Abstract
This is a mainly historiographic chapter, which introduces Part III – entitled “Violent Motion”. This chapter describes the common (erroneous) agreement among historians (especially since Annelise Maier and Alexandre Koyré), that Jesuits in general – and Fabri in particular – adamantly rejected inertia, or more exactly, Conservation of Rectilinear Motion, i.e. the assertion that an object once moved in a certain direction, and henceforth affected by no other factor, will continue ad infinitum in its motion along that very direction with uniform velocity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I have discussed this aspect (in less detail than here) in Elazar 2008.
- 2.
In theorem 62 of the first book of Fabri’s Tractatus physicus de motu locali (1646) he explains that a force applied on a leaden ball will move it more slowly than the same force applied to a much lighter ivory ball (with the same diameter) because of some “laziness of matter” (inertia materiae) which inhibits motion: “sit globus plumbeus 12 librarum, sit eburneus eiusdem diametri 2 librarum, v.g. haud dubie eadem potentia producet intensiorem impetum in eburneo, ut patet experientia, & ratio constat ex dictis; quasi vero sit aliqua materiae inertia, quae motum respuat” (Fabri 1646, lib. 1, th. 62, p. 40). See also Section 11.2 above.
- 3.
Maier 1951, pp. 312–313. This is how Fabri describes some of Descartes’ views, which he himself renounces (a passage quoted by Maier): “Docet… Deum omnium motuum solam causam esse; nihil reale et positivum in corpore moto reperiri, quod quiescenti non insit; legibus naturae adversari ut quiescat id quod semel movetur aut moveatur quod semel quiescit; omnem motum ex natura sua rectum esse” (Fabri 1674, p. 26; see also “Honoré Fabri: A Short Biography” above). Fabri’s exact motives in formulating such an anxious attempt to distance himself from Descartes’ philosophy are still not entirely clear – further research is required concerning this issue; it is highly probable though that it is connected to Descartes’ 1663 condemnation, under Jesuit pressure and with the possible involvement of Fabri’s himself (see Section 19.4 below).
- 4.
Clavelin 1974, p. 102, n. 116.
- 5.
Drake 1975, p. 33, n. 3.
- 6.
Galluzzi 2001, p. 267, n. 93.
- 7.
Baldini 2004, p. 106. In his article Baldini shows that the prominent Jesuit Gabriel Vazquez was “an important and even surprising exception” among the Jesuits (ibid., p. 107), adopting Buridan’s view of the impetus as a non “self-consuming” property and yet rejecting Buridan’s claim that motion without resistance (e.g. in void) is by definition impossible (ibid., p. 135). It seems worth checking for a possible influence of Vasquez on Fabri, as well as searching for some other contemporary Jesuits (even less explored by modern historians than Fabri and Vasquez) who might also be revealed as “exceptions”.
- 8.
See Blum 1999, p. 235, as well as Note 3 above.
References
Baldini, Ugo. 2004. Ontology and Mechanics in Jesuit Scholasticism: The Case of Gabriel Vasquez. In Scientiae et Artes: Die Vermittlung alten und neuen wissens in Literatur, Kunst und Music, ed. Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer, 99–142. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz in Kommission.
Bertoloni Meli, Domenico. 2000. Inertia. In Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton, ed. W. Applebaum, 326–328. New York, NY: Garland.
Blum, Paul Richard. 1999. Aristotelianism more geometrico: Honoré Fabri. In Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Conversations with Aristotle, ed. Constance Blackwell, 234–247. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Boehm, Alfred. 1965. L’aristotélisme d’Honoré Fabri (1607–1688). Revue des science religieuses 39:305–360.
Clavelin, Maurice. 1974. The Natural Philosophy of Galileo: Essay on the Origins and Formation of Classical Mechanics (trans: Pomerans, A.J.). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
Des Chene, Dennis. 1996. Physiologia: Natural Philosophy in Late Aristotelian and Cartesian Thought. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Drake, Stillman. 1974. Impetus Theory and Quanta of Speed Before and After Galileo. Physis 16:47–75.
Drake, Stillman. 1975. Impetus Theory Reappraised. Journal of the History of Ideas 36(1):27–46.
Elazar, Michael. 2008. Honoré Fabri and the Trojan Horse of Inertia. Science in Context 21(1):1–38.
Fabri, Honoré. 1646. Tractatus physicus de motu locali, in quo effectus omnes, qui ad impetum, motum naturalem, violentum, & mixtum pertinent, explicantur, & ex principiis physicis demonstrantur; auctore Petro Mousnerio Doctore Medico; cuncta excerpta ex praelectionibus R. P. Honorati Fabry, Societatis Iesu. Lyon.
Fabri, Honoré. 1674. Honorati Fabri societatis Iesu Ad P. Ignatium Gastonem Pardesium, eiusdem societatis Iesu, epistolae tres de sua hypothesi philosophica. Mainz.
Gabbey, Alan. 1980. Force and Inertia in the Seventeenth Century: Descartes and Newton. In Descartes: Philosophy, Mathematics and Physics, ed. Stephen Gaukroger, 230–320. Sussex: Harvester Press.
Galluzzi, Paolo. 2001. Gassendi and l’affaire Galilée of the Laws of Motion. In Galileo in context, ed. Jürgen Renn, 239–275. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graneau, Peter, and Neal Graneau. 2006. In the Grip of the Distant Universe: The Science of Inertia. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific.
Maier, Annaliese. 1951. Zwei Grundprobleme der scholastischen Naturphilosophie: Das Problem der intensiven Grösse; Die Impetustheorie. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura.
Maier, Annaliese. 1982. On the Threshold of Exact Science: Selected Writings of Anneliese Maier on Late Medieval Natural Philosophy (ed. and trans: Sargent, S.D.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Newton, Isaac. 1999. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (trans: Cohen, B. and Whitman, A.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Redondi, Pietro. 1987. Galileo Heretic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Elazar, M. (2011). Fabri and Conservation of Rectilinear Motion. In: Honoré Fabri and the Concept of Impetus: A Bridge between Paradigms. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 288. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1605-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1605-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1604-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1605-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)