Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
There can be little doubt that 1973 will remain notable as a year in which knowledge of Galileo's mechanics increased dramatically. Professor Stillman Drake's publication, in May, of some of Galileo's early work on the law of free fall was followed in the autumn by the publication of a number of important manuscripts clearly indicating Galileo's use of precise measurement. From a discussion of these manuscripts and Thomas Settle's performance of Galileo's inclined plane experiment, Drake implies that a clear view of Galileo's use of experiment is now emerging. Added emphasis was given to Drake's thesis that doubts concerning Galileo's use of experiment were largely unfounded, by James MacLachlan's realization of a Galilean experiment which was previously described as ‘imaginary’ by Koyré. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that, while it cannot be doubted that Galileo used experiment and precise measurement, his attitude to observation may well have been far more complex than Drake has supposed. My point of departure is James MacLachlan's remark that continuing disagreement over Galileo's use of experiment should lead to further examination of Galileo's experimental claims. I shall indicate that more than one view of Galileo's use of experiment may prove capable of explaining our present knowledge—a corollary of this being that alternative explanations may be proposed for the manuscripts recently published by Drake.
The reconstruction of Galileo's inclined plane experiment was only made possible by the support and assistance received from my Faculty (Social Sciences and Humanities) and the Faculties of Science and Engineering at Thames Polytechnic. For this support, I am particularly grateful to Miss V. Pitt, Mr M. Yolles, Mr I. Bittle, and Dr R. A. M. Scott. The many discussions of this and other of Galileo's experiments with Dr Scott were of considerable help in the preparation of this paper.
1 Drake, Stillman, ‘Galileo's discovery of the law of free fall’, Scientific American, ccxxviii (1973). 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Drake, Stillman, ‘Galileo's experimental confirmation of horizontal inertia: unpublished manuscripts’, Isis, lxiv (1973), 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Settle, Thomas, ‘An experiment in the history of science’, Science, cxxxiii (1961), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 MacLachlan, James, ‘A test of an “imaginary” experiment of Galileo's’, Isis, lxiv (1973), 374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Koyré, Alexandre, ‘An experiment in measurement’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, xcvii (1953), 224.Google Scholar
6 MacLachlan, , op. cit. (4), p. 375.Google Scholar
7 MSS. Galileiani, , Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze, vol. lxxii, folios 114, 116vGoogle Scholar. See Drake, , op. cit. (2), pp. 297, 301.Google Scholar
8 Galileo, , Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems, trans. Drake, S. (Berkeley, 1967), pp. 144–5Google Scholar; Opere [Edizione Nazionale], ed. Favaro, A. (20 vols., Florence, 1890–1909), vii. 171.Google Scholar
9 Galileo, 1967, op. cit. (8), trans. Drake, p. 145.Google Scholar
10 Galileo, , Dialogues concerning two new sciences, trans. Crew, H. and de Salvio, A. (New York, 1963), p. 163.Google Scholar
11 Drake, , op. cit. (2), p. 300.Google Scholar
12 Drake, , op. cit. (1), pp. 84–92.Google Scholar
13 Drake, , op. cit. (2), p. 300.Google Scholar
14 Galileo, , Opere, viii. 373Google Scholar. The translation appears in Drake, Stillman, ‘Galileo's 1604 fragment on falling bodies’, The British journal for the history of science, iv (1968–1969), 342.Google Scholar
15 Drake, , op. cit. (14), p. 349.Google Scholar
16 Galileo, , op. cit. (10), p. 171Google Scholar; Opere, viii. 213.Google Scholar
17 Settle, , op. cit. (3), p. 20Google Scholar, and Drake, , op. cit. (13), p. 349.Google Scholar
18 Galileo, , op. cit. (10), p. 171.Google Scholar
19 Drake, , op. cit. (14), p. 349Google Scholar, and op. cit. (1), p. 91.Google Scholar
20 Drake, , op. cit. (14), pp. 340–3Google Scholar, and op. cit. (1), pp. 84–92.Google Scholar
21 Galileo, , Opere, x. 97–100Google Scholar, and op. cit. (10), p. 181.Google Scholar
22 Galileo, , Dialogue, op. cit. (8), trans. Drake, p. 26.Google Scholar
23 Mersenne, M., Harmonie universelle (Paris, 1636), pp. 111–38Google Scholar. Quoted in Koyré, A., Metaphysics and measurement, trans. Maddison, R. E. W. (London, 1968), pp. 113–15.Google Scholar
24 Mersenne, 1636, op. cit. (23), p. 138.Google Scholar
25 Drake, , op. cit. (2), pp. 291–2.Google Scholar
26 Settle, , op. cit. (3), pp. 19–23.Google Scholar
27 Settle, , op. cit. (3), p. 21Google Scholar, and Drake, Stillman, ‘Free fall in Galileo's Dialogue’, Isis, lvii (1966), 269–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Galileo, , Opere, xviii. 75–7.Google Scholar
29 Lindberg, David, ‘Galileo's experiments on falling bodies’, Isis, lvi (1965), 352–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Galileo, , Dialogue, op. cit. (8), trans. Drake, pp. 22 and 30.Google Scholar
31 Ibid., p. 223. See also the translator's note, pp. 484–5. Galileo's copy of the first edition is owned by the Library of the Seminary in Padua. The value appears as a footnote in Opere, vii. 54.Google Scholar
32 Mersenne, 1636, op. cit. (23), p. 112.Google Scholar
33 Galileo, , On motion, trans. Drabkin, I. E. and Drake, S. (Madison, 1960), p. 69.Google Scholar
34 Galileo, , op. cit. (10), pp. 171–2.Google Scholar
35 Galileo's units cannot be identified precisely. The braccio, translated variously as cubit or yard, ranged between 20 and 25 inches. Most Northern Italian cities appear to have had a standard braccio which seems to have been essentially a measure for cloth. In my view, Koyré was over-confident in stating that Galileo's braccio was ‘doubtless’ 20 inches (or 49 cms); it was probably not very different from this figure, though a value of around 22 inches seems most likely. The uncertainty on this issue is really of marginal significance, however. Mersenne had no doubts about Galileo's braccia; it was the measurement he suspected. Settle's comments on the doubts concerning the exact value of the units cannot explain Galileo's lack of knowledge of the rate of free fall. Settle believes that Galileo's braccia was close to 22 · 7 inches; see Settle, , op. cit. (3), p. 19Google Scholar. For Drake's views on Galileo's units, see Galileo, , Dialogue, op. cit. (8), p. 471Google Scholar. See also Skinner, F. G., Weights and measures (London, 1967).Google Scholar
36 Koyré, , op. cit. (5), p. 224.Google Scholar
37 Settle, , op. cit. (3), p. 20.Google Scholar
38 Galileo, , Opere, xviii. 77.Google Scholar
39 Bernal, J. D., The extension of man. A history of physics before 1900 (London, 1972), p. 183Google Scholar. Bernal was unable to achieve success with the experiment, and he ascribed this to the fact that Galileo used better equipment. Bernal's interpretation of Galileo's description agrees well with mine; it seems clear that Bernal considered the parchment lining a refinement likely to lead to greater accuracy.
40 Drake, Stillman, Discoveries and opinions of Galileo (New York, 1957), p. 227.Google Scholar
41 Santillana, G. de, The crime of Galileo (Chicago, 1967), p. 157Google Scholar, and Broderick, J., Galileo (London, 1964), p. 117.Google Scholar
42 Galileo, , The assayer, trans. Drake, Stillman, in The controversy on the comets of 1618 (Philadelphia, 1950), p. 252.Google Scholar