Jesuit Science After Galileo: The Cosmology of Gabriele Beatimlebron/cifi4005/43460466.pdf · Jesuit Science After Galileo: The Cosmology of Gabriele Beati KERRY V. M AGRUDER∗ Abstract

Jesuit Science After Galileo: The Cosmology ofGabriele Beati

KERRY V. MAGRUDER∗

Abstract. Gabriele Beati (1607–1673) taught mathematics at the Collegio Romano when in 1662 he pub-lished an introduction to astronomy, the Sphaera triplex. This little work contains an interesting cosmicsection which is analyzed here as representing a fusion of Jesuit traditions in cosmology achieved byGiovanni Battista Riccioli (1598–1671). The cosmic section enumerates three heavens, depicts fluid plane-tary heavens, and expresses hexameral biblical idiom. Woodcut and engraved variants of the cosmicsection offer a glimpse of Jesuit freedom to experiment with various cosmological systems (Capellan,Tychonic and semi-Tychonic). Analysis of this cosmic section suggests several conclusions for the inter-pretation of visual representations, science and biblical interpretation, the Scientific Revolution and Jesuitscience after Galileo.

Keywords. cosmic section, cosmology, Gabriele Beati, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, hexameral tradition,Jesuit science, science after Galileo, sphaera, the Scientific Revolution, Tycho Brahe, visual representation

One snapshot of mid-17th-century Jesuit cosmology is captured in the Sphaera triplex(1662) of Gabriele Beati (1607–1673). Twenty years ago William B. Ashworth, Jr. calledattention to a cosmic section Beati published in this work as a striking fold-out plate(Figure 1). Ashworth noted that this depiction of the planets moving through fluid heavensoffers a splendid pictorial representation of the dissolution of the solid celestial spheres(Ashworth, 1987). This essay will show how Beati’s cosmic section, in two variations,represents the fusion of Jesuit traditions in cosmology achieved by Giovanni BattistaRiccioli (1598–1671).

The Sphaera triplex, organized in three books, is a small, introductory mathematicaltextbook, a late descendant of the sphaera and theorica traditions (Thorndike, 1949). Thefirst book, sphaera artificialis, briefly explains the circles used in the sphaera tradition,such as the horizon, meridian, celestial equator, or zodiac. The second book, sphaeraelementaris, briefly reviews topics pertaining to the meteorological or sub-lunar region,such as the sphericity and location of the Earth, and the magnitudes of the Earth andelemental regions. Here, for example, Beati argued from stellar parallax for the centralityand immobility of the Earth. The final book, sphaera caelestis, occupies nearly two-thirds

∗History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries, 401 W. Brooks, BL 521 Norman,Oklahoma 73019, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

CENTAURUS 2009: VOL. 51: PP. 189–212; doi:10.1111/j.1600-0498.2009.00148.x© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S

190 K. V. Magruder

Fig. 1. Gabriel Beati, Sphaera triplex (1662). Engraved cosmic section, tipped-in fold-out plate. CourtesyRare Book Collection, Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and Technology, Kansas City, Missouri.

of the text with a survey of topics in astronomy and cosmology such as the substance ofthe heavens, the motion of the heavens, the order or system of the heavens, the sizes anddistances of the Sun, Moon and stars, lunar and solar eclipses, the nature and movementof the planets and the nature of comets and novae. The cosmic section appears in this lastand longest part of the work.

Born in Bologna in 1607, Beati published his first book, a collection of sacred poetry,three years before he entered the Jesuit order (Beati, 1624). A short mathematical studyappeared after his assignment to the Collegio Romano (Beati, 1644). When Beati pub-lished a four-volume quarto work on cosmology and meteorology, the title page announcedthat he was lecturing in philosophy in the Collegio Romano (Beati, 1650). The Sphaeratriplex title page indicates that in 1662 he was then teaching mathematics (Beati, 1662).One year later he was lecturing in theology, according to the title-page of a two-volumework on ethics, which was issued in a second, posthumous edition in the 18th century(Beati, 1663). Beati died in Rome on April 6, 1673.1

Beati was an ordinary practitioner who made no discoveries and provoked no knowncontroversies, either within or without his order. For that very reason his work affordsan interesting glimpse into the cosmological discussions of this robust and determined

© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S

Cosmology of Gabriele Beati 191

community of 17th-century scholars. Beati’s position as a mathematics lecturer at theleading Jesuit university, however fleeting, makes him worthy of some attention, whilethe unremarkable character of his career suggests that the Sphaera triplex reflects typicalviews which were not controversial at mid-century among Jesuits in Rome.

1. The Cosmic Section

In their edition of the Louvain Lectures (1570–1572) of Cardinal Robert Bellarmine(1542–1621), George Coyne and Ugo Baldini suggest that there were two traditions inearly 17th-century Jesuit cosmology, one physical and the other mathematical (Bellarmine,1984, p. 43). The first, a physical tradition of non-mathematical cosmology, derived fromBellarmine and became disseminated through the Louvain Lectures. In these lectures Bel-larmine spurned the conflicting hypotheses of the astronomers in favor of more reliableauthorities, particularly patristic interpretations of the hexameron or first chapter of Gene-sis. Only three heavens were required, Bellarmine argued, to account for the evidence ofthe senses and the testimony of scripture. Additional heavens were merely the hypothesesof mathematicians. Bellarmine rejected the fundamental assumption that planetary mo-tions should be explained by combinations of the uniform circular motions of solid spheresand instead thought of the planets as moving through a fluid heaven, leaving unaddressedastronomers’ questions about the orbs and their motions (Bellarmine, 1984, p. 43).

In contrast, the mathematical Jesuit tradition identified by Coyne and Baldini followedthe assumptions and techniques taught in the Collegio Romano by Christoph Clavius(1538–1612). Clavius’ lifelong work established astronomy as a prominent area of study inthe Jesuit curriculum. His commentary on the Sphere of Sacrobosco, published in numer-ous editions from 1570 through 1611, became one of the standard astronomical texts of itstime. Clavius largely succeeded in his endeavor to integrate the Ptolemaic system with theteachings of the Church. Ironically, he was himself the last major Ptolemaic astronomer,experiencing the misfortune of living long enough to see the end of its viability (Lattis,1994; Grant, 2003; Remmert, 2009).

After Clavius, Jesuits often inclined toward the system of Tycho Brahe. In the secondhalf of the 16th century, Paul Wittich had transformed the mathematical beauties of Coper-nicanism into geocentric systems, as Scripture and sense seemed to require. Yet Wittich didnot question the solidity of the orbs. When measurements of the parallax of comets con-firmed their varying distances from the Sun, Tycho considered a geoheliocentric system.In order to produce an integrated model of all the planets in one system, Tycho saw that theorb of Mars would necessarily intersect the orb of the Sun, although this would contradictthe existence of solid orbs. Instead of solid orbs, then, the heavens must be fluid. Aftercorresponding with Christoph Rothman, Tycho hastened his system into print in 1588,dissolving the solid spheres (Brahe, 1588; Donahue, 1981; Gingerich and Westman, 1988;Goldstein and Barker, 1995).


192 K. V. Magruder

Giuseppe Biancani’s Sphaera mundi (1620) displaced Clavius’ commentary on thesphere in many Jesuit colleges, representing a shift from the Ptolemaic tradition to theTychonic system. Biancani explained the Tychonic system at length, with its advantageouscombination of mathematical elegance, a geocentric Earth and fluid heavens. The Coper-nican system was discussed more gingerly, for the De revolutionibus of Copernicus wassuspended in 1616 until it could be corrected and the corrections were only issued in thesame year as Biancani’s work. Nevertheless, Biancani’s Sphaera carefully explained theCopernican system, labeled simply as the Pythagorean view.

With Ptolemy finally dead and buried, the Jesuits needed a new astronomy, a newAlmagest, offered in mid-century by Riccioli, a student of Biancani (Dinis, 2003). In hisAlmagestum novum (1651) the two Jesuit traditions converged. Riccioli’s synthesis of themathematical tradition of Clavius with the physical tradition of Bellarmine consisted offour major features representative of mid-century Jesuit cosmology: justifying cosmolog-ical assertions by means of hexameral evidence, that is, according to the text of the sixdays of creation as given in the first chapter of Genesis; holding the number of heav-ens to be three; rejecting solid planetary orbs in favor of fluid heavens; and experimen-tation with various Tychonic and semi-Tychonic systems. The first three characteristicsdescribe Bellarmine and others in the physical tradition, the latter two apply to writers inthe mathematical-astronomical tradition.

The well-known frontispiece of Riccioli’s treatise reflects mid-17th century perceptionswell, depicting three major systems of the world (Figure 2). The Ptolemaic system restsdiscarded in the lower right corner. It could be rejected but not forgotten, in deferenceto Clavius. While all-seeing Argus looks on, Urania weighs in a balance the two chiefworld systems which remain. Against the system of Copernicus, the standard against whichalternatives must be measured, Riccioli’s semi-Tychonic system weighed in as the mostwarranted (Montgomery, 1990, pp. 194–197).

Beati cited Riccioli’s Almagestum novum in running fashion throughout the Sphaeratriplex. Indeed, nearly all of the topics in Beati’s little textbook were treated at much greaterlength in the two folio volumes of Riccioli. Sphaera triplex is a textbook abridgment ofthe encyclopedic Ricciolian synthesis.

All but one of the plates in Beati’s work are mathematical diagrams. In contrast, the fold-out cosmic section synthesizes mathematical considerations with the physical aspects ofcosmology. We have noted that this cosmic section depicts fluid heavens, an idea commonto both physical and mathematical Jesuit traditions. This paper will show that the cosmicsection illustrates not only fluid heavens, but each of the four major features of mid-centuryJesuit cosmology described here as the Ricciolian synthesis.

The cosmic section of Beati is as curious as it is interesting, for there are two ver-sions of the plate which show the planets in different positions. One is a copper plateengraving, as in the copy held by Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and Tech-nology in Kansas City, Missouri (Figure 1). The other is a woodcut depiction, as in thecopy held by the History of Science Collections of the University of Oklahoma Libraries



Fig. 2. Riccioli, Almagestum novum (1651), frontispiece. Courtesy History of Science Collections,University of Oklahoma Libraries.

(Figure 3). Other extant copies of Sphaera triplex include one, or occasionally both, ofthese two variants.

Detailed bibliographic comparison of the two copies held by Linda Hall Library andthe University of Oklahoma shows that both were printed in Rome in 1662. They wereprinted by the same printer, and the title pages are identical. Throughout the text, theyhave identical typography, collation, pagination and paper, including the same watermark.They have identical headings, sections and numbered paragraphs. For example, on therecto of leaf H5 in the section on the order of the heavens, paragraph 20 is misnumberedas paragraph 10 in both copies. They have identical running titles. For example, althoughother pages in one section display Aetheris in the running title, on the verso of leaf G3


194 K. V. Magruder

Fig. 3. Gabriel Beati, Sphaera triplex (1662). Woodcut cosmic section, tipped-in fold-out plate. CourtesyHistory of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries.

both copies display Aeteris. Nor are there any discrepancies in catchwords. Finally, alldiagrams and illustrations in the work, other than the fold-out plate, are identical in bothcopies. In sum, a comprehensive bibliographic description reveals no differences; there areno changes in the text corresponding to variations in the cosmic sections.2

So why are there two versions of the cosmic section? Was one version of the plate pre-pared before the other, or were the two versions prepared for different readers? Evidencepoints to the former inference: The head title or label of the woodcut suggests that it wasprinted first, at the same time as the book and the other illustrations, because it and theother three original plates (not reproduced here) all abbreviate number as ‘Num.’ in bothcopies. In contrast, the engraving is the odd one out, labeled ‘Nu.’ instead of ‘Num.’ Incontrast to the relatively unrefined woodcut, a copper plate engraving shows fine detail butis more difficult and expensive to prepare. So we may assume as a working hypothesis thatthe initial copies of the book were distributed with a hastily-prepared woodcut, and thatlater issues contained an engraving executed with greater care and oversight on the part ofBeati. Comparison of these variants of the cosmic section affords an interesting glimpseinto the considerations of greatest concern to Beati and his initial readers.



2. The Number of the Heavens

Beati’s cosmic section engaged one of the most controversial issues of 16th-century cos-mology, the question of the number of heavens (Johnson, 1953; Grant, 1994, pp. 302-323).In the early 1200s Sacrobosco specified nine spheres comprising the cosmos: the primummobile, the firmament of fixed stars and the seven planetary spheres. The empyrean heavenwas an additional sphere sometimes shown in such diagrams, yet oftentimes understood assomehow transcending space and time. It is not included in this count of cosmic spheres.The Elementa doctrinae de circulis coelestibus et primo motu of Caspar Peucer (1569)represented an updated 16th-century nine-sphere system. Shortly after Sacrobosco, theSpanish scholars who compiled the Alfonsine tables added a tenth sphere to account forthe ‘trepidation of the equinoxes’ believed by Thabit Ibn Qura to account for a discrepancybetween the values obtained for the precession of the equinoxes by Ptolemy and Al-Bitruji.This ten-sphere tradition, including trepidation, was that of both Peter Apian (1540) andLeonard Digges (1555). A system of eight spheres, dispensing altogether with orbs abovethe fixed stars, was advanced by Augustinus Riccius in De motu octave sphaerae (1513).This system denied trepidation, and assigned precession to the sphere of fixed stars, thusavoiding the postulate of any orb not containing a visible body (Johnson, 1953). It wasdefended by Oronce Finé in De mundi sphaera sive cosmographia (1542). And finally,eleven-sphere systems appeared in works by Christoph Clavius and others (not necessarilyCopernicans) toward the end of the 16th century to accommodate an additional motionattributed to the Earth’s axis by Copernicus (Lattis, 1994, pp. 167, 170-173). Cosmic sec-tions displaying the number of spheres often appeared in these works. However, the cosmicsections depicting the heavens largely omitted the exact mathematical devices necessaryto save the appearances. For example, Copernicus’ elegant and compelling cosmic sectiongave little hint of the multiplicity of secondary epicycles and other circles which actuallycomprised his mathematical system.

In contrast to the astronomical writers responsible for the 16th-century diagrams, cos-mologists in the Jesuit physical tradition tended to base their inferences about the numberof heavens not on mathematical and physical considerations but on scriptural passages,and particularly on hexameral exegesis, the interpretation of the creation week recountedin the first chapter of Genesis. Beati organized his exposition of cosmology explicitly ac-cording to hexameral chronology. This was by no means novel or idiosyncratic amongJesuit cosmologists. For example, Riccioli similarly began his consideration of ‘De mvndisystemate’ with a lengthy discussion of the works of the first four days of creation(Riccioli, 1651, vol. 2, pp. 193-246). Riccioli’s abundant visual representations includenothing similar to Beati’s cosmic section, yet Beati’s exposition contains few argumentsor ideas not found in Riccioli.

Earlier, Robert Bellarmine had explicitly relied upon the hexameral writings of theChurch Fathers, particularly St. Basil, in developing his cosmological views. In the Lou-vain Lectures, Bellarmine identified three heavens from scripture—the empyreum,


196 K. V. Magruder

sidereum, and aereum—and argued that all the Fathers could be interpreted as agreeingwith this numeration, although he conceded that scripture could allow for more if nec-essary (Bellarmine, 1984, pp. 16–17). Following Bellarmine, 17th-century Jesuits suchas Riccioli widely adopted the convention of dividing the heavens into only three partsinstead of the eight to eleven heavens of the 16th-century astronomers (Riccioli, 1651,vol. 2, p. 224). Beati agreed that scripture provides support for only three heavens (Beati,1662, p. 112). The hexameral tradition of biblical interpretation thus provided Jesuit cos-mologists with an epistemological and rhetorical resource to sidestep what they regardedas the non-demonstrative realm of mathematical disputes about the number of the heavensin order to establish the enduring certainties of physical cosmology, so they thought, withthe aid of scriptural proof. Combining a realist approach to hexameral cosmology with aninstrumentalist understanding of geometrical world systems, Jesuit dialogue between the-ology and mathematics provided resources to construct a physical-mathematical approachto science (Dinis, 2003, pp. 200-201; Remmert, 2009, pp. 672, 684).

3. The Middle Heaven: Caelum sydereum and Caelum planetarum

Expounding the first chapter of Genesis, Beati related that on the first day God createdthe heavens, the Earth and a vast and profound abyss of water. On the second day, in themiddle of the water, he made the firmament of fixed stars which divided the waters abovefrom the waters below. Such an arrangement at the end of the second day called forth moredetailed commentary and cosmological exegesis.

The firmament, which Beati also called the sidereal heaven (caelum sydereum, labeledF in Figure 4), contains the fixed stars and revolves around the Earth once each day. Withtwo major exceptions, Beati’s views on the second day resemble those of Bellarmine inQuestion 68 of the Louvain Lectures. The two exceptions are that Beati accepted that thefirmament is solid and that the firmament has a diurnal motion (as implied by any systemwhere the stars move together and the Earth does not rotate; Bellarmine, 1984, pp. 10-18).Because this sphere is solid, the fixed stars move together during this daily motion and thefirmament is able to support the super-celestial waters that lie above it.

Between the firmament (F in Figure 4) and the meteorological heaven or aereum (Figure4, center, tinted green) lies the caelum planetarum, the planetary heaven, interpreted as thewaters beneath the firmament (tinted blue in Figure 4). Beati explained that the caelumplanetarum is a fluid, inferior part of the middle heaven, undergoing constant motion likethe fixed stars in the solid, superior caelum sydereum (Beati, 1662, p. 110). Beati wrotethat planets move through the fluid heaven as birds fly through the air or as fishes swimthrough the sea, an ancient Stoic metaphor that had been endorsed by Bellarmine, echoedby Brahe and rejected by Clavius.

Following Tycho, Beati noted that the supralunar motions of comets could not beunderstood if the planetary heaven were solid. Yet Beati also took great care to justify this



Fig. 4. Beati (1662), cosmic section, engraved version with tinting added to distinguish the three heavens(to view colors, see the online version). In the center is the small aereum, the lowest heaven (G, tintedgreen). The outer layers (A, B, and C) are the empyrean heaven (tinted red). The middle or celestial heaven(tinted blue) contains: the super-celestial waters (between F and C); the caelum sydereum or firmament (F);and the waters below the heavens or caelum planetarum (between F and G). The middle heaven extendsfrom the outer edge of the aereum to the inner edge of the empyrean (Beati, 1662, pp. 106–107). CourtesyRare Book Collection, Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and Technology, Kansas City, Missouri.

system from scripture, citing numerous hexameral commentaries by the Church Fathersto support the ideas that the heavens are fluid, corruptible, and both watery and fiery innature. After a lengthy survey of patristic views Riccioli had already come to the sameresolution (Riccioli, 1651, pp. 224, 244; Beati, 1662, pp. 111–112). Following Riccioli,Melchior Cornaeus and Georgius de Rhodes agreed (Grant, 2003, pp. 142–145). Baldiniand Coyne point out that Bellarmine argued for the fluidity of the heavens on the basisof hexameral exegesis even before the appearance of the nova of 1572 (Bellarmine, 1984,pp. 5, 8–11; Lattis, 1994, pp. 147–156). Elements of Stoic cosmology, including the fluidheavens, were often transmitted as stowaways via the hexameral commentary tradition(Barker and Goldstein, 1984; Colish, 1985; Barker, 1991). Grant attributes the increasingprevalence in later scholasticism of ideas of fluid heavens and celestial corruptibility to theimportance of patristic texts such as Basil’s hexameral commentary, which became morewidely available in the 16th century (Grant, 1994, pp. 267–268). Riccioli favored Tycho’sview that the sphere of fixed stars is solid, while the planetary heaven beneath is fluid(Riccioli, 1651, Vol. 2, pp. 238–244; Grant, 1994, p. 327). With the middle or celestial


198 K. V. Magruder

heaven, therefore, Riccioli and Beati had it both ways: a fluid planetary heaven likeBellarmine and the Fathers, and a solid firmament to save the phenomena of the diur-nal motion of fixed stars. In this fusion of physical and mathematical Jesuit traditions, thediplomatic combination of the fluid caelum planetarum and the solid caelum sydereum,which together comprise the celestial heaven, provided a convenient way to legitimatenovelties by reconciling contradictory authorities. The appeal of Tychonic cosmology tomid-century Jesuit astronomers reflected, in addition to its geocentric mathematical ele-gance, the accordance of its physical assumptions with hexameral tradition.

Yet what is the nature of the waters above the firmament? In response to this traditionalquestion of hexameral exegesis, Beati argued that God made cavities or receptacles in theouter surface of the solid firmament to hold the super-celestial waters. The waters abovethe firmament thereby temper the heat of the firmament and its fiery stars. The watersabove and below the firmament are aptly regarded as divided, Beati concluded, becauseelemental water cannot naturally cross the firmament which has a solid but igneous nature(Beati, 1662, pp. 105–111). Beati’s description of waters above the firmament accordedwith the literal interpretations of hexameral commentators. For example, Basil’s commen-tary portrayed the universe as a delicate balance of fire and water, created with just enoughmoisture in the oceans and above the heavens to enable it to endure until the ordained limitof time, when the inexorable triumph of fire will burst forth in a final cosmic conflagration(Basil, 1963, pp. 44–48). Bellarmine had followed Basil in suggesting that God formed fireby the rarefaction of water to make the firmament on the second day (Bellarmine, 1984,p. 14). However, Bellarmine, like Basil, regarded the firmament as a subtle fluid (Basil, pp.14, 47). In contrast, Beati regarded the firmament as solid; nothing occurs in Bellarminelike Beati’s description of the hollowing out of basins in the firmament for the waters above(Beati, p. 110).

4. The First and Third Heavens, and a Three-fold Symmetry

Beati’s middle heaven lies between the first and third heavens. The first or lowest heaven,according to Genesis 1, is occupied by flying birds (Figure 4, center, tinted green). Thisaereum or meteorological region is also the realm of the clouds, the cataracts of heaven.We have just seen that, in the middle heaven, super-celestial waters temper the fiery heat ofthe stars and firmament and thereby prevent the celestial heaven from igniting. In the sameway, Beati reasoned, on the third day God prepared cavities in the surface of the Earth tohold the oceans, which temper subterranean heat and prevent the Earth from igniting. Onesuspects that the influence rather ran the other way, from the first heaven to the second, sothat the hexameral account of the gathering of the waters on the third day offered Beati amodel for the gathering of the supercelestial waters into basins within the firmament, asalready described.

Unlike the first and second heavens, the empyrean heaven (Figure 4, outer area, tintedred) is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis 1. Its justification rested on inferences about



the heavenly place of Christ after his ascension and of the saints upon their glorification(Donahue 1981, pp. 223-234; Grant, 1994, pp. 371-389). According to Beati, the empyreanheaven consists of all that lies beyond the firmament, the habitation of angels and theblessed. In contrast to a number of medieval and Lutheran cosmologies, the empyreanheaven of Beati and other Jesuits was as spatial and as physical as the other depictedregions. Beati divided the empyrean heaven into a lower solid part (C in Figure 4), and anupper fluid part (B). The solid part of the Empyrean, Beati explained, is required to supportthe glorified bodies of the blessed which are subtle but solid in nature (Beati, p. 113).

With the first and third heavens we see that the composition of the middle heaven as afiery solid overlain by fluid water is not unique but rather characteristic of each of the threeheavens. The heavens of Beati, therefore, comprise a trinity of fiery solids, each cooled byfluid waters above (Figure 5).

The precarious condition of the Earth in Beati’s lowest heaven, balanced between waterand fire in cosmic relations, immediately reminds one of Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680),Beati’s exact contemporary in the Collegio Romano. At this time Kircher was writing hismost important work on the Earth, Mundus Subterraneus (1665), which most memorablydepicted the igneous nature of the Earth and the interlaced circulations of fire and water intwo double-page global sections (Figure 6).

Cosmic sections provided important precedents and resources for depictions of the Earthin the 17th century, and Beati’s cosmic section illumines the mid-17th-century Jesuit cos-mological context for Kircher’s global sections. Two years before Beati’s text, in the Iterexstaticum (1660), Kircher had already articulated a preliminary statement of his visionof the Earth in cosmic context, the last part of which was announced as a prodromus forthe forthcoming Mundus subterraneus. In a cosmic section not reproduced here, Kircherdepicted the same three heavens (1660, p. 22). Jesuit conceptions of the Earth were inter-related with their conceptions of the firmament and empyrean heaven. Just as conceptionsof supercelestial waters might draw upon an interpretation of the scooping out of oceanbasins on the third day, so affirmations of the igneous character of the firmament andempyrean heaven might throw light upon the structure of the Earth. In the three-fold sym-metry of the Jesuit universe, evidence for the dual nature (igneous solid and watery fluid)of one heaven provided relevant corroborating evidence for the dual nature of any other.

5. The Substance and Corruptibility of the Heavens

In addition to the number of the heavens, two additional standard questions in 17th-centurycosmology were the substance of the heavens and the immutability or corruptibility of theheavens. With respect to celestial substance, Jesuits rejected the sub-lunar/supra-lunar di-chotomy of the scholastics. Despite their avowed adherence to Aristotle, Jesuits were ableto justify a greater openness to continuous substance in part by playing hexameral authority


200 K. V. Magruder

Fig. 5. Celestial symmetries.

against Aristotle. Contrary to Aristotle, Beati wrote, the firmament is not composed of afifth element, because aether is simply another name for pure fire, the element naturallyabove the air (Beati, 1662, p. 108). Contrary to Aristotle, there is no material dichotomybetween heaven and Earth because the heavens consist of water and fire of the same natureas in the sublunar realm. Waters occur below and above the Moon, and below and abovethe firmament.

As a consequence of the continuous substance of the heavens, Beati held that the plan-etary heavens, like the Earth and its meteorological regions, are corruptible (Beati, 1662,pp. 108-109). Earlier Jesuits had said the same. For example, Clavius argued for the cor-ruptibility of the heavens after the nova of 1572 (Lattis, 1994, pp. 147-156). Scheiner sawsunspots as confirmation of celestial corruptibility (Scheiner, 1630). Scheiner publicizedthe fact that Bellarmine had argued for the igneous nature of the stars and the corruptibil-ity of the heavens before 1572 on the basis of hexameral exegesis and the tradition of theChurch Fathers (Bellarmine, 1984, p. 27). Riccioli likewise argued that the visible heav-ens are corruptible (Riccioli, 1651, vol. 2, p. 238; Grant, 1994, pp. 205-219). FollowingRiccioli, Melchior Cornaeus and Georgius de Rhodes defended celestial corruptibility aswell (Grant, 2003, pp. 138-139). It is worth noting that the hexameral tradition providedsignificant support for the corruptibility of the heavens without requiring commitment to



Fig. 6. Kircher, Mundus subterraneus (1665), cosmic sections depicting the interlaced circulations of fire(top) and water (bottom). Courtesy History of Science Collections, University of Oklahoma Libraries.

Copernican or Cartesian cosmologies. Although Stoic ideas were often transmitted withinthe hexameral tradition, an acceptance of corruptibility was not always linked with a de-velopmental view of the universe.

6. Systems of the Heavens: Curious Accommodations

A well-known illustration from Kircher’s Iter exstaticum (1660, p. 37) depicts the six chiefworld systems frequently discussed in the first half of the 17th century: Ptolemaic, Pla-tonic, Egyptian, Tychonic, semi-Tychonic and Copernican (Figure 7). These systems werereviewed in turn by Riccioli, Kircher, Beati and other Jesuits such as Claude FrançoisMillet de Chales (1674). The Ptolemaic system requires no comment; the Platonic sys-tem only differs from the Ptolemaic in the relative position of the Sun and inner planets.The third system, the Egyptian, was proposed by the 5th-century Roman African writerMartianus Capella. The Capellan, Tychonic and semi-Tychonic systems were geocentric,unlike the Copernican. In the Copernican system, all planets revolve around the Sun, and


202 K. V. Magruder

Fig. 7. Kircher, Iter exstaticum (1660). Six chief world systems: Ptolemaic, Platonic, Egyptian, Tychonic,Semi-Tychonic and Copernican. Courtesy History of Science Collections, University of OklahomaLibraries.

the Earth is included among the planets. The Moon is demoted from a planet to a satellite.It is remarkable that in most discussions, including Beati’s, the first system examined wasnone other than the Copernican. In the 1674 work of de Chales, for example, explana-tions of the arguments for the Copernican system are three times more lengthy than theobjections against it.

Despite Galileo’s rhetorical attempt to cast cosmological debate as a choice betweentwo chief world systems (Galileo, 1632), Beati’s cosmic section is neither Ptolemaic norCopernican. Unlike the Ptolemaic system, it shows Mercury and Venus revolving aroundthe Sun. Unlike the Copernican, the Earth rather than the Sun lies at the center of theworld. So which of the remaining world systems are represented by Beati’s cosmic sec-tion? Perhaps we presume too much by sketching in the planetary circles, since visualrepresentations are as revealing in what they omit as in what they show, and the mainpoint to emphasize is that in both variants Beati chose to leave the paths of the other plan-ets unspecified. However, it is worthwhile to examine the degree to which Beati’s cosmicsections were contrived to be consistent with a variety of systems and to satisfy a varietyof readers. Additionally, the question of the arrangement of the planets naturally arises,given that the cosmic section already depicts the circles of Venus and Mercury revolving



around the Sun, contrary to the Ptolemaic and Platonic systems. Omitting these as well asthe Copernican, in the next several figures we shall venture to superimpose upon Beati’scosmic section the remaining chief world systems identified by Kircher: the Egyptian orCapellan, the Tychonic and the semi-Tychonic. Each figure will compare a single worldsystem superimposed upon both variants of Beati’s cosmic section.

7. The Capellan System

Beati wrote, as both cosmic sections show, that Venus, Mercury and sunspots circle theSun as if on epicycles (Beati, 1662, p. 112). This fact alone does not imply that the cosmicsection reflects the Tychonic system. Indeed, in the text Beati explained the Egyptian orCapellan system, a geocentric model in which Mercury and Venus revolve around theSun, and he included a diagram of its orbs. In this system the other planets, includingthe Sun, revolve around the Earth in nested spheres. Even Clavius conceded, after thediscovery of the phases of Venus by Galileo in 1611, that something like the Egyptiansystem would displace the Ptolemaic. Ariew has shown that astronomers experienced littledifficulty accommodating the revolution of Mercury and Venus (and sunspots) around theSun (Ariew, 1999, pp. 101–104).

The Capellan system is superimposed upon the woodcut version of Beati’s cosmic sec-tion in Figure 8 (left). Venus and Mercury revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolvesaround the Earth, consistent with the Egyptian system. Saturn also appears consistent withthis system. Jupiter, shown with its four Galilean satellites, cuts the circle of Venus. Thisis unacceptable in reality, but perhaps forgivable on an imprecise woodcut. The circle ofMars, colored in red, appears to be an afterthought, hastily placed wherever it could fit,squeezed in between Jupiter and the Sun. On the other hand, the engraving is more pre-cisely executed, and at least Capellan (Figure 8, right). Jupiter no longer collides withVenus, and Mars is much more accurately situated as well, although it still clips the pathof Venus. The engraving would have satisfied any later follower of Clavius.

7.1 The Tychonic System

Jesuit insistence upon the limits of mathematical authority justified a greater opennessto experimentation with non-Ptolemaic systems than is often recognized. Many Jesuitsafter Biancani upheld a Tychonic cosmology in which the Earth is at rest in the center ofthe universe and the Sun revolves around the central Earth once each year (Beati, 1662,pp. 104–113; Thoren, 1990). Unlike the Ptolemaic, Capellan and semi-Tychonic systemswhere the outer planets revolve around the Earth, in the Tychonic system all of the planetsrevolve around the Sun (the Earth is not regarded as a planet in the Tychonic system). Marscuts the orb of the Sun, because at opposition it is closer to the Earth than is the Sun.


204 K. V. Magruder

Fig. 8. Capellan (Aegyptiacum) system: woodcut (left); engraving (right). Planetary circles are added inthe following colors (to view colors, see the online version), from the center outward: Sun (yellow); Mars(red); Jupiter (blue); and Saturn (green).

Is Beati’s cosmic section compatible with the Tychonic system? Surprisingly, the wood-cut version cannot accommodate a Tychonic interpretation, for the sphere of Saturn (green)would have to pass through the firmament, which not even water can do (Figure 9, left).Jupiter also intersects the firmament, barely. Yet the Tychonic system overlays preciselyupon the engraving (Figure 9, right), with the green circle of Saturn nested snugly withinthe planetary heaven beneath the firmament of fixed stars, in contrast to the woodcut. Thismatch between the engraving and the Tychonic system is to be expected, for Beati’s textexplicitly affirms a Tychonic system in which sunspots and the inner planets are not theonly entities circling the Sun; Jupiter with its four moons and Saturn with three satellitesalso revolve around the Sun (Beati, 1662, p. 112). The mismatch between the woodcutand the Tychonic system espoused in the text is puzzling, but consistent with the workinghypothesis that the woodcut was printed hastily and later replaced with the more carefullyexecuted engraving.

7.2 The Semi-Tychonic System.

In verbally affirming the Tychonic system, Beati departed from the semi-Tychonic systemfavored by Riccioli, which was represented in Riccioli’s frontispiece (Figure 2). In thesemi-Tychonic system, as in the Tychonic, Mercury, Venus and Mars revolve around theSun, and the spheres of the Sun and Mars intersect. In contrast to the Tychonic system,however, the two outermost planets, Jupiter and Saturn, revolve around the central Earth.

The woodcut version of Beati’s cosmic section is consistent with Riccioli’s semi-Tychonic system (Figure 10, left). In the lower right on the woodcut, Saturn is posi-tioned as if it were revolving around the Earth, for its distance from the Sun is much too



Fig. 9. Tychonic system: woodcut (left); engraving (right). Planetary circles are added in the followingcolors (to view colors, see the online version), from the center outward: Sun (yellow); Mars (red); Jupiter(blue); and Saturn (green).

great to allow it to complete a revolution around the Sun with a constant radius. Evidentlythe semi-Tychonic system of Riccioli served as the primary model for the preparationof the woodcut, despite the text’s adherence to the Tychonic system. The engraving pre-serves the best of both worlds; it remains consistent with the semi-Tychonic system as wellas the Tychonic (Figure 10, right).

8. The Significance of Beati’s Cosmic Section

With its embedded hexameral interpretation, depiction of three heavens and their fluidcomposition, and with its non-specific accommodation to various cosmological systems,the cosmic section of Beati illustrates each of the four points previously identified as theRicciolian synthesis of physical and mathematical traditions in Jesuit cosmology. In addi-tion, this analysis of Beati’s cosmic section suggests four points of more general relevanceregarding the interpretation of visual representations, science and the Bible, the ScientificRevolution and Jesuit science after Galileo.

8.1 Interpreting Images.

The first of four concluding points is that visual representations should not be dismissedas merely ornamental devices and of little use for the historian. In the case of the Je-suits it is of particular importance not to neglect images as superfluous visual aids. Rather,careful attention to images promises to be even more revealing because the Jesuits wereoften criticized for their thorough-going efforts to develop image-based methods of in-struction (Ashworth, 1986b, p. 28). How their visual rhetoric reflected their social context


206 K. V. Magruder

Fig. 10. Semi-Tychonic system: woodcut (left); engraving (right). Planetary circles are added in thefollowing colors (to view colors, see the online version), from the center outward: Sun (yellow); Mars(red); Jupiter (blue); and Saturn (green).

and shaped their natural knowledge promises to repay further study. In this respect, thework of Waddell is exemplary. In a most illuminating study of Kircher’s global sections,Waddell has shown how they functioned in Jesuit practice as a means of evoking contem-plation, as part of a devotional discipline to produce a meditative vision of the Earth andof its meaning in its relations with the universe, rather than merely as a means of transmit-ting information or positive knowledge (Waddell, 2006). In this context, Kircher’s visionswere prepared to serve different ends than, for example, the didactic global sections ofDescartes (Magruder, 2006). The contemplative function of Kircher’s global sections sug-gests that perhaps the three-fold symmetry between solid and fluid heavens conveyed inBeati’s cosmic section offered a similar capacity to aid Beati’s readers in the discipline ofmeditation.

Beati’s cosmic section also illustrates the more general point that images are worthy ofspecial consideration because of significant omissions: what they do not include, contraryto the modern reader’s expectations. Images reflect the emphases of the text according tothe actor’s perspective rather than ours. In the woodcut version, Beati’s deliberate omis-sion of celestial orbs allowed him to sidestep the conundrum of choosing between thesemi-Tychonic and Capellan hypotheses. The replacement of the woodcut by the engrav-ing enabled him to accommodate the Tychonic system as well. The superimposed diagramsof planetary orbs, regarded as non-demonstrative hypotheses, were therefore open to ex-perimentation. In contrast to the hypothetical schemes of 8, 9, 10 or 11 spheres, threeheavens were enough for getting on with practical applications promoting the welfare ofman and the glory of God.

In addition to significant omissions, images are also worthy of scholarly attention be-cause of unexpected inclusions. By the very nature of visual representation, non-abstract



illustrations necessarily make explicit various tacit beliefs assumed by the text but notexpressed in words. In early modern works, cosmic sections appeared with many vari-ations and expressed social and religious visions of life in the universe which underlaycosmological beliefs (Cohen, 1985, pp. 61, 62 and frontispiece; Montgomery, 1990, pp.157–168).

To a remarkable degree, cosmic sections were associated with biblical themes and inter-pretation. The hexameral idiom embedded in these diagrams, such as fluid heavens and su-percelestial waters, established a unifying discourse with strong continuities across a widevariety of natural philosophies and cosmological systems. Jesuit attempts to coordinate theinvestigations of physics, mathematics and theology were facilitated by the versatility ofhexameral idiom. This study of visual representations reveals that hexameral idiom playeda more significant role in catalyzing thinking across disparate natural philosophical tradi-tions than we might have imagined, a point which is equally evident in the analogous caseof global sections published in Theories of the Earth (Magruder, 2009).

8.2 Interpreting Biblical Interpretations.

The second ramification of this study is the importance of attending to biblical interpreta-tion. It is often assumed that literal biblical exposition and concordist attempts to updatecurrent natural knowledge by means of fitting it into the skeleton of Genesis 1 were pe-culiarly Protestant habits (e.g., Harrison, 1998). The case of Beati and the Jesuits posesan anomaly for this characterization. Protestants could be as allegorical as Catholics (e.g.Thompson, 1996; van der Meer and Oosterhoff, 2009) and Catholics could be just asliteral-minded as Protestants (e.g. Blackwell, 1991; Howell, 2002, 2009). Jesuit instructionin biblical exegesis emphasized interpretation according to the sensus literalis (Remmert,2009, p. 682). Perhaps historians have underestimated the significance of a common hu-manist textual scholarship for inculcating habits of literal interpretation in varied sectariancontexts (Feingold, 2003).

Hexameral idiom comprised a contested but authoritative multi-contextual discourse,where Genesis 1 was widely respected as a potential source of relevant propositions anddata embedded in an ambiguous textual framework. Although the hexameral literaturewas synthetic, largely encyclopedic and eclectic in character, as a common repository ofopinions on natural topics it was appropriated to reinforce selected aspects of Stoic, Neo-platonic, and chemical philosophies against Aristotelian tenets. This is not to say that thehexameral literature was the only or even the chief source of transmission of these views,or the sole motivation for holding some of them, or that it propagated any system in a philo-sophically coherent and systematic form, but merely that it was significant in legitimizingand disseminating certain views and in disposing its readers toward approving them anddeveloping them in particular directions.

At the same time, the malleability of biblical idiom enabled even so-called literal inter-pretations to arrive at strikingly different conclusions. Biblical authority therefore did not


208 K. V. Magruder

specify philosophical outcomes, but nevertheless provided a framework for exploration ofa variety of perspectives that might serve to unlock the secrets held by the text. For exam-ple, theologians like Bellarmine and cosmologists like Beati saw in the hexameral accountevidence that, to them, undermined the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian world picture. Similarly,cosmological systems as diverse as Tycho’s and Descartes’ were developed with referenceto hexameral discourse (Howell, 2002; Magruder, 2009). In this particular regard Jesuitcosmologists were not uniquely or necessarily held back from engaging in scientific inves-tigations because of their theological entanglements, but relied upon traditional theologicalthemata even as they articulated novel theories.

Grafton observed that ‘The ancient texts served as both tools and obstacles for the in-tellectual exploration of new worlds. . . The texts provided European intellectuals not witha single grid that imposed a uniform order on all new information, but with a complexset of overlapping stencils, a rich and delicate set of patterns and contrivances. These pro-duced diverse, provocative, ultimately revolutionary assemblies of new facts and images’(Grafton, 1992, p. 58). In the same way, the biblical text also required interpretation, andthe changing meanings of Genesis 1 served as both ‘tools and obstacles’ for the intellec-tual exploration of the Earth and cosmos. Yet this fluidity of meaning did not imply thesterility of a text whose use was merely ornamental or cosmetic: the nearly endless searchfor concordism with Genesis 1 and other ancient texts significantly shaped the course ofinquiry and the outlines of natural knowledge.

8.3 Interpreting the Scientific Revolution

Some time ago serious historians of geology abandoned the heuristic of categorizingvarious early 19th-century figures as either uniformitarians or catastrophists. To so over-simplify the diversity of views from which the discipline of geology emerged frightfullyobscures our understanding while doing little to enlighten (Rudwick, 1971; Rappaport,1997, p. 5). Similarly, given the diversity of cosmological views circulating in the mid-17th century, it seems equally misleading simply to characterize that debate as the col-lision between the Copernican and the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic worldviews—although thisrhetorical trope was famously employed by Galileo in his 1632 Dialogue on the Two ChiefWorld Systems. When Galileo wrote that dialogue, the Ptolemaic system already had beenset aside, at least among mathematical astronomers.

Beati’s cosmic section poses a striking anomaly for any historiography preoccupiedwith the advance and eventual triumph of Copernicanism over Aristotelianism. If we in-sist upon only two pure alternatives, we reify as timeless ideals what were in themselvesmutating traditions. Riccioli’s frontispiece indicates that Copernicanism was admired asthe standard by which the mathematical aspects of other systems were judged, but alter-natives proliferated rapidly as the search for observable distinguishing evidence boggeddown. Transformations of systems threw all in doubt. Some systems were not just empiri-cally similar, but geometrically equivalent. We have not considered the systems of Gilbert



or Ursus with a rotating central Earth. More oddly still, Riccioli relayed an account of alunar-centric system, a hypothetical transformation ad absurdem (Heilbron, 1999, p. 113).Observations to empirically distinguish between a multiplicity of systems proved elusive.For example, the parallax for Mars and the Sun was very difficult to assess. The superim-position of Capellan, Tychonic and semi-Tychonic systems upon Beati’s cosmic section il-lustrates how what we now disparagingly refer to as ‘hybrid systems’ were not regarded asshort-term compromises with an inexorably-advancing Copernicanism, but as provisionalexperiments that seemed at least as warranted as the Copernican extreme. The ScientificRevolution is far more interesting than a conflict between two chief world systems.

8.4 Interpreting Jesuit Science After Galileo

Finally, ever since Galileo, rumor and suspicion have clouded historical understanding ofJesuit endeavors in natural knowledge. Jesuits have been dismissed as opposed to Coper-nicanism, slow to appreciate novel discoveries and enslaved to censorship and biblicalliteralism. Indeed, the Jesuits took the lead in marshalling arguments against the Earth’smotion (Grant, 2003, p. 128). Yet preoccupation with the Jesuit rejection of Copernicanismrelies on the assumption that Copernicanism was the sine qua non of the Scientific Revo-lution, with the inescapable implication that Catholics in general, and Jesuits in particular,played a marginal role in the post-Galilean development of science. On the other hand, de-spite official opposition, many Jesuit works propagated a keen admiration of Copernican-ism, explaining it at length in knowledgeable and sympathetic discussions. And while theJesuits carefully qualified the competence of mathematical demonstration, they neverthe-less emphasized the pursuit of mathematical sciences and led mathematical investigationsin the 17th century. In addition, to later historians, Jesuit adherence to biblical authorityfunctioned almost as a prerequisite for the conflict model of the warfare of science andreligion, insofar as literalism could fuel efficient instruments of censorship. On the otherhand, Jesuit obedience to official decrees was in reality far more complex (e.g. Dinis, 2003,pp. 195–196), and Jesuit theologians often conducted biblical exegesis in ‘open exchange’with Jesuit mathematicians (Remmert, 2009, pp. 672, 684). With the specific exceptionof the motion of the Earth (in which the language of Genesis 1 was not at issue), bibli-cal language was generally more supple and fluid, resisting rigid interpretations. A mal-leable literalism offered substantial options for incremental and multi-valent adjustment.For example, despite their avowed allegiance to Aristotle, Jesuits were more receptive thanscholastics to sunspots, new stars, fluid orbs, the corruptibility of the heavens and variousnon-Ptolemaic geocentric systems (Grant, 2003, pp. 135–136, 146; Remmert, 2009, p.678).

For these and other reasons, over the last two decades numerous scholars have begun torestore a more adequate picture of vigorous Jesuit participation in the mathematical sci-ences, consisting of sustained investigations in optics, geodesy, astronomy and cosmology


210 K. V. Magruder

(e.g., Ashworth, 1986a; Feingold, 2003). Ashworth asserts that ‘In areas unrelated to thecontroversial matter of Copernicanism, the Jesuits were a remarkably bold and imagina-tive scientific body,’ the first scientific society in existence in the 17th century (Ashworth,1986b, pp. 5). The aim of this paper has been to uncover a little piece of unsuspected com-plexity in Jesuit cosmology after Galileo and to try to understand it better by attending tothe interpretation of visual representations. The fluid heavens depicted in Beati’s Sphaeratriplex provide a snapshot of the fluidity of traditions in cosmology in the mid-17th century.

Acknowledgements

For comments and help with this project, I thank Peter Barker, Bruce Bradley, Bill Ash-worth, Ken Taylor and Katherine Tredwell. Research was conducted with the aid of avisiting fellowship from the Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and Technology,in Kansas City, Missouri, and with assistance from the University of Oklahoma Libraries.Various forms of the engraved version of Beati’s cosmic section are reproduced here cour-tesy of the Linda Hall Library; all other images are courtesy of the History of ScienceCollections of the University of Oklahoma Libraries.

NOTES

1. Biographical and bibliographical information is derived from Backer et al. (1960), vol. 1, pp. 1070–1071; the British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books, p. 666; and Poggendorff, 1863, vol.1, p. 121. Beati is not included in most standard biographical encyclopedias, including the Dictionaryof Scientific Biography and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Other than Ashworth (1987), historians havepaid very little attention to Beati.

2. Headings, sections, and numbered paragraphs are identical in both copies: A6v: CAP. III. | De Hori-zonte. (¶1–11, [12]; the 12th paragraph is mistakenly numbered as 7. B1r: CAP. IV. | De Meridiano.(¶1–6, [7], 8–13; the 7th paragraph is mistakenly numbered as 4. D6v: ARTICVLVS II. | De Terræ∫itu, & Immobilitate. (¶1–8, 10–19; 9th ¶absent [2, 4, 5 ills]). H5r: ARTICVLVS III. | De Cælorumordine, ∫iue ∫i∫temate. (¶1–19, [20], 21–22; 20th ¶misnumbered as 10. Running titles are identical inboth copies: Variants and misspellings are G3v: Aeteris [should be Aetheris]; K7v, K8v: Luna [shouldbe Lunæ, as in K6v, L1v, L2v]; M7r, M8r: Art. III. [should be Art. IV.]; Q2v: De Solis, &c. [shouldbe De Comætis]. There are no variations in the catchwords. In both copies a Fleur de lis watermarkoccurs at the head of inner margins, e.g., B2 and B3. A complete bibliographic description is availableupon request from the author.

REFERENCES

Apian, P. (1540) Cosmographia (Vneunt Antuerpi: In pingui gallina Arnoldo Berckmano).Ariew, R. (1999) Descartes and the last scholastics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Ashworth, W. B. Jr. (1986a) Catholicism and early modern science, in: D. C. Lindberg and R. L. Numbers (eds.)

God and nature: Historical essays on the encounter between christianity and science (Berkeley: Universityof California Press), pp. 136–166.

Ashworth, W. B. Jr. (1986b) Jesuit science in the age of Galileo: An exhibition of rare books from the historyof science collection, March 24-July 31, 1986 [text and photographs by W. B. Ashworth, Jr., bibliographicinformation and exhibit preparation by B. Bradley] (Kansas City: Linda Hall Library).

Ashworth, W. B. Jr. (1987) Iconography of a new physics, History and Technology, 4, 267–297.



Backer, A. D. et al. (1960) Bibliothéque de la compagnie de Jésus, Vol. 12 (Bruxelles: Oscar Schepens, andParis: Alphonse Picard, 1890; reprinted Louvain, France, 1960).

Barker, P. (1991) Stoic contributions to early modern science, in: M. J. Osler (ed.) Atoms, pneuma, and tran-quillity: Epicurean and stoic themes in European thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp.135–154.

Barker, P. and Goldstein, B. R. (1984) Is seventeenth century physics indebted to the Stoics? Centaurus, 27,148–164.

Basil. (1963) Exegetic homilies [On the hexaemeron; On Psalms; Trans. A. C. Way] The Fathers of the Church,no. 46 (Washington: Catholic University of America Press).

Beati, G. (1624) Poesie sacre (Bologna: Theodoro Mascheroni e Clemente Ferroni).Beati, G. (1644) Usus speculi plani, sive de dimensionibus per speculum planum (Romae: Typ. haered.

Corbelletti).Beati, G. (1650) Natura in arctum coacta, sive quadripartitum universae philosophiae compendium, quaestiones

etiam meteorologicas complectens, Gabrielis Beati philosophiae professoris in Collegio Romano Soc. Jesu,Vol 4 (Romae: Typis haeredum Corbelletti).

Beati, G. (1662) Sphaera triplex artificialis, elementaris, ac caelestis. Varias planetarum affectiones; & praeser-tim motus, facillime explicans (Rome: Typis Varesij).

Beati, G. (1663) Quaestiones morales selectiores, a Gabriele Beato, Societatis Jesu, theologiae moralis in Col-legio Romano professore, discussae ac resolutae. In quibus, propositus casibus, prima quaedam principiaad plurimas alias quaestiones similes resolvendas perutilia subinde examinantur (Romae: sumptibus Jo.Dominici Franzini).

Bellarmine, R. (1984) The Louvain lectures (Lectiones Lovanienses) of Bellarmine and the autograph copy ofhis 1616 declaration to Galileo, in: U. Baldini and G. Coyne (eds.) Studi Galileiani, Vol. 1, no. 2 (SpecolaVaticana: Vatican Observatory Publications).

Biancani, G. (1620) Sphaera mundi (Bononi: Typis Sebastiani Bonomij, sumptibus Hieronymi Tamburini).Blackwell, R. J. (1991) Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press).Brahe, T. (1588) De mvnde aetherei (Vranibvrgi: Imprimebat authoris). de Chales, C. F. M. (1674) Cvrsvs sev

mvndvs mathematicvs nvnc primvm in lvcem prodit (Lugduni: Ex officina Anissoniana).Cohen, I. B. (1985) Revolution in Science (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).Colish, M. L. (1985) The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, Vols. (Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1985).Digges, L. (1555) A prognostication of right good effect fructfully augmented, contayninge plaine, briefe,

pleasent, chosen rules to iudge the wether for ever, by the Sunne, Moone, starres, comets, raynebowe, thunder,cloudes, with other extraordinary tokens, not omitting the aspectes of planetes (London: Imprynted byThomas Gemini).

Dinis, A. (2003) Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the science of his time, in: M. Feingold (ed.) Jesuit science andthe Republic of Letters (Cambridge: The MIT Press), pp. 195–224.

Donahue, W. H. (1981) The dissolution of the heavenly spheres, 1595–1650 (New York: Arno Press).Feingold, M. (2003) Jesuit science and the republic of letters (Cambridge: The MIT Press).Finé, O. (1542) De mundi sphaera, siue, Cosmographia, primave astronomiae parte libri V (Paris: Apud Si-

monem Colinaeun).Galileo, G. (1632) Dialogo . . . sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo tolemaico, e copernicano (Fiorenza: Per

Gio. Batista Landini).Gingerich, O. and Westman, R. S. (1988) The Wittich connection: Conflict and priority in late 16th-century

cosmology (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society).Goldstein, B. R. and Barker, P. (1995) The role of Rothmann in the dissolution of the celestial spheres, British

Journal for the History of Science, 28, 385–404.Grafton, A. T. (1992) New worlds, ancient texts: The power of tradition and the shock of discovery (Cambridge:

The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).Grant, E. (1994) Planets, stars, and orbs: The medieval cosmos, 1200–1687 (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press).Grant, E. (2003) The partial transformation of medieval cosmology by Jesuits in the sixteenth and seventeenth

centuries, in: M. Feingold (ed.) Jesuit science and the republic of letters (Cambridge: The MIT Press), pp.127–156.

Harrison, P. (1998) The Bible, Protestantism, and the rise of modern science (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).

Heilbron, J. L. (1999) The sun in the church: Cathedrals as solar observatories (Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress).


212 K. V. Magruder

Howell, K. J. (2002) God’s two books: Copernican cosmology and biblical interpretation in early modern science(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press).

Howell, K. J. (2009) The hermeneutics of nature and scripture in early modern science and theology, in: J. vander Meer and S. Mandelbrote (eds.) Nature and scripture in the Abrahamic religions, Vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill),pp. 275–298.

Johnson, F. R. (1953) Astronomical text-books in the sixteenth century, in: E. A. Underwood (ed.) Science,medicine, and history, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953), pp. 285-302.

Kircher, A. (1660) Iter extaticum coeleste (Herbipoli: Sumptibus Joh. Andr. & Wolffg. Jun. Endterorumhæredibus).

Kircher, A. (1665) Mundus subterraneus, in XII libros digestus (Amsterdam: Apud Joannem Janssonium &Elizeum Weyerstraten).

Lattis, J. M. (1994) Between Copernicus and Galileo: Christoph Clavius and the collapse of Ptolemaic cosmol-ogy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Magruder, K. V. (2006) Global visions and the establishment of theories of the earth, Centaurus, 48, 234–257.Magruder, K. V. (2009) The idiom of a six day creation and global depictions in theories of the earth, in: M.

Kölb-Ebert (ed.) Geology and religion: Historical views of an intense relationship between harmony andhostility, Geological Society of London Special Publications, no. 310 (London: The Geological Society ofLondon), pp. 49–66.

van der Meer, J. and Mandelbrote, S. (2009) Nature and scripture in the Abrahamic religions: up to 1700, Vol. 2(Leiden: Brill).

van der Meer, J. and Oosterhoff, R. J. (2009) God, scripture, and the rise of modern science (1200–1700): Notesin the margin of Harrison’s hypothesis, in: J. van der Meer and S. Mandelbrote (eds.) Nature and scripture inthe Abrahamic religions, Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill), pp. 363–396.

Montgomery, S. L. (1990) The moon and the western imagination (Tucson: University of Arizona Press).Peucer, C. (1569) Elementa doctrinae de circulis coelestibus et primo motu (Vitebergae: Excvdebat Iohannes

Crato).Poggendorff, J. C. (1863) Biographisch-literarisches handwörterbuch zur geschichte der exacten wissenschaften,

Vol. 1 (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth).Rappaport, R. (1997) When geologists were historians, 1665–1750 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Remmert, V. R. (2009) ‘Our mathematicians have learned and verified this’: Jesuits, biblical exegesis, and the

mathematical sciences in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, in: J. van der Meer and S.Mandelbrote (eds.) Nature and scripture in the Abrahamic religions, Vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill), pp. 655–690.

Riccioli, I. B. (1651) Almagestvm novvm, astronomiam veterem novamque complectens observationibvs aliorvm,et propriis nouisque theorematibus, problematibus, ac tabulis promotam, Vol. 2 (Bononiæ: Ex typographiahæredis Victorij Benatij).

Rudwick, M. J. S. (1971) Uniformity and progression: Reflections on the structure of geological theory in the ageof Lyell, in: D. H. D. Roller (ed.) Perspectives in the history of science and technology (Norman: Universityof Oklahoma Press, 1971), pp. 209–227.

Scheiner, C. (1630) Rosa vrsina, sive, Sol ex admirando facvlarvm & macularum suarum phœnomeno varivs(Bracciani: Apud Andream Phæum typographum ducalem).

Thompson, J. L. (1996) The survival of allegorical argumentation in Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Old Testamentexegesis, in: R. A. Muller and J. L. Thompson (eds.) Biblical interpretation in the era of the reformation(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company), pp. 255–271.

Thoren, V. E. (1990) The lord of Uraniborg: A biography of Tyche Brahe (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).

Thorndike, L. (1949) The sphere of Sacrobosco and its commentators (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Waddell, M. A. (2006) The world, as it might be: Iconography and probabilism in the Mundus subterraneus of

Athanasius Kircher, Centaurus, 48, 3–22.


Documents

Jesuit Science After Galileo: The Cosmology of Gabriele Beatimlebron/cifi4005/43460466.pdf · Jesuit Science After Galileo: The Cosmology of Gabriele Beati KERRY V. M AGRUDER∗ Abstract