Projectile Motion and the Rejection of Superposition

  • Michael ElazarEmail author
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 288)


The last chapter of Part III outlines Fabri’s theory of projectiles, the rather peculiar synthesis between some New Science principles and old notions, in which Fabri adheres to basic conservation of rectilinear motion but rejects Galileo’s principle of superposition, in favor of an Aristotelian-style “frustra” mechanism which is responsible for the destruction of violent impetus. This chapter shows that while adhering to his basic “inertial framework”, and devising a theory which purports to “save the phenomena”, Fabri failed to develop a useful theory of projectiles which could be regarded as an advance vis-à-vis the pioneering theory of Galileo and his disciples.


Natural Motion Destruction Mechanism Projectile Motion Residual Impetus Violent Motion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aristotle. 1908–1952. The Works of Aristotle, 12 Vols., eds. W.D. Ross and J.A. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1930. Physics (trans: Hardie, R.P. and Gaye, R.K.). In Aristotle 1908–1952, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. 1931. Meteorology (trans: Webster, E.W.). In Aristotle 1908–1952, Vol. 3.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle. 1936. Minor Works (trans: Hett, W.S.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barbour, Julian B. 1989. Absolute or Relative Motion? A Study from a Machian Point of View of the Discovery and the Structure of Dynamical Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, Carl B. 1949. The History of the Calculus and its Conceptual Development. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
  7. Büttner, Jochen, Peter Damerow, Jürgen Renn, and Matthias Schemmel. 2003. The Challenging Images of Artillery: Practical Knowledge at the Roots of the Scientific Revolution. In The Power of Images in Early Modern Science, eds. Wolfgang Lefèvre, Jürgen Renn, and Urs Schoepflin, 3–27. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clagett, Marshall. 1959. Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  9. Damerow, Peter, Gideon Freudenthal, Peter McLlaughlin, and Jürgen Renn. 2004. Exploring the Limits of Preclassical Mechanics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dear, Peter. 1984. Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools: Continuity and Transformation in the Scientific Revolution. Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  11. Fabri, Honoré. 1646. Tractatus physicus de motu locali, in quo effectus omnes, qui ad impetum, motum naturalem, violentum, & mixtum pertinent, explicantur, & ex principiis physicis demonstrantur; auctore Petro Mousnerio Doctore Medico; cuncta excerpta ex praelectionibus R.P. Honorati Fabry, Societatis Iesu. Lyon.Google Scholar
  12. Galilei, Galileo. 1989. Two New Sciences (trans: Drake, S.). Toronto: Wall & Emerson.Google Scholar
  13. Hall, Alfred Rupert. 1952. Ballistics in the Seventeenth Century:‎ A Study in the Relations of Science and War with Reference Principally to England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Koyré, Alexandre. 1978. Galileo Studies (trans: Mepham, J.). Hassocks: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lukens, David C. 1979. An Aristotelian Response to Galileo: Honoré Fabri, S.J. (1608–1688) on the Causal Analysis of Motion. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  16. Maier, Annaliese. 1982. On the Threshold of Exact Science: Selected Writings of Anneliese Maier on Late Medieval Natural Philosophy (ed. and trans: Sargent, S.D.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  17. Oresme, Nicole. 1968. Le livre du ciel et du monde (ed. and trans: Menut, A.D. and Denomy, A.J.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  18. Palmerino, Carla Rita. 2004. Galileo’s Theories of Free Fall and Projectile Motion as Interpreted by Pierre Gassendi. In The Reception of the Galilean Science of Motion in Seventeenth Century Europe, eds. C.R. Palmerino and J.M.M.H. Thijssen, 137–164. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 239. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Renn, Jürgen, Peter Damerow, and Simone Rieger with an appendix by Domenico Giulini. 2001. Hunting the White Elephant: When and How Did Galileo Discover the Law of Fall? In Galileo in Context, ed. Jürgen Renn, 29–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for the History of ScienceBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations