O R G A N O N 4(1967) L’ANTIQUITÉ CLASSIQUE ET LES DÉBUTS
DE LA SCIENCE MODERNE
Maria Luisa Righini Bonelli (Italy)
THE REVIVAL OF ANCIENT SCIENCE IN FLORENCE
Those who have been able to trace the influence of the special talents of the Tuscans in general, and of the Florentines in particular, on their artistic, litera ry and political accom plishm ents will have noticed that, first, the same individual and personal characteristics also m ark the stru ctu re of the Scientific Revolution; and that, second, the source from which they spring is to be found in th e same Hellenic artistic and scientific heritage brought to Italy from the N ear and F ar East by those roads which carried the conquests of the G reek genius.
Tradition has it th a t Thales of M iletus (600 B. C.) sailed to Egypt in his youth for reasons of trade and acquired the first notions of geom etry and astronom y from th a t beautiful and advanced civilization. R eturning to his native land w ith this trea su re of ideas he established the foundations of a philosophical and scientific doctrine w hich im m ortalized his nam e and th at of his successors (Mamercus, A naxim ander, Anaximenes) w ith the school of physicism, called the Ionic school.
If we skip eighteen centuries we find a parallel to the G reek explorer in the Pisan m erchant, Leonardo Fibonacci, who, because of his long commercial voyages to Greece, Syria and Egypt, acquired the nicknam e “bigollo”, or “bighellone”. The struggles betw een the Papacy and the Em pire engaged by Pope Gregory VII (1013— 1085), prom oted communal freedom and lent a new splendor to Italian civilization. In particular, they enhanced the glory of the m aritim e cities, Amalfi, Genoa, Pisa, which precended th a t of the F lorentine Renaissance and established commercial houses in the East. A nother link was established between the Hellenic civilization, handed down to us in the w ritings of the A rab world, and th a t of Europe. The crusades nourished this new source. One would say th a t scientific progress, dam m ed up by a dyke, stagnated w ithout benefiting the arid regions: once th e dam was broken the beneficial flow ran in m any stream s to quench the
70 M. L. R ig h in i Bonelli
th irsty land, and Leonardo Fibonacci was one of these stream s. Not only Italy b ut also all Europe could quench its th irst in this new fountain.
Fibonacci (1202— 1228) w rote a book on the Abbacus, and a Pratica Geometrica (1225); he dedicated the Liber Q uadraturarum to F re derick II H ohenstaufen. He was the first popularizer of Indian and A rab works; for example, the theorem for calculating the area of a triangle given the three sides m ust be attrib u ted to th e Indians. From the la tte r Leonardo deduced a system of decimal notation, introducing the num ber zero which takes its value from its position; this represents a great step forw ard in w ritten notation. In algebra he solved second-degree equations and in num ber theory shown how to extract the cube root of a rational number.
The th irteen th century is w ithout doubt a century of great aw akening in every form of intellectual and artistic endeavour; and one can say th a t the glory is established by th a t m anuscript of hum an doctrine — the D ivine Comedy. If D ante (1265— 1321) had been nothing b u t a poet, the historian of science could b u t adm ire him from afar. He was, however, the most universal man, th e most profound scientist, and the most acute observer of his time. In the Divine Comedy, which can also be considered an artistic digest, an encyclopedia, one can find observations th a t m ight be vainly searched for in other works (cf. Guglielmo Libri, Histoire des sciences m athém atiques en Italie). His incisive rem arks on meteorological phenom ena are very famous, e. g.:
Ben sai come nell’aere si raccoglie quell’um ido vapor che in acqua riede, tosto che sale dove’l freddo il coglie. 1
(Purg. v. 109—111)
A lthough the discovery of the form ation of vapor by adiabatic expansion cannot, according to m odem theories, be attrib u ted to Dante, the te rc et is certainly the live poetic expression of the real natu re of the phenomenon. The scientific doctrines of the Stagirite, of which D ante can be called a follower, shaped the Florentine mind w ith their em piric realism. Three centuries la ter another Florentine, Galileo (who, w ith his aversion to th e peripatetics dom inant in teaching, w as often to assume an antagonistic attitu d e to Aristotle), possessed the very same spirit of observation, realistic m entality and adm iration for n atural phenom ena.
In the Divine Comedy, as well as in the Convivium , D ante shows a profound and exact knowledge of the astronom y of his times. Indeed
1 “You know w ell h ow aequeous vapor gathers in the air and turns again to w ater w hen it rises w here the cold draws it.”
R e vival o f Ancient Science in Florence 71
we can say that, w ith the exception of an erro r made, perhaps, through no fau lt of his own, w hen he alludes to Venus;
Lo bel pianeta che d’amar conforta faceva tu tto rider Voriente
velando, Pesci, ch’erano in sua scorta.,2
(P u rg. i. 19—21)
the en tire Ptolem aic astronom ical and cosmogonical fabric fit into the m oral and theological context of the vision of life in the o ther world. I t can be asserted that, considering the n atu re of th e poet, in his search for precision and in th e blending of an ethical and aesthetic harm ony w ith cosmogonical lens, Dante had m ade observations as a philosopher, singling out and p enetrating topics th a t w ere precisely defined only by th e modern and advanced scientists. He described the sleep of plants (Inf. iii. 127), recognized the cryptographic p lan ts (Purg. xxviii. 115— 118), and the action of sunshine on the m aturation of fru it (Purg. xxv. 77— 78); he observed th e flight of birds and the tw inkling of stars; he perform ed and recom mended experim ent and used it in comparisons:
D ilettossi di musica e di suoni
e di sua mano egregiamente disegnava.3 (Purg. xv. 16)
A fter Fibonacci, who m ust be considered th e greatest m edieval geom etrician, comes th e Dominican Leonardo da Pistoia (1208). P erhaps the G erman, Giordano the Nemovarius, should also be listed among the Dominicans, as he was the most accomplished w rite r on m athem atics and statistics. He deserves p articu lar em phasis because, besides Biagio Pelacani, he was the m ain source of studies on mechanics to w hich Leonardo da Vinci la te r turned, w hereas for studies on optics and perspective he used the work of the A rab Alhazen (eleventh century).
The use of spectacles dates back to th e end of th e th irteen th and the beginning of the fo urteenth centuries. The Pisan, A lessandro Spina contributed to its popularization in Tuscany. M edicine in Florence found a highly esteemed professional in th e Hippocratic tradition in Taddeo degli A lderotti (1223— 1270), m entioned by D ante (Par. xii. 83). He dedicated to Corso Donati his Della conservazione della salute, one of the first tex ts w ritten in the vernacular. It seems th a t he m ade quite a p ro fit in practicing his profession, such th a t he had a reputation of stinginess. He did in fact die rich, b u t left much to charity.
In those first centuries of the scientific renascence, Italian medicine became famous, following the S alernitan School and the contributions
2 “The beautiful planet that induces love m ade all the East glow, eclipsing Pisces, w ho w ere in her escort.”
72 M. L. R ig h in i B onelli
of Ruggero di Salerno, Rolando da P arm a (1240), Guglielmo da Saliceto, and L anfranco da M ilano (d. 1306). The study of chem istry, anatom y and botany was added to th a t of medicine.
An important, place in astronom y belongs to the Genoese explorer Andalo di Negro (1260— 1340), who held th e chair in Florence, succeed ing Cecco dA scoli. About 1330 he w as the teacher of Boccaccio, who boasted of long trips and an astronom ical culture. It seems relevant to m ention a m anuscript of Andalo, not an autograph b u t in a much more recent hand (early sixteenth century), consisting of a copy of the Teorica dei pianeti secondo Andalo. I t is preceded by a very detailed desciption of the famous astronom ical clock, or better, planetarium of Lorenzo della Volpaia, mentioned briefly by Poliziano in a letter to the Sienese Francesco della Casa. The m anuscript appears to be w ritten by one of Lorenzo’s sons.
The com bination of the tw o w ritings so fa r ap art in time, the Teorica of Andalo and the clock of della Volpaia, would confirm the conjecture that, at the tim e of the form er, a private study of astronom y had al ready begun in Florence, leading to the rise of an artisan class, capable and learned in the construction of m athem atical instrum ents. The della Volpaia fam ily (Lorenzo, Benvenuto, Eufrosio, Cammillo, Girolamo) was the first and leading exponent of this class. W ith th e ir accurate w ork manship they created instrum ents found today in m any European m use ums. In ours there are well preserved arm illaries, quadrants, solar and nocturnal clocks.
The most illustrious m athem atician after Fibonacci was the F loren tine, Paolo Dogamari (1281— 1365) buried in S. T rinita w here his tomb is irrecoverable today. The Regoluzze is his most im portant work. He also w rote a treatise on arithm etic and algebra, one on astrology and the Operatio Cilindri. This work deals w ith a cylindrical instrum ent which could be used to find the age of th e moon, the hour and angular height of the sun and moon or the height of a terrestrial object. He le ft the Tabulae planetarum ad annum 1366 and a treatise on the Q uantita chontinue.
If the Florentines w ere preceded by the m aritim e republics in the race to explore and acquire geographical inform ation, they, too, soon tu rned th eir attention to more rem ote regions to ensure goods for their industries which had gradually gained renown. Crusaders, missionaries, m erchants or persons eager for knowledge w en t abroad, particularly to the F ar East, from w here came num erous articles of trade known by the nam e “spices”. Thus we find Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, in the service of the B ardi Bank; he travelled in the L evant from 1315 to 1340 and, according to some sources, w ent as far as Peking. There follow Giovanni di M arignolli (1339—1353), Angiolino di Corbizzi (1341), Niccolo
R e vival of Ancient Science in Florence 73
da Poggibonsi (1345), Leonardo Frescobaldi (1384— 1385), Simone Sigoli (1384— 1385), Giorgio Gucci (1384— 1385) A ndrea Rinuccini (1384— 1385), Bartolomeo Fiorentino (1400— 1424), Cristoforo Buondelm onti (1415— 1440), Benedetto Dei (1462— 1477), who reached T im buktu in th e centre of Africa; Filippo Buonaccorsi (1470), Amerigo Vespucci (1480— 1503). W ith this last we have reached Colum bus’ era and w ill take this opportunity to m ention first a scientist in whose geographical and astro nomical knowledge we find inform ation th a t m ust have been draw n from reports sent by the F lorentine explorers m entioned above.
The Studio Fiorentino founded by decree in 1321 gave rise to another decree in 1364 w ith which the Em peror Charles IV declared it the im perial university. In 1368 th ere w ere seventeen professors and the curriculum included: theology, law, medicine, astrology, logic, and philo sophy. There ensued a period of decadence but, afte r 1417, another period of growth. The m athem atical sciences were paid less. Thus, Giovanni dell’ Abbaco received tw enty florins a year, w hile the physician Giro lamo di Giovanni da San M iniato received sixty, and the fam ous doctor, Ugo Benzi, six hundred.
In the fifteenth century the m athem atical sciences, astronom y, geo graphy, and cartography w ere enlightened by a man, who, perhaps because of his modesty, meek character and u p rig h t habits (in contrast to the corruption of the times) did not win recognition during his life time; nor could he reach a position to which his intrinsic m erits entitled him. Only much la ter his contributions w ere acknowledged thanks to the w ork of m odem historians, p articularly to the accurate researches of G ustavo Uzielli. This scientist, who w orked in the period ju s t p re ceding th at of Columbus and Vespucci, was Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, bom in Florence in 1397; he died 10 May 1487.
F irst he took courses at the Studio Fiorentino w here he studied m athem atics; then he passed to the Studio di Padova, a t th a t tim e of European renown, w here he made friends w ith Nicholas of Cusa (1405— 1464) and m any learned men. He studied m athem atics w ith Prosdocimo Beldomandi, the famous Padovan scientist. He retu rn ed to Florence in 1424 and made friends w ith Leon B attista A lberti and Filippo B runel leschi, who was his elder by 20 years.
It is not hazardous to guess th a t Toscanelli’s p articu lar knowledge of the exact sciences influenced the work of the famous architect, whose artistic genius was coupled w ith a special affinity for geometry. A t th a t time, B runelleschi (1377— 1446) was engaged in building the dome to decorate the cathedral, w hich serves as a symbolic m onum ent of the apex reached by F lorentine architecture.
One cannot say precisely w hether and how Toscanelli’s indirect teaching was useful in designing the v au lt of the dome, because the
74 M. L. R ig h in i B onelli
glory of this construction belongs entirely to Brunelleschi, and rightly so. N evertheless, as Ximenes observes: “it is very certain th a t the curve of our dome is such th a t it comes very n ear to the catenary curve, which is v ery suitable for dome constructions.” And Poleni adds: “so, with the stren gth of his architectonic genius and perhaps using m any observa tions taken from experience, Brunelleschi introduced the catenary curve to the gothic arch which tw o or th ree centuries after his death was to be found of m axim um resistance.” And the circular arch, the approxi m ate m axim um of the catenary, selected by Brunelleschi is a shining exam ple of the beneficial interaction of a rt and science, as was the curve of A m m annati in the destroyed P onte S. Trinità.
Howsoever the relations betw een Brunelleschi and Toscanelli deve loped, the result was th a t Toscanelli became a m em ber of the Commis sion appointed by the opera del Duoono and intervened often w ith good advice.
M eanwhile Toscanelli, using the reports of travellers retu rning from the F ar East, became more and more involved in geographical studies. He was also interested in th e description of those regions from w here spices came. He envisioned th e earth as Benheim did, availing him self of references sent to him by the explorer, Bartolomeo Fiorentino. These studies of cartographic docum ents brought him the reputation of the foremost autho rity on geography in all Europe. F ifteenth century cartography rests substantially on Ptolem aic geography (2nd cent. B.C.). Among the publications of th a t time we can m ention those of Francesco Berlinghieri (d. 1482) and fra Giocondo (1435— 1515). B ut a grave defect of this science w as the plotting of geographical co-ordinates. For la ti tudes, which involves m easuring the heights of th e pole on the horizon, astrolabes and quadrants w ere quite satisfactory: b u t for longitudes, which, as it is known, roughly followed th e days of navigation, they encountered errors which grew excessively w ith distances computed according to the parallels. Above all, the F a r Eastern regions w ere ex tra ordinarily long on maps, because of the difficulties in p lo tting the longi tudes w ith sufficient approxim ation, so th a t Toscanelli gave Kinsai (Hangchow) th e east longitude 223° instead of 121° 25', thus confusing the East China Sea w ith the w aters of the A tlantic in relation to the Gulf of Mexico; in other words, he elim inated alm ost all th e Pacific Ocean from navigation.
A lucky mistake! The illusion of opening a new and shorter route to the countries of the L evant by sailing w estw ard encouraged the completion of a crossing w hich has become legendary. Columbus, al though he never reached the territo ry he expected, but discovered others instead, was persuaded as long as he lived th a t he had indeed come upon th e lands which ju t out into w aters of the China Sea.
R e viv a l of Ancient Science in Florence
We shall not expatiate upon Colum bus’ fam ous accom plishm ents as they have no direct bearing on F lorentine history. Toscanelli, however, alm ost in the guise of a ‘godfather’ w as indirectly associated w ith this daring undertaking, for, w ith geography he w as able to show the pos sible success of an adventure w hich would otherw ise have m eant the
risk of a tragic failure.
As an astronom er, Toscanelli m ade observations of the comets of 1433, 1449—50, 1456 (Hailey), Janu ary, June, Ju ly and A ugust 1457, and 1472. Celoria (Raccolta Colombiana, vol. V, p a rt I) gives this judge m ent; “I t w ould be u n ju st to deny a degree of precision to Toscanelli’s observations, which is notew orthy for the tim e in w hich these observa tions w ere made. O bservations of comets p rio r to those of Toscanelli do n o t exist; and for th e ir num ber, for th e form in w hich th ey are described and for th e ir intrinsic precision, his are com parable to those discussed here.”
Toscanelli’s nam e was brought to light for the first tim e by Ignazio Danti, who recalled his great talent, p articu larly in astronom y, citing the large gnomon constructed in the dome of Santa M aria del Fiore. The fam ous astronom er Lalande, who saw it in 1765, called it the g reatest existing astronom ical m onum ent; it is still functioning tow ard the sum m er solstice.
W ith th e nam e of the great Genoese explorer one m ust associate th a t of the Florentine, Amerigo Vespucci, w ho w as perhaps th e first to solve the problem of the existence of a new w orld quite a p a rt from th a t of the East Indies.
Vespucci, as an explorer of Colum bus’ period, identified most of the coasts of the New World. More intelligent and cu ltu red th an Columbus, he reaped b etter fruits, b u t he was not very am bitious and did not enjoy the glory th a t Columbus did in his lifetim e. He did n ot even attain th e honors, riches, high offices, or the m isfortunes th a t th e other did. F urtherm ore, th e scarcity of documents, in addition to erro rs and contradictions found in those w hich have come down to our days, makes it really difficult to exam ine his w ork thoroughly and critically. The prejudiced hostility of m any historians has alm ost hidden his m erits, showing him as a u su rp er of Colum bus’ glory (e.g. Magnani).
B u t if one m u st credit th e daring Colum bus w ith having found a new route to new discoveries, the second place in th e Columbian period undoubtedly goes to th e Florentine, w ho because of m any in trinsic m erits, excelled Columbus. Vespucci was m ore m odest and less ostentatious th an Columbus and did not boast of his w orth to kings and princes to obtain great riches as the rew ard of conquest. If he did get an office of the first order it was alw ays a w ork of adm inistrative or technical n atu re due to him for his skill. Columbus was a great
76 M. L. R ig h in i B o n elli
adm iral and viceroy of th e conquered territo ries and received 10% of all the treasures unearthed in the new lands. U nfortunately, Columbus had also to experience the evil w ays of the jealous and th e ungrateful, who profited by his great mistakes, and afte r having tasted the greatest heights of glory he lived his last years alm ost forgotten. One scarcely knows w here he died but history has erected a lasting m onum ent to him and his fame shall endure for centuries.
Now we m ust m ention th a t the question of Vespucci traces its origins to Saint Die, a little village of the Vosges w here, at th a t time, there resided a famous gym nasium and cartographers who, while very esteemed, contributed to the diffusion of errors and confusion. The peculiarity of th e case is th a t this little village, helped perhaps by the correspondence which Vespucci as cosmographer had to keep w ith the gymnasium, enjoys th e honor of having baptized America through M ar tino W aldseem üller (Ilacomilus), au th o r of Cosmographiae Introductio. In this work, which appeared in 1507 and im m ediately w ent through m any editions (now very rare), the w riter, afte r considering general principles, gives a description of Vespucci’s four voyages, probably based on a report given by th e Florentine himself. From these descriptions a m ap of the w orld was prepared, com plem enting th a t of Ptolem y and the ancient geographers and adding to the th ree known regions a fourth, which until then had been lacking.
A fter Vespucci the most famous 16th century Florentine explorers w ere G iovanni da Empoli (b. 1483, d. 1518) well know n as an ard ent sailor, soldier and m erchant who travelled far in India and Brazil; A ndrea Corsali (1515—26), famous for the circum navigation of Africa and an erudite observer of the n atu ral sciences, geography and astro nomy; G iovanni de Verrazzano (1523— 7) an explorer of the n orthern regions of America on behalf of K ing François I of France; and Filippo Sassetti (1540— 1588), who explored India and Brazil and wrote, in addition to a biography of Ferrucci, T he Commercial T reaty betw een Tuscany and the L eva n t (II ragionamento del Commercio fra i Toscani e i Levantini).
Toward the end of the fifteenth and during the sixteenth centuries, Italian science was enriched by the nam es of Fracastoro, Maurolico, Comandino, Benedetti, Francesco Galigai (who in 1521 dedicated the Sum m a A ritm etica to Cardinal Giulio dei Medici), Sfortunati, the Sie nese involved in the problem between T artaglia and Cardano; Caetano, the Sienese of th e Pratica delle m atematiche; Scipione Ferro, Antonio Fiore, F errari, Raffaele Bonibelli. All these men, only in p a rt Tuscan, as precursors of Galileo and his disciples, effectively contributed to the developm ent of m athem atics and the principles of dynamic mechanics;
R e viv a l of Ancient Science in Florence 77
Tartaglia and B enedetti are to be given th e first place among the scientists of the 16 th century.
We m ust not overlook the nam e of the Florentine historian Bene detto V archi (1502— 1565), a man of great learning and a tran slato r of Euclid. W riting against alchem ists in his Queslione dell’ Alchim ia (1544) he proves to be an excellent observer, and in attacking the au tho rity of A ristotle, he can claim to be among the precursors of th e G alilean philosophy: “A lthough it is always the habit of m odern philosophers to believe and never prove all th a t they find in good w riters, above all in A ristotle, this does not mean th a t it w ould not be both b etter and m ore interesting to do otherwise, and to tu rn to e x p e r i e n c e once in a w hile in certain cases, for example, in the m ovem ent of heavy objects, w here A ristotle and all th e other philosophers, not having once questioned it, have believed and affirm ed th a t the heavier an object the faster it falls—this has no t proved to be true. And if I w ere not afraid of straying too fa r from my proposed subject, I would digress fu rth e r to prove this notion which I share w ith others, p articu larly w ith the R everend P adre Francesco Beato, no less a learned philosopher than a good theologian, m etaphysician of Pisa; and Luca Ghini, who, besides being a physician and very rem arkable herbalist, appeared to know all the minerals, both theoretically and practically, w hen I heard him lecture publicly a t the Studio of Bologna.”
G hini taug h t Cesalpino, Aldovrandi, M attioli and A nguillara; it is believed th a t in 1544 he founded the first botanical garden to be used for teaching in Pisa.
Since mineralogy has been mentioned, one m ust recall a precursor of Stenone (1638— 1686) in th e person of the Sienese Vannoccio Birin- guccio (1480— 1539), who, a century and a half earlier, foresaw th e law (attributed to Stenone) of the constancy of angles, fundam ental to crystal morphology. Stenone, of Danish origin, settled in Florence w here he lived a long time as physician to the Gramd D uke F erdinand II. M any of his m anuscripts are now found in the Biblioteca Nazionale C entrale of Florence and in the Laurenziana library; his body lies in the basilica of San Lorenzo.
For the history of the calendar one cannot overlook Ignazio D anti (1537— 1586), a Dominican of an illustrious P erugian family, who lived and w orked mostly in Florence, w here he ta u g h t m athem atics and left outstanding works. Cosimo I entrusted to him the task of joining the A driatic and the Tyrrhenian. W ith his large m aps he became the cosmo- grapher of the court. On the façade of S anta M aria Novella, one can still adm ire his equinoctial arm illary and a tim e quadrant; nothing is known of a solstitial gnomon which he had planned to build in the church. We have also a large terrestrial globe of his bu t in terrib le
78 M. L. R ig h in i B o n elli
condition. In our m useum there is an in stru m en t of th e Prim um Mobile. The following of his publications should be m entioned: Le scienze m atem atiche ridotte a tavole, II Trattato dell’ Astrolabio and an edition of Vignola on perspective w ith abundant notes.
W ith D anti and the astronom er Antonio Magini we reach the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the G alilean era, b u t before th a t we m ust go back one step.
V asari in his life of P iero della Francesca (1410— 1492) begins thus: “P iero della Francesca of Borgo a San Sepolcro, w hile he was considered an unusual m aster of the difficulties of regular bodies, arithm etic and geometry, could no t publish his m any w ritings and other valuable works once blindness had overtaken him in his old age, a t the end of his life; these works are n ear preserval in his home a t Borgo. The man who should have done his utm ost to enhance P iero’s reputation and fame, since P iero tau g h t him all he knew, was cruel and malicious. He tried to erase the nam e of Piero, his teacher, and steal for himself th a t honor which belonged to Piero alone by publishing u n d er his own name, i.e. F ra Luca del Borgo (Luca Pacioli) (1440— 1510), all the efforts of th a t fine old man, who in addition to the above-m entioned sciences, was an, excellent p ain te r.”
If a sense of justice and respect for the p ro p erty of others, its m aterial goods or the fru its of talent, did not arouse such disgust for this encroachment, we could at least be grateful to Luca Pacioli’s plagiarism w hich did bring to light the work of his compatriot. The verification of Pacioli’s appropriation has been recently proved by M an- cini for w h at regards th e comparison of P iero’s De Corporibus Regdlari- bus and Pacioli’s Divina proportione. Pacioli, however, m orally censur able for plagiarism , was not ju st a v u lg ar thief; he does stand on his own m erits of his own contribution to the exact sciences. He lived in Florence du rin g some of his last years. His m ajor w orks are the Sum m a de A rithm etica, geometria proportioni et proportionalitä and the Divina proportione w here the draw ings of the regular bodies are said to have been etched by Leonardo da Vinci.
The m arriage of a rt and science, in one person, for professional reasons, is not infrequent; A lberti, D ürer, Cigoli, Vignola and m any others dem onstrate the usefulness, nay th e necessity for p ainters and architects to have a p a rticu la r affinity for th a t p a rt of geometric optics called perspective.
The early architects of gothic churches, faced w ith the necessity of intertw ining m any different mouldings, w ithout any idea of advanced geometry, had already been forced to solve em pirically th e very complex and difficult problem of constructing the curved intersection of cones, cylinders and other more complicated solids. A particular
R evival of Ancient Science in Florence 79
aptitude, train ed to perceive w ith the m ind’s eye the sim ultaneous effect of tw o interpenetrating solid bodies, is found in these precursors of m odern geometry. U fortunately, th e Middle Ages and the Renaissance cared little or nothing for th e diffusion of the m ethods and em pirical systems of all applied mechanics and handicraft. Hence, w ith rare exceptions, little is known of the links betw een theory and practice, between scientist and artisan, each one understood in its broadest meaning. One can say th a t Leonardo da Vinci’s m anuscripts are the most notew orthy, not only for w hat they contribute to the adm iration of the fecundity of his genius, b u t also for w h at they tell u s about the conditions of applied mechanics in his day. Only much later, afte r the spread of the printing press, did one think to publish books which m ight be regarded precursors of our rich technology.
A t th a t tim e Tuscany ssemed destined to show the whole w orld the genius of its people. Leonardo da Vinci, the m ost dazzling star, dimmed only by the glory of the G alilean period, is described thus by Vasari: “Leonardo (1457— 1519), son of Piero da Vinci, w as tru ly w onderful and divine. He would have made g reat progress in learning and literature, had he not been so v eratile and fickle. Hence he would set about to learn m any things, bu t once begun he w ould abandon them... Here, for example, in the arithm etic, in the few m onths th a t he attended, he had learned so much th a t he very often confused the teacher by continually bringing up doubts and questions. He studied a certain am ount of music, b u t im m ediately decided to learn to play the lute as one who n atu rally had a very lofty spirit and was very graceful: besides th a t he sang w onderfully, improvising. T hat Leonardo w as endowed by N ature w ith a genius vast and profound b u t quite frankly inconclusive and chaotic, has been acknowledged by th e most impassioned students of his w orks.” “Countless treatises,” w rites Favaro, „of which he speaks at tim es as if they w ere completed w orks w ere perhaps never drafted, and p u t in order... So it often happens th a t he quotes th e ordinal num ber of a proposition of a work which he had thought of b u t had never w ritten up in the form of an index.”
Given the tum ultuous disorder in da Vinci’s m anuscripts and the fact th a t n either during his lifetim e nor afterw ards could they be studied by contem poraries, it is logical to deduce th a t Leonardo’s w ork had no effect w hatsoever on the scientific renaissance w hich precedes the G alilean period. That his m anuscripts, drawings, and instrum ents, which had become the p ro perty of his student, Francesco Melzi, w ere scattered and underw ent many vicissitudes, is well known to- th e students of da Vinci’s work. Only Cellini speaks of Vinci’s treatise on perspective; in 1651 the Trattato della P ittura w as published in Paris, in a very arb itra ry arrangem ent. Not u n til 1797 w ith V enturi — Essai
8 0 M. L. R ig h in i Bonelli
sur les ouvrages de Leonard de Vinci — and w ith the broader views of A m oretti and Libri, did the exegesis of Leonardian m anuscripts begin.
Only just recently, however, could these m anuscripts be p u t w ithin the reach of Italian and foreign scholars; and once they w ere critically exam ined, he could be given the place which was assigned to him w ith respect to his predecessors.
U ndoubtedly his w ritings give expressive and picturesque form to difficult and profound questions brought up by his direct investigation of n atu ra l phenom ena. Personal experience and the extensive culture acquired by the exam ination of w orks known to Hellenic civilization (which he had certainly been able to study in th e collections offered by the cities through w hich his restlessness had driven him to roam), constitute the rich m aterial of notes and personal considerations in every branch of science: mechanics, m athem atics, hydraulics, geology, com parative anatom y, physiology, botany, astronom y, optics are all subjects w hich follow one another alm ost desultorily w ithout organic links. In th a t rich collection all the observations on the flight of birds stand out because of the d ra ft’s organicity; here the content has an intrinsic value a p a rt from any possible bold application; perhaps one can find a glint of prophecy w ith regard to the application of an actual glider. A less known rival of Leonardo was Giovanni B attista D anti of the fam ous Perugian family.
We come now to the apex of the scientific renaissance, concentrated in the G alilean school. Very many other sources contributed to it, but Leonardo’s influence, for the above-m entioned reasons, was alm ost nil; his efforts rested in the shade. Even in a comparison of Galileo’s pro duction w ith th a t of da Vinci, the student cannot b u t notice the superiority of the first both in the intrinsic value of his discoveries and astronom ical and mechanical observations and in the organic drafting and d irec t effects w hich it could have on his successors. One cannot deny or forget Galileo’s contribution to the history of science; he con stitu tes a link w ithout which the chain breaks, and Newton does not connect w ith Copernicus. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton are w ell-defined bu t related figures. Not Leonardo. He is a figure unto himself; in science his personality has no productive value and he is connected w ith neith er his contem poraries nor his im m ediate successors. His is a science of profound considerations and extensive learning.
One m ust then recognize th a t w ith respect to Galileo’s more con structive work, Leonardo’s was sterile and inconclusive. Galileo, having a mind at once practical and speculative, talks like a scientist and has the order and clarity of a scientist in expository writing. Instead Leonardo seems preoccupied w ith ju st brief strokes, notes and vivid expressions, the stretch of num erous observations of things seen w ith
R e viv a l of Ancient Science in Florence 8 1
the eye of an a rtist who cared little for ratio n al an d m ethodical co-ordination.
Since the days of Fibonacci down to those of Galileo all the regions of Italy, b u t p articu larly Tuscany, enriched th e ir scientific heritage w ith th e ir own efforts, and w ith some foreign ideas. This w as m ainly due to th e progress of classical studies w hich diffused G reek and A rab texts, also in the fields of m athem atics and astronom y by m eans of learned com mentaries. I t can be affirm ed th a t alm ost all European cu ltu re up to th e G alilean period was the fru it of G reek civilization; and m athem atics was studied w ith the classical m ethod of Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, etc.
It is an alm ost ab ru p t transition from the tre a tm e n t of scientific problem s according to the Hellenic school, and A ristotelian physics in p articular, to the trea tm e n t of the same problem s w ith post-G alilean methods; the jum p from Ptolem aic astronom y to th a t of K ep ler and Newton is alm ost revolutionary.
U ndoubtedly this transition came about as a resu lt of th e im petus given to civilization by the geographical discoveries of the Columbian era, ju st as the earlier th irteen th century Renaissance can be tied to th e explorers of the F ar East.
These voyages furnished new and unforeseen m aterial of unquestion able value for the n atu ra l sciences, zoology, botany, m ineralogy, geology. O bservations and m easurem ents of th e size and shape of the earth, which gradually became more and more precise (from E ratosthenes to the present) contributed directly to th e progress of the m athem atics of astronom y and geography. This problem of th e shape of th e ea rth led to m any voyages in the distant p a rts of th e globe; expeditions to P eru and Lapland u ndertaken by French scientists of the eighteenth century w ere memorable.
The m eteorology of the earth, necessary in order to learn th e fe rtility and habitability of the regions in the Old and New Worlds, made noticeable progress, nay a good beginning w ith th e m ethodical m easurem ents of barom etric pressure, tem perature, wind and hygro- m etric conditions w hich w ere begun w ith new instrum ents by the G rand Duke F erdinand II de Medici. He deserves to be called th e founder of meteorology.
All the prodigious activity of the Academicians of the Cim ento w as aw akened and encouraged by the sp irit of th e M aster (Galileo), who h ad brought about a reb irth of the experim ental method.
H istory often abuses the term of patron by applying it to princes who by p ure coincidence happened to live in periods of great intellectual activity. B ut F erdinand II and his brother Leopold w ere real patrons who contributed to progress w ith th e ir resources of great w ealth and 6 — O rganon, N r 4/67
82 M. L. R ig h in i B o n elli
c o o p e ra te d directly w ith clever experim ents an d inventions. The P rin ce’s personality was th a t of his people, w hich had im bibed a dis tin ctly ingenious b u t often discorderly and tum ultuous individualism like th a t seen in the social and political m anifestations.
I began w ith a p arallel betw een the origins of G reek science and th a t of Tuscany. I would like to conclude w ith an o th er parallel. The Golden Age of G reek science was born and led a glorious life on the banks of th e m ajestic Nile; and from Egyptian A lexandria spread as fa r as Sicily. One cannot deny th a t its im petus and diffusion was tied up to th e enlightened patriotism of the Lagidian dynasty, p articularly to its founder, Ptolem y Soterus, w ho established the fam ous lib rary modelled on th a t of A ristotle and died shortly thereafter. W ith the Museum, organized to provide adequate means for speculation in n atu ra l philosophy and astronom ical observations, th e hospitality of the Ptolem ies assured the civilized w orld of a long period of conquest in the m athem atical and astronom ical sciences.
All of Hellenism, from the banks of the Nile to th e shores of Magna Grecia, shines w ith the nam es of Hipparchus, A ristarchus, Eratosthenes, Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, Ptolem y, etc. There followed a Silver Age and decadence; the Hellenic w orld gave to other peoples th eir rich heritage accum ulated for centuries.
T w enty centuries later, on the banks of the riv er th a t rises in F alte- rona, F erdinand II and his brother, P rince Leopold of th e Medici family, as has been said, founded th e Academy of the Cim ento as if to reflect the light of the A lexandrian Museum. From here cam e the disciples of the G alilean school; and experim ental sciences in Tuscany reached th e ir apex of th e ir trajectory.
A fter this brief period, which passed like a flam ing meteor, there followed only stars of second and th ird grade in th e Florentine sky. Only la ter did experim ental sciences revive for a mom ent u n der the patronage of the L orraine G rand Dukes.
The intellectual suprem acy of Tuscany, evoked by us w ith the nam es of Fibonacci, Dante, Toscanelli, Vespucci, Leonardo and Galileo is tru ly a great glory of our past.
