Fermat had a friend at Toulouse named Lalouvère. Lalouvère was censor, jesuit, and mathematician (in alphabetical order).

Antonella Romano writes on page 512 of her book La Contre-Réforme Mathématique. Constitution et diffusion d'une culture mathématique jésuite à la Renaissance (1540-1640):

Un premier constat regarde les jésuites confrontés à la censure : sur tous les cas du Fondo Gesuitico qui concernent la France, deux professeurs seulement appartiennent à la liste établie dans le cadre de cet ouvrage, B. Labarthe et V. Léotaud. Si d'autres mathématiciens y apparaissent, c'est tout aussi exceptionnellement, et au titre de censeur, comme Antoine Lalouvère 114.

Footnote 114 there reads:

C'est lui qui porte un jugement négatif sur l'ouvrage de B. Labarthe.

On on page 515 Romano writes:

Antoine Lalouvère, le mathématicien toulousain qui s'est illustré dans le débat sur la cycloïde128, émet un jugement négatif sur le Hermetis Mathematici praeludium de B. Labarthe.

Thus, Lalouvère in his capacity as a censor sank at least one mathematical book, namely that by his fellow jesuit Labarthe.

Questions 1. Why did Lalouvère report negatively on Labarthe's book?

Question 2. Were there other books reviewed negatively by him?

Question 3. If anybody is familiar with Labarthe's work on Aristotelianism I would appreciate a summary.

It would be of particular interest to determine whether or not the grounds for Lalouvère's negative report on Labarthe's book had to do with possible use of indivisibles or the infinitely small. See a related 2018 publication in Foundations of Science.

  • 17
    $\begingroup$ This question might do better on the History of Science and Mathematics site hsm.stackexchange.com/questions $\endgroup$ – Stopple Jan 1 '18 at 19:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Is there any reason to believe that a “mathematical book” was censored? Labarthe may have been a mathematician, but he wrote books about war and Aristotelian doctrine — just as research mathematicians now might post something outside that field and have it downvoted on a site for research mathematics. books.google.com/… $\endgroup$ – Matt F. Jan 3 '18 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ That's interesting. Where does this information come from and where did Labarthe write about the Aristotelian doctrine and what did he write about it? @MattF. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Katz Jan 4 '18 at 9:45
  • $\begingroup$ See the link for a Jesuit library catalog with two books by Labarthe. But now that you have identified the censored book, which may have gone unpublished and lost, your best bet would be to ask Romano herself. $\endgroup$ – Matt F. Jan 5 '18 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ @MattF., I've thought of that. She did not respond. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Katz Jan 5 '18 at 8:45

[Community Wiki to follow up on Matt's comment]

Screenshot from De Backer's bibliography of Jesuit authors.(There is also an entry on Lalouvère.) Item B is a public lecture given by Labarthe when he was professor of philosophy at Clermont-Ferrand university, on a "more clear exposition" of Aristotelian philosophy. I have not been able to locate this document. (The bibliography entry says it should be in the library at Clermont, but their catalogue does not list it.)

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for this. Did you get anything on Lalouvere's review of Labarthe? $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Katz Jan 7 '18 at 10:45
  • $\begingroup$ In the entry on Lalouvere the first item seems to be a polemic against P. Annatum's apologetics for the Council of Trent. This is closely related to the controversy over indivisibles; see my answer at HSM (which has unfortunately been modified twice by an overzealous user, resulting in a loss of information). Do you by any chance have access to Lalouvere's pamphlet against P. Annatum? $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Katz Jan 7 '18 at 10:54
  • $\begingroup$ as you can read in the entry on François Annat, Lalouvère wrote in support of Annat, rather than against him. $\endgroup$ – Carlo Beenakker Jan 7 '18 at 11:23
  • $\begingroup$ OK, surely your Latin is better than mine (luckily I have colleagues who manage better than myself). What does the word "contra" in the title mean? Was Lalouvere responding against someone who criticized Annat? It would be interesting to determine whether canon 2 of session 13 was involved in this exchange. $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Katz Jan 7 '18 at 11:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Scientia media contra novos eius impugnatores defensa = A defense of "middle knowledge" against its new assailants. This work of Annat in support of the doctrine of scientia media was censored by Toulouse university, and Lalouvère came to his defense by writing Responsio ad Theses Apologeticas contra P. Annatum = Rebuttal of the philosophical argumentation against Father Annat. $\endgroup$ – Carlo Beenakker Jan 7 '18 at 11:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.