Abstract This essay deals with two seventeenth-century intellectuals, the Aristotelian philosopher at Padua, Cesare Cremonini, and the Jesuit controversist, Robert Bellarmine. In the years of the cosmological affair of 1616, both defended their cosmological conceptions by relying on the principle of authority. However, they embraced different sources of legitimation in matters of natural philosophy. While the Padua professor stick to (what he considered to be) the letter of Aristotle, basically a secular interpretation of his world conception, Cardinal and Inquisitor Bellarmine understood the cosmos against a theological background. In particular, Bellarmine subordinated natural philosophy to exegesis and the authority of the Scriptures, and this allowed him to depart from Aristotle to some extent (for instance on the fluidity and possibly the corruptibility of the heavens). Yet, the two thinkers also shared the criticism of the major astronomical novelty of their time, namely the planetary system of Copernicus and his followers. But their objections rested on different worldviews and authorities (Aristotle and the Scriptures, respectively). Cremonini also supported a vision of celestial animation which was received with much preoccupation by religious authorities as they feared that his views might revive forms of astral worshipping. This essay discusses the manner in which Cremonini and Bellarmine received geocentrism and cosmology in very different, even opposite, manners, especially concerning the relation between natural philosophy and theology, and the reconcilability of cosmology with the Scriptures.
{"title":"Resources of Intellectual Legitimacy in Italian Cosmological Affairs: Cremonini and Bellarmine’s Authority Conflict (c.1616)","authors":"P. Omodeo","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00563","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This essay deals with two seventeenth-century intellectuals, the Aristotelian philosopher at Padua, Cesare Cremonini, and the Jesuit controversist, Robert Bellarmine. In the years of the cosmological affair of 1616, both defended their cosmological conceptions by relying on the principle of authority. However, they embraced different sources of legitimation in matters of natural philosophy. While the Padua professor stick to (what he considered to be) the letter of Aristotle, basically a secular interpretation of his world conception, Cardinal and Inquisitor Bellarmine understood the cosmos against a theological background. In particular, Bellarmine subordinated natural philosophy to exegesis and the authority of the Scriptures, and this allowed him to depart from Aristotle to some extent (for instance on the fluidity and possibly the corruptibility of the heavens). Yet, the two thinkers also shared the criticism of the major astronomical novelty of their time, namely the planetary system of Copernicus and his followers. But their objections rested on different worldviews and authorities (Aristotle and the Scriptures, respectively). Cremonini also supported a vision of celestial animation which was received with much preoccupation by religious authorities as they feared that his views might revive forms of astral worshipping. This essay discusses the manner in which Cremonini and Bellarmine received geocentrism and cosmology in very different, even opposite, manners, especially concerning the relation between natural philosophy and theology, and the reconcilability of cosmology with the Scriptures.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"89 1","pages":"874-902"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91168761","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This contribution explores Gilles Personne de Roberval’s 1644 Aristarchi Samii de mundi systemate, partibus, & motibus eiusdem, libellus. I focus on the complex circumstances of publication, the intellectual context of the polemics of Copernicanism within the scientific community, as well as the natural philosophy of the treatise. Roberval’s strategy of publication provides a very sophisticated example of authorship in early modern natural philosophy. The strategy lies at the conflux of certain specific motivations. I contextualize these motivations by accounting for the delicate debates around the motion of the Earth in mid-seventeenth century Europe, the institutional communities of the Collège Royal and Mersenne’s circle, and the disciplinary bounds of Roberval’s professional authority. Weighing in all the elements, I argue that Roberval’s publication is an interesting intellectual game, playing with the notion of ancient authority and humanistic recovery. By this somewhat libertine attitude, Roberval takes a stance in a complicated debate around heliocentrism and the status of hypothetical cosmology. Roberval’s position is supported by his natural philosophical speculations, which I situate in the contemporary debates of the community. Roberval borrows from many philosophers, but he aims at achieving a highly systematic speculative cosmology. One of the functions of this system is to confirm Copernicanism, while maintaining a very pessimistic attitude on the prospects of precise astronomical knowledge and, among others, prognostication issues.
摘要本文探讨了Gilles Personne de Roberval的1644 Aristarchi Samii de mundi systemate, partibus， & motibus eiusdem, libellus。我关注出版的复杂环境，科学界哥白尼主义论战的知识背景，以及论文的自然哲学。罗伯瓦尔的出版策略为早期现代自然哲学的作者身份提供了一个非常复杂的例子。策略在于某些特定动机的融合。我将这些动机置于17世纪中期欧洲围绕地球运动的微妙辩论、皇家学院和梅森学院圈子的机构团体以及罗伯瓦尔专业权威的学科界限的背景中。权衡所有的因素，我认为罗伯瓦尔的出版是一个有趣的智力游戏，玩弄古代权威和人文复兴的概念。通过这种有点放荡的态度，罗伯瓦尔在围绕日心说和假设宇宙学地位的复杂辩论中表明了自己的立场。罗伯瓦尔的立场得到了他的自然哲学思考的支持，我将其置于当代社会的辩论中。罗伯瓦尔借鉴了许多哲学家的思想，但他的目标是实现一个高度系统的思辨宇宙论。这个系统的功能之一是证实哥白尼主义，同时对精确的天文知识的前景以及其他预言问题保持非常悲观的态度。
{"title":"Playing with the Ancients: The Cosmology of Gilles Personne de Roberval","authors":"Ovidiu Babeș","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00565","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00565","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This contribution explores Gilles Personne de Roberval’s 1644 Aristarchi Samii de mundi systemate, partibus, & motibus eiusdem, libellus. I focus on the complex circumstances of publication, the intellectual context of the polemics of Copernicanism within the scientific community, as well as the natural philosophy of the treatise. Roberval’s strategy of publication provides a very sophisticated example of authorship in early modern natural philosophy. The strategy lies at the conflux of certain specific motivations. I contextualize these motivations by accounting for the delicate debates around the motion of the Earth in mid-seventeenth century Europe, the institutional communities of the Collège Royal and Mersenne’s circle, and the disciplinary bounds of Roberval’s professional authority. Weighing in all the elements, I argue that Roberval’s publication is an interesting intellectual game, playing with the notion of ancient authority and humanistic recovery. By this somewhat libertine attitude, Roberval takes a stance in a complicated debate around heliocentrism and the status of hypothetical cosmology. Roberval’s position is supported by his natural philosophical speculations, which I situate in the contemporary debates of the community. Roberval borrows from many philosophers, but he aims at achieving a highly systematic speculative cosmology. One of the functions of this system is to confirm Copernicanism, while maintaining a very pessimistic attitude on the prospects of precise astronomical knowledge and, among others, prognostication issues.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"30 1","pages":"950-981"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85933734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract One of the most important components of early modern science was the experiment. Advocates of the “new sciences” used experiments as indisputable evidence in controversies with their opponents and as powerful arguments against authoritative texts. Among the first early modern scientific works to systematically and successfully use experiments as parts of the central argumentation is William Gilbert’s treatise De magnete (1600), in which the author sought to present a completely new theory of magnetism as an explanation of phenomena on earth as well as of the movements of heavenly bodies. Gilbert goes to great lengths to persuade his readers of the innovation of his nova et inaudita physiologia. For this, however, it did not suffice to present a startling number of experiments and advocate empirical investigation. This contribution will shed light on the surprising literary and rhetorical tools employed in the De magnete in questions of authority, which aided Gilbert in presenting his powerful and highly successful “New Physiology.”
{"title":"“Trust No One But Yourself”: William Gilbert’s Use of Experiment and Rejection of Authority, Reconsidered","authors":"J. Luggin","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00564","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00564","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract One of the most important components of early modern science was the experiment. Advocates of the “new sciences” used experiments as indisputable evidence in controversies with their opponents and as powerful arguments against authoritative texts. Among the first early modern scientific works to systematically and successfully use experiments as parts of the central argumentation is William Gilbert’s treatise De magnete (1600), in which the author sought to present a completely new theory of magnetism as an explanation of phenomena on earth as well as of the movements of heavenly bodies. Gilbert goes to great lengths to persuade his readers of the innovation of his nova et inaudita physiologia. For this, however, it did not suffice to present a startling number of experiments and advocate empirical investigation. This contribution will shed light on the surprising literary and rhetorical tools employed in the De magnete in questions of authority, which aided Gilbert in presenting his powerful and highly successful “New Physiology.”","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"76 1","pages":"925-949"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86707970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Starting from the examination of a passage of the Dialogo sopra i massimi sistemi del mondo that has been largely ignored by the scholarship, in this paper I want to reveal the true nature of Galileo’s epistemology in terms of its epistemic ideal, that is that theory is capable of providing true and certain knowledge about natural phenomena coming from sensation. The investigation examines all the occurrences of the expression sensate esperienze in its singular and plural forms, both in the Latin and in the vernacular. The research proceeds diachronically through an analysis of Galileo’s writings taken in order to show the progressive development of his epistemology. The paper will demonstrate how in thinking about sensate experiences Galileo had in mind as epistemic paradigm that of the epistemology of anatomy.
{"title":"Galileo and the Epistemology of Anatomy","authors":"Marco Sgarbi","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00568","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00568","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Starting from the examination of a passage of the Dialogo sopra i massimi sistemi del mondo that has been largely ignored by the scholarship, in this paper I want to reveal the true nature of Galileo’s epistemology in terms of its epistemic ideal, that is that theory is capable of providing true and certain knowledge about natural phenomena coming from sensation. The investigation examines all the occurrences of the expression sensate esperienze in its singular and plural forms, both in the Latin and in the vernacular. The research proceeds diachronically through an analysis of Galileo’s writings taken in order to show the progressive development of his epistemology. The paper will demonstrate how in thinking about sensate experiences Galileo had in mind as epistemic paradigm that of the epistemology of anatomy.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"28 1","pages":"903-923"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81666858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract When Johannes Hevelius’ Selenographia, sive Lunae descriptio (Selenography, or A Description of The Moon) was printed in 1647, its rich paratext featured a portrait epigram and a collection of nine Neo-Latin poems praising the first book of the Danzig (Gdańsk) astronomer. The present article examines these ten poems as a place where Hevelius’ authority as an author and astronomer is being constructed, focusing on the fictionalized and fictional relationships between Hevelius and other authorities depicted in the text. In a sort of kaleidoscope, the poems relate Hevelius to prominent astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus, to Columbus, the paragon of the discoverer, to figures from ancient myth, and even, in the form of anagrams, to his own name. Moreover, they highlight Hevelius’ personal qualities as an astronomer, as a member of the realm of literature, and as a citizen of Danzig. The image of the author that emerges from the poems asserts Hevelius’ place in the public space of literature and fashions him into an authoritative figure at the threshold of his text.
1647年，约翰内斯·赫维利乌斯(Johannes Hevelius)的《月球描述》(Selenography, sive Lunae descriptio)出版时，其丰富的副正文包括一幅肖像格言和九首新拉丁语诗集，赞美但泽天文学家(Gdańsk)的第一本书。这篇文章将这十首诗作为赫维留斯作为作家和天文学家的权威被构建的地方，重点放在赫维留斯和文本中描述的其他权威之间的虚构和虚构的关系上。像万花筒一样，这些诗把赫韦利乌斯和伽利略、哥白尼等著名天文学家联系起来，把他和发现者的典范哥伦布联系起来，把他和古代神话中的人物联系起来，甚至以字谜的形式把他的名字联系起来。此外，他们还突出了赫维留作为一名天文学家、文学领域的一员和但泽公民的个人品质。从诗歌中浮现出来的作者形象确立了赫维留斯在文学公共空间中的地位，并在他的文本开始时将他塑造成一个权威人物。
{"title":"Constructing Authority in the Paratext: The Poems to Johannes Hevelius’ Selenographia","authors":"Irina Tautschnig","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00569","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00569","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract When Johannes Hevelius’ Selenographia, sive Lunae descriptio (Selenography, or A Description of The Moon) was printed in 1647, its rich paratext featured a portrait epigram and a collection of nine Neo-Latin poems praising the first book of the Danzig (Gdańsk) astronomer. The present article examines these ten poems as a place where Hevelius’ authority as an author and astronomer is being constructed, focusing on the fictionalized and fictional relationships between Hevelius and other authorities depicted in the text. In a sort of kaleidoscope, the poems relate Hevelius to prominent astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus, to Columbus, the paragon of the discoverer, to figures from ancient myth, and even, in the form of anagrams, to his own name. Moreover, they highlight Hevelius’ personal qualities as an astronomer, as a member of the realm of literature, and as a citizen of Danzig. The image of the author that emerges from the poems asserts Hevelius’ place in the public space of literature and fashions him into an authoritative figure at the threshold of his text.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"165 1","pages":"1005-1041"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80399759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article seeks to revise the common scholarly assumption that in early modern Europe there was no single word for the study of the universe as a whole until the word “cosmology” appeared in Christian Wolff’s Cosmologia generalis methodo scientifica pertractata (1731). In fact, the term “cosmology” had circulated in both Latin and European languages since at least the 1530s in the context of critical appraisals of the largely dominant Aristotelian and scholastic frameworks. The aim of this study is to unearth the earliest attempts to define cosmology as a philosophical discipline and, thereby, to highlight the lasting authority of traditional disciplinary boundaries.
本文试图修正一种普遍的学术假设，即在近代早期的欧洲，直到“宇宙学”这个词出现在克里斯蒂安·沃尔夫的《宇宙一般方法》(Cosmologia generalis methodo scientiica pertractata, 1731)中，才有一个单独的词来研究整个宇宙。事实上，"宇宙学"这个词至少从1530年代起就在拉丁语和欧洲语言中流传了在对占主导地位的亚里士多德和学术框架的批判性评价中。这项研究的目的是发掘将宇宙学定义为一门哲学学科的最早尝试，从而突出传统学科边界的持久权威。
{"title":"Defining “Cosmology” in the Early Modern System of Knowledge, 1530–1621","authors":"Dario Tessicini","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00561","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00561","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article seeks to revise the common scholarly assumption that in early modern Europe there was no single word for the study of the universe as a whole until the word “cosmology” appeared in Christian Wolff’s Cosmologia generalis methodo scientifica pertractata (1731). In fact, the term “cosmology” had circulated in both Latin and European languages since at least the 1530s in the context of critical appraisals of the largely dominant Aristotelian and scholastic frameworks. The aim of this study is to unearth the earliest attempts to define cosmology as a philosophical discipline and, thereby, to highlight the lasting authority of traditional disciplinary boundaries.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"21 1","pages":"826-850"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75212929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract:This article seeks to revise the common scholarly assumption that in early modern Europe there was no single word for the study of the universe as a whole until the word “cosmology” appeared in Christian Wolff ’s Cosmologia generalis methodo scientifica pertractata (1731). In fact, the term “cosmology” had circulated in both Latin and European languages since at least the 1530s in the context of critical appraisals of the largely dominant Aristotelian and scholastic frameworks. The aim of this study is to unearth the earliest attempts to define cosmology as a philosophical discipline and, thereby, to highlight the lasting authority of traditional disciplinary boundaries.
摘要:本文试图修正一个普遍的学术假设，即在近代早期的欧洲，直到“宇宙学”一词出现在克里斯蒂安·沃尔夫(Christian Wolff)的《Cosmologia generalis methodo scientiica pertractata》(1731)中，才有一个单独的词来研究整个宇宙。事实上，"宇宙学"这个词至少从1530年代起就在拉丁语和欧洲语言中流传了在对占主导地位的亚里士多德和学术框架的批判性评价中。这项研究的目的是发掘将宇宙学定义为一门哲学学科的最早尝试，从而突出传统学科边界的持久权威。
{"title":"Introduction: Quis dixit? The Vicissitudes of Authority in Early Modern Cosmology","authors":"O. Akopyan, P. Omodeo","doi":"10.1162/posc_e_00560","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_e_00560","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article seeks to revise the common scholarly assumption that in early modern Europe there was no single word for the study of the universe as a whole until the word “cosmology” appeared in Christian Wolff ’s Cosmologia generalis methodo scientifica pertractata (1731). In fact, the term “cosmology” had circulated in both Latin and European languages since at least the 1530s in the context of critical appraisals of the largely dominant Aristotelian and scholastic frameworks. The aim of this study is to unearth the earliest attempts to define cosmology as a philosophical discipline and, thereby, to highlight the lasting authority of traditional disciplinary boundaries.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"1 1","pages":"819-825"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89671100","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The causes of tidal motions were widely debated from antiquity up to the eighteenth century. These discussions got a second wind in the early modern period, in the wake of a growing number of cosmological alternatives that challenged the dominant Aristotelian-Ptolemaic stance. The 1687 publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica was a defining moment in the discussions and consequently made universal gravitation the most credible and generally accepted explanation. This paper investigates the aftermath of Newton’s discovery and demonstrates how his understanding of tidal motion crowded out competing theories within a broader European context. My main point of reference is Roger Boscovich’s De aestu maris (1747). In his work, the leading Jesuit scholar of the time contrasted Newton’s interpretation to those of other major authorities, namely Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and René Descartes, and went on to claim the superiority of the British scientist’s achievements over anything written prior to the Principia. As this essay argues, alongside a significant body of literature produced under the umbrella of the Jesuit order, Boscovich’s De aestu maris subsequently contributed to the formation of the popular image of Newton as a “scientific hero.”
{"title":"Discussing Tides Before and After Newton: Roger Joseph Boscovich’s De aestu maris","authors":"O. Akopyan","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00567","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00567","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The causes of tidal motions were widely debated from antiquity up to the eighteenth century. These discussions got a second wind in the early modern period, in the wake of a growing number of cosmological alternatives that challenged the dominant Aristotelian-Ptolemaic stance. The 1687 publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica was a defining moment in the discussions and consequently made universal gravitation the most credible and generally accepted explanation. This paper investigates the aftermath of Newton’s discovery and demonstrates how his understanding of tidal motion crowded out competing theories within a broader European context. My main point of reference is Roger Boscovich’s De aestu maris (1747). In his work, the leading Jesuit scholar of the time contrasted Newton’s interpretation to those of other major authorities, namely Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and René Descartes, and went on to claim the superiority of the British scientist’s achievements over anything written prior to the Principia. As this essay argues, alongside a significant body of literature produced under the umbrella of the Jesuit order, Boscovich’s De aestu maris subsequently contributed to the formation of the popular image of Newton as a “scientific hero.”","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"1042-1064"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85597790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract As one of the least common, yet predictable astronomical occurrences, the transits of Venus were to become among the most keenly anticipated events for early modern cosmologists. Basing himself on Johannes Kepler’s Tabulae Rudolphinae (1627), former Cambridge student Jeremiah Horrocks (1616–1641) made the first recorded observation of a transit from Much Hoole, Lancashire in 1639. Alongside the description of his observations, Horrocks’ Venus in sole visa contains four poems alongside the work’s prose descriptions, figures, and tables. His verses call on the long tradition of Latin scientific poetry employed for the predictable purposes of eulogy and homage, but they also serve to justify and clarify the author’s position on scientific issues of his time. Despite the long-recognized importance of Horrocks’ observations, his hexameter compositions have been largely ignored in later scholarship. In the latest translation of the Venus in sole visa (2012), one poem—the longest and arguably the best—is omitted altogether. This paper offers a study of Horrocks’ Latin poetry, his models and engagement with its subject matter. It reveals Horrocks’ efforts to promote his predecessors’ achievements, his position on questions central to the debates of his time, and the claims for authority he made for the work of others, as well as for his own. The present article also includes a new, modern translation of Horrocks’ longest, and recently forgotten poem as an appendix.
{"title":"The Poetry of Jeremiah Horrocks’s Venus in sole visa (1662): Astronomy, Authority, and the ‘New Science’","authors":"William M. Barton","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00566","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00566","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As one of the least common, yet predictable astronomical occurrences, the transits of Venus were to become among the most keenly anticipated events for early modern cosmologists. Basing himself on Johannes Kepler’s Tabulae Rudolphinae (1627), former Cambridge student Jeremiah Horrocks (1616–1641) made the first recorded observation of a transit from Much Hoole, Lancashire in 1639. Alongside the description of his observations, Horrocks’ Venus in sole visa contains four poems alongside the work’s prose descriptions, figures, and tables. His verses call on the long tradition of Latin scientific poetry employed for the predictable purposes of eulogy and homage, but they also serve to justify and clarify the author’s position on scientific issues of his time. Despite the long-recognized importance of Horrocks’ observations, his hexameter compositions have been largely ignored in later scholarship. In the latest translation of the Venus in sole visa (2012), one poem—the longest and arguably the best—is omitted altogether. This paper offers a study of Horrocks’ Latin poetry, his models and engagement with its subject matter. It reveals Horrocks’ efforts to promote his predecessors’ achievements, his position on questions central to the debates of his time, and the claims for authority he made for the work of others, as well as for his own. The present article also includes a new, modern translation of Horrocks’ longest, and recently forgotten poem as an appendix.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"18 1","pages":"982-1004"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75506903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The Jesuit C.F. Milliet Dechales (1621–1678), author of one of the most famous early modern mathematical encyclopedias, Cursus seu mundus mathematicus (1674), wrote a hundred-folio-page long treatise devoted to the “progress of mathematics,” which was published in the second, enlarged edition of his encyclopedia (1690). His historical treatise covers the gamut of mixed mathematics—including astronomy, mechanics, optics, music, geography and navigation, ars tignaria (art of timber-framing), and architecture. The early modern historical narratives about the mathematical sciences, from Regiomontanus’s Oratio (1464) onwards, have been aptly characterized by their literary form and goals rather than their historical content. Rhetoric, humanistic topoi, and philosophical filiation turned the histories of mathematics into powerful tools for different purposes. My account of Dechales’ tract on the “progress of mathematics” analyzes the ways in which it dovetails with Jesuit approaches to mathematics, provides legitimation to the mathematical sciences as well as to their authors, and contributes to define the role and boundaries of the discipline, in particular vis-à-vis natural philosophy.
耶稣会士m . m . m . Dechales(1621-1678)是早期最著名的现代数学百科全书之一《数学世界》(Cursus seu mundus mathematicus, 1674)的作者，他写了一篇长达100页的论文，专门讨论“数学的进展”，这篇论文在他的百科全书(1690)的第二版中出版。他的历史著作涵盖了混合数学的各个领域——包括天文学、力学、光学、音乐、地理和航海、木结构艺术和建筑。近代早期关于数学科学的历史叙述，从Regiomontanus的《Oratio》(1464)开始，以其文学形式和目的而不是其历史内容为特征。修辞学、人文话题和哲学渊源将数学史变成了用于不同目的的有力工具。我对Dechales关于“数学进步”的小册子的描述分析了它与耶稣会的数学方法相吻合的方式，为数学科学及其作者提供了合法性，并有助于定义学科的角色和边界，特别是-à-vis自然哲学。
{"title":"Milliet Dechales as Historian of Mathematics","authors":"A. Malet","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00423","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00423","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Jesuit C.F. Milliet Dechales (1621–1678), author of one of the most famous early modern mathematical encyclopedias, Cursus seu mundus mathematicus (1674), wrote a hundred-folio-page long treatise devoted to the “progress of mathematics,” which was published in the second, enlarged edition of his encyclopedia (1690). His historical treatise covers the gamut of mixed mathematics—including astronomy, mechanics, optics, music, geography and navigation, ars tignaria (art of timber-framing), and architecture. The early modern historical narratives about the mathematical sciences, from Regiomontanus’s Oratio (1464) onwards, have been aptly characterized by their literary form and goals rather than their historical content. Rhetoric, humanistic topoi, and philosophical filiation turned the histories of mathematics into powerful tools for different purposes. My account of Dechales’ tract on the “progress of mathematics” analyzes the ways in which it dovetails with Jesuit approaches to mathematics, provides legitimation to the mathematical sciences as well as to their authors, and contributes to define the role and boundaries of the discipline, in particular vis-à-vis natural philosophy.","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"20 1","pages":"463-492"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81857932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：