Galileo's System of Patronage

‘Primo Segretario’ does not translate well into any modern political role. ‘Prime Minister’ may be its least distorting analogue. Belisario Vinta obtained that post in December 1609.

GO, x, no. 307, 353.

The pervasive sense of anarchy conveyed by these views of early modern science is a stereotype. Dominant discourses tend to depict their ‘other’ as irrational and unpredictable. The alleged anarchy perceived at the origins of paradigmatic science is no exception. Moreover, the inability of an hegemonic discourse to apply its categories to the ‘other’ is not taken as a sign of its own inadequacy but rather as a confirmation of its ‘truth’ for it ‘proves’ the utter chaotic nature of the ‘other’. Historians defeated (or only partially succesful) in trying to find Kuhnian communities and institutions in early modern science are like missionaries killed by the natives they are trying to ‘civilize’ so that somebody (in the ‘civilized’ world) can keep claiming that natives are murderous and uncivilizable savages.

See, for instance: Baldini U. , “Christoph Clavius and the scientific scene in Rome”, in Coyne G. V. Hoskin M. A. Pedersen O. (eds), Gregorian reform of the calendar (Vatican City, 1983), 137–69; idem, “La nova del 1604 e i matematici e filosofi del Collegio Romano”, Annali dell'Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza di Firenze, vi (1981), 63–98; idem, “L'astronomia del Cardinale Bellarmino”, in Galluzzi P. (ed.), Novita celesti e crisi del sapere (Florence, 1984), 293–305; idem, “Galileo, la nuova astronomia e la critica dell'aristotelismo nel dialogo epistolare tra Giuseppe Biancani e i revisori romani della Compagnia di Gesu”, Annali dell' Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza di Firenze, ix (1984), 13–43, Cosentino G. , “Le matematiche nella Ratio Studiorum della Compagnia di Gesu”, Miscellanea storica ligure, ii (1970), 171–213; idem, “L'insegnamento delle matematiche nei collegi gesuitici nell'Italia settentrionale”, Physis, xiii (1971), 205–17; Knobloch E. , “Sur la vie et l'œuvre de Christophore Clavius”, Revue d'histoire des sciences, xli (1988), 331–56; Baroncini G. , “L'insegnamento della filosofia naturale nei collegi italiani dei Gesuiti”, in Brizzi G. P. (ed.), La Ratio Studiorum (Rome, 1981), 163–215; Crombie A. C. , “Mathematics and Platonism in the sixteenth-century Italian universities and in Jesuit educational policy”, in Maeyama Y. Saltzer W. G. (eds), Prismata (Wiesbaden, 1977), 63–94; Dear P. , “Jesuit mathematical science and the reconstitution of experience in the early seventeenth century”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, xviii (1987), 133–75; Heilbron J. H. , Elements of modern physics (Berkeley, 1982), 93–106; and Wallace W. A. , Galileo and his sources (Princeton, 1984). C. Schmitt's extensive work on science and philosophy in the Italian sixteenth century universities and Thoren V. E. , “Tycho Brahe as the dean of a Renaissance research institute”, in Farber P. L. Osier M. J. (eds), Religion, science, and worldview (Cambridge, 1985), 275–95, are also expressions of this type of institution-based historiography.

Westfall R. , “Science and patronage: Galileo and the telescope”, Isis, lxxvi (1985), 11–30, and Drake S. , Galileo at work (Chicago, 1978) are examples of this type of historiography, which finds its distant roots in the works of Koyré and Burtt. This tradition runs into a curious methodological paradox. Its members tend to participate in Molière's sarcasm for the Aristotelian thinking of the medical student in the Le malade imaginaire. In his personalized Latin, Bachelierus tells his professor that opium puts patients to sleep precisely because of its inherent sedative quality — A “virtus dormitiva cuius est natura sensus assoupire” (Molière, Le malade imaginaire, ed. by Bouvet A. (Paris, 1963), 130). The belief in the existence of the ‘scientific mind’ or ‘scientific attitude’ whose natural tendency is to produce ‘science’ is not different from Molière's young physician's belief in opium's virtus dormitiva. It is an interesting paradox that the ‘substantialistic’ view of scientific rationality as held by this historiographical tradition turns out to be in patent contradiction to the notion of scientific rationality it claims to defend. Like Molière's Bachelierus, they transform the explanandum into the explanans.

Such a notion of patronage could be more than a pre-modern version of the social system of science for it could be also used to uncover the non-modern dimensions of the modern social system of science and criticize the dogmas of the institution-based historiography of modern science. For example, Outram Dorinda , Georges Cuvier (Manchester, 1984), views scientific institutions as frames within which networks of patronage were developed, suggesting a continuity between the social systems of early modern and modern science.

Cellini B. , La vita (Turin, 1973); Marino G. , Lettere (Turin, 1966).

Cicero , De re publica , ii. 16, quoted in Weissman R. , “Taking patronage seriously”, in Kent F. W. Simons P. Eade J. C. (eds), Patronage, art, and society in Renaissance Italy (Oxford, 1987), 25–45, p. 33.

See Weissman , ibid., especially pp. 27–30.

Examples of works in the history of Renaissance Florence that have treated patronage as a complex social institution are Trexler R. , Public life in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1980); Kent F. W. , Household and lineage in Renaissance Florence (Princeton, 1977); Weissman R. , Ritual brotherhood in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1982). Relevant essays on patronage in early modern Italy are found in Kent Simons Eade (eds), Patronage, art, and society in Renaissance Italy. More traditional views on patronage in Renaissance Europe are found in Lytle G. F. Orgel S. (eds), Patronage in the Renaissance (Princeton, 1981). Patronage as a form of social organization in the Mediterranean basin is studied in Pitt-Rivers J. , Mediterranean countrymen (Paris, 1963) and Gellner E. Waterbury J. , Patrons and clients (London, 1977). For socioanthropological views of patronage see Boissevain J. , Friends of friends (Oxford, 1974); Eisenstadt S. N. Roniger L. , Patrons, clients, and friends (Cambridge, 1984); and Schmidt S. W. Guasti L. Lande C. H. Scott J. C. , Friends, followers, and factions (Berkeley, 1977).

Westfall , “Science and patronage” (ref. 5), 29.

The enrolling of noble practitioners in order to legitimize a new discipline was a conscious strategy adopted by Cesi for his Lincei, GO, xi, no. 874, 507. On the relationship between social and cognitive status of mathematics and mathematicians in Italy before Galileo, see Biagioli M. , “The social status of Italian mathematicians, 1450–1600”, History of science, xxvii (1989), 41–95. For the relationship between disciplinary status and legitimacy of cognitive claims, see Westman R. S. in “The astronomer's role in the sixteenth-century: A preliminary study”, History of science, xviii (1981), 105–47. The relationship between social status and cognitive legitimacy indicates the sociological importance of authors like Guidobaldo, Tycho, or Boyle. Through their undisputed aristocratic status as well as through their scientific achievements they legitimized the new science. The Jesuits' Collegio Romano played a similar role. Although the members of the Society of Jesus did not necessarily come from the aristocracy nor were they necessarily brilliant mathematicians, their order brought them a degree of nobility. They shared the ‘sacredness’ of the Church in the same way ambassadors participated in the sacredness of the state they represented.

Dear P. , “Totius in verba: Rhetoric and authority in the early Royal Society”, Isis, lxxvi (1985), 145–61, p. 156.

Schaffer Simon Shapin Steven , Leviathan and the air pump (Princeton, 1985), especially 58–59, 66. The relationship between social status and credibility is also the underlying theme of Shapin's “The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England”, Isis, lxxix (1988), 373–404.

Burke Peter , “Classifying the people: The census as collective representation”, The historical anthropology of early modern Italy (Cambridge, 1987), 27–39, p. 29.

This notion of power is broadly derived from Foucault's analysis of the structure of power mechanisms. For a concise statement of his views, see Foucault M. , “Truth and power”, Power/Knowledge (New York, 1980), 109–33.

GO, x, no. 131, 153–4.

I am thinking of an interpretation of the role of brokers as mediators between hierarchically organized social castes along the lines of Mary Douglas's anthropological analysis of the threat of pollution related to the maintenance of social boundaries. See her Purity and danger (London, 1966). In a sense, early modern brokers were ‘pollution controllers’. This interpretation of the role of brokers seems to be confirmed by Galileo's rhetoric in a letter to Cosimo in 1605 presented in ref. 26 below.

GO, x, no. 120, 144; no. 138, 160; no. 190, 210–13; and no. 192, 214–15.

GO, x, no. 232, 254–5; no. 320, 361; no. 349, 388; no. 378, 420–1; no. 385, 385–6; no. 309, 354; and xi, no. 831, 463–4.

GO, x, no. 126, 148.

Ibid., no. 91, 106–7; no. 99, 109; no. 131, 154–5; no. 190, 210–13; no. 209, 231–4; and no. 211, 235.

Patronage connections were a family capital transmitted to its male members as we can see from the father/son or uncle/nephew pairs who appear as patrons and brokers of Galileo (Saracinelli, Giugni, Piccolomini). Galileo too developed his ‘patronage clan’ connected to the Medici court by placing members of his family in the Medici administration, and by having his son legitimized, given a sinecure by Urban VIII, and later married to the daughter of Geri Bocchineri — A member of a family quickly emerging through the ranks of the Medici bureaucracy. Therefore, although there is no continuity between Galileo, his father, his son Vincenzio, and his brother Michelangelo in terms of their specific activity, we find a strong continuity in terms of their social role: They were all courtiers and civil servants. Moreover, Galileo's responsibility for the dowries of his sisters suggests that he was never an ‘individual’ but the head of a clan. His role as the head of an impoverished clan probably explains why he did not marry Marina Gamba although he had three children by her, and that he later locked up the two daughters in a convent. In the early 1610s he was no longer poor but not rich enough to marry the two daughters to people of social status comparable to the one he had recently acquired. Although these are well-known facts, it may be interesting to put them together and view Galileo not just as a mathematician who dedicated his discoveries to the Medici and made a brilliant career at their court, but also as the head of a Florentine clan with some connections with the court who tried to maximize his patronage assets not only for his sake but also for that of his clan. The early phases of Galileo's family-related strategies can be traced in GO, x, no. 65, 74; no. 163, 180–1; no. 202, 225; no. 206, 227–8; no. 290, 312–14; xi, no. 497, 71; and no. 522, 95–97.

GO, x, no. 73, 84 (emphasis mine).

Ibid., no. 120, 144; no. 126, 148; no. 129, 150–1; no. 133, 155–6; no. 134, 156–7; no. 136, 158–9; and no. 138, 160.

Ibid. , no. 208, 230–1. Apparently he planned it for some time and consulted with his brokers just before he wrote to Cosimo. Saracinelli wrote to him: “Ho quasi voglia di aggiunger V. S. per un essempio in quell'opuscolo che fa Plutarco De vitiosa verecundia, poi chè la dice di non haver havuto ardire di scrivere al Ser.^mo Sig. Principe …”, ibid., no. 129, 151.

Galileo's correspondence indicates that he used also the services of a number of broker-like individuals (like Sertini in Florence or Cigoli and Faber in Rome) who might be called ‘informers’. These were not occasional brokers for they did not handle privileges but information. They seem to have had a specific sociological character. Neither Sertini nor Cigoli were powerful, but they had access to the powerful. They could see and hear without being able to manipulate. But they were important in giving Galileo information he could not have received from more powerful patrons or brokers who did not have or could not display the perspective of the marginal. Cigoli's information must have been very important if, after Cigoli's death, Galileo sent Guiducci as his ‘spy’ to Rome during the crisis over the comets although he had plenty of powerful patrons and brokers there. Faber seemed to have played the same role for Welser in Rome.

As I indicate in “Galileo the emblem-maker” forthcoming in Isis, lxxxi (1990), it was on this occasion that Galileo tried out strategies of patronage based on the representation of scientific artifacts in terms of the discourse of the court, strategies that he would best articulate in 1610 with the framing of his astronomical discoveries within the myths of the Medici dynasty.

GO, x, no. 129, 150–1; no. 133, 155–6; no. 136, 158–9; no. 143, 161–2; no. 164, 181; no. 223, 246–7; no. 240, 258–9; and no. 281, 305.

Ibid., no. 277, 301.

Statements of this type kept patronage channels open from both sides in the hope that they might be used for mutual advantage, because, in contrast to an employer–employee relationship, patronage ties were not usually active all the time.

Ibid., no. 23, 39; and no. 208, 230–1.

Ibid., no. 90, 101–2.

Ibid., no. 91, 102.

Ibid., no. 62, 72–3.

GO, xiii, no. 1685, 231.

GO, x, no. 146, 164–6; and no. 131, 153–4.

Ibid., no. 146, 165.

Ibid., no. 209, 231–4.

Ibid., no. 307, 348–53.

Trexler R. , Public life in Renaissance Florence (New York, 1980), 135.

GO, x, no. 10, 25. Guidobaldo expressed similar feelings also in no. 27, 41: “Con effetto V. S. non vuol lasciare complimento nessuno con me: Ma credo che già ella habbi compreso la natura mia, lontana da ogni cerimonia ….”.

Ibid., no. 10, 26.

Ibid., no. 246, 261.

Ibid., no. 46, 54.

Ibid. , no. 133, 155–6: “Il Sig. mio zio [Cipriano] è di natura molto sincera, e con gli amici suoi (nel numero dei quali son certo che tien V.S.) procede con semplicità et schiettezza et senza alcuna sorte di cerimonia, come presuppongo che non l'usasse con V.S. quando rispose alla gentilissima lettera che aveva ricevuta da lei; onde, havendo S.S.^ria veduto quello ch'ella scrive a me, si è meravigliato che V.S. pensi che la lettera di lui habbia bisogno di ringraziamenti ….” However, Galileo seemed to use more ceremonies later on, ibid., no. 155, 178.

Ibid., no. 229, 251 (emphasis mine).

Biagioli Biagioli , “Galileo the emblem-maker” (ref. 28).

GO, x, no. 146, 165; no. 209, 233; and no. 307, 351.

Ibid., no. 209, 233.

Westman R. S. , “The astronomer's role in the sixteenth century: A preliminary study”, History of science, xviii (1980), 105–47; Biagioli , “The social status of Italian mathematicians, 1450–1600” (ref. 12); Biagioli M. , “The anthropology of incommensurability”, forthcoming in Studies in history and philosophy of science, xxi (1990).

We find only four requests of patronage for three clients before 1610 (GO, x, nos. 98, 100, 179, 229), and eleven requests for nine clients between 1610 and 1612 (ibid., nos. 386, 441, 444, 445, 448; xi, nos. 469, 473, 474, 488, 577, 726).

Barberi U. , I Marchesi Bourbon del Monte Santa Maria di Petrella e di Sorbello (Città di Castello, 1943), 64–65.

Guidobaldo began to press his brother for a position for Galileo in May 1588. Guidobaldo's targets were the chair at Pisa and the public lectureship in Florence, which had once been Danti's (GO, x, no. 17, 33–34; no. 18, 34–35; no. 20, 36–37; and no. 21, 37–38). In July 1588 Galileo wrote to Guidobaldo saying that the chair at Pisa was already filled and that the only possibility still open was the public lectureship in Florence connected with the Accademia del Disegno (ibid., no. 19, 36). As it turned out, Galileo got the chair at Pisa — The one he thought was already filled. That happened in 1589, a few months after the election of Francesco Maria to the cardinalate.

Although there are probably gaps in the correspondence, we do not have letters from Guidobaldo after 1597 and the last letter from Galileo dates from December 1602.

GO, xi, no. 569, 170–2.

See ref. 130 below.

Galileo's shift from Florence to Rome as the locus of his patronage networks can be associated with his need to maintain a relationship with a very strong patron. Only with such arrangements could he maintain and increase his status and legitimation. And Cosimo II — A grey, frequently sick, and almost always debilitated prince — Was not a real presence. Moreover, after his death in 1621, Galileo found himself as a court philosopher and mathematician with a very good salary but without a flesh-and-blood patron. Cosimo's son Ferdinando turned eighteen (and became Grand Duke) in 1628. By then, Galileo's strategies had long been focused on Rome.

Arrighetti N. , Delle lodi del Sig. Filippo Salviati (Florence, 1614), 43.

The printing of the Assayer began in May 1623, Maffeo Barberini was elected Pope Urban VIII on 6 August, and the Assayer was dedicated to him as it came from the press in October. Before Urbano's election, Ciampoli was the Secretario Apostolico (or Secretario dei Brevi), while Cesarini was the pope's Cameriere Secreto.

“Io raggiro nella mente cose di qualche momento per la repubblica litteraria, le quali se non si effettuano in questa mirabil congiuntura, non occorre, almeno per quello che mi aspetta per la parte mia, sperar d'incontrarne mai più una simile”, Galileo to Cesi, 9 October 1623, GO, xiii, no. 1581, 135. Cesi agreed with Galileo that the scenario was indeed a “congiuntura sì buona”, ibid., no. 1588, 140. The best treatment I know of this period is in Redondi P. , “Mirabile congiuntura”, Galileo eretico (Turin, 1983), 85–134.

After the election of Urbano, Cesarini became his Maestro di Camera, while Ciampoli added to his title of Secretario dei Brevi that of Cameriere Secreto, GO, iii, no. 1564, 121.

“altri pur s'incammini in verso Roma/ a veder nel gran seggio il nuovo Urbano/ carico della grave e ricca soma/ e faccia prova ancor se con la mano/ afferrar puo lo sventolante ciuffo/ di lei che fugge, e poi s'attende invano./”, Soldani J. , “Contro i Peripatetici”, reprinted in Vaccalluzzo N. , Galileo Galilei nella poesia del suo secolo (Milan, 1910), 20.

Baldi B. , “Vita Federici Commandini”, in Giornale de' letterati d'Italia, xix (1707), 140–85; Rose P. L. , The Italian renaissance of mathematics (Geneva, 1975), 185–221; Bianca C. , “Federico Commandino”, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome, 1982), xxvi, 602–6.

de Barros A. , The courtier's philosophy (Madrid, 1587), quoted in Parker G. , Philip II (London, 1978), 170. I owe this reference to Prof. William Monter of Northwestern University.

De Ferrari A. , “Giovanni Ciampoli”, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome, 1981), xxv, 147–52; Favaro A. , “Giovanni Ciampoli”, Amici e corrispondenti di Galileo (Florence, 1983), i, 132–89; Tozzetti G. Targioni , “Vita di Monsig. Giovanni Ciampoli fiorentino, Segretario de' Brevi segreti di Gregorio XV, e Urbano VIII Sommi Pontefici”, Notizie degli aggrandimenti delle scienze fisiche … (Bologna, 1967), ii, pt 1, 102–16. On Cesarini, see Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, sub vocem; and Favoriti A. , Virginii Cesarini vita , in V. Cesarini carmina (Rome, 1658), 1–30.

GO, xiii, no. 2269, 352. See also Westfall R. S. , “Patronage and the publication of Galileo's Dialogue”, History and technology, iv (1987), 385–99.

Iacopo Soldani is listed as “Aio del Serenissimo Principe” in the ruoli of the Medici court from 1630, ASF, “Manoscritti 321”, 522. His very high salary (600 scudi a year) indicates that Soldani was much more than a tutor, rather something of a “big brother” (Prince Leopold was an orphan). Soldani was made a senator in 1637 (ASF, “Manoscritti 320”, 255) and Maestro di Camera (one of the highest roles at court) in 1639 (ASF, “Miscellanea medicea 438”, c212v.). Soldani's role in cultivating the scientific interests of the future founder of the Cimento can be found in a few letters from 1640 between Leopoldo and Soldani related to the dispute betwen Galileo and Liceti that were not included by Favaro in the Edizione Nazionale (ASF, “Mediceo 5550”, c261, c271, c272, c274, c278, c291, c310).

Biagioli , “Galileo the emblem-maker” (ref. 28).

ASF, “Manoscritti 132” (Diario fiorentino del Settimanni, vii (1608–20)), c.39r.: “Addì di Luglio 1610. Sabato. Il signor Galileo Galilei avendo dedicate alla Serenissima Casa dei Medici le quattro stelle nuovamente osservate da lui aggirarsi intorno al pianeta di Giove, con aver fatto loro nome di Stelle e Pianeti Medicei, il Serenissimo Granduca in segno di gratitudine con sua propria lettera richiamollo di Padova, dov'era pubblico lettore, al suo servizio con il titolo di Primario e sopraordinario Matematico dello Studio di Pisa senza obbligo di leggervi, o risedervi, e di Primario filosofo, e matematico di S.A.S., assegnandoli un buono stipendio.”.

Mauss M. , The gift (New York, 1967), 31–45.

Elias N. , “The sociogenesis of French court society”, Court society (New York, 1983), 146–213. The only attempt — Quite different from mine — To use the model of gift-exchange in relation to the social system of science I am familiar with is Hagstrom W. O. , “Gift giving as an organizing principle in science”, in Barnes B. Edge D. (eds), Science in context (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), 21–34.

GO, xix, 147–58. As this article goes to press, I have received Paula Findlen's “Gift giving and the symbolics of exchange in early modern Italy”, and “The sociology of the scientific enterprise”, two chapters of her Ph.D. dissertation, “Museums, collecting, and scientific culture in early modern Italy”, University of California, Berkeley, 1989. Her remarkable analysis of patronage brokerage, and gift-exchange among Italian collectors of natural history is very pertinent to the type of analysis I have presented here.

GO, x, no. 45, 54.

Ibid., no. 45, 54 (emphasis mine).

Ibid., no. 33, 45 (emphasis mine).

Fantoni M. , “Feticci di prestigio: Il dono alla corte medicea”, in Bertelli S. Crifo G. (eds), Rituale. cerimoniale, etichetta (Milan, 1985), 141–61; and Zaccagnini C. , Lo scambio dei doni nel Vicino Oriente durante i secoli XV–XVII (Rome, 1973). The ritualistic exchange of gifts is encountered very frequently in the Diari di etichetta of the Medici court (ASF, “Diari di etichetta di guardaroba”, nos. 1–7). It plays a fundamental role in the ritual of reception of foreign dignitaries. See also ASF, “Carte strozziane”, Serie I, 30, carte 127–44, “Donativi”.

Fantoni, “Feticci di prestigio”, 143. That gold chains represented a sort of transitional stage of the gift toward a more quantified and cash-like retribution is shown by the various examples listed by Fantoni, but also by the specifically stated value of the two gold chains Galileo received from the Gonzaga and the Medici, by the references found in Galileo's correspondence about court clients being given gold chains and medals (GO, xi, no. 838, 473), and by the gold chain given by the Medici to Acquapendente on the occasion of his visit to Florence.

GO , x, no. 75, 86; no. 82, 90; and no. 87, 96. Ibid., no. 85, 95. Ibid., no. 187, 208. Ibid., no. 89, 100. For more gift exchanges between Galileo and Sagredo see GO, xii, no. 1188, 246; no. 1198, 258; no. 1219, 273; no. 1224, 278; no. 1230, 286; no. 1255, 317; no. 1275, 343–4; no. 1281, 349; no. 1287, 355; no. 1310, 376; and no. 1341, 407.

For instance, Trexler, Public life in Renaissance Florence (ref. 41), 131–59, and Westfall, “Science and patronage” (ref. 5).

GO, x, no. 82, 91 (in this and the following quotations, the emphases are mine).

Ibid., no. 101, 110–11.

Ibid., no. 238, 257.

Ibid., no. 320, 361.

GO, xiii, no. 1526, 91. See also no. 1527, 92.

GO, x, no. 371, 411.

Ibid., no. 68, 77–78.

“… se piacer a Dio et alla V.S. che egli, secondo il suo desiderio, passi il resto della vita sua al servizio di V.S.”, ibid., no, 228, 77–78.

GO, xi, no. 813, 447.

Ibid. , no. 569, 172. When, more than a year later, Venier resumed his connection with Galileo, he wrote that Galileo's departure offended many people in Venice and Padua who thought that he should have acknowledged the unusual gift given him by accepting it or by “some other gesture” and that “those in power — Who are very wise — Do not talk about the matter [Galileo's departure] as if it were some insignificant event that happened in some remote country”, ibid. , no. 591, 215–16. Galileo's insult made him taboo to the Venetian Senate. In another letter from 1613 we find that although Galileo was “honorato di così grandi augmenti, et in un istante ha fatto affronti a quel Studio: Onde in particulare il Prioli non vuole udire ne anco il suo nome”, ibid., no. 871, 504.

GO, x, no. 277, 298.

Ibid., no. 277, 299.

Ibid. , no. 142, 161, and no. 295, 318. When Galileo was in Florence during the summer to teach mathematics to Prince Cosimo he was not paid but hosted at court. When the Medici Maggiordomo, Giovanni Del Maestro, invited Galileo to the Villa di Pratolino — One of the court's summer residences — In August 1605, he told him that Cristina offered him “buona camera, modesta tavola, buon letto e grata cera”, but he did not mention any monetary reward ( ibid. , no. 122, 146). That the Medici thought of hospitality as a gift — And therefore as a reward for Galileo's services — Is confirmed by the fact that they would send him gifts of food when he was not staying at court. For instance, when in July 1605 the court was still in Florence and Galileo was staying at his brother-in-law's, Cristina had Giovanni del Maestro send “Al Signor Dottore Galilei in casa di Ms. Benedetto Landucci suo cogniato … 1 pezzo di vitella, 2 capponi, 6 pollastri, 4 fiaschi di vino” (ASF, “Carte strozziane”, Serie I, 30, cl34v.). On Cristina's intercession to secure Galileo's brother-in-law a job in the Medici administration see ibid., no. 205, 227.

ASF, “Diari di etichetta di guardaroba 1”: “1 Settembre 1604. Il Signor Giacomo Fabrizi da Acquapendente medico venuto di Padova per curare il Sig. Principe Don Carlo e spesato da noi in palazzo con 3 di sua tavola e due servitori servito da dua di nostri staffieri. Il dì seguente si mandò a desinare al Poggio e a cena nella Villa Ferdinanda. Il dì 4 partì per ritornarsene a Padova con una nostra lettiga e dua muli da soma e 4 cavalli di vettura accompagnato e spesato da Alessandro Berghi staffiere di Madama sino in Padova regalato d' una richa collana, rascia, raso nero et altre galanterie di buona valsuta”, 180. In 1614, Acquapendente is invited back to Florence with other doctors to heal Cosimo II. Their reception, treatment, and gifts are comparable to those given them in 1604 (ASF, “Miscellanea medicea 437”, cc34–35.).

See Fantoni , “Feticci di prestigio” (ref. 77).

It seems that it is only the power to decide what gifts to accept that allows for the inversion on which the patron's power is rooted. In fact, the patron is a ‘central client’ (i.e., the main/central receiver of gifts) and those who are called clients are actually many ‘patrons’ (i.e., gift-givers). But this power structure is represented as inverted. Although the ambiguity about who is a patron and who is a client becomes clear once we trace the genealogy of a great patron's power, we find traces of it also in common language, as in the ambiguity presented in English between the clients and the patrons of a shop.

This scenario recalls — mutatis mutandis — That of a modern state running on public debt yet maintaining its sovereignity.

GO, x, no. 73, 84; and no. 119, 142–3.

For instance: “et alla mia venuta costa questo Giugno porterò al G.D. in questa materia cose di infinite stupore” ( ibid. , no. 277, 302); “[during the next visit to Florence] havero meco qualche miglioramento dell'occhiale, et forse qualche altra invenzione” (ibid., no. 257, 271).

That enigmas were forms of challenges or duels is clear enough (think for instance of the sphynx in Sophocles's Oedipus Rex). And, as we have seen, challenges and gifts have an analogous role in the economy of honour, status, and credibility in a number of ‘primitive’ and north African cultures (see Bourdieu , “The sentiment of honour in Kabyle society” (ref. 106), 215; and Mauss M. The gift (ref. 71). In the case of Galileo, critiques (i.e. questions) were presented as honourable gifts or challenges, and Galileo's answers were received as counter-gifts. Moreover, enigmas were literally exchanged as gifts, as in the case of Galileo's sending out ciphers representing his latest discoveries. Judging from the reaction of Welser, Kepler, Giuliano de' Medici, and Rudolph II upon receiving Galileo's enigmas, it seems that they were quite addictive gifts, GO, xi, nos. 451, 454, 455, 462, 471.

GO, x, no. 8, 22–23. On Cosimo Concini, see Malanima P. , “Concini, Cosimo”, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, xxvii.

GO, x, no. 9, 24–25.

Why would Clavius choose to be so nice with Galileo? Here is a tentative interpretation of the ‘microphysics of patronage’ involved in the exchange: Concini is a fairly important Church official. Now, if Concini gets ‘impressed’ by the fact that Galileo is a friend of Clavius's, it means that he acknowledges Clavius's high status. And Concini's very act of recognizing Clavius's high status confirms it (in Concini's eyes). This, I think, is Clavius's ‘gain’ in the symbolic exchange. But Concini gets his share too. In fact, his own status is confirmed (or even improved) by the fact that a high-status person like Clavius explicitly acknowledges his friendship for one of Concini's clients (i.e., one who has less status than Concini). At the end of this symbolic exchange Galileo's status is at least confirmed in relation to Clavius and certainly improved in relation to Concini. This ‘gain’ by Galileo has to do with the content of his letter to Clavius. Beside the technical content (it is on a theorem on the centre of gravity of bodies obtained from the rotation of conic sections), Galileo refers to Clavius as a judge to whose decision he submits himself voluntarily. This act of voluntary submission is a gift, and Clavius reciprocated it by helping Galileo's image with Concini.

Around this time Tycho was looking for somebody to write his own celebrative biography probably to be used to increase his standing with Rudolph II ( Drake , Galileo at work (ref. 5), 50). This may have been one of the reasons for Tycho to follow up on Concini's suggestion and seek Galileo's friendship.

GO, x, no. 70, 79.

Bourdieu P. , “The sentiment of honour in Kabyle society”, in Peristiany J. G. (ed.), Honour and shame (Chicago, 1966), 191–241; Bourdieu P. , Outline of a theory of practice (Cambridge, 1977), 1–29. I think that Clifford Geertz's analysis of the social significance of cockfights in Bali indicates that betting is a form of duel (in which the cock, rather than a person, gets killed) which is routinely needed to maintain the status pattern of the community. What is relevant to my point is Geertz's claim that it is not really important to win (also because bets are usually almost 1:1) but to show publicly that one bets, that one “accepts the challenge” (i.e. that one defines himself as “challengeable”) ( Geertz C. , “Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cock-fight”, The interpretation of cultures (New York, 1973), 412–53).

GO, x, no. 89, 101. Actually, the Venetian Secretary managed to deliver Sagredo's letter to Gilbert, although it is impossible to know whether Galileo contributed to it. In February 1603 Gilbert wrote to his friend Barlow that “There is heere a wise-learned man, a Secretary of Venice, he came sent by that State, and was honourably received by her Majesty, he brought me a lattin letter from a Gentleman of Venice that is very learned, whose name is Johannes Franciscus Sagredus; he is a great magneticall man, and writeth that hee has conferred with divers learned men of Venice, and with the Readers of Padua”, quoted in A. Favaro, “Giovanfrancesco Sagredo e Guglielmo Gilbert”, in “Adversaria galileiana”, serie quarta, Atti e memorie delta R. Accademia di Scienze Lettere ed Arti in Padova, nuova serie, xxxv (1918–19), 12–15. Similar information is presented in E. Zilsel, “Origins of Gilbert's scientific method”, in Wiener P. P. Noland A. (eds), Roots of scientific thought (New York, 1957), 219–50, p. 247, note 36.

GO, x, no. 296, 318–19 for Kepler's receipt of the Sidereus nuncius from the Medici ambassador in Prague, Giuliano de' Medici. For Zugmann's receipt of a copy from his patron, the Elector of Koln, see ibid., no. 303, 344–6.

Rosen E. (ed.), Kepler's Conversation with Galileo's Sidereal Messenger (New York and London, 1965), 3–4. The Conversation was originally sent to Galileo as a letter (GO, x, 319–40) and published as a book in Prague in 1610. It is interesting that at that time Galileo — Although an official client of the Medici — Was not yet in their service, as Kepler instead claims. Probably, it was better for Kepler's own status to act as if he was answering a ‘colleague’ of his, that is, the mathematician of a major prince. But — Formally speaking — Kepler had some good excuse. Galileo was both an official client of the Medici through his dedication of Jupiter's satellites to Cosimo, and he had been Cosimo's tutor for several summers.

Ibid., 4.

GO , x, no. 307, 349. Vinta too referred to Kepler not by name but as “Matematico del'Imperatore” when he discussed with Galileo the necessity of his trip to Rome early in 1611 to obtain the final legitimation of his discoveries. Vinta realized that it was not so much Kepler's personal expertise but rather his title to give him (and the Medicean Stars) credibility (GO, xi, no. 464, 28). Similarly, Vinta did not seem to think that the Jesuits' and the Pope's legitimation of Galileo's discoveries was important to quench the rumours of heretic implications of Galileo's discoveries. On this occasion, Vinta perceived the Jesuits and the Pope as authorities, but not necessarily as religious ones. Simply, the Pope was the most important patron and the Jesuits were his ‘Keplers’.

GO, x, no. 277, 298–9, 301; and no. 284, 308.

Jardine N. , The birth of history and philosophy of science (Cambridge, 1984); Rosen E. , Three imperial mathematicians (New York, 1986).

In January 1600, Tycho wrote to Kepler that Ursus “… is not ashamed to attack with his furious and scurrilous pen my country, my family and my most honoured home with the most impudent and evil lies, as far as he can to dishonour them …”, quoted in Jardine, op. cit., 22. References to Tycho's perception of Ursus's doings as insulting not just for his “scientific credibility”, but for his country and family as well are found in Rosen , Three imperial mathematicians (ref. 113), 229, 300–1.

In Galileo's correspondence honore is systematically used to designate both what we may call ‘scientific credibility’ and ‘honour’, indicating that the socio-professional identity of the ‘scientist’ had not developed/speciated yet. For instance, Guidobaldo wrote to Galileo in 1588 that “Ho anche con grandissima mia satisfattione sentito che ella vogli mandar fuori le sue cose del centro della gravezza, che in verita V.S. ne acquistera molto honore” (GO, x, no. 23, 9). References to honore (sometimes used interchangeably with fama) became quite frequent during Galileo's dispute against Capra ( ibid. , no. 154, 172; no. 156, 174; no. 160, 177–8; and no. 162, 179). As we will see below at ref. 118, ‘honour’ played an important part also in the disputes of 1611 on the irregularity of the lunar surface and on the sunspots.

Kepler wrote to Maestlin about the Tycho–Ursus dispute saying that “… it did not seem worthy of Tycho's stature to be so violently upset by this disparagement”, Jardine , op. cit. (ref. 113), 19. Tycho does not agree with Kepler: “Nor it is true that I feel more strongly about this silly man than my status allows …”, ibid., 23.

Ibid., 23, note 47.

Biagioli , “The social status of Italian mathematicians” (ref. 12), 55.

Ibid., 64.

The Lincei and the other Roman supporters of Galileo pressed him to answer the various challenges ranging from the questions on the irregularities of the lunar surface, to the discovery of the sunspots, and to the calculation of the period of the Medicean Stars. They also urged him to print his response in fear that his priority would be otherwise questioned, GO, xi, no. 572, 175; no. 573, 176; no. 587, 212; and no. 788, 419. But Galileo's supporters were not just concerned with priority. Their statements suggest that they were concerned with Galileo's ‘honour’ — Something he could maintain only by keeping up with an aggressive and challenging behaviour. He had to publish because his patrons and supporters were expecting him to pursue his intellectual adversaries. In September 1661 Cesi wrote to Galileo that: “Questi altri signori studiosi sono con la solita divotione verso di lei, et aspettando le sue opere con grandissimo desiderio” ( ibid. , no. 584, 210–11). Santini sent a similar message in December 1611: “Havrò pero caro sentire da lei ciò che vada fabricando a benfitio della repubblica litteraria” (ibid., no. 631, 252). In October 1612 Cigoli, while waiting for Galileo's third letter on the sunspots, told him that: “Imperò se non ha risposto, risolvete presto perche tutti i vostri amici giudicano che sia bene che quanto prima le vadino fuori …. Ora sollecitate, e mandate al Sig. Marchese quello [che] volete, acciò le possa dare a' rivenditori” (ibid., no. 786, 418). A month later, Cesi wrote to Galileo that: “Solleciti dunque, che non mi par bene lasciar ch' Apelle pigli più campo; et son sicuro non dorme hora, vedendo la sua seconda lettera” ( ibid. , no. 790, 422–3). Then, when Galileo seemed to opt for a more moderate course, his Roman patrons seemed disappointed. Cesi told him that: “Non s'è fatt'altro senza che V.S. non ne gusti: E veramente non possiamo approvare affatto il tacere; pure V.S. giudichi e comandi” ( ibid. , no. 852, 487). But while the Linceans and Cigoli pressed Galileo into keeping an honourable, that is, aggressive and challenging course, they did not want him to answer his challengers indiscriminately. Those who did not have enough honour should have been dismissed or answered by somebody else. Cigoli told Galileo that the critiques of his work on buoyancy “erano cose da far rispondere a qualche giovane, o al meno sotto tal nome …” ( ibid. , no. 778, 410). Cesi shared Cigoli's view: “… a' quali [avversari] sempre e stato mio pensiero V.S. non risponda, ma si facci rispondere da giovani, per mortificarli: E quelli che faranno le risposte possono essere in parte, e anco in tutto, aiutati et anco fatti adottare l'opre compite” ( ibid. , no. 777, 409). Therefore, Guiducci's role in the dispute on comets or Castelli's reply to Galileo's critics on buoyancy were examples of the ritual exchanges dictated by the honour-bound logic of patronage. The intense discussion among the Lincei about whose honour had been insulted by Grassi/Sarsi, on the status of the person who should respond to Grassi, to whom Galileo may send his counter-attack, in what form such a response should be written, shows that the dispute on the comets was a scientific duel rather than what we call a scientific debate and that the Lincei were trying to respond according to the appropriate etiquette. Moreover, the attacks on Galileo were ritualistic too. Cigoli understood that Galileo's views on buoyancy had been attacked also because of his high status: “… codesti uccellacci [Delle Colombe] si voglioni far luogo non per valor proprio ma per elezione del rivale”, GO, xi, no. 573, 176. Cigoli's view fits with the Renaissance and baroque views on duels. Carbone claimed that “… the more insolent are the young; because … young men seek glory by violating others' honour” ( Carbone L. , De pacificatione et dicectione inimicorum … (Florence, 1583), quoted in Bryson F. , The point of honor in sixteenth-century Italy (Chicago, 1935), 29). Similarly, Mora in Il cavaliere stated that “… everybody seeks distinction, one mark of which is to offend fearlessly” (quoted in Bryson, op. cit., 28). The structural analogy between scientific disputes and duels (or rather courtly jousts) in this period is confirmed by the Anonymous Academician — One of Galileo's adversaries during the dispute on buoyancy. In his Considerazioni in response to Galileo's Discorso, the Academician viewed the dispute as a pleasant tournament (“non si rifiuta per diporto piacevole di venire una volta a duello con lui…”) and presented his critique of the logical structure of Galileo's argument as a mentita loicale, where mentita (to give the lie) was the customary term one used to deny his adversary's charges and challenge him to a duel, GO, iv, 171; Maffei S. , Della scienza cavalleresca (Rome, 1714), 58–70.

Bourdieu , “The sentiment of honour in Kabyle Society” (ref. 106), 206.

Geertz's analysis of the social significance of the Balinese cockfight is again relevant here. He detects two structures of betting around the fight. One is much less legitimate and deals with small amounts of money bet at fairly high odds. People bet this way trying to make money. But the much more conspicuous and legitimate betting is not done for money. High-ranking members of the community bet this way as if to perform a civic ritual which confirms their status. By the fact that the odds in this kind of betting are basically 1:1, it does not really matter whether one wins or loses for, in the long run, wins and losses will even out.

The transition from bloody duels and spectacles (typical of ancient and medieval-feudal aesthetics) to controlled games in which the process (the ‘sport’) is more important than the ending is a crucial aspect of the development of court culture and modernity. Historians and sociologists who study the development of modern manners and etiquette as part of the ‘civilizing process’ have focused on it. Norbert Elias's work is an exemplar of this orientation. In particular, his study of the sociogenesis of foxhunting seems particularly fitting here. The gentlemen involved in foxhunting take pleasure from the ‘sport’ of running after and finding the fox, not to its killing, which, in fact, is the hounds' task. Similarly, I think, a baroque patron may have felt that it was ‘improper’ to kill the fox, i.e., to declare one defeated. I want to stress the adjective baroque. In earlier periods, the patron may have had pleasure in seeing the actual ‘intellectual killing’ of one of the contenders. Probably, Tycho's aggressiveness reflects an older and really feudal ethics and aesthetics (N. Elias, “An essay on sport and violence”, in Elias N. Dunning E. , Quest for excitement (Oxford, 1986), 150–74).

GO, xi, no. 684. 304; and no. 699, 326.

GO , xiii, no. 1593, 145. The fable of sound (“favola del sono”) is the story of somebody who initially believed that harmonious sound could only be produced by human voice but, while travelling, encounters an almost infinite range of harmonious sounds produced by nature in many different ways. Galileo uses this fable to soften the notion of necessary demonstration. In fact, he claims that although his explanation of the comets is true, it does not need to be the only one, for nature could have produced the same effect through a range of different causes. Galilei G. , Il saggiatore , in GO, vi, 197–372, pp. 279–81.

In investigating the cultural bases of the introduction of emblematics in the iconography of Renaissance paintings, Salvatore Settis points to the fact that emblematics were a perfect ‘sport’ for the upper and culturally sophisticated urban classes. Emblems were a form of ‘intellectual challenge’ that was interesting per se. He quotes Giovanni Aurelio Augurelli, a humanist from Rimini, who around 1500 describes a salon discussion on an emblematic painting's meaning as: “Molti esprimono molte opinioni, nessuno si trova d'accordo con l'altro: Ebbene, tutto ciò e ancor più bello delle immagini dipinte” (emphasis mine) (Salvatore Settis, La “Tempesta” interpretata (Turin, 1978), 118).

Galilei G. , Discourse on bodies in water, trans. by Salisbury T. (London, 1663; reprint, Urbana, Illinois, 1960), 2–3.

We cannot take ‘linguistic competence’ in court etiquette for granted. To the contrary, the lack of such a competence was a major obstacle for lower-class mathematicians seeking to improve their socio-professional status by gaining access to the upper-courtly familia. The existence of such a problem is made explicit by Galileo himself when he writes to the Medici minister Curzio Picchena on 9 February 1607 giving him the information he requested on Minadoi, a medical professor at Padua, who is being considered to fill the position of Medici “Protomedico” left vacant after Girolamo Mercuriale's recent death. He tells Picchena that Minadoi is “di maniere et costumi piacevoli et honesti, et al parer mio da dar satisfazione non meno nelle corti che nelle catedre” (GO, x, no. 150, 168, emphasis mine). Similarly, in January 1611, Galileo writes to Vinta to recommend Papazzoni for the chair of philosophy at Pisa by saying he is “gioviale e digraziosa conversazione”, intimating that he would be at ease at court, an environment which — As a major professor at Pisa — Papazzoni would have to frequent ( GO , xi, no. 461, 27, emphasis mine). Therefore, one's ability to cross the social boundary between the university and the court was not taken for granted. Galileo himself was certainly facilitated in his own ‘crossing’ by being the son of a musician who was well known at court and the member of a family who had some degree of nobility earlier in the Renaissance. Also, participation in salons (intermediate institutions between university and court) like Morosini's in Venice or Pinelli's in Padua (as well as the many visits to the Medici court over the summer as Cosimo's mathematical tutor) helped Galileo develop some (but not enough) familiarity with the court's proper style of argumentation and behaviour. Galileo himself admitted his having undergone such a process of socialization in a letter to Buonarroti in December 1609: “… conoscendo adesso quali sono le maniere et i termini veramente onorati della nobiltà fiorentina …” (GO, x, no. 257, 271).

GO, x, nos. 185, 186, 203–4.

The connection between Galileo's work on comets and the patronage link with Leopold can be seen in GO, xii, no. 1324, 389–92; no. 1332, 397–8; no. 1369, 435; and no. 1373, 438. The result was the Discorso delle comete (Florence, 1619) by Guiducci M. , dedicated to Leopold and strongly inspired (or completely written) by Galileo. The Lincei's shift from a cautious attitude toward an aggressive pressuring of Galileo to respond to Grassi's Libra in which he had attacked the Discorso is evident by reading these letters in sequence: GO, xii, no. 1399, 465–6; no. 1406, 471; no. 1408, 472–3; no. 1409, 473–4; no. 1419, 489–90; no. 1423, 494–5; no. 1429, 498–9; xiii, no. 1433, 11; no. 1441, 20–21; no. 1446, 23; no. 1448, 24; no. 1450, 25; no. 1456, 30–31; no. 1466, 37–38; no. 1467, 38–39; no. 1474, 434; no. 1476, 46–47; no. 1477, 47; no. 1501, 68–69; no. 1512, 79; no. 1513, 79; no. 1514, 80; no. 1516, 82; no. 1518, 84; no. 1520, 86; no. 1523, 89; no. 1524, 90; no. 1536, 99; no. 1538, 100; no. 1542, 103; and no. 1543, 103.

GO, x, no. 420, 460.

GO, xx, 556–7.

GO, x, no. 424, 466.

Ibid., no. 420, 460 (emphasis mine).

Ibid., no. 424, 465 (emphasis mine).

Tres epistolae de maculis solaribus scriptae ad Marcum Velserum (Augsburg, 1612; reprinted GO, v, 23–32). Later in the same year, Apelle published a longer version, the De maculis solaribus et stellis circa Iovem errantibus, accuratior disquisitio ad Marcum Velserum, also reprinted ibid., 35–70.

GO, xi, no. 667, 289; no. 672, 293; no. 683, 303–4; no. 741, 374; no. 771, 402–3; no. 776, 407–8; no. 794, 427–8; no. 799, 433–4; no. 806, 440; no. 817, 452; no. 832, 464–5; no. 851, 486; no. 884, 516–7; no. 938, 587–8; and no. 959, 609–10.

Ibid., no. 637, 257.

Ibid., no. 683, 303–4 (emphasis mine).

“Da Ferrara ho avuta una respostina da M. Rocco Berlinzone, il quale non vol dispute co'l mio frate, e si ascusa dicendo che esso frate si dimostra più eretico che religioso”, Sagredo to Galileo, 22 April 1608, GO, x, no. 185, 203. According to Bryson's The point of honor (ref. 120), 25–26, to be heretic meant to be without honour. Also, “To call one heretic was among the heaviest insults that could be conveyed by words” (p. 37).

Biagioli , “The anthropology of incommensurability” (ref. 51).

GO, xi, no. 534, 118. According to Delle Colombe, Clavius seemed to share some of his own views. Delle Colombe's strategy seemed to have some chance of succeeding, for it was only six months later that it became clear that Clavius would not have entered a dispute on Delle Colombe's side ( ibid. , no. 602, 228–9). But Delle Colombe was more successful in his strategy with the Cardinal de Joyeuse and his Maggiordomo Gallanzoni. In fact, the cardinal — After having read a copy of the letter sent by Delle Colombe to Clavius — Had Gallanzoni write to Galileo asking for an answer ( ibid. , no. 546, 131–2). A long answer came soon ( ibid. , no. 555, 141–55), in the form of a private letter to Gallanzoni and Cardinal de Joyeuse (“mio Padrone”). One could speculate that if Delle Colombe had sent his critique of Galileo to the cardinal rather than to Clavius, de Joyeuse may have felt compelled to print the exchange. But probably Delle Colombe could not have written directly to him for he was not known to the cardinal. Again, Delle Colombe paid because of his poor patronage connections. However, Delle Colombe's letter (supported also by Brengger's critique of Galileo's views on the lunar mountains) had some impact—at least as a catalyst. In fact, judging from Galileo's correspondence, there seems to have been a great deal of discussion in Rome in the second half of 1611 on the irregularities of the Moon's surface. The pattern of the debate is quite confused because it was carried out mostly through an intricate exchange of letters and relatively informed comments of bystanders. Also, the discussion overlapped with the reverberations of the dispute on buoyancy at Florence and the beginning of that on the sunspots ( ibid. , no. 534, 118; no. 541, 126–7; no. 545, 130–1; no. 546, 131–2; no. 550, 137; no. 555, 141–55; no. 560, 158; no. 568, 169; no. 572, 174–5; no. 573, 176; no. 576, 178–208; no. 584, 210–11; no. 585, 211; no. 587, 212; no. 588, 213–14; no. 597, 223; no. 599. 226; no. 602, 228–9; no. 612, 237; no. 625, 248; no. 632, 253; no. 665, 285; no. 654, 272–4; and no. 651, 268–9). It seems that this debate was absorbed and superseded by the more spectacular one on sunspots which monopolized the attention of Roman circles in 1612. To conclude, Delle Colombe may have played a major role in triggering this debate, but his name was not attached to it because of his weak patronage links with Roman circles. Delle Colombe's strategy was replicated by another adversary of Galileo — Sizi. Although his Dianoia was dedicated to Cosimo II, he did not push Galileo to answer it publicly. Consequently, Sizi tried to gain support (and scientific legitimation) for his work from Clavius, probably hoping to force Galileo to answer, ibid., no. 516, 88–89.

Ibid., no. 665, 285.

See Alexander H. G. (ed.), The Leibniz–Clarke correspondence (Manchester, 1956), and Hall Rupert , Philosophers at war (Cambridge, 1980). Another example of the role of the patron in managing disputes is offered by Sagredo's challenging Apelle through Welser, GO, xi, no. 826, 459.

GO , no. 683, 304; no. 705, 334; and no. 728, 361.

Galilei G. , Istoria e dimostrazioni intorno alle macchie solari e loro accidenti comprese in tre lettere scritte all' illustrissimo signor Marco Velseri Linceo Duumviro d' Augusta e Consigliero di Sua Maesta Cesarea (Rome, 1613).

For a patronage-based analysis of the dispute on buoyancy, see my “The anthropology of incommensurability” (ref. 51).

Middleton W. E. Knowles , The experimenters (Baltimore, 1971), 259–62, 302–3.

Ibid., 259.

On Galileo's replies to Brengger, see GO, xi, no. 452, 14; and no. 453, 14. On the “pietra bononiense”, see ibid., no. 549, 136; no. 554, 136; and no. 554, 140. On sunspots, see ibid., no. 637, 257; no. 638, 257–8; no. 662, 281–2; and no. 771, 402. Also, Welser was usually the receiver and the distributor of the works of Galileo's extreme adversaries like Sizi, ibid., no. 503, 77.

Ibid. , no. 775, 407; no. 776, 408; and no. 683, 303–4. Similarly, even a friend of Galileo like Ciampoli who sided with him during the dispute on buoyancy, described the court debate between Galileo and Papazzoni as “quelle gratiose dispute”, ibid., no. 820, 453.

GO, xii, no. 1156, 212.

Ibid., no. 1170, 226–7 (emphasis mine).

Ibid., no. 1186, 243.

GO, xi, no. 554, 140; no. 771, 402; and no. 776, 408.

Probably, patrons could not ‘identify’ themselves with their clients. Such an act would probably have ‘dishonoured’ them, for it would have implied a lowering of their social status. In a sense, patrons were ‘bound to objectivity’ by a peculiar kind of noblesse oblige.

This issue emerged with the very first academy. Cesi faced it when he planned to increase the membership of the Lincei. As a result, difficulties may have developed because people of ifferent social status and who did not know each other would have entered into private correspondence (“nasceranno occasioni spesse di scrivere a molti e differenti e non praticati”). Consequently, Cesi wanted to establish some rule about the titles to be used in the Lincean correspondence (“dare una norma allo scrivere delle lettere e loro titoli”). He thought that the received etiquette that was based on social rather than intellectual distinctions should have been dropped and substituted with an internal set of rules (“e par che convenga alla purità filosofica, che deve professarsi, staccarsi affatto dall'usi aulici e ordinarii, e massime nello scrivere per occasione della Lince o suoi negotii”). It is interesting that the new ‘philosophical titles’ were supposed to be used when the members interacted as philosophers and not when they acted as private citizens (“poichè basterà a questi [occasions] solo sia ristretta la norma”), GO, x, no. 874, 507. Cesi's proposal seemed to reflect an actual concern of the Lincei faced by increasingly frequent cross-class interactions among philosophical equals: “I Signori Lincei di Napoli, et anco di qua, mi fanno istanza che si pongano in uso i titoli studiosi, per ovviare ad ogni scrupolo e poter nelle nove ammissioni, senza ricercar notitia, scriver liberamente et al sicuro; e crescendo il numero e diversi soggetti, par necessario”, ibid., no. 903, 538–9. We have a case of one of these etiquette misunderstandings — Although among two very upper-class members — In which Welser scolded Faber for not having informed him of Cesi's proper title, ibid., no. 856, 490.

The volume epistolico was supposed to be a collection of letters exchanged among the Lincei and other interlocutors on scientific subjects. For instance, Galileo's work on sunspots was supposed to be published as a volume epistolico including not only Apelle's letter but also replies and critiques by the other Lincei. Even when — Under the pressure of Galileo who was probably concerned with stressing his authorship — The Istorie were printed as a separate volume, Cesi printed a number of extra copies to be bound later in the volume epistolico to come: “bisognarà stamparle in foglio [the Istorie] che benchè sarà poco volume, pur sarà principio del volume epistolico che sarà poi grande”, ibid., no. 761, 395. See also no. 725, 357.

Pushing the analogy between the king's and the secretary's two bodies, I think that in the same way that the king's transcendental body (as a symbol of ‘monarchy’) legitimized the power of the physical, accidental, mortal king, the secretary (as a symbol of the academic corporation) was given the legitimacy to regulate academic discussions and the theories presented in them by preventing them from being perceived as arbitrary — Just as the king's transcendental body allowed for the power of the actual king to be represented as non-arbitrary. This interpretation of the secretary's (or president's) power is supported by the evidence presented by Shapin in “The house of experiment” (ref. 14). The ‘splitting of the body’ seems related to a situation in which the members of the corporations are equals, like a king and his dynasty, or the secretary of a scientific academy and his fellow members. Instead, this does not happen in the case of the Lincei or of the Cimento who were like monarchies ruled by a prince. In that case, the legitimacy of the group came directly from the prince.

Bourdieu P. Passeron J. C. , La reproduction: Éléments pour une théorie du système d'enseignement (Paris, 1970).

Ibid., 82.

Viala A. , La naissance de l'écrivain (Paris, 1985), ch. 2, “les ambivalences du clientelisme et du mécenat”, 51–84.

Ibid., 222.

“Io non fu' mai pittore nè scultore, come chi ne fa bottega”, Michelangelo, letter of 2 May 1548, Carteggio , quoted in Burke P. , Culture and society in Renaissance Italy 1420–1540 (Princeton, 1986), 80. The mechanical connotation of “aver bottega” is confirmed by Giorgo Vasari who referred to a minor painter as “di questi che stanno a bottega aperta pubblicamente a lavorare a ogni cosa meccanica”, ibid., 90.

Wazbinski Z. , L'Accademia del Disegno a Firenze nel cinquecento (Florence, 1987), i, 111–76.

Michelangelo's ‘divinity’ was institutionally appropriated by the Florentine artists who transformed him into a sort of patron saint of the profession. His extraordinary status as an artist was instrumental in presenting the entire artistic profession as having high social status — Something it was previously missing. It is not by chance that the foundation of the Accademia del Disegno coincided with the Florentine funeral of Michelangelo in 1664 (which the Accademia itself had organized). I would suggest that the funerary monument that Galileo's supporters tried (unsuccessfully) to construct in Santa Croce immediately after Galileo's death may have been aimed at something similar. Galileo was to become the ‘patron saint’ of the new breed of mathematicians — The ‘philosophical ones’. The extraordinary status Galileo had obtained as a mathematician was probably supposed to help improve the mathematicians' status in the same way Michelangelo's ‘divinity’ had helped the former painters, architects, and sculptors to become ‘artists’. It is interesting that now Galileo and Michelangelo's tombs are in the same church, facing each other, and that both mausoleums are actual monuments to their professions. Michelangelo is surrounded by muses symbolizing architecture, painting, and sculpture (the three visual arts he helped to legitimize), while Galileo is surrounded by more muses symbolizing the mathematical sciences which he was able to bring up to the status of philosophy.

Ibid. , no. 266, 284: “Il pensiero di V.S. intorno al porre i nomi a i nuovi pianeti trovati da lei, con inscrivergli dal nome del Serenissimo padrone, è generoso et heroico …” (emphasis mine). Galileo agreed with Vinta about the ‘heroicness’ of his discovery and dedication, no. 217, 298.

We find five months between Galileo's dedication to the Medici (GO, x, no. 265, 13 February 1610, 282–4) and the Grand Duke's official deliberation (ibid., no. 359, 10 July 1610, 400–1). Some offer about a post at the Medici court is passed on by Vinta to Galileo during his visit to the court in Pisa during the Easter vacation. During these months, Galileo informs Vinta of the various attacks on the reality of the Medicean Stars he has responded to (ibid., no. 307, 348–53). But the Medici, while accepting with pleasure the dedication, do not seem to rush to bring Galileo to court. With the uncommitted attitude typical of patrons, they seem to observe how the dispute is developing. But Galileo thinks that their distance is a bit excessive, and that a stronger or quicker endorsement from their side would help to end the dispute (ibid., no. 307, 349; and no. 339, 379).

Biagioli , “Galileo the emblem-maker” (ref. 28).

Archivio di Stato di Firenze , “Depositeria generate” (Ruoli della famiglia del Granduca). Galileo's salary was not paid by the Medici Treasury — The Depositeria generate — But by the University di Pisa. This can be interpreted in two ways. Perhaps the Medici wanted to avoid charging such a large salary on the court budget, or — By the fact that Galileo did not actually work or have any specific rote at court — They really meant to have him at court as a “gentiluomo non prowisionato” while giving him the salary from Pisa as a sort of sinecure. This second interpretation would find support in what Viala has observed in France. There the ‘Grands’ would reward their top clients not through salaries drawn from payroll funds, but with payments coming from different, less salary-connoted sources. The reward of a great client was called ‘gratification’ and came from “une rubrique budgetaire speciale”, white the salaries of lesser clients were simply called “émoluments ordinaires”, Viala , La naissance de l'écrivain (ref. 162), 56–57.

GO, x, no. 434, 480–3.

Westfall , “Science and patronage” (ref. 5), 29.

Ibid., 26.

Ibid., 12.

Ibid., 26–27.

For instance, Paolo Gualdo writing to Galileo in May 1611 saw a clear distinction between the acceptance of Galileo's observations qua observations and their Copernican interpretation, and thought that Galileo got enough recognition for the former without having to push for the latter: “A me pare che gloria s'habbia acquistata con l'osservanza nella luna, ne i quattro Pianeti, e cose simili, senza pigliare a diffendere cosa tanto contraria all'intelligenza e capacità de gli huomini, essendo pochissimi quelli che sappiano che cosa voglia dire l'osservanza de' segni et aspetti celesti”, GO, xi, no. 526, 100–1.

GO, x, no. 307, 349; and no. 339, 379–82.

This, I think, accounts for the Jesuits' ease in endorsing Galileo's telescopic observations from December 1610 ( ibid. , no. 437, 484–5). Moreover, when they were asked for an official report on Galileo's discoveries in the spring of 1611, they stressed the accuracy of Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus (“e verissimo che Venere si scema et cresce come la luna …”, ibid. , no. 520, 93). Being able to fit Galileo's discoveries within the Tychonic framework, the Jesuits did not perceive them as threatening, but rather as important contributions toward the legitimation of mathematics in relation to philosophy — A battle Clavius had been waging since his early attempts to secure for mathematics a fair position within the Ratio Studiorum.

That astronomical discoveries did not need to be perceived as necessarily offering evidence for the Copernican system but that they were rather seen as refutations of the philosophers' beliefs is something that characterized the debate on the nova of 1604. For instance, a friend of Galileo's — The astrologer Altobelli — Saw the nova as shattering the beliefs of the ‘half-philosophers’: “In tanto mi piace che V.S. si sia accorta di questo nuova mostro nel cielo, da far impazzire i Peripatetici, ch'hanno creduto sin hora tante bugie in quella nova e miracolosa, priva di moto e parallasse”, ibid. , no. 106, 117. Altobelli continues his attack on the ‘half-philosophers’ in a later tetter ( ibid. , no. 107, 118–20). Similarly, Galileo's Dialogo di Cecco da Ronchitti in perpuosito della stella nova which attacked the philosopher's belief in the immutability of the heavens, mentioned Copernicus only once in passing and in only one of its two editions ( Drake S. , Galileo against the philosophers (Los Angeles, 1976), 28–32).

GO, x, no. 57, 67–68; and no. 59, 69–71.