On this account it is manifest that only
five proportions found in these four numbers,
one, two, three, four, are suited to composition
and to the harmony that gives stability to
every composite. For this reason these five
proportions are the only ones that produce
harmony in musical melodies, in bodily movements,
and in rhythmic measures.
This is the end of the treatise on light
of the Bishop of Lincoln.
Who was Robert Grosseteste?
Robert Grosseteste (ca. 1170-1253). Born
into a humble family from Stowe, Suffolk,
this English theologian and philosopher went
on to become a major leader in the English
church of the thirteenth century. The early
years of Grosseteste’s life are obscure,
but it would appear that he completed the
first stages of his education at a cathedral
school in England, perhaps Hereford. In 1192,
Gerard of Wales recommended Grosseteste to
the bishop of Hereford, noting that he excelled
in the liberal arts, canon law and even medicine.
This seems to have guaranteed Grosseteste’s
first ecclesiastical appointment as he remained
part of the household of bishop William de
Vere, until his death in 1198. At this point
Grosseteste almost disappears entirely from
the historical record, although there is
evidence that he acted as judge-delegate
in Hereford sometime between 1213 and 1216.
There is also an early thirteenth-century
charter from Paris, which names a Robert
Grosseteste residing at a house in Paris;
however, since this charter concerns the
property claims of his children, some historians
have suggested that this may be another Robert
Grosseteste.
The next mention of Grosseteste is in the
episcopal register of Hugh of Lincoln, when
in 1225 Grosseteste was given a benefice
with pastoral responsibilities in the diocese
of Lincoln. In 1229, he was appointed archdeacon
of Leicester and became a canon in the cathedral
church of Lincoln. Three years later, Grosseteste
was seriously ill. Taking this as divine
warning against holding more than one benefice,
he resigned all save his position of canon.
During this period, Grosseteste also lectured
in theology at Oxford. There has been some
controversy as to when he became a master
of theology, but the first documented evidence
we have is his appointment to run the Fransciscan
school at Oxford in 1229/30. The Franciscan
chronicler, Thomas of Eccleston, wrote that
Grosseteste’s teaching was of considerable
benefit to the convent, and it explains his
influence on Franciscan theology for the
century. When Hugh of Lincoln died in 1235,
the cathedral chapter elected Grosseteste
as the next bishop. He was consecrated in
March of that year, and remained bishop of
the largest diocese in England for the next
eighteen years. In October of 1253, Grosseteste
died at the ripe old age of 83.
During his lifetime, Grosseteste was an avid
participant in European intellectual life.
His early education had given him a taste
for natural philosophy. He began producing
texts on the liberal arts, and mainly on
astronomy and cosmology. His most famous
scientific text, De luce (Concerning Light),
argued that light was the basis of all matter,
and his account of creation devotes a great
deal of space to the the biblical text of
God’s command, ‘Let there be light.’ Light
also played a significant role his epistemology,
as he followed the teachings of St. Augustine
that the human intellect comes to know truth
through illumination by divine light. Grosseteste’s
interest in the natural world was further
developed by his study of geometry, and he
is one of the first western thinkers to argue
that natural phenomenon can be described
mathematically. He also played a pivotal
role in the introduction of Aristotle to
scholastic thought, producing commentaries
on a number of Aristotle’s logical and scientific
works. Later as bishop, Grosseteste translated
the Nicomachean Ethics, making this important
work available to the West in its entirety
for the first time.
As important as science was to Grosseteste,
his ultimate intellectual fascination was
with theology. Before he became a professional
theologian, Grosseteste produced treatises
in pastoral theology. He was primarily interested
in providing texts to educate the clergy
in the sacrament of Confession. His most
famous work from this period, the Templum
Dei (the Temple of God), survives in over
ninety mansucripts from the thirteenth to
the fifteenth centuries, a testament to its
enduring popularity. The work contains the
standard theology of confession, but is also
adorned with useful tables and diagrams which
summarised some of the more complex theological
discussions on penance. In total, Grosseteste
wrote five major works on the pastoral care
throughout his long life. All reflect the
most recent theological discussions, but
are mediated with a desire to make these
ideas useful and applicable for parish priests.
At Oxford, Grosseteste lectured on Scripture,
disputed theological questions and preached
university sermons—the three main duties
of a scholastic theologian. Even after he
became bishop of Lincoln, he retained links
with theological discourse. He kept a watchful
eye over the University of Oxford, as it
was within his diocese, and ensured that
the theology faculty was following in the
footsteps of the faculty of theology at Paris.
Around 1239-1241, he began to employ his
knowledge of Greek (which he had acquired
during his tenure at Oxford) to render a
new translation of the works of the Byzantine
theologian, John Damascene. This was soon
followed by a sophisticated translation of
the entire corpus of Ps-Dionysius the Areopagite,
a set of writings that would have tremendous
influence on mystical thought in the later
Middle Ages. He also translated from the
Greek the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,
a text which Grosseteste considered to be
further proof that Jesus was the promised
Messiah.
During his eighteen years as bishop, Grosseteste
became known as a brilliant, but highly demanding,
church leader. He insisted that all his clergy
be literate and receive some training in
theology. His high standards for Christian
practice and ministry landed him in a number
of disputes with various parts of his dioceses,
especially monasteries, and most notably
his own cathedral chapter. When the cathedral
chapter refused to allow an episcopal inspection
in 1239, a long court case began which was
eventually resolved in Grosseteste’s favour
in 1245. During this dispute, Grosseteste
produced a treatise on his conception of
church leadership, now part of his letter
collection, and is one of the most comprehensive
discussions of ministry and authority in
the medieval church. Further disputes over
the activities of the archbishop of Canterbury
in the 1240’s led to Grosseteste’s appearance
at the papal court in 1250, residing at the
time in Lyons. He lectured the pope on the
major problems of the contemporary church,
indicting the papacy as a principal cause
for the current malaise. While Grosseteste’s
practical demands were eventually met, in
1253 he once again clashed with the papal
court over the appointment of an non-English
speaking cleric in the Lincoln diocese. Grosseteste’s
last letter is to the papal notary, outlining
the theological and canonical reasons why
he must resist this appointment. This letter
is one of the main reasons why some sixteenth
century thinkers considered Grosseteste a
hero for the antipapists, and John Foxe went
so far as to describe him as a martyr.
In more recent years, scholars have rejected
the image of Grosseteste as a proto-protestant,
and have attempted to place him within the
intellectual and institutional context of
the thirteenth century. His thought had a
significant impact on Oxford theology, and
his influence can be visibly seen in the
writings of John Wyclif. Of the 120 works
he penned, a great number still survive only
in manuscript form, but most of his major
philosophical and theological works have
been recently published in modern critical
editions. His life and thought provide an
important insight into the intellectual development
of scholasticism and medieval science, as
well as the theoretical and practical aspects
of church ministry.
Much of Grosseteste’s work still remains
unedited, but in the last thirty years some
of his major philosophical and theological
works have received critical attention. His
Oxford writings have been published in the
British Academy’s Auctores Britannici Medii
Aevi series: Hexaëmeron (1982), with a recent
translation by C. F. J. Martin (1996); De
cessatione legalium (1986); De decem mandatis
(1987). A new sub-series in the Corpus Christianorum,
Continuatio Mediaevalis dedicated to new
editions has recently begun, with Grosseteste’s
Expositio super epistolam s. Pauli ad Galatas,
Glossarum in s. Pauli epistolas and Tabula
(Turnhout, 1995). The editorial team of J.
W. Goering and F. A. C Mantello have edited
many of Grosseteste’s smaller pastoral works,
published in various scholarly journals,
as well as the Templum Dei (Toronto, 1984).
Critical editions of Grosseteste’s commentary
on the Psalms, the Dicta, and his translation
of and commentary on the Ps-Dionysian corpus
are all underway. Some of his sermons have
also been edited by J. McEvoy and S. Gieben.
Grosseteste’s Epistolae were printed in the
Rolls Series, vol. 25 (1861). A comprehensive
survey of Grosseteste’s writings was completed
by S. H. Thomson, The Writings of Robert
Grosseteste (Cambridge, 1940).
For his philosophical and scientific works,
see the editions of L. Baur, Die Philosophischen
Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von
Lincoln (Münster, 1912), although some are
in need of editorial revision. R. C. Dales
edited Grosseteste’s Commentarius in VIII
libros physicarum Aristotelis (Boulder, 1963),
and P. Rossi rendered an edition of his Commentarius
in libros analyticorum posterium Aristotelis
(Florence, 1980).
The most recent biography is R. W. Southern,
Robert Grosseteste: The Growth of an English
Mind in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1986), but
F. Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste Bishop of
Lincoln (London, 1899) is still of some use.
The collection of essays in Robert Grosseteste,
Scholar and Bishop, ed. D. Callus (Oxford,
1955) remains essential reading. See also
the recent studies in Robert Grosseteste:
New Perspectives in his Thought and Scholarship,
ed. J. McEvoy (Turnhout, 1995). Also relevant
is J. McEvoy, The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste
(Oxford, 1982) and S. Marrone, William of
Auvergne and Robert Grosseteste (Princeton,
1983).
|
Evans Experientialism 
