Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:17:55.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Discourse of Pious Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Rivka Feldhay  and
Michael Heyd
Rivka Feldhay
Affiliation:
The Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and ideas Tel Aviv University (R. F)
Michael Heyd
Affiliation:
The Department of HistoryThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem (M. H.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper, an attempt at an institutional history of ideas, compares patterns of reproduction of scientific knowledge in Catholic and Protestant educational institutions. Franciscus Eschinardus' Cursus Physico-Mathematicus and Jean-Robert Chouet's Syntagma Physicum are examined for the strategies which allow for accommodation of new contents and new practices within traditional institutional frameworks. The texts manifest two different styles of inquiry about nature, each adapted to the peculiar constraints implied by its environment. The interpretative drive of Eschinardus and a whole group of “modern astronomers” is here seen as pushing beyond the traditional task of “saving the phenomena,” towards celestial hermeneutics which is thoroughly experimental and mathematical. In spite of the insistence on physical interpretation of celestial phenomena, Eschinardus' astronomical discourse is yet constrained by a complex game of intellectual-political considerations. Commitment to the Thomistic organization of knowledge, which sets a boundary between a science of motion (physica) and the “geometry of heavens” (mathematical astronomy), suppresses any impulse to ask about the mechanical causes of celestial appearances. The Copernican cosmology is thus rejected qua an attempt to cross this guarded boundary. Chouet in Geneva, by contrast, frees himself from these constraints on the organization of natural knowledge. By strictly separating philosophy from theology, he can combine physics and astronomy, favor a Copernican cosmology and adopt a Cartesian mechanistic worldview. Moreover, unlike the Jesuit Eschinardus, Chouet seeks to explain natural phenomena in terms of causes, rather than just interpret them. Yet he does so within a philosophical discourse largely scholastic in nature, which best suits the conservative institutional framework in which he teaches. Whereas the Jesuit Eschinardus employs a new type of discourse without severing his links with the traditional Thomistic worldview, the Calvinist Chouet adopts a new Cartesian worldview and adapts it to a largely traditional type of discourse.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Spring 1989 , pp. 109 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, A. G., 1983. “Misunderstanding the Merton Thesis: A Boundary Dispute Between History and Sociology” Isis 74:368–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acta Capitulorum Generalium Ordinis Praedicatorum, ed. Reichert, B. M.. Rome 1901.Google Scholar
Anselmi, G. M., 1981. “Per un'archeologia della Ratio: Dalla ‘pedagogia’ al ‘governo’,” in La “Ratio Studiorum”. Modelli culturali e pratiche educative dei Gesuiti in Italia tra Cinque e Seicento, ed. Brizzi, G. P., 11–42. Rome.Google Scholar
Ashworth, W. B. Jr., 1986. “Catholicism and Early Modern Science,” in God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, ed. Lindberg, D. C., and Numbers, R. L., Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. 136–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backer, A.de, and Sommervogel, C., eds., 1890–1909. Bibliothèque de Ia Compagnie de Jésus. Brussels.Google Scholar
Baldini, U., 1981. “La nova del 1604 e i matematici e filosofi del Collegio Romano” Annali dell'Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza di Firenze, 6/2.:63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayle, Pierre, 1737. Oeuvres Diverses, 2nd ed. The Hague.Google Scholar
Brockliss, L. W. B., 1981. “Aristotle, Descartes and the New Science: Natural Philosophy in the University of Paris, 1600–1700,” Annals of Science 38:33–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cosentino, G., 1970. “Le matematiche nella ‘Ratio studiorum’ della Compagnia di Gesu” Miscellanea storica ligure 2(2):171–213.Google Scholar
Crombie, A. C., 1975. “Sources of Galileo's Early Natural Philosophy,” in Reason, Experiment and Mysticism, ed. Bonelli, M. L. Righini and Shea, E. R.. New York.Google Scholar
Crombie, A. C., 1977. “Mathematics and Platonism in the Sixteenth-Century Italian Universities and in Jesuit Educational Policy,” in Prismata Naturwissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studien: Festschrift für Willy Hartner. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Dear, P., 1987. “Jesuit Mathematical Science and the Reconstruction of Experience in the Early Seventeenth Century” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 18:133–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deason, Gary B., 1986. “Reformation Theology and the Mechanistic Conception of Nature,” in God and Nature, ed. Lidenberg, David C., and Numbers, Ronald L, 167–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillenberger, J., 1960. Protestant Thought and Natural Science: A Historical Interpretation. New York: Abdington Press.Google Scholar
Feldhay, R., 1985. “The Jesuit Educational Ideology: From ‘Officium Docendi’ to ‘Ministerium’.” A paper presented at the plenary session of the History of Science Society, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Feldhay, R., 1987. “Knowledge and Salvation in Jesuit Culture” Science in Context 1(2):195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldhay, R., 1988. “Catholicism and the Emergence of Galilean Science: A Conflict between Science and Religion?” in Cultural Traditions and Worlds of Knowledge: Explorations in the Sociology of Knowledge, ed. Eisenstadt, S. N., and Silber, I., Greenwich, Conn., London.Google Scholar
Feldhay, R., forthcoming. Galileo and the Church: Political Inquisition or Critical Dialogue?Google Scholar
Funkenstein, Amos, 1986. Theology and the Scientific Imagination. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gascoigne, John, forthcoming. “A Reappraisal of the Role of the Universities in the Scientific Revolution,” in Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution, ed. Robert, Westman, and David, Lindberg C.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gieryn, T. F., 1988, “Distancing Science from Religion in Seventeenth-Century England” Isis 79:582–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I., 1975. The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L., 1979. Electricity in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: A Study of Early Modern Physics. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Heyd, Michael, 1979. “From a Rationalist Theology to Cartesian Voluntarism: David Derodon and Jean-Robert Chouet” Journal of the History of Ideas 40(4):527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyd, Michael, 1982. Between Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment: Jean Robert Chouet and the Introduction of Cartesian Science in the Academy of Geneva. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.Google Scholar
Hooykaas, R., 1972. Religion and the Rise of Modern Science. Grand Rapids, Michigan.Google Scholar
Jacob, J. R., and Jacob, M. C., 1980. “The Anglican Origins of Modern Science: The Metaphysical Foundations of the Whig Constitution” Isis 71:251–67.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry, 1981. Science and Hypothesis. Historical Essays on Scientific Methodology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lukacs, L., ed., 1965–1981. Monumenta Paedagogica SocietatisJesu, 4. vols (cited as MP). Rome.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K., 1970. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England. New York: Howard Fertig.Google Scholar
MP. See Lukacs 1965–1981.Google Scholar
Morgan, J., 1979. “Puritanism and Science: A Reinterpretation” The Historical Journal, 22(3):535–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, Francis, 1961. “Christian Theology and the Newtonian Science: The Rise of the Concept of the Laws of Nature,” in O'Connor and Oakley 1961.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Daniel, and Francis, Oakley, eds., 1961. Creation: The Impact of an Idea. New York: Scribner's.Google Scholar
Reif, P., 1969. “Textbooks in Natural Philosophy: 1600–1650” Journal of the History of ideas 30(1):97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohault, Jacques, [1723] 1969. A System of Natural Philosophy, ed. Clarke, John, and Samuel, Clarke. New York.Google Scholar
Ruestow, Edward G., 1973. Physics at Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Leiden. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Salmone, M., ed., 1979. Ratio Studiorum: l'ordinamento scolastico dei collegi dei Gesuiti. Milan.Google Scholar
Serry, G., 1771. La Storia de Auxiliis del ch. P. Giacinto Serry dell'Ordine dei Predicatori, trans. and comp. Rambaldo Norimene. Brescia.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., 1988. “Understanding the Merton Thesis,” Isis 79:594–605.Google Scholar
Villoslada, R. G., 1954. Storia del Collegio Romano. Rome.Google Scholar
Wallace, W. A., 1984. Galileo and his Sources: The Heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo's Science. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Webster, C., ed., 1974. The intellectual Revolution of the Seventeenth Century. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Webster, C., 1975. The Great Instauration: Science, Medicine, and Reform, 1626–1660. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Weisheipl, J. A., 1965. “Classification of the Sciences in Medieval Thought” Medieval Studies 17:59–90.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S., 1980. “The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth Century: a Preliminary Study” History of Science 40:105–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar