Questioning Fludd, Kepler and Galileo: Mersenne’s Harmonious Universe

Fabbri, Natacha

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02765-0_10

Natacha Fabbri¹⁰

Part of the book series: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science ((AUST,volume 48))

449 Accesses
1 Citations

Abstract

This chapter examines Marin Mersenne’s main objections to Robert Fludd’s, Johannes Kepler’s and Galileo Galilei’s views of the cosmos in order to delineate his own idea of space, as well as several significant changes in his interpretation of the universe. I will discuss how Mersenne sought to single out a model of space and the universe that could perfectly agree with the Mosaic cosmos: he selected different explanatory models and contrasted them with each other to find out which one provided the most reliable explanation of natural phenomena, and was therefore the best ally in his war against atheism and heresy.

Mersenne’s definition of a harmonious universe arose from the questions he addressed to his interlocutors, and from his thorough examination of their writings. This essay focuses on Mersenne’s arguments against Fludd’s qualitative and panspermic cosmos; on the theological and metaphysical underpinnings that urged him to abandon Kepler’s geometrical cosmos and harmonic archetypes; and on his refutation of Galileo’s universe, which relied on the intertwining of Scholastic arguments and the seventeenth-century debate about the vacuum and mechanics. Mersenne’s final conclusions, setting forth both metaphysical and physical reasons, marked the sunset of the traditional idea of the harmonic cosmos: across his works the musica mundana begins to fade, and the movements of the bodies within the plenum of the cosmos no longer reveal divine and geometrical archetypes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See Fabbri 2008, 47–57. Vincent Carraud (1994, 145, 147) claimed that, in Mersenne ’s thought, “occupying oneself with physics and mathematics corresponds to occupying oneself with natural theology.”
2.
Mersenne c. 1648c, 442–456; idem c. 1623c, 336–337. On the similarities between the Commentaire and the Brouillon, see Buccolini 2000, 101–107.
3.
That approach was so widespread that even Lodovico delle Colombe – one of Galileo’s most bitter opponents – blamed those theologians who required philosophical subjects to be “accommodated” to Scriptural passages. See Delle Colombe 1608, 92r.
4.
Mersenne c. 1626. See Fabbri 2007, 287–308.
5.
Buccolini (2000, 110) has shown that “science is at the service of exegesis” still at the end of the Forties. Conversely, Lenoble 1971 had tried to trace Mersenne’s gradual passage from theological concerns to a mechanistic approach.
6.
See note 92.
7.
Mersenne c. 1626, f. 1r: “Or ie déduirai tout ce qui appartient aux sons dans ce 3. Livre, car ils sont le sujet, et le fondement de la musique, ce que ie ferai aux theoresmes qui suivent.”
8.
Mersenne 2003, Sommaire des seize Livres de la Musique, 23–26.
9.
See idem 1636–1637, De l’utilité de l’harmonie, 48–49; Gaultier to Peiresc , 22 May 1631, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. III, 162–163. On Mersenne’s and Gassendi ’s refutation of Fludd see especially Cafiero 1964a, b; Mehl 2000; Mehl 2001, 243–253, 263–270; Taussig 2009.
10.
Fludd 1617–1621, vol. II, tract. I, 21. Mehl (2001, 264–266) has shown how Fludd alternated statements on immanentism with words proving divine transcendence.
11.
Fludd 1617–1621, vol. I, tract. I, 25, 29.
12.
See ibid., 79: “the machine of the world is almost like a monochord, whose string – whereby it introduces the agreement of parts – is the intermediate matter of the whole world.”
13.
See Gaffurio 1496; Agrippa 1993, b. II, 387; Giorgi 1525, vol. VIII, chaps. XIV–XVI, ff. 178v–180v. The second edition of the book appeared in Paris 20 years later.
14.
The Roman decree of February 4, 1627 placed the Utriusque cosmi into the Index librorum prohibitorum. Among the many aspects of Fludd’s work worthy of censure, in addition to his ideas about creation and primordial matter, the decree also disapproved of the monochordum mundi that flowed from those impious assumptions: Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican, Index, Protocolli BB, ff. 392r–393v; 408r–409v.
15.
Fludd 1617–1621, vol. II, tract. II, sec. I, b. I, chap. XVI, 50.
16.
Mersenne 1625, 281. On Patrizi’s metaphysics of light see Deitz 1999.
17.
See Mersenne 1623a, 709–710, 716, 1102, 1556–1558, 1561–1562, 1743, 1750; idem 2003, b. II, th. XII-XIV, 387–427. See also idem 1636–1637, De l’utilité, 49.
18.
On Mersenne and alchemy see Beaulieu 1993.
19.
See Mersenne 2003, b. II, th. XIII, 409–419. Mersenne widely rebutted the idea of anima mundi: see, for instance, idem 1623a, 1452; idem 1623b, 23–24; idem 1624b, 365–385.
20.
Concerning Tycho’s hypothesis, Mersenne identified a distance of 1142 semi-diameters of the Earth between the Earth and the Sun and 128,8 similar semi-diameters between the Sun and the firmament. Mersenne 2003, b. II, th. XIII, 411.
21.
Mersenne to Gassendi , 5 January 1633, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. III, 356.
22.
Mersenne (1625, 206–208) examined Francis Bacon’s idola.
23.
Mersenne 2003, b. II, th. XIV, 418–419: “il vaut beaucoup mieux ne connoistre point cette Harmonie, que de se l’imaginer tout autrement qu’elle n’est; car les fausses imaginations exercent ie ne sçay quelle tyrannie sur nos esprits, dont ils ne se peuvent dégager qu’avec une tres-grande difficulté.” This judgment followed the words La Mothe Le Vayer had employed in his Discours sceptique sur la musique, which Mersenne published in the Questions harmoniques (1985b, 154).
24.
Mersenne 1636–1637, Des mouvemens et du son des chordes, 185–186.
25.
Ibid., 187.
26.
Mersenne 1985c, 417.
27.
Ibid., 417–418: “If the strength of the voice does not lose anything from one side that she does not recover from another side (as we say of moving forces, and of Machines, which do not lose anything in length of time that they do not recover in strength [...]), we need to conclude that the voice of a man, and every other sound can be heard from the Earth until the firmament.”
28.
Ibid., 421–422.
29.
Mersenne 2003, b. II, th. VIII, 361.
30.
See idem 1623a, 1556–1557.
31.
See idem 2003, b. II, th. V, 338.
32.
See Boutroux 1922, 286; de Buzon 1994; Fabbri 2003, 151–156.
33.
Mersenne’s rebuttal of Kepler throughout the Harmonie universelle has been examined in Field 2003, 29–44.
34.
See Mersenne 2003, b. II, th. VIII, 356–358.
35.
Ibid., b. I, th. XIII, 80; th. XIV, 83; th. XV, 86.
36.
See Mersenne 1624a, 446–454. Jean-Luc Marion proposed a reading of Mersenne’s first three writings (Quaestiones in Genesim, Impiété and Vérité) in light of the theory of the univocity between God’s ideas and essence on one hand, and mathematical truths on the other – and this theory recurs in the Traité as well: Marion 1991, 161–178. See also idem 1994.
37.
See Mersenne 2003, b. I, th. XIII, 82. See also idem 1623a, 332, 436; idem 1624a, 411; idem 1624b, 311–312.
38.
Nevertheless, neither did Mersenne embrace the Platonic doctrine of innatism and reminiscence in the Traité, nor did he undertake a stronger rebuttal of Kepler’s reading of it in the Harmonie universelle. See Mersenne 1636–1637, Des consonances, 86.
39.
Idem 1636–1637, Des instrumens de percussion, 78.
40.
See Kepler 1938, Praefatio antiqua, 23; chap. II, 45–46. Idem 1953, b. I, 51. On Kepler’s interpretation of the planetary souls, see, for instance, idem 1940a, b. IV, 264–286.
41.
See Bailhache 1994, 22–23; de Buzon 1994, 126–127; Fabbri 2008, 58–67; Van Wymeersch 2011, 261–274.
42.
Within the broad literature on the theological roots of Kepler’s cosmology, see especially Field 1984; eadem 1988; Methuen 2008, chap. 7.
43.
By referring to Descartes’ letter of April 15, 1630, Lenoble (1971, 277) stated that Descartes and Mersenne shared the same view with regard to the absolute freedom of God’s will and the rebuttal of Naturalism. Conversely, Jean-Luc Marion (1991, 163–167, 174–176, 178–203) emphasized the difference between Mersenne’s and Descartes’ readings, by viewing Kepler as the implicit interlocutor in the 1630 letters from Descartes to Mersenne, as well as the model Mersenne gestured to in defining the mathematical truths.
44.
In L’impiété des déistes Mersenne paraphrased and refuted meticulously Bruno’s De l’infinito and De immenso. See Del Prete 1998, 139–161; Buccolini 1999; Del Prete 2000; Granada 2000; Margolin 2004. For Bruno’s infinitism see also Granada’s Chapter 8 in this volume.
45.
Mersenne to Rey , 1 April 1632, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. III, 275: “Quant à Jordan, encore qu’il se serve de mauvais fondemens, neantmoins il est assés probable que le monde est infini, s’il le peut estre. Car pourquoy voulés-vous qu’une cause infinie n’ait pas un effet infini? J’ay autresfois eu d’autres demonstrations contre ceci, mais la solution en est aisée.” See also Mersenne 2003, b. II, th. I, 334.
46.
See idem 1623a, 844.
47.
Idem 1985b, Epistre, 108–109. See also idem 1623a, 914; idem 1985c, 216. Idem 1985a, 37.
48.
Idem 1624a, 324–325.
49.
In this regard, one of Descartes’ answers to Mersenne is enlightening: “Requiring from me a geometrical demonstration in a matter that depends on physics is wanting from me impossible things” (Descartes to Mersenne, 17/27 May 1638, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. VII, 231).
50.
On Mersenne’s ‘methodological skepticism,’ see Popkin 1957; idem 1979, 130 sq. See also Dear 1988, 25–47. Mersenne’s epistemological skepticism is instead advocated by Joly 1999, vol. II, 257–276.
51.
Of the scholarly literature on the relation between voluntarist theology and modern science, see esp. Harrison 2002; idem 2005; Henry 2009.
52.
Mersenne 1985c, 224: “Puisque nous ne pouvons sçavoir les vrayes raisons, ou la science de ce qui arrive dans la nature, parce qu’il y a tousjours quelques circonstances, ou instances qui nous font douter si les causes que nous nous imaginons sont veritables, et s’il n’y en a point, ou s’il n’y en peut avoir d’autres, je ne voy pas que l’on doive requerir autre chose des plus sçavans que leurs observations, et les remarques qu’ils auront faites des differens effets, ou phenomenes de la nature.”
53.
Mersenne 1636–1637, Livre premier de la Voix, 80 (my emphasis).
54.
Idem 1625, 193: “[… l’entendement] supplée aus manquemens des sens exterieurs, et même des interieurs, ce qu’il fait par une lumiere spirituelle, et universelle qu’il à de sa propre nature des le commencement de sa creation […]. Cette lumiere naturelle de l’esprit est perfectionée, et mis en acte par le moyen de la meditation, de l’étude, de l’experience, et des sciences […].”
55.
Denying the existence of that lumen would imply that one is agreeing with skepticism and reducing man to the animal-like status: Mersenne indeed blamed skepticism for “reducing us shamefully to the vilest level and to the lowest state of beast” (Mersenne 1625, Dédicace, 8).
56.
See Kepler 1940a, books I, II, III.
57.
See Mersenne 2003, b. II, th. VIII, 359–360.
58.
See Gaffurio 1492; Galilei 1581, 134. Vincenzo Galilei’s survey was analyzed by Palisca 2000, 509 sq.
59.
Mersenne 2003, b. II, Préface, 295; th. XIII, 413. Idem 1636–1637, Nouvelles observations, 25–26. On Mersenne’s indebtedness to Vincenzo Galilei see the seminal work by Palisca 1998. See also Cohen 1984, 85, 101–102, 183–184.
60.
Mersenne 1636–1637, Livre des Instruments, 8–9.
61.
See Galileo 1933b, 148. On the geometrical order of the Galilean universe see Galluzzi 1979. On Galileo’s idea of the harmony that pervaded the heliocentric system see Fabbri 2008, 211–228.
62.
On Mersenne-‘editor’ of Galileo, see Costabel and Lerner 1973, vol. I, 15–43; Shea 1977, 55–70; Raphael 2008. Mersenne owned a copy of the Saggiatore, too: Buccolini 1998.
63.
See Galileo 1933b, 128–129. Conversely, Jean-Luc Marion supposed that Galileo and Kepler shared the same reading with regard to the definition of the ontological status of mathematical truths, and the univocity between divine and human science: Marion 1991, 204–227. On the difference between Galileo’s and Kepler ’s mathematization of nature see, rather, Fabbri 2008, 189–196. Galileo’s distance from Kepler’s epistemological model also emerged from the pages of Galileo’s letter to Gallanzoni (July 16, 1611). For an enlightening comparison of these two natural philosophers, see Bucciantini 2003.
64.
Galileo 1933b, 397. See also ibid., 126–127, 394.
65.
See Galileo 1933a, 530.
66.
See idem 1933b, 45.
67.
Ibid., 289: “Ma io stimerei più presto, la natura aver fatte prima le cose a suo modo, e poi fabbricati i discorsi umani abili a poter capire (ma però con fatica grande) alcuna cosa de’ suoi segreti” (my emphasis). With “discorsi umani” Galileo also refers to mathematical definitions: see idem 1933d, 74.
68.
See idem 1933b, 289. See also ibid., 444–445; idem 1932, 351. On the distinction between de facto proof and de jure legitimacy (geometrical principles) in Galileo’s physics, see Stabile 2002, 225 sq.
69.
On Galileo’s ‘inexorable nature’ see Stabile 1994; idem 2003.
70.
Galileo 1933d, 197; trans. 1974, 153.
71.
Mersenne 1636–1637, Des instrumens à vent, 250. See, for instance, also Mersenne to Rey , 1 September 1631, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. III, 188.
72.
See also note 47.
73.
Galileo 1933b, 148.
74.
Mersenne 1985c, 385.
75.
Galileo 1933d, 51. See idem 1933b, 234.
76.
See idem 1933d, 155; trans. 1974, 113.
77.
Mersenne to Lincei , 1 July 1643, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. XII, 222.
78.
See, for instance, Mersenne 1636–1637, Du mouvement des corps, 87, 112 (already quoted by Rochot 1973, 11–12). On Mersenne’s attitude, see Lenoble 1971, 357–360, 461–471; Dear 1995, 129–132; Palmerino 2011, 101–125.
79.
See Lenoble 1971, 426–437. A comprehensive overview of this topic has been provided by Maury 2003, 179–238.
80.
See Descartes to Mersenne, 11 October 1638, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. VIII, 96–99. See also the recent analysis carried out by Renée Raphael (2017, 78–97), in which Descartes’ letter, the Nouvelles Pensées, the marginalia Mersenne added to two copies of the Discorsi, and Mersenne’s letter to the Accademia dei Lincei are compared.
81.
See Mersenne to Galileo’s friends in Italy, 1 July 1643, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. XII, 221–223.
82.
See, for instance, Galileo 1933d, 72; trans. 1974, 33: “What is thus said of simple lines is to be understood also of surfaces and of solid bodies, considering those as composed of infinitely many unquantifiable atoms.”
83.
See Aristotle , De coelo, 298b; Aristotle, Phys., 231a sq. Galileo denied that definition both in the first day of the Discorsi (Galileo 1933d, 77; trans. 1974, 38–39), and in the Postille alle esercitazioni filosofiche di Antonio Rocci (1933c, 682–683, 745–750).
84.
Of the wide-ranging literature on Galileo’s atomism, see Shea 1970; Baldini 1976; Smith 1976; Redondi 1985; Palmerino 2000, 275–319. See especially Galluzzi 2011.
85.
On Galileo’s interpretation see Drabkin 1950, 179–198; Palmerino 2001, 381–405; Boulier 2010, 371–385.
86.
See Descartes to Mersenne, 11 October 1638, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. VIII, 97.
87.
Mersenne 1973, 30. See Costabel 1964.
88.
Mersenne 1973, 22–23.
89.
See Lenoble 1971, 430, 436. On Mersenne’s opinion on the atomism of Galileo and Gassendi , see especially ibid., 413–437.
90.
See Mersenne to Descartes , 28 April 1638, in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. VII, 174.
91.
See Mersenne 1644, Hydraulica, 166; Tractatus mechanicus, 83–84. Idem 1648b, 2.
92.
Idem c. 1626, 16r: “Ce qui ne fera pourtant pas que i’accorde le son des cieux aux Platoniciens, si ce n’est que nous supposions deux choses, la premiere que les cieux sont des corps solides qui se meuvent; la 2 que tout mouvement produit quelque son, car pour lors il faudroit confesser que les cieux resonneraient; il ne seroit neantmoins pas necessaire que les cieux fussent solides, car ce seroit assez que les planettes, et les estoilles fissent leurs mouvemens dans l’air étendu iusques par dessus le firmament; tant s’en faut que la solidité des cieux fust necessaire, elle empecheroit plustost le son, supposé que l’air soit necessaire pour produire le son, et qu’il n’y ayt point d’air entre les cieux. Mais ie ne veus pas m’amuser icy a ces sons celestes, tant parce qu’ils ne servent de rien à la force de nos sons, que parce que nous parlerons de ceci en un autre lieu.”
93.
See idem 2003, b. I, th. XV, 89.
94.
As early as in the Quaestiones in Genesim, Mersenne valued the idea of the fluidity of Heaven: Mersenne 1623a, 813, 843. See also idem 2003, b. I, th. XV, 90.
95.
See idem 2003, b. I, th. XV, 90–91.
96.
Idem 1636–1637, Livre premier de la nature et des proprietez du son, 8. A reading of this passage is also provided in Buccolini 2014, 389–392.
97.
See Duns Scotus , Quodl. 11.17, 11.21. About Duns Scotus’ arguments concerning the intracosmic void, see Lewis 2002, 71–74. For an overview on the medieval discussion of the imaginary space and the extra-cosmic void see Grant 1981, 116–147.
98.
See Mersenne 1648b, 1–2.
99.
See idem 1623a, 97–98, 111. Idem 1985c, 241. In those commentaries, Alessandro Piccolomini , Bernardino Baldi , Alessandro Giorgi , and also Henri de Monantheuil , had described God as the almighty mechanic. See, for instance, Giorgi 1592, 4r: “the machina mundi itself is arranged according to measure, number and weight – as we read in the Book of Sapience; since Ctesibius (as Vitruvius wanted) was not the inventor of pneumatic machines, nor were Vulcan, or Daedalus of self-propelled machines, as asserted by the ancients, but it was the Master himself of this structure of the world.” See also Monantheuil 1599, 5; ibid., 6–7 (my numbering): “the greatest work of works was made and conserved [...] by another ‘maker of machines’ who surpasses man infinitely as to excellence, wisdom, and power: with the same amount this machine of the world surpasses and is superior to the machine of all men, even of the Archimedeans .”
100.
As stated by Hans Blumenberg , the absolute transcendence of God was one of the chief features of the seventeenth-century world machine: “the expression ‘machina mundi’ pertains to a theology which either – as in Lucretius – is directed against the Stoic metaphysics of providence (pronoia) or in which God hides behind his work rather than manifesting himself in it” (Blumenberg 2010, 63–64).
101.
Mersenne had been discussing the hypothesis of the existence of vacuum that ensued from divine omnipotence since the Quaestiones in Genesim (1623a, 721–722).
102.
See Mersenne 1636–1637, Livre de la nature des sons, 8: “since sound presupposes movement, we firstly have to see whether one or more bodies can move in the vacuum: because if movement is not possible, we have to conclude that sound cannot be made there.”
103.
Ibid. See also idem 1647, 85–92.
104.
Idem 1636–1637, Livre de la nature des sons, 8.
105.
Idem 1647, Praefatio secunda, 4 (my numbering). See also ibid., 197; idem 1644, 166.
106.
Idem 1636–1637, Livre de la nature des sons, 10–11: “[...] ceux qui sont dans le Ciel peuvent appercevoir les mouvemens de l’air qui se font icy, quoy qu’ils soyent tres-foibles quand ils arrivent au Ciel: car si l’on est contraint d’avoüer qu’une partie d’eau estant meuë au milieu du vaisseau est cause que toute l’eau se meut, pourquoy ne peut-on pas conclure la mesme chose de l’air, qui est une espece d’eau moins grossiere, laquelle est contenuë dans le firmament, ou dans l’immensité de l’Univers comme dans un tres-grand vase, qui est un ouvrage digne de la Sagesse et de la puissance de Dieu.”
107.
Idem 1636–1637, Nouvelles observations, 6–7: “Sur quoy l’on peut s’imaginer que s’il n’y a plus rien que du vuide par delà la moyenne region de l’air, comme estiment quelques uns, on peut dire que les vapeurs plus legeres que l’air, commencent à peser davantage lors qu’elles arrivent à la surface du vuide, où elles trouvent un tres grand froid parce qu’il n’y a plus de sujet capable de recevoir, et d’entretenir la chaleur, et consequemment que c’est le lieu le plus haut où elle puissent monter.”
108.
Idem 1636–1637, Du mouvement des corps, 103.
109.
On the passage of the Timaeus which Galileo might have hinted at – many scholars have assumed that it was Timaeus 38 C-39 A – and on the role it played in his astronomical system, see Sambursky 1962; Wisan 1986; Barcaro 1984; Acerbi 2000. See Galileo 1933b, 44; idem 1933d, 284. See Florence: Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, MS Gal. 72, ff. 134, 135, 146. Studies on this manuscript include Meyer 1989; Büttner 2001.
110.
Mersenne 1636–1637, Du mouvement des corps, 103–107; idem 1648a, Praefatio, 3–4 (my numbering).
111.
See idem 1636–1637, Du mouvement des corps, 107.
112.
In the 1634 collection Mersenne presented the odd numbers law as the explanation that better agreed with the phenomena, whereas in the 1647 Novarum observationum he viewed it just as possible as other explanatory models. It is likely that Mersenne’s thought was about the conclusions reached by Descartes , Godefroid Wendelin , Honoré Fabri , Pierre Le Cazre , Ismael Boulliaud and Giovanni Battista Baliani in the meantime. See Dear 1988, 215–218; Galluzzi 1993, 86–119. Mersenne’s change of mind with regard to Galileo’s odd-number law was analyzed in depth by Palmerino 1999, 274–324; eadem 2010.
113.
Mersenne 2003, b. II, th. XIII, 418.
114.
See idem 1636–1637, Livre premier de la nature des sons, 43: “we can represent everything that is in the world, and consequently all sciences, by means of the sounds, because, since everything consists of weight, number and measure, and sounds represent these three properties, they can signify everything one would like.” See also Mersenne 1623a, 1570.
115.
See for instance Table 10.1.
116.
Mersenne 1985d, 405.
117.
Ibid., 407.

References

Acerbi, Fabio. 2000. Le fonti del mito platonico in Galileo. Physis 37: 359–392.
Google Scholar
Agrippa, Heinrich Cornelius. 1993. De occulta philosophia libri tres, ed. Vittoria Perrone Compagni. Leiden/New York: Brill.
Google Scholar
Bailhache, Patrice. 1994. L’harmonie universelle: La musique entre les mathématiques, la physique, la métaphysique et la religion. Les Études Philosophiques 68: 13–24.
Google Scholar
Baldini, Ugo. 1976. La struttura della materia nel pensiero di Galileo. De Homine 57: 91–164.
Google Scholar
Barcaro, Umberto. 1984. Riflessioni sul mito platonico del ‘Dialogo.’ In Novità celesti e crisi del sapere, ed. Paolo Galluzzi, 117–125. Florence: Giunti Barbèra.
Google Scholar
Beaulieu, Armand. 1993. L’attitude nuancée de Mersenne envers la chymie. In Alchimie et philosophie à la Renaissance, ed. Jean-Claude Margolin and Sylvain Matton, 395–403. Paris: Vrin.
Google Scholar
Blumenberg, Hans. 2010. Paradigms for a Metaphorology. Trans. R. Savage. Ithaca: Cornell University Press and Cornell University Library.
Google Scholar
Boulier, Philippe. 2010. Le problème du continu pour la mathématisation galiléenne et la géométrie cavalierienne. Early Science and Medicine 15: 371–409.
Google Scholar
Boutroux, Pierre. 1922. Le Père Mersenne et Galilée: De 1623 à 1633. Scientia 31: 279–290.
Google Scholar
Bucciantini, Massimo. 2003. Galileo e Keplero: Filosofia, cosmologia e teologia nell’età della Controriforma. Turin: Einaudi.
Google Scholar
Buccolini, Claudio. 1998. Opere di Galileo Galilei provenienti dalla biblioteca di Marin Mersenne: ‘Il Saggiatore’ e i ‘Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze.’ Nouvelles de la République des Lettres 2: 139–142.
Google Scholar
———. 1999. Una ‘Quaestio’ inedita di Mersenne contro il ‘De immenso.’ Bruniana & Campanelliana 5: 165–175.
Google Scholar
———. 2000. Mersenne lettore delle rationes more geometrico dispositae di Descartes: La ricerca di una prova ‘matematica’ di Dio fra il 1641 e il 1645. In Studi cartesiani, ed. Fabio Angelo Sulpizio, 89–212. Lecce: Milella.
Google Scholar
———. 2014. Dallo spazio immaginario all’empireo: Locus/spatium in Mersenne. In ‘Locus-spatium:’ XIV Colloquio internazionale, ed. Delfina Giovannozzi and Marco Veneziani, 345–411. Florence: Olschki.
Google Scholar
Büttner, Jochen. 2001. Galileo’s Cosmogony. In Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001, ed. José Montesinos and Carlos Solís Santos, 392–402. Orotava: Fundación Canaria Orotava de historia de la ciencia.
Google Scholar
Buzon, Frédéric de. 1994. Harmonie et métaphysique: Mersenne face à Kepler. Les Études Philosophiques 68: 119–128.
Google Scholar
Cafiero, Luca. 1964a. Robert Fludd e la polemica con Gassendi I. Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofia 19: 367–410.
Google Scholar
———. 1964b. Robert Fludd e la polemica con Gassendi II. Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofia 20: 3–15.
Google Scholar
Carraud, Vincent. 1994. Mathématique et métaphysique: Les sciences du possible. Les Études Philosophiques 68: 145–159.
Google Scholar
Cohen, Floris H. 1984. Quantifying Music: The Science of Music at the First Stage of the Scientific Revolution, 1580–1650. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Google Scholar
Costabel, Pierre. 1964. La roue d’Aristote et les critiques françaises à l’argument de Galilée. Revue d’Histoire des Sciences et de leurs Applications 17: 385–396.
Google Scholar
Costabel, Pierre, and Michel-Pierre Lerner. 1973. Introduction. In Mersenne. Les nouvelles pensées de Galilée.2 vols, ed. Pierre Costabel and Michel-Pierre Lerner, vol. I, 15–52. Paris: Vrin.
Google Scholar
Dear, Peter. 1988. Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar
———. 1995. Discipline & Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Deitz, Luc. 1999. Space, Light, and Soul in Francesco Patrizi’s Nova de universis philosophia (1591). In Natural Particulars: Nature and the Disciplines in Renaissance Europe, ed. Anthony Grafton and Nancy Siraisi, 139–169. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Google Scholar
Delle Colombe, Lodovico. 1608. Risposte piacevoli e curiose alle considerazioni di certa maschera saccente nominata Alimberto Mauri. Florence: Caneo & Grossi.
Google Scholar
Del Prete, Antonella. 1998. Universo infinito e pluralità dei mondi. Naples: La Città del Sole.
Google Scholar
———. 2000. Réfuter et traduire: Marin Mersenne et la cosmologie de Giordano Bruno. In Révolution scientifique et libertinage, ed. Alain Mothu, 49–83. Turnhout: Brepols.
Google Scholar
Drabkin, Israel E. 1950. Aristotle’s Wheel: Notes on the History of the Paradox. Osiris 9: 162–198.
Google Scholar
Fabbri, Natacha. 2003. Cosmologia e armonia in Kepler e Mersenne: Contrappunto a due voci sul tema dell’Harmonice mundi. Florence: Olschki.
Google Scholar
———. 2007. Genesis of Marin Mersenne’s ‘Harmonie Universelle’: The manuscript ‘Livre de la nature des sons.’ Nuncius 22: 287–308.
Google Scholar
———. 2008. ‘De l’utilité de l’harmonie.’ Filosofia, scienza e musica in Mersenne, Descartes e Galileo. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale.
Google Scholar
Field, Judith Veronica. 1984. A Lutheran Astrologer: Johannes Kepler. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 31: 190–225.
Google Scholar
———. 1988. Kepler’s Geometrical Cosmology. London: The Athlone Press.
Google Scholar
———. 2003. Musical Cosmology: Kepler and his Readers. In Music and Mathematics: From Pythagoras to Fractals, ed. John Fauvel, Raymond Flood, and Robin Wilson, 29–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Fludd, Robert. 1617–1621. Utriusque cosmi, majoris scilicet et minoris, metaphysica, physica atque technica historia. In duo volumina secundum cosmi differentiam divisa. Oppenheim/Frankfurt: De Bry.
Google Scholar
Gaffurio, Franchino. 1492. Theorica musicae. Milan: Filippo Mantegazza.
Google Scholar
———. 1496. Practica musicae. Milan: Gulielmum signer Rothomagensem.
Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo. 1932. Considerazioni circa l’opinione copernicana. In Opere di Galileo Galilei, 21 vols, ed. Antonio Favaro, vol. V, 349–370. Florence: Barbera.
Google Scholar
———. 1933a. Lettera a Ingoli. In Opere di Galileo Galilei,21 vols, ed. Antonio Favaro, vol. V, 501–561. Florence: Barbera.
Google Scholar
———. 1933b. Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo. In Opere di Galileo Galilei,21 vols, ed. Antonio Favaro, vol. VII, 21–520. Florence: Barbera.
Google Scholar
———. 1933c. Postille alle Esercitazioni filosofiche di Antonio Rocco. In Opere di Galileo Galilei,21 vols, ed. Antonio Favaro, vol. VII, 560–750. Florence: Barbera.
Google Scholar
———. 1933d. Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno a due nuove scienze. In Opere di Galileo Galilei,21 vols, ed. Antonio Favaro, vol. VIII, 39–318. Florence: Barbera.
Google Scholar
———. 1974. Two new sciences: Including centers of gravity and force of percussion. Trans., Introduction and notes by Stillman Drake. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Google Scholar
Galilei, Vincenzo. 1581. Dialogo della musica antica e della moderna. Florence: Marescotti. Anastatic reprint 1934, ed. Fabio Fano. Rome: Reale Accademia d’Italia.
Google Scholar
Galluzzi, Paolo. 1979. Il tema dell’ordine in Galileo. In ‘Ordo’: Atti del II colloquio internazionale del Lessico Intellettuale Europeo, ed. Marta Fattori and Massimo Bianchi, vol. I, 235–277. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo.
Google Scholar
———. 1993. Gassendi e l’affaire Galilée delle leggi del moto. Giornale Critico della Filosofia Italiana 13: 86–119.
Google Scholar
———. 2011. Tra atomi e indivisibili: La materia ambigua di Galileo. Florence: Olschki.
Google Scholar
Giorgi, Alessandro. 1592. Spiritali di Herone Alessandrino. Urbino: Bartholomeo e Simone Ragusij fratelli.
Google Scholar
Giorgi, Francesco. 1525. De Harmonia mundi totius cantica tria. Venice: Bernardino Vitali.
Google Scholar
Granada, Miguel Ángel. 2000. Palingenio, Patrizi, Bruno, Mersenne: El enfrentamiento entre el principio de plenitud y la distinción potentia absoluta/ordinata Dei a propósito de la necesidad e infinitud del universo. In ‘Potentia Dei’: L’onnipotenza divina nel pensiero dei secoli XVI e XVII, ed. Guido Canziani, Miguel Ángel Granada, and Yves-Charles Zarka, 105–134. Milan: Franco Angeli.
Google Scholar
Grant, Edward. 1981. Much Ado About Nothing: Theories of Space and Vacuum from the Middle Ages to the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Harrison, Peter. 2002. Voluntarism and Early Modern Science. History of Science 40: 63–89.
Google Scholar
———. 2005. Physico-Theology and the Mixed Sciences: The Role of Theology in Early Modern Natural Philosophy. In The Science of Nature in the Seventeenth Century: Patterns of Change in Early Modern Natural Philosophy, ed. Peter R. Anstey and John A. Schuster, 165–183. Dordrecht: Springer.
Google Scholar
Henry, John. 2009. Voluntarist Theology at the Origins of Modern Science: A Response to Peter Harrison. History of Science 47: 79–113.
Google Scholar
Joly, Bernard. 1999. La figure du sceptique dans La vérité des sciences de Marin Mersenne. In Le scepticisme au XVIe et au XVIIe siècle: Le retour des philosophies antiques à l’âge classique, 2 vols., vol. II, 257–276. Paris: Albin Michel.
Google Scholar
Kepler, Johannes. 1938. Mysterium cosmographicum. In Gesammelte Werke, ed. Max Caspar, vol. I, 3–80. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar
———. 1940a. Harmonices mundi libri V. In Gesammelte Werke, ed. Max Caspar, vol. VI, 7–377. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar
———. 1940b. Pro suo opere harmonices mundi apologia. In Gesammelte Werke, ed. Max Caspar, vol. VI, 381–457. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar
———. 1953. Epitome astronomiae Copernicanae. In Gesammelte Werke, ed. Max Caspar, vol. VII, 5–537. Munich: C.H. Beck.
Google Scholar
Lenoble, Robert. 1971. Mersenne ou la naissance du mécanisme. 2nd ed. Paris: Vrin.
Google Scholar
Lewis, Neil. 2002. Space and Time. In The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus, ed. Thomas Williams, 69–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Margolin, Jean-Claude. 2004. Marin Mersenne: Lecteur hypercritique de Giordano Bruno. In La mente di Giordano Bruno, ed. Fabrizio Meroi, 431–462. Florence: Olschki.
Google Scholar
Marion, Jean-Luc. 1991. Sur la théologie blanche de Descartes. 2nd ed. Paris: Puf.
Google Scholar
———. 1994. Le concept de métaphysique selon Mersenne. Les Études Philosophiques 68: 129–143.
Google Scholar
Maury, Jean-Pierre. 2003. À l’origine de la recherche scientifique: Mersenne, ed. Sylvie Taussig. Paris: Vuibert.
Google Scholar
Mehl, Edouard. 2000. L’essai sur Robert Fludd (1630). Libertinage et Philosophie au XVIIe Siècle 4: 85–119.
Google Scholar
———. 2001. Descartes en Allemagne, 1619–1620: Le contexte allemand de l’élaboration de la science cartésienne. Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg.
Google Scholar
Mersenne, Marin. 1623a. Quaestiones in Genesim. Paris: Cramoisy.
Google Scholar
———. 1623b. Observationes et emendationes ad Francisci Giorgii Veneti problemata. Paris: Cramoisy.
Google Scholar
———. c. 1623c Commentaire manuscrit sur l’Evangile. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Lat. 17261.
Google Scholar
———. 1624a. L’impiété des déistes, athées et libertins de ce temps, combattue et renversée de point en point par raisons tirées de la philosophie, et de la théologie. Vol. I. Paris: Billaine. Facsimile ed. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1969.
Google Scholar
———. 1624b. L’impiété des déistes, athées et libertins de ce temps. Vol. II. Paris: Billaine.
Google Scholar
———. 1625. La vérité des sciences, contre les sceptiques ou pyrrhoniens. Paris: du Bray. Facsimile ed. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1969.
Google Scholar
———. c. 1626. Livre de la nature des sons et de la manière qu’ilz s’épandent par le milieu et qu’ils arrivent à l’oreille et au sens commun. Paris: Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 2884.
Google Scholar
———. 1636–1637. Harmonie universelle contenant la théorie et la pratique de la musique, où il est traité de la nature des sons et des mouvements, des consonances, des dissonances, des genres, des modes, de la composition, de la voix, des chants et de toutes sortes d’instruments harmoniques, 2 vols. Paris: Cramoisy. Facsimile ed. François Lesure, 3 vols. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1963.
Google Scholar
———. 1644. Cogitata physico-mathematica. Paris: Sumptibus Antonii Bertier.
Google Scholar
———. 1647. Novarum observationum tomus III. Paris: Sumptibus Antonii Bertier.
Google Scholar
———. 1648a. Harmonicorum libri XII. 2nd ed. Paris: Baudry. In 1973. Harmonicorum libri XII. Anastatic reprint, Geneva: Minkhoff.
Google Scholar
———. 1648b. Liber novus praelusorius. In Mersenne 1648a.
Google Scholar
———. 1648c. Brouillon d’un ouvrage inachevé sur l’optique. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fonds français nouvelles acquisitions 5176. Published in Mersenne 1945–1988, vol. 16: 442–456.
Google Scholar
———. 1945–1988. Correspondance, ed. Paul Tannery, Cornelis de Waard, Bernard Rochot and Armand Beaulieu, 17 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France and Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Google Scholar
———. 1973. Les nouvelles pensées de Galilée, 2 vols, ed. Pierre Costabel and Michel-Pierre Lerner. Paris: Vrin.
Google Scholar
———. 1985a. Questions inouyes ou recreation des sçavans. In Questions inouyes, ed. André Pessel. Paris: Fayard.
Google Scholar
———. 1985b. Questions harmoniques. In Questions inouyes, ed. André Pessel. Paris: Fayard.
Google Scholar
———. 1985c. Questions théologiques. In Questions inouyes, ed. André Pessel. Paris: Fayard.
Google Scholar
———. 1985d. Préludes de l’harmonie universelle. In Questions inouyes, ed. André Pessel. Paris: Fayard.
Google Scholar
———. (pseud. François de Sermes). 2003. Traité de l’harmonie universelle, où est contenue la musique théorique et pratique des anciens et des modernes avec les causes des effets, enrichie des raisons prises de la philosophie et des mathématiques, ed. Claudio Buccolini. Paris: Fayard.
Google Scholar
Methuen, Charlotte. 2008. Science and Theology in the Reformation: Studies in Theological Interpretation and Astronomical Observation in Sixteenth-Century Germany. London: T & T Clark.
Google Scholar
Meyer, Eric. 1989. Galileo’s Cosmogonical Calculations. Isis 80: 456–468.
Google Scholar
Monantheuil, Henri de. 1599. Aristotelis Mechanica. Paris: Jeremiah Perier.
Google Scholar
Palisca, Claude V. 1998. Mersenne pro Galilei contra Zarlino. Nuova civiltà delle macchine 16: 74–80.
Google Scholar
———. 2000. Vincenzo Galilei, scienziato sperimentale, mentore del figlio Galileo. Nuncius 15: 497–514.
Google Scholar
Palmerino, Carla Rita. 1999. Infinite Degrees of Speed. Marin Mersenne and the Debate over Galileo’s Law of Free Fall. Early Science and Medicine 4: 269–324.
Google Scholar
———. 2000. Una nuova scienza della materia per la scienza nuova del moto. In Atomismo e continuo nel XVII secolo, ed. Egidio Festa and Romano Gatto, 276–319. Naples: Vivarium.
Google Scholar
———. 2001. Galileo’s and Gassendi’s Solutions to the Rota Aristotelis Paradox: A Bridge between Matter and Motion Theories. In Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, ed. John E. Murdoch, William R. Newman, and Christoph H. Lüthy, 381–422. Leiden/Boston: Brill.
Google Scholar
———. 2010. Experiments, Mathematics, Physical Causes: How Mersenne Came to Doubt the Validity of Galileo’s Law of Free Fall. Perspectives on Science 18: 50–76.
Google Scholar
———. 2011. Galileo’s Use of Medieval Thought Experiments. In Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts, ed. Katerina Ierodiakonou and Sophie Roux, 101–125. Leiden: Brill.
Google Scholar
Popkin, Richard H. 1957. Father Mersenne’s War Against Pyrrhonism. The Modern Schoolman 34: 61–78.
Google Scholar
———. 1979. The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Google Scholar
Raphael, Renée. 2008. Galileo’s Discorsi and Mersenne’s Nouvelles pensées: Mersenne as a Reader of Galilean Experience. Nuncius 23: 7–36.
Google Scholar
———. 2017. Reading Galileo. Scribal Technologies and the Two New Sciences. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Google Scholar
Redondi, Pietro. 1985. Atomi, indivisibili e dogma. Quaderni Storici 20: 529–571.
Google Scholar
Rochot, Bernard. 1973. Galilée et Mersenne. In Mersenne, Les nouvelles pensées de Galilée, 2 vols, ed. Pierre Costabel and Michel-Pierre Lerner, vol. I, 9–14. Paris: Vrin.
Google Scholar
Sambursky, Shmuel. 1962. Galileo’s Attempt at a Cosmogony. Isis 53: 460–464.
Google Scholar
Shea, William R. 1970. Galileo’s Atomic Hypothesis. Ambix 18: 13–27.
Google Scholar
———. 1977. Marin Mersenne: Galileo’s traduttore-traditore. Annali dell’Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza di Firenze 2: 55–70.
Google Scholar
Smith, A. Mark. 1976. Galileo’s Theory of Indivisibles: Revolution or Compromise? Journal of the History of Ideas 37: 571–588.
Google Scholar
Stabile, Giorgio. 1994. Linguaggio della natura e linguaggio della scrittura in Galilei. Dalla ‘Istoria sulle macchie solari’ alle lettere copernicane. Nuncius 9: 37–64.
Google Scholar
———. 2002. Il concetto di esperienza in Galilei e nella scuola galileiana. In ‘Experientia.’ X Colloquio Internazionale, ed. Marco Veneziani, 217–241. Florence: Olschki.
Google Scholar
———. 2003. Lo statuto di inesorabile in Galileo Galilei. In Lexiques et glossaires philosophiques de la Renaissance, ed. Jacqueline Hamesse and Marta Fattori, 269–285. Louvain-la-Neuve: Fédération internationale des instituts d’études médiévales.
Google Scholar
Taussig, Sylvie. 2009. L’examen de la philosophie de Fludd de Pierre Gassendi par ses hors-texte. Pisa: Fabrizio Serra.
Google Scholar
Van Wymeersch, Brigitte. 2011. Proportion, harmonie et beauté chez Mersenne: Entre lecture analogique et lecture physico-mathématique de la musique. In Proportions: Science, Musique, Peinture & Architecture: Actes du LIe Colloque international d’études humanistes, ed. Sabine Rommevaux, Philippe Vendrix, and Vasco Zara, 261–274. Turnhout: Brepols.
Google Scholar
Wisan, Winifred Lovell. 1986. Galileo and God’s Creation. Isis 76: 473–486.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Galileo Museum, Institute and Museum for the History of Science, Florence, Italy
Natacha Fabbri

Authors

Natacha Fabbri
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natacha Fabbri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Center for the History of Philosophy and Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Frederik A. Bakker
Department of Philosophy, Paul Valéry University, Montpellier, France
Delphine Bellis
Center for the History of Philosophy and Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Carla Rita Palmerino

Additional information

I would like to thank the editors for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. All translations are the author’s except where otherwise noted.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fabbri, N. (2018). Questioning Fludd, Kepler and Galileo: Mersenne’s Harmonious Universe. In: Bakker, F., Bellis, D., Palmerino, C. (eds) Space, Imagination and the Cosmos from Antiquity to the Early Modern Period. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 48. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02765-0_10

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02765-0_10
Published: 06 February 2019
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02764-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02765-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics