The Grounds for Conflict: Grienberger, Grassi, Galileo, and Posterity

  • Mordechai Feingold
Part of the Archimedes book series (ARIM, volume 6)


In 1672 John Collins asked Isaac Newton for his opinion on Giovanni Alfonso Borelli’s De motionibus naturalibus a gravitate pendentibus. Newton replied that he esteemed Borelli “among the middle sort of Authors,” then added: “I find not that he hath added any thing considerable to the science of motion but onely proved things already evidently known. Nor hath he done that without some Paralogisms ... And some of them are not onely proved parallogistically but are also false ... but yet he may be of good use to young students in Mechanicks.” A decade and a half later, Newton had another occasion to reflect on Borelli’s merit, and now he proved more complimentary, in part because Borelli served as a whip with which to lash out at Hooke. “I am told,” Newton wrote Halley, that Hooke pretended “I had all from him.”


Seventeenth Century Roman College Vatican City Aristotelian Natural Philosophy Copernican System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, eds. H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scott, A. R. Hall and Laura Tilling, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1959–77), i. 231–2; ii. 437–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander Koyré, The Astronomical Revolution, trans. R. E. W. Maddison (London, 1973), 513.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedrich Nietzsche, Unfashionable Observations, trans. Richard T. Gray (Stanford, 1995), 140.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beverley Southgate, “White-Washing the Canon: ‘Minor’ Figures and the History of Philosophy,” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 2 (1994), 117–30, at 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ugo Baldini, “Legem impone subactis.” Studi sufilosofia e scienza dei Gesuiti in Italia. 1540–1632(Rome, 1992), 92 n. 93.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le opère di Galileo Galilei: Edizione Nazionale, ed. Antonio Favaro, 20 vols. (Florence, 1890— 1909), x. 502, trans. Pasquale M. D’Elia, Galileo in China: Relations through the Roman College between Galileo and the Jesuit Scientist-Missionaries (1610–1640), trans. Rufus Suter and Matthew Sciascia (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), 9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galileo, Opere, x. 442, trans. James M. Lattis, Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christoph Clavius and the collapse of Ptolemaic cosmology(Chicago and London, 1994), 184.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galileo, Opere, x. 445, trans. Mario Biagioli, “Replication or Monopoly? The Economies of Invention and Discovery in Galileo’s Observations of 1610,” Science in Context, 13 (2000), 547–90, at 556.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    August Ziggelaar, “Jesuit astronomy north of the Alps: Four unpublished Jesuit letters, 1611–1620,” in Christoph Clavius e l’aftività scientifica dei Gesuiti nelVetà di Galileo, ed. Ugo Baldini (Rome, 1995), 101–32, at 102–3, 117–21; Galileo, Opere, x. 480. According to Grienberger’s letter to Galileo, he and his colleagues had also observed the phases of Venus before learning of Galileo’s observations. Galileo, Opere, xi. 34Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galileo, Opere, xi. 31–5; trans. Biagioli, “Replication or Monopoly,” 558. The witticism was catchy. Months later, Galileo offered 10,000 scudi to anyone capable of constructing a telescope that would exhibit satellites around one planet only (Galileo, Opere, xi. 107). As for Clavius, by July, Galileo wrote a correspondent that he had given up on convincing him: “it would have been little less than a sacrilege to tire and trouble with discourses and comments an old man so venerable for his age, doctrine and goodness; he has with so many and such illustrious efforts gained an immortal reputation and so it means little to his glory that in this particular case alone he trespasses and remains with a false opinion on a matter on which it is easy to be convinced.” Galileo, Opere, xi. 151, trans. Annibale Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church (Vatican City, 1994), 121–2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    For the speech, see Galileo, Opere, i. 293–8; Lattis, Between Copernicus and Galileo, 193–5, 199.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denise Aricô, “‘In doctrinis glorificate Dominum.’ Alcuni aspetti della ricezione di Clavio nella produzione scientifica di Mario Bettini,” in Baldini, ed. ChristophClavius e l’attività scientifica dei Gesuiti, 191–198; idem., Scienza, teatro e spiritualità barocca. Il gesuita Mario Bettini (Bologna, 1996), 211–17.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baldini, “Legem impone subactis,” 227–8; Galileo, Opere, xi. 126–7. Michael John Gorman, “The Scientific Counter-Revolution: Mathematics, natural philosophy and experimentalism in Jesuit culture, 1580-C.1670,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, European University Institute (Florence, 1998), 79. See also de Ceglia’s article below. Tamburelli, another suspect, sent a letter of apology to Grienberger as well. D’Elia, Galileo in China, 13.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galileo, Opere, xi. 179–80; response to Grienberger, Ibid., xi. 178–203.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Galileo, Opere, xi. 434; Fantoli, Galileo, 158–9 n. 75.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galileo, Opere, xi. 512; Stillman Drake, Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography (Chicago and London, 1978), 210–11.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Galileo, Opere, xi, 477, 272–4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galileo, Opere, xi. 480.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 76, trans. Gorman, p xxx below.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 115; trans. Fantolli, Galileo, 140.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ziggelaar, “Jesuit astronomy north of the Alps, 104–6, 122–7.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 129, trans. Fantolli, Galileo, 167.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    For their rivalry, see Rivka Feldhay, Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue? (Cambridge and New York, 1995).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galileo, Opere, v. 291–5; trans. Maurice A. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History (Berkeley, 1989), 55–8.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 151–2; trans. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair, 58–9.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Galileo, Opere, v. 300; trans. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair, 62. Earlier in the same letter he quipped, apropos Bellarmine, that he was “always deferring to those who are wiser than I am.” Ibid, 60.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Finocchiario, The Galileo Affair, 67–8.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 173.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 146. “Cardinal Barberini, who, as you know from experience, has always admired your ability, told me just last evening that with regard to these opinions he would like to see greater caution in not going beyond the arguments used by Ptolemy and Copernicus, and finally, in not exceeding the limitations of physics and mathematics. The explanation of Scripture is claimed by the theologians as their field, and, if new things are introduced, even by a capable mind, not everyone has the dispassionate faculty of taking them just as they said.” Trans. Jerome J. Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church (Ann Arbor, 1971), 58.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 160; Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church, 60.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 160, trans. Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame, 1991), 88.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 174.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 181. Cesi mentioned one such Jesuit, the theologian Torquato De Cuppis, two months earlier. Ibid., xii. 150.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 183–5, trans. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, trans. Stillman Drake (New York, 1957), 164–6.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 175.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    A. Fabroni, Lettere inédite d’uomini illustri, 2 vols. (Florence, 1773–5), ii. 161, cited in Brendan Dooley, “The Communication Revolution in Italian Science,” History of Science, 33 (1995), 470.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Richard S. Westfall, Essays on the Trial of Galileo(Vatican City, 1989), 38.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 226, trans. Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church, 80.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 242–3, trans. James Broderick, The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis Cardinal Bellarmine, S.J., 1542–1621, 2 vols. (London, 1928), ii. 365; Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church, 86–7). Indeed, the very condemnation was prompted by Galileo who, after having “wearied” various cardinals, finally found a champion in the twenty-year old Cardinal Orsini who, with apparent impetuousness commensurate with his age attempted to convince the conservative Paul V, no lover of letters, in Galileo’s case. Impervious to the Pope’s insistence that Galileo keep his opinions private, Orsini persisted and incurred Paul’s wrath; the Pope cut him short, curtly informing him that he would refer the matter to the Inquisition.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 285.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Baldini, “Legem importe subactis,” 229–31; Michel-Pierre Lerner, “L’entrée de Tycho Brahe chez les Jesuits ou le chant du cygne de Clavius,” in Les Jesuits à la Renaissance, ed. Luce Giard (Paris, 1995), 168–70.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Baldini, “Legem impone subactis,” 232, trans. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible, 150.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Baldini, “Legem impone subactis,” 235–6, trans, (slightly modified), Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible, 152.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Massimo Bucciantini, Contro Galileo: Alle Origini dell’Affaire(Florence, 1995), 87.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Galileo, Opere, xix. 615–16.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pierre-Noël Mayaud, “Une ‘nouvelle’ affaire Galilèe?” Revued’Histoire des Sciences, 45 (1992), 161–230, at 223.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Drake, Galileo at Work, 268.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Grassi’s lecture was not just one among numerous such publications; it was also just one of several delivered at the Roman College .Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Drake, Galileo at Work, 268. For a more careful, and sympathetic, account of Grassi’s position on comets, see William R. Shea, Galileo’s Intellectual Revolution (London, 1972), 75–108.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mario Biagioli and Michael John Gorman suggested that the publication of the Discourse on Comets was motivated, at least in part, by Galileo’s vying with Scheiner for the patronage of Archduke Leopold of Austria — to whom the book was dedicated. That Galileo sought Leopold’s patronage is undeniable, but this in itself is insufficient to account for the deliberate (and vehement) targeting of not only Grassi but of the Jesuits of the Collegio Romano more broadly. Mario Biagioli, Galileo Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago and London, 1993), 277, 279 n. 41;Google Scholar
  51. 50a.
    Michael John Gorman, “A Matter of Faith? Christoph Scheiner, Jesuit Censorship, and the Trial of Galileo,” Perspectives on Science, 4 (1996), 312–13.Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    Richard S. Westfall, “Science and Patronage: Galileo and the Telescope,” Isis, 76 (1985), 11–30, at 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 52.
    I cite Robert Burton’s version — based on Erasmus’ Praise of Folly — Philosophaster, trans. Connie McQuillen (Binghamton, 1993), 139.Google Scholar
  54. 53.
    Biagioli, “Replication or Monopoly?” 549, 555–6.Google Scholar
  55. 54.
    Galileo, Opere, vi. 383, trans. Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers, 430; Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, trans. Stillman Drake (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967), 345.Google Scholar
  56. 55.
    Ludovico Geymonat, Galileo Galilei: A Biography and Inquiry into his Philosophy of Science, trans. Stillman Drake (New York, 1957), 96.Google Scholar
  57. 56.
    The Controversy on the Comets of 1618, trans. Stillman Drake and C. D. O’Malley (Philadelphia, 1960), viii-ix; James A. Ruffner, “The Background and Early Development of Newton’s Theory of Comets,” Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1966, 72; Westfall, Essays on the Trial of Galileo, 67.Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    The Controversy on the Comets, 52, 71, 98.Google Scholar
  59. 58.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 443, trans. Drake, Galileo at Work, 265. Several scholars misread the passage claiming that the Jesuits spread those rumors. See The Controversy on the Comets, p. xv; Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 41 n. 22; Westfall, Essays on the Trial of Galileo, 45.Google Scholar
  60. 59.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 469.Google Scholar
  61. 60.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 466, trans. Fantoli, Galileo, 283–4 n. 22.Google Scholar
  62. 61.
    Santillana, The Crime of Galileo, 194–5 n. 4.Google Scholar
  63. 62.
    The Controversy on the Comets, xvii; Westfall, Essays on the Trial of Galileo, 51.Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    Baldini, “Legem impone subactis,” 195, trans. Fantoli, Galileo, 284–5.Google Scholar
  65. 64.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 498–9, trans. Fantoli, Galileo, 258.Google Scholar
  66. 65.
    Galileo, Opere, xviii. 423–4.Google Scholar
  67. 66.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 494.Google Scholar
  68. 67.
    Galileo, Dialogue, 37–8.Google Scholar
  69. 68.
    Drake, Galileo at Work, 277.Google Scholar
  70. 69.
    Drake, Galileo at Work, 277–8; The Controversy on the Comets, 105; Michael Sharratt, Galileo: Decisive Innovator (Oxford, 1994), 135–6. Earlier Grassi specifically stated that “our contest would be particularly with the Peripatetics, whose opinion a great many followers hold even now.” The Controversy on the Comets, 73.Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 23.Google Scholar
  72. 71.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 500–1. Galileo did not bother to reply, so Lagalla tried again three months later, once more expressing his delight with the Discourse, while bitterly complaining about those “Padri Archimandriti” who impugn his philosophy as erroneous and heretical. De immortalitate animorum ex Aristotelis sententia libri III (Rome, 1621).Google Scholar
  73. 72.
    The Controversy on the Comets, 164–8, 270–72, 169, 176, 178–9.Google Scholar
  74. 73.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 141, 307.Google Scholar
  75. 74.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 152. An Jesuit acquaintance of Stelutti also finds that “the book is magnificent” and that Grassi “will have much to do if he wishes to respond.” Ibid., xiii. 148, trans. Fantoli, Galileo, 272.Google Scholar
  76. 75.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 145, 147–8; Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 180.Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 154; Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 182.Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 167.Google Scholar
  79. 78.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 186, trans. Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 182–3.Google Scholar
  80. 79.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 194, 196.Google Scholar
  81. 80.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 199, trans. Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 185.Google Scholar
  82. 81.
    Galileo, Opere, xii. 422–2; Fantoli, Galileo, 278 n. 11.Google Scholar
  83. 82.
    Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 93.Google Scholar
  84. 83.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 202–3, trans. Fantoli, Galileo, 273.Google Scholar
  85. 84.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 205–6; Redondi, Galileo: Heretic 187–8. Galileo conveyed the information to Cesi on 23 September 1624. Galileo, Opere, xiii. 209.Google Scholar
  86. 85.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 210–11; Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible, 156–7.Google Scholar
  87. 86.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 216, 226–7; Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 130–4.Google Scholar
  88. 87.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 107; Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 130.Google Scholar
  89. 88.
    Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 132–6; Vincenzo Ferrone and Massimo Firpo, “From Inquisitors to Microhistorians: A Critique of Pietro Redondi’s Galileo eretico,” Journal of Modern History, 58 (1986), 485–524, at 500. Notwithstanding their critique of Redondi, however, Ferrone and Firpo still appear to accept his claim that Spinola’s oration targeted specifically // Saggiatore. Obviously, I find this unwarranted.Google Scholar
  90. 89.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 232–3; Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 189. Writing to Marsili on 7 December, Galileo repeated the news that Grassi was being forced to respond, adding sarcastically that he eagerly awaited it. Galileo, Opere, xiii. 236Google Scholar
  91. 90.
    Mayaud, “Une ‘nouvelle’ affaire Galilèe,” 224.Google Scholar
  92. 91.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii, 247, 249, 250–3; Fantoli, Galileo, 294.Google Scholar
  93. 92.
    Galileo, Opere, xiii. 307, 313–14. Redondi utilizes Imperiali’s second letter as evidence that “being first to provoke” cannot refer to comets, for Grassi “had not initially provoked Galileo.” He forgot that this was Galileo’s own claim in IlSaggiatore. Redondi, Galileo: Heretic, 190–1.Google Scholar
  94. 93.
    Claudio Constantini, Baliani e I Gesuiti (Florence, 1969), 108.Google Scholar
  95. 94.
    Galileo, Opere, xv. 273, trans. D’Elia, Galileo in China, 57–8.Google Scholar
  96. 95.
    Galileo, Opere, xiv. 387.Google Scholar
  97. 96.
    Galileo, Opere, xvi. 117, trans. Fantoli, Galileo, 428.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mordechai Feingold
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Humanities and Social SciencesCaltechUSA

Personalised recommendations