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 is among Galileo’s most frequently named correspondents. His case revolves around the well-known treatise he wrote to defend the Copernican system, the Letter concerning the opinion of the Pythagoreans and Copernicus about the mobility of the earth and the stability of the sun and the new Pythagorean system of the world, published in January 1615 and listed in the Roman Index only a year later. It was this book that tipped the scales of Roman censorship towards a condemnation of heliocentrism; moreover, the remarks written to the author by Cardinal Bellarmine on receiving the book, insisting that heliocentrism may be considered and treated as a hypothesis but not a fact, anticipated the official attitude of the Catholic Church towards the new astronomy until the early 19th century. Analyzing two further writings by the same author, this paper shows that Foscarini’s Letter must not be considered, as it has generally been, as an extemporaneous and ingenuous proposal, but rather as part of a wider, systematic project of renewing theology and natural philosophy, that has to be read within the dynamic context of the Italian scientific culture in the years that preceded the condemnation of Copernicus.

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.

Light, humor and atoms: The physics of wine after Galilei

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

Galileo’s interest in the nature and composition of wine, summarised in the saying “wine is a compound of humour and light” that is often ascribed to him, provided the basis for the research of the subsequent generation of scientists. These scientists had learned from their master how to approach the physics of wine in mechanistic and corpuscularian terms. Lorenzo Magalotti, Francesco Redi and Giuseppe Del Papa further developed this theme through a reflection and detailed analysis of the particulate structure of matter, the corporeal nature of light and the innumerable unsolved questions concerning the study of the apparati and organic functions of bodies, as well as good dietetic and therapeutic practices.