What do you think?
Rate this book
Ο Γαλιλαίος, αυλικός: Η πρακτική της επιστήμης στο πλαίσιο της κουλτούρας της απολυταρχίας
Το παρόν βιβλίο σκιαγραφεί τον τρόπο με τον οποίο ο Γαλιλαίος, βασιζόμενος στην αυλή, συναρμολόγησε τη νέα κοινωνικοεπαγγελματική ταυτότητα του «νέου φιλοσόφου» ή του «φιλοσόφου αστρονόμου», και αναλύει τη σχέση αυτής της ταυτότητας με το έργο του Γαλιλαίου. Αυτό γίνεται μέσα από την ανασυγκρότηση της κουλτούρας και των κωδίκων της αυλικής συμπεριφοράς που διαμόρφωσαν την καθημερινή πρακτική του Γαλιλαίου, τα κείμενά του, την παρουσίαση του εαυτού του και των ανακαλύψεών του και την αλληλεπίδρασή του με άλλους αυλικούς, πάτρωνες, μαθηματικούς και φιλοσόφους. Ο Γαλιλαίος αυλικός δεν συνιστά μια βιογραφία ή μια κοινωνική ιστορία της σταδιοδρομίας του Γαλιλαίου. Παρότι δεν ακολουθώ αδιάλειπτα την πορεία του Γαλιλαίου στο χρόνο και στις ακαδημαϊκές συζητήσεις, και αναλύω ορισμένα από τα κείμενά του, κύριος στόχος μου είναι να προσφέρω μια λεπτομερή, ορισμένες φορές μικροσκοπική, μελέτη των δομών των καθημερινών δραστηριοτήτων και ενδιαφερόντων του, και να δείξω πώς όλα αυτά πλαισίωσαν τις επιστημονικές δραστηριότητές του. [...]
480 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
10 people are currently reading
362 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
September 29, 2024
WAS GALILEO'S CONDEMNATION INFLUENCED BY "COURT POLITICS" AS MUCH AS BY THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS?
Science historian Mario Bioagioli wrote in the first chapter of this 1993 book, “In many ways, I am presenting a study of a scientist’s self-fashioning… My choice of this approach to Galileo’s scientific career reflects the character of his own social trajectory. Galileo began his career as a member of a specific socioprofessional culture---that of the mathematicians. However, in the process of moving to court, he successfully refashioned himself as an unusual type of philosopher…
"In a sense, Galileo reinvented himself around 1610 by becoming the grand duke’s philosopher and mathematician… This book traces Galileo’s court-based articulation of the new socioprofessional identity of the ‘new philosopher’ or ‘philosophical astronomer’ and analyzes the relationship between this identity and Galileo’s work…
"[This book] is neither a biography nor a social history of Galileo’s career… I am more interested in identifying and studying the synchronic processes … [that] produced the historical artifact that we now call Galileo’s career.” (Pg. 2-3) He adds, “Not only was Galileo’s style embedded in court culture, but, as I hope to make clear by the end of the book, his increasing commitment to Copernicanism and his self-fashioning as a successful court client fed on each other.” (Pg. 4-5)
He points out, “Galileo’s condemnation cannot be separated from the patronage crisis that affected his… relationship with [Pope] Urban VIII. Galileo’s troubles of 1633 were also preceded by the deaths of two of his major patrons… With [Prince] Cesi’s death---and the earlier one of [Virginio] Cesarini in 1624---Galileo was left with very little support within the Roman court. Therefore, although Galileo’s condemnation was triggered by the specific theological implications of his ‘Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,’ it was, at the same time, an instance of a more general pattern. It offers a typical example of a patronage-related termination of a client’s career.” (Pg. 35)
He states, “I suggest that these dynamics… may help us to contextualize the repeated invitations of Galileo’s patrons … to present his arguments as hypotheses, to write dialogues rather than treatises… However, an upwardly mobile client such as Galileo did not necessarily share his princely patrons’ discourse of effacement’… Like Carbone’s duel-prone youths, Galileo had to ‘attack’ and cast his arguments not as hypotheses or fictions but as true claims, if he wanted to go up in the social scale, become a philosopher, gain status and credibility, and legitimate the new worldview.” (Pg. 82-83)
He adds, “the tensions between Galileo’s ‘scientific’ and ‘courtly’ concerns should not be viewed as a clash of two irreconcilable ‘worlds’ but rather as a fundamental tension between two aspects of the same system… the increasing commitment to Copernican astronomy that Galileo developed in those years may have resulted also from the patronage dynamics that pushed him to defend his discoveries and even produce more of them.” (Pg. 91)
He suggests, “Galileo was not attacked because he was a Copernican but because of his … extreme visibility and his success in becoming the mathematician and philosopher of the grand duke.” (Pg. 98) He summarizes, “To say that Galileo was simply lucky with his patronage strategies---or to say that he was an exceptional scientist---is to ignore the broader historical dynamics that made possible his unusual career and informed his strategies for the legitimation of Copernicanism and mathematical physics.” (Pg. 157)
He observes, “what I propose here… [is] only a possible alternative framework based on the analysis of patronage and courtly dynamics presented earlier… I will argue that Galileo’s career was propelled and then undone by the same patronage dynamics. I will try to show that the dynamics that led to Galileo’s troubles were typical of a princely court: they resembled what was known as ‘the fall of the favorite.’” (Pg. 313)
After the publication of the Dialogues, “[Pope] Urban’s rages and accusations of betrayal became frequent… Interestingly enough, Urban’s rage tended to explode whenever the Florentine ambassador would call his attention to the fact that in publishing the Dialogue Galileo had followed the instructions he had received from Rome and, indirectly, from the pope himself. In short, the betrayal trope was brought up precisely when Urban’s connection to Galileo’s ‘misdeeds’ was intimated.” (Pg. 337)
He concludes, “This volume has presented a study of the interaction between the culture of political absolutism and Galileo’s natural philosophy. Once we see it in this context, Galileo’s trial appears as a sign of the structural limits of the type of socioprofessional legitimation offered by court society and political absolutism. Galileo’s trial was as much a clash between Aristotelian natural philosophy, Thomistic theology, and modern cosmology as it was a … clash between the dynamics and tensions of baroque court society and culture.” (Pg. 352)
This is an utterly fascinating and thought-provoking study, that will be of great interest to anyone interested in intellectual history, and/or the history of science.
Science historian Mario Bioagioli wrote in the first chapter of this 1993 book, “In many ways, I am presenting a study of a scientist’s self-fashioning… My choice of this approach to Galileo’s scientific career reflects the character of his own social trajectory. Galileo began his career as a member of a specific socioprofessional culture---that of the mathematicians. However, in the process of moving to court, he successfully refashioned himself as an unusual type of philosopher…
"In a sense, Galileo reinvented himself around 1610 by becoming the grand duke’s philosopher and mathematician… This book traces Galileo’s court-based articulation of the new socioprofessional identity of the ‘new philosopher’ or ‘philosophical astronomer’ and analyzes the relationship between this identity and Galileo’s work…
"[This book] is neither a biography nor a social history of Galileo’s career… I am more interested in identifying and studying the synchronic processes … [that] produced the historical artifact that we now call Galileo’s career.” (Pg. 2-3) He adds, “Not only was Galileo’s style embedded in court culture, but, as I hope to make clear by the end of the book, his increasing commitment to Copernicanism and his self-fashioning as a successful court client fed on each other.” (Pg. 4-5)
He points out, “Galileo’s condemnation cannot be separated from the patronage crisis that affected his… relationship with [Pope] Urban VIII. Galileo’s troubles of 1633 were also preceded by the deaths of two of his major patrons… With [Prince] Cesi’s death---and the earlier one of [Virginio] Cesarini in 1624---Galileo was left with very little support within the Roman court. Therefore, although Galileo’s condemnation was triggered by the specific theological implications of his ‘Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems,’ it was, at the same time, an instance of a more general pattern. It offers a typical example of a patronage-related termination of a client’s career.” (Pg. 35)
He states, “I suggest that these dynamics… may help us to contextualize the repeated invitations of Galileo’s patrons … to present his arguments as hypotheses, to write dialogues rather than treatises… However, an upwardly mobile client such as Galileo did not necessarily share his princely patrons’ discourse of effacement’… Like Carbone’s duel-prone youths, Galileo had to ‘attack’ and cast his arguments not as hypotheses or fictions but as true claims, if he wanted to go up in the social scale, become a philosopher, gain status and credibility, and legitimate the new worldview.” (Pg. 82-83)
He adds, “the tensions between Galileo’s ‘scientific’ and ‘courtly’ concerns should not be viewed as a clash of two irreconcilable ‘worlds’ but rather as a fundamental tension between two aspects of the same system… the increasing commitment to Copernican astronomy that Galileo developed in those years may have resulted also from the patronage dynamics that pushed him to defend his discoveries and even produce more of them.” (Pg. 91)
He suggests, “Galileo was not attacked because he was a Copernican but because of his … extreme visibility and his success in becoming the mathematician and philosopher of the grand duke.” (Pg. 98) He summarizes, “To say that Galileo was simply lucky with his patronage strategies---or to say that he was an exceptional scientist---is to ignore the broader historical dynamics that made possible his unusual career and informed his strategies for the legitimation of Copernicanism and mathematical physics.” (Pg. 157)
He observes, “what I propose here… [is] only a possible alternative framework based on the analysis of patronage and courtly dynamics presented earlier… I will argue that Galileo’s career was propelled and then undone by the same patronage dynamics. I will try to show that the dynamics that led to Galileo’s troubles were typical of a princely court: they resembled what was known as ‘the fall of the favorite.’” (Pg. 313)
After the publication of the Dialogues, “[Pope] Urban’s rages and accusations of betrayal became frequent… Interestingly enough, Urban’s rage tended to explode whenever the Florentine ambassador would call his attention to the fact that in publishing the Dialogue Galileo had followed the instructions he had received from Rome and, indirectly, from the pope himself. In short, the betrayal trope was brought up precisely when Urban’s connection to Galileo’s ‘misdeeds’ was intimated.” (Pg. 337)
He concludes, “This volume has presented a study of the interaction between the culture of political absolutism and Galileo’s natural philosophy. Once we see it in this context, Galileo’s trial appears as a sign of the structural limits of the type of socioprofessional legitimation offered by court society and political absolutism. Galileo’s trial was as much a clash between Aristotelian natural philosophy, Thomistic theology, and modern cosmology as it was a … clash between the dynamics and tensions of baroque court society and culture.” (Pg. 352)
This is an utterly fascinating and thought-provoking study, that will be of great interest to anyone interested in intellectual history, and/or the history of science.
January 19, 2019
Um livro bem escrito, com uma estrutura clara e ideias apresentadas abertamente e sem subterfúgios. Dito isto, é um livro que sofre de varias limitações, parecendo mais um folheto de defesa a sua ideia, que uma obra académica. Para um livro que afirma, que as relações de corte modelavam a vida de quem investiga nesta época, esta pouco desenvolvido para falar sobre sociedade de corte. Mas não se pode dizer que é uma biografia ou obra focada em Galileu, sendo mais abrangente que isso, e não tendo o detalhe suficiente para tal. Um estudo de caso é a designação mais provável, mas podemos estipular uma ideia tão concreta com a que o autor nos da, apenas de um caso, mesmo que este esteja soberba mente bem documentado?
April 8, 2018
This book was really good. I read it to use as a source on a paper, so I skimmed a few sections that I knew were irrelevant to the paper I was writing and read even the sections I read completely very, very quickly, but it was still an enjoyable experience. I actually meant to just skim a chapter or two of the book and wound up reading most of it because I got caught up in it. The historical research was fairly solid from what I could tell. I appreciated the reframing Biagioli did of the traditional narrative of Galileo's life. I was somewhat familiar with his life and very familiar with the importance of patronage in the Renaissance, but I never actually thought to connect the two. The arguments were generally presented clearly and seemed reasonable enough.
February 27, 2020
Why everyone should read this:
1. It's a wonderful, wonderful book about the patronage system that moulded Galileo and his work
2. People might finally stop comparing themselves to Galileo every time they have an unpopular opinion
1. It's a wonderful, wonderful book about the patronage system that moulded Galileo and his work
2. People might finally stop comparing themselves to Galileo every time they have an unpopular opinion
November 5, 2019
Ein wenig zu akademisch und nicht besonders erhellend.
July 15, 2025
A highly specific book! (Mario Biagioli) is extremely thorough in providing an exact/definitive explanation about the intricacies and complications of political interaction and what motivated them during Galileo's time. I think also that Mario does an excellent job in providing reasonable proofs and justifications on why this form of political interaction was not only necessary for the political legitimization of science but also, how the form (patronage networks) was also influential in that it contributed to the progress of science. I find that the book is repetitive in certain parts but the repetition is always interlinked with the topic at hand, which I like very much since the author doesn't use illustrations and discards them, but instead uses and further contributes as the book goes on. A spectacular read for Political Science students as well as the scientific community and I would even add that it would be a fair read for those seeking articulation for building organizational infrastructure. Fantastic in my opinion!
November 4, 2013
In this book, Biagioli considers how Galileo's involvement in systems of patronage - especially the Medici's patronage - influenced his scientific work. Although patronage limited Galileo's scientific research while he was at court to mostly topical issues or "marvels," the influence of his Medicean patrons also proved to be very generative. In fact, the Medici court supported Galileo because his discoveries (the Medicean stars, for example) helped legitimize their rule. In turn, their support helped legitimize Galileo's discoveries and his role as a natural philosopher. Win-win. (Unless you eventually upset the pope.)
Overall, this was surprisingly pleasant to read (though I skimmed a lot of the science and piled on historical evidence).
Overall, this was surprisingly pleasant to read (though I skimmed a lot of the science and piled on historical evidence).
April 13, 2009
The story of Galileo's rise and fall from grace not as a scientist pitted against the Church, but as a politician and courtier. Biagioli's somewhat tongue-in-cheek history of the astronomer is both entertaining and enlightening, with a perspective on the development of science that most people rarely, if ever, consider. I've spent the semester looking at the development of modern science (and the politics surrounding it) and this has been one of the better reads I've encountered.
May 6, 2013
Es un estudio de caso muy revelador. El autor parece ser muy precavido. No intenta (y me parece una actitud muy inteligente), salvo en el epílogo, hacer una postura universalizable, no hace generalizaciones. El aporte que tuve al leer este libro es que contribuyó a que yo entendiera la forma (casi pulcra) de hacer un estudio de caso.
March 18, 2012
Biagioli had a definite agenda when he set out to complete this work, it is necessary to have a slight understanding of those he is rebuffing on the patronage system, aka westfall. However, it is a tough read but interesting read if you have the help of two very smart professors!
Read
September 24, 2015Biagioli shows how crucial the patron/client relationship was for scientists in early modern Europe - particularly for Galileo and his principal patron, Pope Urban VIII. Again, this is another work that unpacks the social networks that undergird(ed) scientific study.
January 6, 2008
Poorly researched, even more poorly presented, and boring to top it all off. Pass.
July 27, 2011
This was actually a really interesting and readable account of how the patron system affected Gallileo's work
February 10, 2019
This work, now considered the definitive treatment on the Galileo saga where he was silenced for arguing for the Copernican view that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, argues that the setting of Galileo's story has never been well-considered. He was a courtier. He lived under the patronage of various rulers of his day and had to produce great wonders for them.
As such, his story was not one of speaking scientific truth to power, as it is often told, but a courtier trying to make a living in a new environment. He expanded beyond his original identity as a mathematician into a new natural philosopher. Since the university system was dominated by Aristotelian philosophers, his legitimacy was found at court - and at court alone. A prince and eventually the pope served as his audience and could freely support any ideas that they deemed appropriate. The professionals/courtiers were not yet bound by accreditation by groups like the Royal Society in Britain. Their "accreditation" came from the court and the patronage system alone.
Galileo's well-told story, then, needs to be contextually situated in this light. He was trying to persuade princes to support him financially and was shut down when his patron decided to overthrow Galileo as the patron's "favorite." (This overthrow of the sovereign's favorite can also be seen historically in Queen Elizabeth's shunning of Sir Walter Raleigh after Raleigh married a court-maid.) Galileo, of course, belonged to the prior age more than the coming age. While science can speak truth to power today, its institutional identity and strong professional organizations lay as its supporting source of integrity. Without these modern innovations, scientists, academicians, and intellectuals are mere fodder for rulers.
As such, his story was not one of speaking scientific truth to power, as it is often told, but a courtier trying to make a living in a new environment. He expanded beyond his original identity as a mathematician into a new natural philosopher. Since the university system was dominated by Aristotelian philosophers, his legitimacy was found at court - and at court alone. A prince and eventually the pope served as his audience and could freely support any ideas that they deemed appropriate. The professionals/courtiers were not yet bound by accreditation by groups like the Royal Society in Britain. Their "accreditation" came from the court and the patronage system alone.
Galileo's well-told story, then, needs to be contextually situated in this light. He was trying to persuade princes to support him financially and was shut down when his patron decided to overthrow Galileo as the patron's "favorite." (This overthrow of the sovereign's favorite can also be seen historically in Queen Elizabeth's shunning of Sir Walter Raleigh after Raleigh married a court-maid.) Galileo, of course, belonged to the prior age more than the coming age. While science can speak truth to power today, its institutional identity and strong professional organizations lay as its supporting source of integrity. Without these modern innovations, scientists, academicians, and intellectuals are mere fodder for rulers.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews