Jesuit Science After Galileo: the Cosmology of Gabriele Beati

Home , Caspar Peucer, Empyrean, Giuseppe Biancani

Jesuit Science After Galileo: The Cosmology of Gabriele Beati

∗ KERRY V. M AGRUDER

Abstract. Gabriele Beati (1607–1673) taught mathematics at the Collegio Romano when in 1662 he published an introduction to astronomy, the Sphaera triplex. This little work contains an interesting cosmic section which is analyzed here as representing a fusion of Jesuit traditions in cosmology achieved by Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598–1671). The cosmic section enumerates three heavens, depicts ﬂuid planetary heavens, and expresses hexameral biblical idiom. Woodcut and engraved variants of the cosmic section 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 interpretation of visual representations, science and biblical interpretation, the Scientiﬁc Revolution and Jesuit science 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. called attention 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 heavens offers 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 Battista Riccioli (1598–1671). The Sphaera triplex, organized in three books, is a small, introductory mathematical textbook, a late descendant of the sphaera and theorica traditions (Thorndike, 1949). The first book, sphaera artificialis, briefly explains the circles used in the sphaera tradition, such as the horizon, meridian, celestial equator, or zodiac. The second book, sphaera elementaris, 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 and elemental regions. Here, for example, Beati argued from stellar parallax for the centrality and 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]

Fig. 1. Gabriel Beati, Sphaera triplex (1662). Engraved cosmic section, tipped-in fold-out plate. Courtesy Rare 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 of the heavens, the motion of the heavens, the order or system of the heavens, the sizes and distances of the Sun, Moon and stars, lunar and solar eclipses, the nature and movement of the planets and the nature of comets and novae. The cosmic section appears in this last and 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 study appeared after his assignment to the Collegio Romano (Beati, 1644). When Beati published a four-volume quarto work on cosmology and meteorology, the title page announced that he was lecturing in philosophy in the Collegio Romano (Beati, 1650). The Sphaera triplex 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-volume work 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 known controversies, either within or without his order. For that very reason his work affords an 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 the leading Jesuit university, however ﬂeeting, makes him worthy of some attention, while the unremarkable character of his career suggests that the Sphaera triplex reﬂects typical views 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 in early 17th-century Jesuit cosmology, one physical and the other mathematical (Bellarmine, 1984, p. 43). The first, a physical tradition of non-mathematical cosmology, derived from Bellarmine and became disseminated through the Louvain Lectures. In these lectures Bel- larmine spurned the conflicting hypotheses of the astronomers in favor of more reliable authorities, particularly patristic interpretations of the hexameron or first chapter of Gene- sis. Only three heavens were required, Bellarmine argued, to account for the evidence of the senses and the testimony of scripture. Additional heavens were merely the hypotheses of mathematicians. Bellarmine rejected the fundamental assumption that planetary motions should be explained by combinations of the uniform circular motions of solid spheres and instead thought of the planets as moving through a fluid heaven, leaving unaddressed astronomers’ questions about the orbs and their motions (Bellarmine, 1984, p. 43). In contrast, the mathematical Jesuit tradition identified by Coyne and Baldini followed the assumptions and techniques taught in the Collegio Romano by Christoph Clavius (1538–1612). Clavius’ lifelong work established astronomy as a prominent area of study in the Jesuit curriculum. His commentary on the Sphere of Sacrobosco, published in numerous editions from 1570 through 1611, became one of the standard astronomical texts of its time. Clavius largely succeeded in his endeavor to integrate the Ptolemaic system with the teachings 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 second half 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 did not 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 the orb of Mars would necessarily intersect the orb of the Sun, although this would contradict the existence of solid orbs. Instead of solid orbs, then, the heavens must be fluid. After corresponding 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).

Giuseppe Biancani’s Sphaera mundi (1620) displaced Clavius’ commentary on the sphere in many Jesuit colleges, representing a shift from the Ptolemaic tradition to the Tychonic system. Biancani explained the Tychonic system at length, with its advantageous combination of mathematical elegance, a geocentric Earth and fluid heavens. The Coper- nican system was discussed more gingerly, for the De revolutionibus of Copernicus was suspended in 1616 until it could be corrected and the corrections were only issued in the same year as Biancani’s work. Nevertheless, Biancani’s Sphaera carefully explained the Copernican system, labeled simply as the Pythagorean view. With Ptolemy finally dead and buried, the Jesuits needed a new astronomy, a new Almagest, offered in mid-century by Riccioli, a student of Biancani (Dinis, 2003). In his Almagestum novum (1651) the two Jesuit traditions converged. Riccioli’s synthesis of the mathematical tradition of Clavius with the physical tradition of Bellarmine consisted of four major features representative of mid-century Jesuit cosmology: justifying cosmological assertions by means of hexameral evidence, that is, according to the text of the six days of creation as given in the first chapter of Genesis; holding the number of heavens to be three; rejecting solid planetary orbs in favor of fluid heavens; and experimentation with various Tychonic and semi-Tychonic systems. The first three characteristics describe Bellarmine and others in the physical tradition, the latter two apply to writers in the mathematical-astronomical tradition. The well-known frontispiece of Riccioli’s treatise reflects mid-17th century perceptions well, depicting three major systems of the world (Figure 2). The Ptolemaic system rests discarded in the lower right corner. It could be rejected but not forgotten, in deference to Clavius. While all-seeing Argus looks on, Urania weighs in a balance the two chief world systems which remain. Against the system of Copernicus, the standard against which alternatives must be measured, Riccioli’s semi-Tychonic system weighed in as the most warranted (Montgomery, 1990, pp. 194–197). Beati cited Riccioli’s Almagestum novum in running fashion throughout the Sphaera triplex. Indeed, nearly all of the topics in Beati’s little textbook were treated at much greater length in the two folio volumes of Riccioli. Sphaera triplex is a textbook abridgment of the 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 of cosmology. We have noted that this cosmic section depicts fluid heavens, an idea common to both physical and mathematical Jesuit traditions. This paper will show that the cosmic section illustrates not only fluid heavens, but each of the four major features of mid-century Jesuit cosmology described here as the Ricciolian synthesis. The cosmic section of Beati is as curious as it is interesting, for there are two versions of the plate which show the planets in different positions. One is a copper plate engraving, 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 the copy 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, of these two variants. Detailed bibliographic comparison of the two copies held by Linda Hall Library and the University of Oklahoma shows that both were printed in Rome in 1662. They were printed by the same printer, and the title pages are identical. Throughout the text, they have identical typography, collation, pagination and paper, including the same watermark. They have identical headings, sections and numbered paragraphs. For example, on the recto of leaf H5 in the section on the order of the heavens, paragraph 20 is misnumbered as paragraph 10 in both copies. They have identical running titles. For example, although other pages in one section display Aetheris in the running title, on the verso of leaf G3

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

both copies display Aeteris. Nor are there any discrepancies in catchwords. Finally, all diagrams and illustrations in the work, other than the fold-out plate, are identical in both copies. In sum, a comprehensive bibliographic description reveals no differences; there are no 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 prepared before the other, or were the two versions prepared for different readers? Evidence points to the former inference: The head title or label of the woodcut suggests that it was printed first, at the same time as the book and the other illustrations, because it and the other three original plates (not reproduced here) all abbreviate number as ‘Num.’ in both copies. In contrast, the engraving is the odd one out, labeled ‘Nu.’ instead of ‘Num.’In contrast to the relatively unrefined woodcut, a copper plate engraving shows fine detail but is more difficult and expensive to prepare. So we may assume as a working hypothesis that the initial copies of the book were distributed with a hastily-prepared woodcut, and that later issues contained an engraving executed with greater care and oversight on the part of Beati. Comparison of these variants of the cosmic section affords an interesting glimpse into 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 cosmology, 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 primum mobile, the firmament of fixed stars and the seven planetary spheres. The empyrean heaven was an additional sphere sometimes shown in such diagrams, yet oftentimes understood as somehow 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, the Spanish scholars who compiled the Alfonsine tables added a tenth sphere to account for the ‘trepidation of the equinoxes’ believed by Thabit Ibn Qura to account for a discrepancy between 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) and Leonard Digges (1555). A system of eight spheres, dispensing altogether with orbs above the 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, thus avoiding the postulate of any orb not containing a visible body (Johnson, 1953). It was defended by Oronce Finé in De mundi sphaera sive cosmographia (1542). And finally, eleven-sphere systems appeared in works by Christoph Clavius and others (not necessarily Copernicans) toward the end of the 16th century to accommodate an additional motion attributed to the Earth’s axis by Copernicus (Lattis, 1994, pp. 167, 170-173). Cosmic sections displaying the number of spheres often appeared in these works. However, the cosmic sections depicting the heavens largely omitted the exact mathematical devices necessary to save the appearances. For example, Copernicus’ elegant and compelling cosmic section gave little hint of the multiplicity of secondary epicycles and other circles which actually comprised his mathematical system. In contrast to the astronomical writers responsible for the 16th-century diagrams, cosmologists in the Jesuit physical tradition tended to base their inferences about the number of heavens not on mathematical and physical considerations but on scriptural passages, and particularly on hexameral exegesis, the interpretation of the creation week recounted in the first chapter of Genesis. Beati organized his exposition of cosmology explicitly according to hexameral chronology. This was by no means novel or idiosyncratic among Jesuit cosmologists. For example, Riccioli similarly began his consideration of ‘De mvndi systemate’ 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 include nothing similar to Beati’s cosmic section, yet Beati’s exposition contains few arguments or ideas not found in Riccioli. Earlier, Robert Bellarmine had explicitly relied upon the hexameral writings of the Church Fathers, particularly St. Basil, in developing his cosmological views. In the Lou- vain Lectures, Bellarmine identified three heavens from scripture—the empyreum,

© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S 196 K. V. Magruder sidereum, and aereum—and argued that all the Fathers could be interpreted as agreeing with this numeration, although he conceded that scripture could allow for more if necessary (Bellarmine, 1984, pp. 16–17). Following Bellarmine, 17th-century Jesuits such as Riccioli widely adopted the convention of dividing the heavens into only three parts instead 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 cosmologists with an epistemological and rhetorical resource to sidestep what they regarded as the non-demonstrative realm of mathematical disputes about the number of the heavens in order to establish the enduring certainties of physical cosmology, so they thought, with the aid of scriptural proof. Combining a realist approach to hexameral cosmology with an instrumentalist understanding of geometrical world systems, Jesuit dialogue between theology and mathematics provided resources to construct a physical-mathematical approach to 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 created the heavens, the Earth and a vast and profound abyss of water. On the second day, in the middle of the water, he made the firmament of fixed stars which divided the waters above from the waters below. Such an arrangement at the end of the second day called forth more detailed commentary and cosmological exegesis. The firmament, which Beati also called the sidereal heaven (caelum sydereum, labeled F in Figure 4), contains the fixed stars and revolves around the Earth once each day. With two major exceptions, Beati’s views on the second day resemble those of Bellarmine in Question 68 of the Louvain Lectures. The two exceptions are that Beati accepted that the firmament is solid and that the firmament has a diurnal motion (as implied by any system where 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 the firmament 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 (Figure 4, center, tinted green) lies the caelum planetarum, the planetary heaven, interpreted as the waters beneath the firmament (tinted blue in Figure 4). Beati explained that the caelum planetarum is a fluid, inferior part of the middle heaven, undergoing constant motion like the fixed stars in the solid, superior caelum sydereum (Beati, 1662, p. 110). Beati wrote that planets move through the fluid heaven as birds fly through the air or as fishes swim through the sea, an ancient Stoic metaphor that had been endorsed by Bellarmine, echoed by Brahe and rejected by Clavius. Following Tycho, Beati noted that the supralunar motions of comets could not be understood 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, tinted green). 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 extends from the outer edge of the aereum to the inner edge of the empyrean (Beati, 1662, pp. 106–107). Courtesy Rare Book Collection, Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and Technology, Kansas City, Missouri. system from scripture, citing numerous hexameral commentaries by the Church Fathers to support the ideas that the heavens are fluid, corruptible, and both watery and fiery in nature. After a lengthy survey of patristic views Riccioli had already come to the same resolution (Riccioli, 1651, pp. 224, 244; Beati, 1662, pp. 111–112). Following Riccioli, Melchior Cornaeus and Georgius de Rhodes agreed (Grant, 2003, pp. 142–145). Baldini and Coyne point out that Bellarmine argued for the fluidity of the heavens on the basis of 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 fluid heavens, were often transmitted as stowaways via the hexameral commentary tradition (Barker and Goldstein, 1984; Colish, 1985; Barker, 1991). Grant attributes the increasing prevalence in later scholasticism of ideas of fluid heavens and celestial corruptibility to the importance of patristic texts such as Basil’s hexameral commentary, which became more widely available in the 16th century (Grant, 1994, pp. 267–268). Riccioli favored Tycho’s view 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

© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S 198 K. V. Magruder heaven, therefore, Riccioli and Beati had it both ways: a fluid planetary heaven like Bellarmine and the Fathers, and a solid firmament to save the phenomena of the diurnal motion of fixed stars. In this fusion of physical and mathematical Jesuit traditions, the diplomatic combination of the fluid caelum planetarum and the solid caelum sydereum, which together comprise the celestial heaven, provided a convenient way to legitimate novelties by reconciling contradictory authorities. The appeal of Tychonic cosmology to mid-century Jesuit astronomers reflected, in addition to its geocentric mathematical elegance, the accordance of its physical assumptions with hexameral tradition. Yet what is the nature of the waters above the firmament? In response to this traditional question of hexameral exegesis, Beati argued that God made cavities or receptacles in the outer surface of the solid firmament to hold the super-celestial waters. The waters above the firmament thereby temper the heat of the firmament and its fiery stars. The waters above and below the firmament are aptly regarded as divided, Beati concluded, because elemental 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 accorded with the literal interpretations of hexameral commentators. For example, Basil’s commentary portrayed the universe as a delicate balance of fire and water, created with just enough moisture in the oceans and above the heavens to enable it to endure until the ordained limit of 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 fire by 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 Bellarmine like 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). This aereum 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 of the stars and firmament and thereby prevent the celestial heaven from igniting. In the same way, Beati reasoned, on the third day God prepared cavities in the surface of the Earth to hold the oceans, which temper subterranean heat and prevent the Earth from igniting. One suspects that the influence rather ran the other way, from the first heaven to the second, so that the hexameral account of the gathering of the waters on the third day offered Beati a model for the gathering of the supercelestial waters into basins within the firmament, as already described. Unlike the first and second heavens, the empyrean heaven (Figure 4, outer area, tinted red) is not explicitly mentioned in Genesis 1. Its justification rested on inferences about

© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S Cosmology of Gabriele Beati 199 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 empyrean heaven consists of all that lies beyond the firmament, the habitation of angels and the blessed. In contrast to a number of medieval and Lutheran cosmologies, the empyrean heaven of Beati and other Jesuits was as spatial and as physical as the other depicted regions. Beati divided the empyrean heaven into a lower solid part (C in Figure 4), and an upper fluid part (B). The solid part of the Empyrean, Beati explained, is required to support the 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 a fiery solid overlain by fluid water is not unique but rather characteristic of each of the three heavens. The heavens of Beati, therefore, comprise a trinity of fiery solids, each cooled by fluid waters above (Figure 5). The precarious condition of the Earth in Beati’s lowest heaven, balanced between water and 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 his most important work on the Earth, Mundus Subterraneus (1665), which most memorably depicted the igneous nature of the Earth and the interlaced circulations of fire and water in two double-page global sections (Figure 6). Cosmic sections provided important precedents and resources for depictions of the Earth in the 17th century, and Beati’s cosmic section illumines the mid-17th-century Jesuit cosmological context for Kircher’s global sections. Two years before Beati’s text, in the Iter exstaticum (1660), Kircher had already articulated a preliminary statement of his vision of the Earth in cosmic context, the last part of which was announced as a prodromus for the forthcoming Mundus subterraneus. In a cosmic section not reproduced here, Kircher depicted 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 conceptions of supercelestial waters might draw upon an interpretation of the scooping out of ocean basins on the third day, so affirmations of the igneous character of the firmament and empyrean heaven might throw light upon the structure of the Earth. In the three-fold symmetry 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-century cosmology were the substance of the heavens and the immutability or corruptibility of the heavens. With respect to celestial substance, Jesuits rejected the sub-lunar/supra-lunar dichotomy of the scholastics. Despite their avowed adherence to Aristotle, Jesuits were able to justify a greater openness to continuous substance in part by playing hexameral authority

Fig. 5. Celestial symmetries. against Aristotle. Contrary to Aristotle, Beati wrote, the firmament is not composed of a fifth element, because aether is simply another name for pure fire, the element naturally above the air (Beati, 1662, p. 108). Contrary to Aristotle, there is no material dichotomy between heaven and Earth because the heavens consist of water and fire of the same nature as in the sublunar realm. Waters occur below and above the Moon, and below and above the firmament. As a consequence of the continuous substance of the heavens, Beati held that the planetary 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 corruptibility of the heavens after the nova of 1572 (Lattis, 1994, pp. 147-156). Scheiner saw sunspots as confirmation of celestial corruptibility (Scheiner, 1630). Scheiner publicized the fact that Bellarmine had argued for the igneous nature of the stars and the corruptibility of the heavens before 1572 on the basis of hexameral exegesis and the tradition of the Church Fathers (Bellarmine, 1984, p. 27). Riccioli likewise argued that the visible heavens are corruptible (Riccioli, 1651, vol. 2, p. 238; Grant, 1994, pp. 205-219). Following Riccioli, Melchior Cornaeus and Georgius de Rhodes defended celestial corruptibility as well (Grant, 2003, pp. 138-139). It is worth noting that the hexameral tradition provided significant 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 within the 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 chief world systems frequently discussed in the ﬁrst half of the 17th century: Ptolemaic, Pla- tonic, Egyptian, Tychonic, semi-Tychonic and Copernican (Figure 7). These systems were reviewed in turn by Riccioli, Kircher, Beati and other Jesuits such as Claude François Millet de Chales (1674). The Ptolemaic system requires no comment; the Platonic system 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 writer Martianus Capella. The Capellan, Tychonic and semi-Tychonic systems were geocentric, unlike the Copernican. In the Copernican system, all planets revolve around the Sun, and

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 Oklahoma Libraries. 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 was none 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 the objections against it. Despite Galileo’s rhetorical attempt to cast cosmological debate as a choice between two chief world systems (Galileo, 1632), Beati’s cosmic section is neither Ptolemaic nor Copernican. Unlike the Ptolemaic system, it shows Mercury and Venus revolving around the Sun. Unlike the Copernican, the Earth rather than the Sun lies at the center of the world. So which of the remaining world systems are represented by Beati’s cosmic section? Perhaps we presume too much by sketching in the planetary circles, since visual representations are as revealing in what they omit as in what they show, and the main point to emphasize is that in both variants Beati chose to leave the paths of the other planets unspeciﬁed. However, it is worthwhile to examine the degree to which Beati’s cosmic sections were contrived to be consistent with a variety of systems and to satisfy a variety of 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

© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S Cosmology of Gabriele Beati 203 around the Sun, contrary to the Ptolemaic and Platonic systems. Omitting these as well as the Copernican, in the next several figures we shall venture to superimpose upon Beati’s cosmic section the remaining chief world systems identified by Kircher: the Egyptian or Capellan, the Tychonic and the semi-Tychonic. Each figure will compare a single world system 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 the Sun as if on epicycles (Beati, 1662, p. 112). This fact alone does not imply that the cosmic section reflects the Tychonic system. Indeed, in the text Beati explained the Egyptian or Capellan system, a geocentric model in which Mercury and Venus revolve around the Sun, and he included a diagram of its orbs. In this system the other planets, including the Sun, revolve around the Earth in nested spheres. Even Clavius conceded, after the discovery of the phases of Venus by Galileo in 1611, that something like the Egyptian system would displace the Ptolemaic. Ariew has shown that astronomers experienced little difficulty accommodating the revolution of Mercury and Venus (and sunspots) around the Sun (Ariew, 1999, pp. 101–104). The Capellan system is superimposed upon the woodcut version of Beati’s cosmic section in Figure 8 (left). Venus and Mercury revolve around the Sun, and the Sun revolves around the Earth, consistent with the Egyptian system. Saturn also appears consistent with this system. Jupiter, shown with its four Galilean satellites, cuts the circle of Venus. This is unacceptable in reality, but perhaps forgivable on an imprecise woodcut. The circle of Mars, 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 precisely executed, and at least Capellan (Figure 8, right). Jupiter no longer collides with Venus, and Mars is much more accurately situated as well, although it still clips the path of 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 openness to experimentation with non-Ptolemaic systems than is often recognized. Many Jesuits after Biancani upheld a Tychonic cosmology in which the Earth is at rest in the center of the 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 systems where the outer planets revolve around the Earth, in the Tychonic system all of the planets revolve around the Sun (the Earth is not regarded as a planet in the Tychonic system). Mars cuts the orb of the Sun, because at opposition it is closer to the Earth than is the Sun.

Fig. 8. Capellan (Aegyptiacum) system: woodcut (left); engraving (right). Planetary circles are added in the 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 woodcut 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 precisely upon the engraving (Figure 9, right), with the green circle of Saturn nested snugly within the planetary heaven beneath the firmament of fixed stars, in contrast to the woodcut. This match between the engraving and the Tychonic system is to be expected, for Beati’s text explicitly affirms a Tychonic system in which sunspots and the inner planets are not the only entities circling the Sun; Jupiter with its four moons and Saturn with three satellites also revolve around the Sun (Beati, 1662, p. 112). The mismatch between the woodcut and the Tychonic system espoused in the text is puzzling, but consistent with the working hypothesis that the woodcut was printed hastily and later replaced with the more carefully executed engraving.

7.2 The Semi-Tychonic System.

In verbally afﬁrming the Tychonic system, Beati departed from the semi-Tychonic system favored by Riccioli, which was represented in Riccioli’s frontispiece (Figure 2). In the semi-Tychonic system, as in the Tychonic, Mercury, Venus and Mars revolve around the Sun, 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 following colors (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. Evidently the semi-Tychonic system of Riccioli served as the primary model for the preparation of 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 well as the Tychonic (Figure 10, right).

8. The Signiﬁcance of Beati’s Cosmic Section

With its embedded hexameral interpretation, depiction of three heavens and their fluid composition, and with its non-specific accommodation to various cosmological systems, the cosmic section of Beati illustrates each of the four points previously identified as the Ricciolian synthesis of physical and mathematical traditions in Jesuit cosmology. In addition, this analysis of Beati’s cosmic section suggests four points of more general relevance regarding the interpretation of visual representations, science and the Bible, the Scientific Revolution and Jesuit science after Galileo.

8.1 Interpreting Images.

The first of four concluding points is that visual representations should not be dismissed as 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 were often criticized for their thorough-going efforts to develop image-based methods of instruction (Ashworth, 1986b, p. 28). How their visual rhetoric reflected their social context

Fig. 10. Semi-Tychonic system: woodcut (left); engraving (right). Planetary circles are added in the following 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, the work 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 and of 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 visions were prepared to serve different ends than, for example, the didactic global sections of Descartes (Magruder, 2006). The contemplative function of Kircher’s global sections suggests that perhaps the three-fold symmetry between solid and fluid heavens conveyed in Beati’s cosmic section offered a similar capacity to aid Beati’s readers in the discipline of meditation. Beati’s cosmic section also illustrates the more general point that images are worthy of special consideration because of significant omissions: what they do not include, contrary to the modern reader’s expectations. Images reflect the emphases of the text according to the 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 the semi-Tychonic and Capellan hypotheses. The replacement of the woodcut by the engraving enabled him to accommodate the Tychonic system as well. The superimposed diagrams of planetary orbs, regarded as non-demonstrative hypotheses, were therefore open to experimentation. In contrast to the hypothetical schemes of 8, 9, 10 or 11 spheres, three heavens were enough for getting on with practical applications promoting the welfare of man and the glory of God. In addition to significant omissions, images are also worthy of scholarly attention because of unexpected inclusions. By the very nature of visual representation, non-abstract

© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S Cosmology of Gabriele Beati 207 illustrations necessarily make explicit various tacit beliefs assumed by the text but not expressed in words. In early modern works, cosmic sections appeared with many variations and expressed social and religious visions of life in the universe which underlay cosmological 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 interpretation. The hexameral idiom embedded in these diagrams, such as ﬂuid heavens and supercelestial waters, established a unifying discourse with strong continuities across a wide variety of natural philosophies and cosmological systems. Jesuit attempts to coordinate the investigations of physics, mathematics and theology were facilitated by the versatility of hexameral idiom. This study of visual representations reveals that hexameral idiom played a more signiﬁcant role in catalyzing thinking across disparate natural philosophical traditions than we might have imagined, a point which is equally evident in the analogous case of 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 interpretation. It is often assumed that literal biblical exposition and concordist attempts to update current 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 poses an 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 as literal-minded as Protestants (e.g. Blackwell, 1991; Howell, 2002, 2009). Jesuit instruction in 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 sectarian contexts (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 and data embedded in an ambiguous textual framework. Although the hexameral literature was synthetic, largely encyclopedic and eclectic in character, as a common repository of opinions 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 the hexameral 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 legitimizing and disseminating certain views and in disposing its readers toward approving them and developing them in particular directions. At the same time, the malleability of biblical idiom enabled even so-called literal interpretations to arrive at strikingly different conclusions. Biblical authority therefore did not

© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S 208 K. V. Magruder specify philosophical outcomes, but nevertheless provided a framework for exploration of a variety of perspectives that might serve to unlock the secrets held by the text. For example, theologians like Bellarmine and cosmologists like Beati saw in the hexameral account evidence that, to them, undermined the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian world picture. Similarly, cosmological systems as diverse as Tycho’s and Descartes’ were developed with reference to hexameral discourse (Howell, 2002; Magruder, 2009). In this particular regard Jesuit cosmologists were not uniquely or necessarily held back from engaging in scientific investigations because of their theological entanglements, but relied upon traditional theological themata 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 with a single grid that imposed a uniform order on all new information, but with a complex set 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, and the 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 the sterility of a text whose use was merely ornamental or cosmetic: the nearly endless search for concordism with Genesis 1 and other ancient texts significantly shaped the course of inquiry and the outlines of natural knowledge.

8.3 Interpreting the Scientiﬁc Revolution

Some time ago serious historians of geology abandoned the heuristic of categorizing various early 19th-century ﬁgures as either uniformitarians or catastrophists. To so over- simplify the diversity of views from which the discipline of geology emerged frightfully obscures 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 this rhetorical trope was famously employed by Galileo in his 1632 Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems. When Galileo wrote that dialogue, the Ptolemaic system already had been set aside, at least among mathematical astronomers. Beati’s cosmic section poses a striking anomaly for any historiography preoccupied with 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 themselves mutating traditions. Riccioli’s frontispiece indicates that Copernicanism was admired as the standard by which the mathematical aspects of other systems were judged, but alternatives proliferated rapidly as the search for observable distinguishing evidence bogged down. Transformations of systems threw all in doubt. Some systems were not just empirically similar, but geometrically equivalent. We have not considered the systems of Gilbert

© 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S Cosmology of Gabriele Beati 209 or Ursus with a rotating central Earth. More oddly still, Riccioli relayed an account of a lunar-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 illustrates how what we now disparagingly refer to as ‘hybrid systems’ were not regarded as short-term compromises with an inexorably-advancing Copernicanism, but as provisional experiments that seemed at least as warranted as the Copernican extreme. The Scientific Revolution 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 of Jesuit endeavors in natural knowledge. Jesuits have been dismissed as opposed to Coper- nicanism, slow to appreciate novel discoveries and enslaved to censorship and biblical literalism. Indeed, the Jesuits took the lead in marshalling arguments against the Earth’s motion (Grant, 2003, p. 128). Yet preoccupation with the Jesuit rejection of Copernicanism relies 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, despite official opposition, many Jesuit works propagated a keen admiration of Copernican- ism, explaining it at length in knowledgeable and sympathetic discussions. And while the Jesuits carefully qualified the competence of mathematical demonstration, they nevertheless emphasized the pursuit of mathematical sciences and led mathematical investigations in the 17th century. In addition, to later historians, Jesuit adherence to biblical authority functioned almost as a prerequisite for the conflict model of the warfare of science and religion, insofar as literalism could fuel efficient instruments of censorship. On the other hand, 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 exception of the motion of the Earth (in which the language of Genesis 1 was not at issue), biblical 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 than scholastics to sunspots, new stars, fluid orbs, the corruptibility of the heavens and various non-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 to restore a more adequate picture of vigorous Jesuit participation in the mathematical sciences, consisting of sustained investigations in optics, geodesy, astronomy and cosmology

(e.g., Ashworth, 1986a; Feingold, 2003). Ashworth asserts that ‘In areas unrelated to the controversial 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 to the interpretation of visual representations. The fluid heavens depicted in Beati’s Sphaera triplex 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 a visiting 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 courtesy of the Linda Hall Library; all other images are courtesy of the History of Science Collections 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 Dictionary of Scientiﬁc Biography and the Catholic Encyclopedia. Other than Ashworth (1987), historians have paid 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 Cælorum ordine, ∫iue ∫i∫temate. (¶1–19, [20], 21–22; 20th ¶misnumbered as 10. Running titles are identical in both copies: Variants and misspellings are G3v: Aeteris [should be Aetheris]; K7v, K8v: Luna [should be Lunæ, as in K6v, L1v, L2v]; M7r, M8r: Art. III. [should be Art. IV.]; Q2v: De Solis, &c. [should be De Comætis]. There are no variations in the catchwords. In both copies a Fleur de lis watermark occurs at the head of inner margins, e.g., B2 and B3. A complete bibliographic description is available upon 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: University of California Press), pp. 136–166. Ashworth, W. B. Jr. (1986b) Jesuit science in the age of Galileo: An exhibition of rare books from the history of science collection, March 24-July 31, 1986 [text and photographs by W. B. Ashworth, Jr., bibliographic information 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, and Paris: 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 principia ad 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 of his 1616 declaration to Galileo, in: U. Baldini and G. Coyne (eds.) Studi Galileiani, Vol. 1, no. 2 (Specola Vaticana: 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 by Thomas Gemini). Dinis, A. (2003) Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the science of his time, in: M. Feingold (ed.) Jesuit science and the Republic of Letters (Cambridge: The MIT Press), pp. 195–224. Donahue, W. H. (1981) The dissolution of the heavenly spheres, 1595Ð1650 (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, 1200Ð1687 (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 University Press). Heilbron, J. L. (1999) The sun in the church: Cathedrals as solar observatories (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

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. van der 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. Endterorum hæredibus). 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 cosmology (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 and hostility, Geological Society of London Special Publications, no. 310 (London: The Geological Society of London), 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): Notes in the margin of Harrison’s hypothesis, in: J. van der Meer and S. Mandelbrote (eds.) Nature and scripture in the 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, 1665Ð1750 (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 typographia hæredis Victorij Benatij). Rudwick, M. J. S. (1971) Uniformity and progression: Reﬂections on the structure of geological theory in the age of Lyell, in: D. H. D. Roller (ed.) Perspectives in the history of science and technology (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971), pp. 209–227. Scheiner, C. (1630) Rosa vrsina, sive, Sol ex admirando facvlarvm & macularum suarum phÏnomeno varivs (Bracciani: Apud Andream Phæum typographum ducalem). Thompson, J. L. (1996) The survival of allegorical argumentation in Peter Martyr Vermigli’s Old Testament exegesis, 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 University Press). 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.