1signed them to Pietro, his firstborn, who keeps them at the disposition of those
scholars of the history of science who at last want to remember their existence.
scholars of the history of science who at last want to remember their existence.
9. CONCLUSION
To the long oblivion of the manuscripts there corresponds a silence almost as
continuous in the last half century regarding the volumes of the Storia. And
if some sporadic attention has been given them, this has been abroad rather than
in Italy. Here, in fact, one of the last times someone concerned himself with the
work, naturally in deprecation of it, was at the tenth meeting of the Società
italiana per il progresso delle scienze (Italian society for the progress of science)
held in Pisa in April 1919. In conclusion of two “laborious and crowded
sessions” of the history of science section, an order of the day was approved
in which, besides voting to reprint the national edition of Galileo's works, the
hope was expressed that “in view of renewed anti-Galilean attempts,” prime
responsibility for which was imputed to the scholar of Montelupo,” a critical
review of Caverni's Storia would be made, to bring to light the intentions and
the means employed by the author in judging Galileo's work.”
A series of
articles in the “Archivio” follows this proposal, among which there is also one
which Mieli accepted in favor of Caverni, written by Giovannozzi. The other
writers were Favaro, with the article already cited regarding the matter of the
phases of Venus, the only page of Caverni which should, in fact, be censured,
and the physicist Carlo Del Lungo who had raised the question at the meeting
and who gave Mieli two rather ample essays.
There is nothing new in them.
The most valid criticism concerns the interpretation of Santorio's Cotyla, which
Caverni at first took to be a real pendulum clock when it is actually a small
pendulum whose length can be regulated and which is made to oscillate by
hand, like Santorio's similar pulsilogio. Schiaparelli had already noticed this
oversight almost twenty years before, and Caverni himself in the fourth volume
of his Storia had made ample amends for this error. Del Lungo's insistence is
therefore useless; moreover, his article (the nemesis of chance) is illustrated by
a drawing of the Cotyla reproduced upside down! With this the “critical re
view” voted at Pisa by the Italian scientists in congress ended with the classical
results of the mountain's travail.
continuous in the last half century regarding the volumes of the Storia. And
if some sporadic attention has been given them, this has been abroad rather than
in Italy. Here, in fact, one of the last times someone concerned himself with the
work, naturally in deprecation of it, was at the tenth meeting of the Società
italiana per il progresso delle scienze (Italian society for the progress of science)
held in Pisa in April 1919. In conclusion of two “laborious and crowded
sessions” of the history of science section, an order of the day was approved
in which, besides voting to reprint the national edition of Galileo's works, the
hope was expressed that “in view of renewed anti-Galilean attempts,” prime
responsibility for which was imputed to the scholar of Montelupo,” a critical
review of Caverni's Storia would be made, to bring to light the intentions and
the means employed by the author in judging Galileo's work.”
A series of
articles in the “Archivio” follows this proposal, among which there is also one
which Mieli accepted in favor of Caverni, written by Giovannozzi. The other
writers were Favaro, with the article already cited regarding the matter of the
phases of Venus, the only page of Caverni which should, in fact, be censured,
and the physicist Carlo Del Lungo who had raised the question at the meeting
and who gave Mieli two rather ample essays.
There is nothing new in them.
The most valid criticism concerns the interpretation of Santorio's Cotyla, which
Caverni at first took to be a real pendulum clock when it is actually a small
pendulum whose length can be regulated and which is made to oscillate by
hand, like Santorio's similar pulsilogio. Schiaparelli had already noticed this
oversight almost twenty years before, and Caverni himself in the fourth volume
of his Storia had made ample amends for this error. Del Lungo's insistence is
therefore useless; moreover, his article (the nemesis of chance) is illustrated by
a drawing of the Cotyla reproduced upside down! With this the “critical re
view” voted at Pisa by the Italian scientists in congress ended with the classical
results of the mountain's travail.