Galilæana. Studies in Renaissance and Early Modern Science

Networks, contexts, institutions: An enduring legacy in the historiography of science

Carmen Schmechel — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Essay review of Roos, Anna Marie, and Gideon Manning, eds. Collected Wisdom of the Early Modern Scholar: Essays in Honor of Mordechai Feingold. Vol. 64. Archimedes. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09722-5.

Longomontanus’ De maculis in Luna and the determination of geographic longitudes

Gonzalo Luis Recio — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

In Astronomia Danica, Longomontanus provides a method for calculating the longitude for a given location on Earth. To do so, he relies on precise calculations of the lunar position so that he can know when he is observing it without any parallax in longitude. As I will show, this method has a fatal flaw that renders it unusable. However, Longomontanus also provides a simple observational method that indicates, via the disposition of the lunar spot and/or horns, the time when the Moon shows no parallax in longitude. This last method, though it does not need any use of tables, also has some problems. In this paper I will explain in detail these methods provided by Longomontanus, together with the problems they carry.

The truth of the moderns and the deception of the ancients. Heavenly motions and the biblical hermeneutics of Paolo Antonio Foscarini

Franco Motta — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

Paolo Antonio Foscarini è uno dei nomi più frequentemente citati tra quelli dei corrispondenti di Galileo. Il suo caso ruota attorno alla celebre Lettera sopra l’opinione dei Pittagorici e del Copernico, pubblicata nel gennaio 1615 e posta all’Indice l’anno successivo. Fu questo libro a far pendere la bilancia della censura romana verso una condanna dell’eliocentrismo; le osservazioni indirizzate all’autore dal cardinale Bellarmino al momento di ricevere il libro, con la proposta di rubricare l’eliocentrismo a ipotesi matematica, anticiparono l’atteggiamento ufficiale della Chiesa cattolica nei confronti della nuova astronomia fino all’inizio del XIX secolo. Analizzando altri due scritti dello stesso autore, l’articolo intende mostrare che la Lettera di Foscarini non debba essere considerata, come generalmente si è fatto, alla stregua di una proposta estemporanea e ingenua, ma che sia piuttosto da comprendere come parte di un più ampio e sistematico progetto di rinnovamento della teologia e della filosofia naturale, da leggere nel contesto dinamico della cultura scientifica italiana negli anni che precedettero la condanna di Copernico.

Navigating censorship: Galileo and Diodati’s plan for the publication of the Two New Sciences

Lucia Bucciarelli — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

This article explores the background of the editorial operation that led to the publication of Galileo Galilei’s Two New Sciences in 1638. As it was for the Latin editions of the Dialogue (1635) and the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine (1636), Galileo actively participated in the printing operations of his final work, even though in the introductory texts he claimed to have no involvement whatsoever. The analysis of three manuscript sheets preserved at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze highlights not only Galileo’s active role in the editorial process but also his contribution to devising a plan to appear completely uninvolved in that publication. In the National Edition of Galileo’s works by Antonio Favaro, it is noted that these three sheets are written in the same handwriting, without identifying the author. This article intends to show that the author of these manuscripts is Elia Diodati. The comparison of the handwriting on these sheets with other autograph letters by Diodati, alongside the reconstruction of the role played by the Parisian jurist in the editorial operation, supports this hypothesis.

An early theological application of Galileo’s “doctrine” of motion: Insights from Benedetto Castelli’s first letter to Galileo (April 1, 1607)

Ivan Malara — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

In 1607, Benedetto Castelli sent a letter to Galileo Galilei from Cava de’ Tirreni. This correspondence provides valuable insights into Castelli’s mathematical training and is significant for two main reasons. First, it demonstrates that by 1607, Galileo had already articulated key principles of his scientific work, such as the relativity of motion and a concept resembling inertia. Thus, the letter serves as an important source on Galileo’s advanced thinking prior to the publication of Sidereus Nuncius (1610). Second, it explores the relationship between Galileo’s ideas on motion, the eternity of the world, and the existence of God. Castelli refutes Aristotelian errors and underscores the limitations of Galilean science regarding theological matters, aiming to prevent conflicts between scientific inquiry and religious truths. This letter thus highlights the early debates sparked by Galileo’s new “doctrine” of motion, occurring before any of his major findings were published.

Scienza e cultura del vino in Toscana dopo Galileo

Lorella Mangani — Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0000

L’interesse di Galileo per la natura e la composizione del vino, compendiato in un “detto” a lui attribuito (“il vino è un composto di umore e di luce”), costituì la base delle indagini approfondite dalla generazione successiva di uomini di scienza che dal maestro appresero come affrontare lo studio della fisica del vino in termini meccanicistici e corpuscolaristici. Lorenzo Magalotti, Francesco Redi e Giuseppe Del Papa reinterpretano e sviluppano il tema come riflessione e approfondimento sulla struttura particellare della materia, sulla natura corporea della luce e sugli innumerevoli quesiti che restavano aperti allo studio degli apparati e delle funzioni organiche dei corpi e sulle buone pratiche dietetiche e terapeutiche.