Foundations of Science

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 393–398 | Cite as

On Indivisibles and Infinitesimals: A Response to David Sherry, “The Jesuits and the Method of Indivisibles”

  • Amir Alexander


In “The Jesuits and the Method of Indivisibles” David Sherry criticizes a central thesis of my book Infinitesimal: that in the seventeenth century the Jesuits sought to suppress the method of indivisibles because it undermined their efforts to establish a perfect rational and hierarchical order in the world, modeled on Euclidean Geometry. Sherry accepts that the Jesuits did indeed suppress the method, but offers two objections. First, that the book does not distinguish between indivisibles and infinitesimals, and that whereas the Jesuits might have reason to object to the first, the second posed no problem for them. Second, seeking an alternative explanation for the Jesuits’ hostility to the method, he proposes that its implicit atomism conflicted with the Catholic doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist, and was therefore heretical. In response to Sherry’s first criticism I point out that the Jesuits objected to all forms of the method of indivisibles, and that the distinction between indivisibles and infinitesimals consequently cannot explain the fight over the method in the seventeenth century. With regards to the Eucharist, I agree with Sherry that the Jesuits were indeed concerned about the method’s affinity to atomism and materialism, though for a different reason: these doctrines were antithetical to their efforts to impose divine hierarchy and order on the world. In as much as the technical details of the miracle of the Eucharist mattered, they provided no grounds for objecting to a mathematical (rather than physical) doctrine.


Infinitesimal Indivisibles Jesuits Cavalieri Clavius Euclidean geometry 


  1. Alexander, A. (2014). Infinitesimal: How a dangerous mathematical theory shaped the modern world. New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
  2. Bellarmine, R. SJ. (1615). Letter to Paolo Foscarini, 12 April 1615. In M. Oster (Ed.), Science in Europe, 1500–1800 (pp. 71–73). New York: Palgrave Macmillan/The Open University.Google Scholar
  3. Bosmans, H. (1927). Andreas Tacquet (S.J.) et son traité d’ ≪Arithmetique théorique et pratique≫. Isis, 9, 66–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavalieri, B. (1647). Exercitationes geometricae sex. Bologna: Iacob Monti.Google Scholar
  5. Clavius, C. SJ. (1589). In disciplinas mathematica prolegomena. In Euclidis Elementorum Libri XV. Rome: Barthlomaeus.Google Scholar
  6. Dear, P. (2009). Revolutionizing the sciences: European knowledge and its ambitions, 1500–1700 (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeGandt, F. (1987). Les indivisibles de Torricelli. In L’oeuvre de Torricell: Science Galiléenne et nouvelle géométrie. Nice: CNRS and Université de Nice.Google Scholar
  8. Greenblatt, S. (2011). The swerve: How the world became modern. New Yok: Norton.Google Scholar
  9. Loria, G., & Vassura, G. (1919–1944). Opere di Evangelista Torricelli. Faenza: G. Montanari.Google Scholar
  10. Redondi, P. (1987). Galileo: Heretic. (R. Rosenthal, Trans.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Saccherio, H. SJ. (1733). Euclides ab omni naevo vindicatus, sive conatus geometricus quo stabiliuntur prima ipsa universae geometriae principia. Milan: Paolo Antonio Montano.Google Scholar
  12. Sherry, D. (2017). The Jesuits and the method of indivisibles. Foundations of Science. doi: 10.1007/s10699-017-9525-z.
  13. Tacquet, A. SJ. (1651). Cylindricorum et annularium libri IV. Antwerp: Iacob Mersius.Google Scholar
  14. Torricelli, E. (1644). Opera geometrica. Florence: A. Masse & L. de Landis.Google Scholar
  15. Wallis, J. (1685). A treatise of algebra, both historical and practical. London: John Playford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HistoryUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations