Dialogi physici, in quibus de motu terrae disputatur, marini aestus nova causa proponitur, necnon aquarum & mercurii supra libellam elevatio examinatur ...
Lyon: Christophe Fourni, 1665. First edition, rare, of Fabri’s work on the Copernican theory, followed by a theory of tidal action based on the influence of the moon, a theory of capillarity based on the idea that air could not enter capillaries as easily as liquids, and a more detailed discussion of the origin of Saturn’s rings than he had given in his Brevis annotatio (1660). It is remarkable that at this date, after the condemnation of Galileo, a senior father of the Church should publish the arguments in favour of the Copernican hypothesis with such intellectual and scientific honesty. Just as Galileo did in 1632 in his “masterly polemic for the new science” (PMM), Fabri uses the form of a dialogue, the two interlocutors, Augustin and Antimonus, discussing the controversial question of the motion of the earth, a subject matter that had already brought Fabri 50 days in prison several years earlier. In the second dialogue, In quo valida contra Copernici hypothesi argumenta proponuntur, the two disputants are joined by a third, Chrysocomus, Fabri using geometrical figures in both dialogues to clarify the astronomical points made. He does not, as it were, take sides but carefully puts the strongest technical arguments into the mouths of the main disputants. The book is thus of great interest in presenting an important contemporary scientist’s view of what could best be said on both sides of the heliocentric controversy. In the third dialogue Fabri evolves his original theory of tidal motion, attributing it to lunar influence, with air pressure acting as the medium. The final dialogue investigates capillarity, five years before Borelli’s De motionibus naturalibus a gravitate pendentibus, the first monograph on this subject. Fabri (1606-88), “mathematician and physicist, was born near Belley, France, educated at the Collège de la Trinité in Lyons and ordained a Jesuit priest in 1635. He taught metaphysics, astronomy, mathematics, and natural philosophy at the College from 1640 until 1646, then was transferred to Rome as a member of the Penitentiary College (the Inquisition), remaining there for the rest of his life. Fabri engaged in research and controversy on a wide range of scientific issues, including heliocentrism, the explanation of tides, and the circulation of the blood (he discovered the latter, independently of Harvey, about 1636); his writings on light and colors contributed to the science of optics” (Albert et al, Source book ofophthalmology p. 100). “The foci of Fabri’s tremendous activity were almost all urgent questions of the science of his day: heliocentrism, Saturn’s rings, the theory of the tides, magnetism, optics, and kinematics. In mathematics, infinitesimal methods and the continuum problem were most prominent” (DSB). RBH lists four other copies since 1948. Provenance: Owen Gingerich (1930-2023), American astronomer (bookplate). Gingerich was professor emeritus of astronomy and of the history of science at Harvard University and a senior astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. In addition to his research and teaching, he wrote many books on the history of astronomy, notably including An Annotated Census of Copernicus' De Revolutionibus (Nuremberg, 1543 and Basel, 1566), published in 2002. “Honoratus Fabri (1607-1688) entered the Society of Jesus at Avignon in 1626, taught at Lyons for fourteen years, and then was called to Rome as papal penitentiary … In the domain of science he was familiar with ancient writers such as Aristotle and Pliny, but also was acquainted with contemporary developments. Unlike many members of his Order who limited their writings to laborious compilations from past authorities and seem to have had no ideas of their own, he professed to have anticipated Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood, vied with Descartes in thinking things out for himself, conducted experiments on capillarity, engaged in astronomical observation, and wrote against Huygens with regard to the moons of Jupiter. In other words, he attempted to meet developing modern science on its own ground … “The Dialogi were the outcome of Cardinal Facchinetto’s inviting Fabri to dinner to discuss with other learned guests physical experiments but especially the question whether the earth moves, the cause of the tides, and the Torricellian experiment. Some months later the cardinal asked him to write out their conversation and the present book was the result. Despite the ecclesiastical censure in 1616 of the doctrine that the earth moves and is not at the center of the universe, and the subsequent submission of Galileo, the cardinal, who appears in the dialogues as Augustinus, is represented as arguing for the Copernican theory against Antimus or Fabri, although Augustinus grants that ecclesiastics especially ought to support the pontifical decrees against that theory. But he calls Galileo ‘never praised enough.’ Even Antimus denies that he hates the Copernican hypothesis. He regards Copernicus as the chief astronomer of his time and Galileo as second to none in genius. ‘But he so weakened the arguments against the Copernican hypothesis that he seemed to confirm it,’ although Fabri feels sure that Galileo would not deny that so far it has not been demonstrated. Furthermore, Fabri believes that he has new arguments to show that the earth is immobile at the center of the universe. ‘You must be joking,’ retorts the cardinal. ‘Surely the Copernican hypothesis is supported by such a mass of reasons that, although they by no means equal geometrical demonstration, yet they approach closely to it, and that theory is rightly judged by common agreement of all the learned to be far more probable than any other.’ When Fabri asks to be enlightened as to those reasons, the cardinal or Augustinus replies, ‘Haven’t you read them in Galileo so simply and clearly explained that nothing in my judgment can be read which is clearer and simpler?’ Fabri responds that he has read and reread everything that Galileo ever published. One of Fabri’s new arguments against the Copernican theory is that the ring of Saturn is always parallel to the plane of the equator and never to that of the ecliptic … “The names of other seventeenth century scientists appear in the Dialogi. The cardinal agreed with Gilbert that the earth was a great magnet, but Fabri said that many denied this … Descartes is criticized in the Dialogi for explaining the tides by pressure of the moon on the air and ocean’s surface. Mersenne is corrected as to the distance covered in a second by a falling body. Gassendi and Grandami are also mentioned. The experiments of Boyle are cited; Hevelius is called a faithful and accurate observer of lunar phenomena; Huygens, although Fabri has written against him, is ‘a man indeed most learned’ … “The tides are discussed with much accompanying geographical detail in the Dialogi, but the moon is held to be not the cause but only the occasion for them. Gassendi found that the tide is felt for many yards below the surface of the sea. The experiment of Torricelli with the tube of mercury is called ‘very beautiful and the most celebrated’ of the century, while the claim of Valerianus to its authorship is emphatically rejected. Whereas Lana Terzi had suggested an aerial ship which would be lifted by pumping the air out of four large spheres of very thin copper, Fabri made the ridiculous suggestion of four big tubes filled with a great deal of compressed air, apparently on the theory that more air in the same space would weigh less. “Fabri retained the four elements of old, rejecting the three principia of the chemists and the three kinds of particles proposed by Descartes. But he no longer believed in a sphere of fire in the concave of the sphere of the moon, nor in an ether distinct from pure air, nor in mountains which rose above the middle region of air. Springs for the most part came from rain and snow. The sun was true fire, but mixed, not pure. The moon was a compound body from the four elements, but uninhabited, without animals or vegetation, clouds or precipitation. Its spots were bodies of water. In discussing comets, Fabri based no argument on parallax, which he regarded as still an uncertain matter. He had seen no comet since that of 1618, when he was a small boy. Yet Cassini had observed comets of December 20, 1652 to January 7, 1653; December 20, 1664-March 11, 1665; another in April, 1665; a fourth in March, 1669. Fabri believed that comets were made of matter from the ethereal region, the same matter as occurred in sunspots. Grassi noted that for a month while the comet of 1618 appeared there was no spot on the sun, the matter having gone into the comet. Fabri had no doubt that new stars appear and vanish like those of 1572, 1600 and 1604. However, they were not new creations but rather coalesced from the collecting of other parts. They were closely analogous to comets. But the star of the Magi was produced by angels and not a physical phenomenon. “Fabri listed fourteen different effects of the moon upon the sublunar world and held that solar action on the other heavenly bodies produced effluvia from these. But he denied any influence of the stars on the earth aside from the little light which they shed on us. On the other hand, he could be easily induced to believe that the new stars were omens and signs from God, who might also sometimes employ comets as portents. But since they were mere effects of nature, he did not believe that ordinarily they were presages. Thus, Fabri left hardly any loophole for a belief in astrology, and the same may be said with regard to divination and magic in general” (Thorndike, pp. 664-670). “In … 1660, [Fabri] was involved in a dispute with Huygens on Saturn [Brevis annotatio in Systema Saturnium, Rome, 1660]. Huygens [Systema Saturnium, The Hague, 1660] believed that Saturn was surrounded by a ring, whereas Fabri tried to save the phenomena with an elaborate system of dark and bright satellites not circling Saturn, but moving in strange paths behind the body of the planet, namely on the opposite side with respect to the earth … Prince Leopold was called in as an arbiter in the dispute and his academician [Giovanni Alfonso] Borelli devised an ingenious experiment to adjudicate the matter. By observing with powerful telescopes across the corridors of the Medicean palaces physical models of the rival systems appositely constructed, Fabri’s explanation was found wanting, whereas Huygens’s was largely endorsed. Fabri tried to explain the motions of the Medicean planets with a system similar to the one he had devised for Saturn. According to him, the four satellites of Jupiter and the five of Saturn – namely the four he had proposed and one observed by Huygens – moved behind their planets, not around them. “These views were given a clearer and lengthier explanation in his Dialogi physici in which the movement of the earth is discussed (Lyons, 1665). The book consists of four dialogues on the refutation of false arguments in favour of Copernicus, the presentation of valid anti-Copernican arguments, a new theory of tides and, lastly, the equilibrium of fluids and capillarity. At the beginning of the second dialogue Fabri claimed that all standard arguments against Copernicus were inadequate. Such statements, possibly aimed against his fellow Jesuit Gianbattista Riccioli, apparently irritated other Jesuits and ecclesiastical authorities and according to Michelangelo Ricci would have prevented the circulation of the book. “At the end of the second dialogue Fabri tried to explain why he believed that the satellites of Jupiter did not rotate around the planet. First, the satellites are never seen in front of Jupiter, despite their being very bright while the disc of the planet is opaque. Secondly, if they passed in front of Jupiter, they ought to project their shadows on it, but those shadows had not been observed. “It was most unfortunate for him that while his book was being published, Campani and Cassini were able to observe what looked like Medicean shadows. Probably this was more than a mere coincidence and related to Roman intellectual gossip and the rivalry between the telescope makers Campani and Divini, allied with Cassini and Fabri, respectively … Fabri thought that he had to act in order to defend his reputation. At the end of his four physical dialogues he added two letters to his Lyons friend Claude Basset, dating from 1 and 28 November, in which he put forward a new theory of the motion of the Medicean stars. “Borelli became aware of Fabri’s Dialogi physici in January 1666, when the grand duke showed him a published letter by Campani to Cassini mentioning Fabri’s work. From Pisa, Borelli asked Prince Leopold at Florence to send him a copy of Fabri’s Dialogi in order to make sure that he had not missed anything significant just before consigning his own work to the press [Theoricae mediceorum planetarum, Florence, 1666]. On seeing Fabri’s Dialogi Borelli was greatly distressed and replied immediately to Leopold in a style betraying his state of mind: ‘I have received yesterday afternoon Father Fabri’s book, which astonished me for that little that I have seen, because I see that to that cranky brain occurred concepts very similar to mine, with which I explain the physical causes of planetary motions. Although he talks a lot of nonsense as usual, I would not like it if others were to suspect that I used his inventions and I, though innocent, considered to be a thief. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to have recourse to the goodwill of Your Most Serene Highness, begging you most humbly and urgently to help me and protect my innocence – known to Your Highness – in the manner you deem appropriate. In the meantime, I thought it absolutely necessary to have my work printed as soon as possible at Florence, no longer at Bologna, disregarding the higher costs involved, as long as it appears quickly under last year’s date.’ This extraordinary passage highlights some of the background of the publication of Theoricae, including the probable cause of the change of publication year on the title-page [in virtually all copies of the book, the date has been altered by adding an I on the dot at the end of MDCLXV., thus giving MDCLXVI, or 1666] … “At this point one may well wonder what Fabri had to say to arouse such deep concerns in Borelli. The Jesuit admitted that he had been unable to observe the transit of the satellites in front of Jupiter, although he was using excellent Divini telescopes. However, he stated that he had suspected for some time that the Medicean stars rotate around Jupiter because in some cases they are seen to approach right up to the disc of Jupiter, namely when they are between Jupiter and the earth, whereas in other cases they disappear before reaching the edge of the disc, seeming therefore to vanish in the shadow cone, thus behind Jupiter. Despite such retrospective claims, Fabri’s theory appears to have been concocted in such a hurry as to prevent serious inconsistencies. With all its glaring shortcomings and paradoxes, however, Fabri’s theory is highly interesting … [It] highlights some of the difficulties encountered by an intellectual in the mid-1660s in formulating a theory of celestial motions. Moreover, by transposing in the most literal sense Galilean parabolas in heaven, Fabri was able to establish a crucial link between the science of motion in Galileo’s Discorsi and orbital motion, in this case of satellites. By combining uniform circular motions along trajectories so large that they could be taken as rectilinear, together with a uniformly accelerated motion intended to be towards Jupiter, Fabri had created a monstrous but highly suggestive theory. Unlike Borelli’s Theoricae, however, Fabri’s Dialogi physici do not appear to have been studied by Newton” (Meli, pp. 391-395. Carli and Favaro 294; Goldsmith F44; Lalande p 260; Roller and Goodman I p. 379; Sommervogel III 551 3; Wellcome II p. 3. Meli, ‘Shadows and Deception: From Borelli’s Theoricae to the Saggi of the Cimento,’ The British Journal for the History of Science 31 (1998), pp. 383-402. Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, Vol. VII (1958), pp. 664-670.
4to (242 x 185 mm), pp. [iv], 218 [recte 228], [16], with engraved device on title and numerous woodcut illustrations and diagrams in text, uncut (lightly browned throughout). Contemporary carta rustica.
Item #6609
Price: $3,500.00
