Caverni, Raffaello
,
Storia del metodo sperimentale in Italia
,
1891-1900
Text
Text Image
XML
Document information
None
Concordance
Figures
Thumbnails
page
|<
<
of 3504
>
>|
<
archimedes
>
<
text
>
<
body
>
<
chap
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">
<
pb
xlink:href
="
020/01/020.jpg
"
pagenum
="
xxi
"/>
signed them to Pietro, his firstborn, who keeps them at the disposition of those
<
lb
/>
scholars of the history of science who at last want to remember their existence. </
foreign
>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">
<
emph
type
="
center
"/>
9. CONCLUSION
<
emph.end
type
="
center
"/>
</
foreign
>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">To the long oblivion of the manuscripts there corresponds a silence almost as
<
lb
/>
continuous in the last half century regarding the volumes of the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Storia.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
And
<
lb
/>
if some sporadic attention has been given them, this has been abroad rather than
<
lb
/>
in Italy. </
foreign
>
</
s
>
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">Here, in fact, one of the last times someone concerned himself with the
<
lb
/>
work, naturally in deprecation of it, was at the tenth meeting of the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Società
<
lb
/>
italiana per il progresso delle scienze
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
(Italian society for the progress of science)
<
lb
/>
held in Pisa in April 1919. In conclusion of two “laborious and crowded
<
lb
/>
sessions” of the history of science section, an order of the day was approved
<
lb
/>
in which, besides voting to reprint the national edition of Galileo's works, the
<
lb
/>
hope was expressed that “in view of renewed anti-Galilean attempts,” prime
<
lb
/>
responsibility for which was imputed to the scholar of Montelupo,” a critical
<
lb
/>
review of Caverni's
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Storia
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
would be made, to bring to light the intentions and
<
lb
/>
the means employed by the author in judging Galileo's work.”
<
lb
/>
<
lb
/>
A series of
<
lb
/>
articles in the “Archivio” follows this proposal, among which there is also one
<
lb
/>
which Mieli accepted in favor of Caverni, written by Giovannozzi. </
foreign
>
</
s
>
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">The other
<
lb
/>
writers were Favaro, with the article already cited regarding the matter of the
<
lb
/>
phases of Venus, the only page of Caverni which should, in fact, be censured,
<
lb
/>
and the physicist Carlo Del Lungo who had raised the question at the meeting
<
lb
/>
and who gave Mieli two rather ample essays.
<
lb
/>
<
lb
/>
There is nothing new in them. </
foreign
>
</
s
>
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">
<
lb
/>
The most valid criticism concerns the interpretation of Santorio's
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cotyla,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
which
<
lb
/>
Caverni at first took to be a real pendulum clock when it is actually a small
<
lb
/>
pendulum whose length can be regulated and which is made to oscillate by
<
lb
/>
hand, like Santorio's similar
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
pulsilogio.
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
Schiaparelli had already noticed this
<
lb
/>
oversight almost twenty years before, and Caverni himself in the fourth volume
<
lb
/>
of his
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Storia
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
had made ample amends for this error. </
foreign
>
</
s
>
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">Del Lungo's insistence is
<
lb
/>
therefore useless; moreover, his article (the nemesis of chance) is illustrated by
<
lb
/>
a drawing of the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Cotyla
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
reproduced upside down! With this the “critical re
<
lb
/>
view” voted at Pisa by the Italian scientists in congress ended with the classical
<
lb
/>
results of the mountain's travail. </
foreign
>
</
s
>
</
p
>
<
p
type
="
main
">
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">Abroad, as we have said, interest in the
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Storia del metodo sperimentale in
<
lb
/>
Italia
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
registers further significant episodes. </
foreign
>
</
s
>
<
s
>
<
foreign
lang
="
en
">In 1952 George Sarton, in his book
<
lb
/>
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
A Guide to the History of Science,
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
puts Caverni's
<
emph
type
="
italics
"/>
Storia
<
emph.end
type
="
italics
"/>
in the first place for </
foreign
>
</
s
>
</
p
>
</
chap
>
</
body
>
</
text
>
</
archimedes
>