From Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 14566
I am having a problem translating this sentence that I transcribed so that it makes sense. Is the text corrupt?
Quinimo eciam aliqui tantum racionis iudicium sunt secuti quod confessi sunt oppositum eius quod ad sensum manifestissime apparebat, sicut Eraclitus concessit non posse moueri digitum propter racionem, que probat quod motu uno mouent omnia, quod reputabat impossibile, quam soluere nesciebat.
Yes, indeed, some also followed the judgment of reason so much so that they confessed the opposite of that which was most obviously apparent to the senses, just as Heraclitus had conceded that he could not even wave his finger, on account of reason that proves that all things move in one [continuous] motion, which he thought impossible, which (quam -- racionem) he did not know how to solve.
The closest text that may shed light on it is found in Albert the Great:
haec est quam Heraclitus tenuit, qui tandem post longum studium in fine vitae suae sic profecit in philosophia, quod opinatus est quod nihil penitus de aliquo verum posset dicere : quia ante dictum mutaretur ad aliam formam per quam dictum falsificaretur : et ideo dixit digitum debere solum moveri, quo significaretur res esse in continuo motu.
Heraclitus after long study at the end of his life, and accomplished in philosophy, held the opinion that nothing completely true about anything can be said; because before a pronouncement can be made, a thing is changed to another form and therefore the pronouncement would be false; and on that account he said that he need only wave a forefinger, to signify that things are in continual motion.
I am having a problem translating this sentence that I transcribed so that it makes sense. Is the text corrupt?
Quinimo eciam aliqui tantum racionis iudicium sunt secuti quod confessi sunt oppositum eius quod ad sensum manifestissime apparebat, sicut Eraclitus concessit non posse moueri digitum propter racionem, que probat quod motu uno mouent omnia, quod reputabat impossibile, quam soluere nesciebat.
Yes, indeed, some also followed the judgment of reason so much so that they confessed the opposite of that which was most obviously apparent to the senses, just as Heraclitus had conceded that he could not even wave his finger, on account of reason that proves that all things move in one [continuous] motion, which he thought impossible, which (quam -- racionem) he did not know how to solve.
The closest text that may shed light on it is found in Albert the Great:
haec est quam Heraclitus tenuit, qui tandem post longum studium in fine vitae suae sic profecit in philosophia, quod opinatus est quod nihil penitus de aliquo verum posset dicere : quia ante dictum mutaretur ad aliam formam per quam dictum falsificaretur : et ideo dixit digitum debere solum moveri, quo significaretur res esse in continuo motu.
Heraclitus after long study at the end of his life, and accomplished in philosophy, held the opinion that nothing completely true about anything can be said; because before a pronouncement can be made, a thing is changed to another form and therefore the pronouncement would be false; and on that account he said that he need only wave a forefinger, to signify that things are in continual motion.