Caverni, Raffaello, Storia del metodo sperimentale in Italia, 1891-1900

List of thumbnails

< >
11
11 		12
12
13
13 		14
14
15
15 		16
16
17
17 		18
18
19
19 		20
20
< >
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>
Impressum