Note 873 — Chapter VIII · THE WATERS

In the dialogue constituting the Quaestiones naturales Adelard’s 440nephew asks if the following theory is true: “Aiunt enim verum occeanum per torridam fluentem brachia immense quantitatis fluentia ab orientali et occidentali plaga in articam et in antarticam refundere regionem. Illis igitur vi magna confluentibus redundationem hanc fieri dicunt ut ictus nobis accessum pariat, cessio vero recessum.” To this Adelard replies: “Philosophorum dictis invidere non ausim; illud tamen audacter affirmem: si ita ut aiunt maxima conveniunt brachia, semel comixtis undis secundo ictum non fieri neque enim convenit iterum eas separari; vel certe si iterum collidantur minor erit secundus ictus quam primus et tertius quam secundus itaque et quandoque minimus, deinde nullus. Videant igitur illi quid dixerint; ego pro me breviter respondebo. Recursus itaque brachiorum colligo; eorundem etiam obviationibus non contradico; non tamen ea conflui vel collidi concedo. Impotentie autem huius causam in ipsius terre situ facio. Cum enim ipsa brachia sibi obviare atque confluere impetuose festinent, fit tandem cum montium interpositione tum ipsius terre situ quodam elatiore ut ab eodem cursu dum deficiunt referantur. Itaque fit ut quo ea paternus motus ac naturalis impellit, ab eodem loci ipsius reducat situs. Licet non ignorem quosdam esse qui hunc motum nili mari idest caribdi dicant estuare. Quod si verum esset in maribus illis que torride zone viciniora sunt vis talis nec minus valeret; nunc vero illa omni fere tali carent agitatione; eo videlicet quod ab illa causa quam supra scripsimus procul remota sunt” (Quaest. nat., 52 (53)).

It is not altogether clear as to what is meant by the last two sentences of this quotation, which is here given as in the printed text (see the Bibliography under Adelard, II) without collation from the manuscripts (see Haskins, Studies, 1924, p. 26). If the word nili is a corruption of lunae, they may possibly be interpreted as a denial of the lunar control theory of the tides. A passage from the Disputationes adversus astrologos of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola according to Duhem, Système, vol. iii, 1915, p. 116, cites a certain “Adelandus” as giving expression to views closely allied to those expressed in the preceding quotation. If Adelard is meant by “Adelandus,” as Duhem assumes (ibid., pp. 116–117), Pico’s citation may well refer to this chapter of the Quaestiones naturales. Adelandus, in any case, is made categorically to deny the possibility of lunar control over the tides. Incidentally, it may be added that Duhem was unfamiliar with the text of the Quaestiones naturales at the time that he wrote the third volume of his Système du monde and that Almagià’s otherwise exhaustive monograph on the history of theories of the tides gives us nothing on Adelard. Examination of the manuscripts (Haskins, loc. cit.) might throw light on the problem. The phrase “mari idest caribdi,” in the next-to-the-last sentence of the quotation above, is not found in the manuscript copy of the Quaestiones naturales referred to in the Bibliography under Adelard, II. Gollancz’s translation of this phrase, 441“one sea, the Caribbean” is an obvious absurdity (Gollancz, Dodi ve-Nechdi, 1920, p. 141).