Abstract
Galileo crossed the threshold of the Venetian Arsenal in 1593, where, thanks to the mediation of its executive body, he came into contact with shipwrights and oar makers. Later in his career Galileo opened up a new field of modern science, one concerned with the strength of materials, thanks to the publication of the first of his two new sciences in the Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno à due nuove scienze (EN, VIII:39–318). 1 These two events in Galileo’s life are intimately connected: Galileo’s first new science is rooted in the practical knowledge of the shipwrights of the Venetian Arsenal, the high-tech center of the Republic of Venice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
On the development that proceeded from Galileo’s first new science up to a complete classical theory about the behavior of materials, see Szabó (1987, 351–402).
- 2.
Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Senato Mar, reg. 21, c. 24. September 29, 1526.
- 3.
The decision to commission Fausto with the building of a galley and to assign him a shipyard was the output of a convoluted process, which is documented in the diary of Marino Sanuto, a sixteenth-century Venetian nobleman. See in particular: Sanuto and Fulin (1969–1970, 39, col. 322). Aristotle’s Mechanical Questions, translated by Fausto himself in 1517, address questions concerning ship design as well. In particular, see problems four, five, and six: Aristotle and Hett (1980, 355–361). See also pp. 132ff in this chapter.
- 4.
“[…] attraverso grotte formate da scabre rocce strapiombanti, là dove regna il tremendo spessore delle tenebre sotterranee […],” from Fausto to G. B. Ramusio, 1530, in Epistolae clarorum virorum … 1586, 128–133. For the importance of this event, see also Concina (1990, 46–70).
- 5.
As a result of an analysis of some of the sources considered in this chapter, the connection between Galileo’s science of the strength of materials and the practical knowledge of the Venetian Arsenal was first described in Renn and Valleriani (2001). Back in 1976, moreover, Thomas Kuhn suggested investigating in such a direction to understand the emergence of Galileo’s first new science (Kuhn 1976, 56).
- 6.
The oar model is discussed on pp. 150ff in this chapter.
- 7.
From Galileo to A. de Medici, February 11, 1609, in EN, X:228–230. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 223ff.
- 8.
Andrea Arrighetti (1592–1672), who received the folios from Guiducci in 1633, also proved the content of one theorem. Galileo gladly accepted his suggestions and introduced them in the final version of the Discorsi. For more details, see Andrea Arrighetti to Galileo, September 25, 1633, in EN, XV:279–281 and Galileo to Andrea Arrighetti, September 27, 1633, in EN, XV:283–284. For the translations of the entire letters, see pp. 270ff and 273.
- 9.
Bertoloni Meli reached a similar conclusion in Bertoloni Meli (2006, 91), albeit by a different route.
- 10.
The same resistance is in truth obtained by increasing the dimensions over-proportionally. Such a conception of building was followed and divulged by the Italian architects of the sixteenth century and related to the Vitruvian conception of modular architecture. This issue is extensively analyzed in Valleriani (2009a, especially on pp. 186–190).
- 11.
“[…] fabricare le proposte machine, e quelle sapere proportionatamente non solo comporre, & ordinare, ma con quella chiarezza, che ancor si ricerca, saper co’l compasso ritrouare la forza, cioè la multiplicatione delle sue lieve, accioche poi nell’effettuar l’opera in forma reale, non si venga a restare ingannati di tal sua forza, come spesso accade a quelli, che confidano solo nella facilità, che mostrano i Modelli piccoli, senza sapere i necesiarij suoi fondamenti” (Lorini 1609, 196).
- 12.
“E però il giudicio del Mecanico, che deue ordinare, e comandare agli essecutori dell’opera, consiste in grandissima parte nel sapere preuedere le difficultà, che apportano le diuersità delle materie, con che si conuiene operare: e tanto più deue in ciò esser cauto quanto che di tali impedimenti accidentali non se ne può dar regola sicura; […]” (Lorini 1609, 196).
- 13.
Galileo first established a relation between weight and resistance to fracture: “Prisms and cylinders which differ in both length and thickness offer resistances to fracture [i.e., can support at their ends loads] which are directly proportional to the cubes of the diameters of their bases and inversely proportional to their lengths” (EN, VIII:162–163).
- 14.
For biographical details about Fra Fulgenzio Micanzio, see Favaro and Galluzzi (1983, II:700–736).
- 15.
Galileo sent the first folios of his Discorsi to Fra Fulgenzio, who organized a reading group. Besides Micanzio and de Ville, the group was constituted of the Paduan mathematician Andrea Argoli (1570–1656), the Venetian engineer Francesco Tensini (1580–1630), Galieo’s ex-pupils Paolo Aproino (1586–1638) and Alfonso Antonini (1584–1657), and the Venetian astronomer Marcantonio Celeste. For more biographical details about Antonio de Ville, as well as on the entire correspondence between him and Galileo, see also Vérin (2001).
- 16.
From A. de Ville to Galileo, March 3, 1635, in EN, XVI:221–228. Author’s italics. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 277ff.
- 17.
Galileo admitted the temporal priority of Aristotle’s formulation of this principle, but he also suggested using the one by Archimedes because he considered it more rigorous.
- 18.
Galileo’s specified that once the maximum thickness of a prism, given its length, is found, “each smaller [prism] […] will be able to resist some additions of new violence, in addition to that of the own weight.” (EN, VIII:166). Such a statement is evidently particularly concerned with the problems of machine makers. In fact, once the maximum length for the given thickness is known, it becomes possible to assemble components by decreasing their length such that the total weight cannot cause the device to collapse.
- 19.
Translation based on the Greek critical edition Aristotle and Bottecchia Dehò (1982). The translation is one of the results of the workshop Q.XVI held at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin on August 2007. For more details, see Valleriani (2009a, 197–198).
- 20.
Biancani is cited in a note on the copy of the manuscript of the Discorsi destined to become a failed publication in Prague. The manuscript was sent to Giovanni Pieroni, who was supposed to print the book far away from the Roman censors. The publication of the Discorsi, in fact, was first attempted through the mediation of Giovanni Pieroni, the emperor’s military engineer. A friend of Galileo, he never succeeded in accomplishing this task because of the various professional obstacles placed in his path, which obliged him to travel frequently. Galileo had part of his manuscript copied—the whole first Day and part of the second—and then sent it to Pieroni, adding some further notes by hand. The note concerned with Biancani’s work is published in EN, VIII:165, n 1. The copy of the manuscript of the Discorsi sent to Pieroni, which was then returned to Galileo after Pieroni’s failure, is now at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale of Florence, Banco Rari, A. 5, p. 2, n. 13. For an introduction to this manuscript, see EN, vol. VIII, Avvertimento of A. Favaro, pp. 20 ff.
- 21.
G. Biancani to C. Grienberger, June 14, 1611, in EN, XI:126–127. This letter was sent by Grienberger to Galileo who made a copy of it by hand.
- 22.
Galileo to C. Grienberger, September 1, 1611, in EN, XI:178–203 and the letter cited in the previous note.
- 23.
G. Biancani to G. A. Magini, May 17, 1613, in EN, XI:509.
- 24.
Biancani intended to publish in his Loca mathematica a chapter on the science of floating bodies—Brevis tractatio de iis quae moventur in aqua unde caput ultimum de caelo explicabitur—where he substantially supported Galileo’s Discorso intorno alle cose che stanno in su l’acqua. However, the censor Camerota prohibited the publication of this chapter (Baldini 1992; Ceglia 1997). On the controversial relationship between Biancani and the Jesuit censors within the general framework of the prohibition to teach in a way contrary to Aristotelian physics from the beginning of the seventeenth century onward, see Blackwell (1991, 148–153).
- 25.
G. di Guevara to Galileo, July 17, 1627 in EN, XIII:368–369.
- 26.
G. di Guevara to Galileo, November 15, 1627, in EN, XIII:377–378. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 268ff.
- 27.
M. Guiducci to Galileo, April 18, 1625, in EN, XIII:265–266.
- 28.
G. di Guevara to Galileo, November 21, 1626, in EN, XIII:341–342.
- 29.
G. di Guevara to Galileo, November 15, 1627, in EN, XIII:377–378. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 268ff. Guevara’s commentary work is Aristotle and Guevara (1627).
- 30.
G. di Guevara to Galileo, January 24, 1628, in EN, XIII:389–390.
- 31.
Biancani’s discussion about Question 16 starts at car. 176.
- 32.
“[…] quia in maiori onus ipsius ligni, quod circa A, deorsum premit lo[n]gius distat ab hypomoclio B, quàm in minori ligno” (Aristotle and Biancani 1615, 177).
- 33.
“[…] existimo, quod si maioris ligni longitudo ad eiusdem crassitiem haberet ea[n]dem proportionem, quàm minoris longitudo ad eiusdem crassitiem, sicq[ue] vtrumq[ue] esset ab hypomoclio in eadem ratione diuisum, fore, vt vtrunq[ue] eodem modo inflecteretur, quia haberent pondera eandem rationem ad distantias ab hypomoclio […]” Aristotle and Biancani (1615, 177).
- 34.
“[…] pondus tamen constitutus in B magis distat à fulcimento C, quàm quod co[n]stituitur in E ab ipso F; magisq[ue] propterea grauitat, & inclinat deorsum, paulatim recedendo à rectitudine, quam stans, vel in solo iacens habebat” (Aristotle and Guevara 1627, 164).
- 35.
“[…] si brevitas ligni compensetur magna crasssitiei, obstabit ex alio capite ipsamet eadem crasssities propter maiorem multitudinem partium, quarum aliæ constipari, aliae autem laxari debent cum sit ipsa inflexio” (Aristotle and Guevara 1627, 165).
- 36.
“[…] æquè facilè inclinetur magnum, ac paruum, seu longum, ac breue, non satis videtur constare” (Aristotle and Guevara 1627, 165).
- 37.
“Probabiliter tamen dici potest, spectandum primò esse qualitatem, ac dispositionem materiæ, vt si grauior, aut leuior; densior, aut rarior; fortior, aut imbecillior in se sit. Nam frequenter ex ijs pendet, vt nonnulla corpora plus facilitatis ad se inclinandum acquirant ex maiori longitudine, quàm difficultatis ex maiori crassitie: Alia verò contra” (Aristotle and Guevara 1627, 165–166).
- 38.
“[…] proportio, quæ auget facilitatem, aut difficultatem inflexionis in vna specie ligni, non auget in alia sicut non æquè in ligno, ac ferro plumbo, aut calibe. Quare nihil determinari potest quo ad hoc nisi perspecta, vt diximus dispositione materiæ, variaq[ue] proportione, quæ diuersimodè iuxta maiorem, aut minorem corporum magnitudinem operatur” (Aristotle and Guevara 1627, 166).
- 39.
Many professionals considered this conception to be an original Aristotelian one, although the original argument of Question 16 considers only the dimension of the length of the solid body. This is the consequence of the use made by early modern commentators of ancient scientific texts as a basic theoretical structure for the generation of new knowledge during the Renaissance (Valleriani 2009a).
- 40.
Question 4 will be discussed last.
- 41.
Galileo’s manuscript Delle macchine, which was introduced in the previous chapter, begins with an introduction that traces the Mechanical Questions in such a way to dispel any doubts about Galileo’s familiarity with the Aristotelian text since 1593. In 1598, moreover, Galileo held a public course on that text (EN, XIX:120). The first reference to this text in one of his printed publications dates back to 1612, in the Discorso intorno alle cose che stanno in su l’acqua (EN, IV:57–140). Furthermore, throughout Galileo’s correspondence it is evident that Galileo’s confrontation with Aristotelian mechanics certainly continued until at least 1638, when he informed Elia Diodati, the Medici Ambassador in Paris, that he would like to write a book of Problemi spezzati (Broken Problems) in the wake of Aristotle’s Mechanical Questions and De incessu animalium. For more details, see Galileo to Elia Diodati, January 23, 1638, in EN, XVII:262. Galileo’s unpublished treatise constituted of “interrupted problems” was in fact begun, but remained incomplete. It consists of twelve problems voiced in the form of indirect questions. Their answers were written by Galileo’s son, Vincenzo Galilei, partly under his father’s guidance. Galileo and Vincenzo Galilei’s treatise of Problemi spezzati is published in EN, VIII:598–607. Galileo’s intention to write such a treatise is also revealed in the following letters: Galileo to M. Bernegger, July 15, 1636, in EN, XVI:450–452, especially p. 452, where Galileo called them Problemi naturali e matematici, Galileo to E. Diodati, November 7, 1637, in EN, XVII:213, where they are called Problemi spezzati, fisici e matematici, Galileo to G. B. Baliani, January 7, 1639, in EN, XVIII:10–13, especially p. 13, where they are called Problemi e questioni spezzate.
- 42.
Galileo’s fragments related to nautical issues represent a small group of fragments among all of those collected by Viviani. In general, most of the fragments take the form of questions about either observations made by Galileo himself or topics suggested by other authors. The topics of the fragments are quite diverse, and most of them seem to be memoranda for further research or problems whose solutions Galileo included or wanted to include in his writings.
- 43.
For evidence that Galileo wrote a dialog on the rudder and that Ciampoli possessed it, see G. Ciampoli to Galileo, February 15, 1625, in EN, XIII:254 and G. Ciampoli to Galileo, December 28, 1625(4), in EN, XIII:295.
- 44.
N. Aggiunti to Galileo, February 22, 1634, in EN, XVI:49–50. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 274ff.
- 45.
From N. Aggiunti to Galileo, February 22, 1634, in EN, XVI:49–50. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 274ff.
- 46.
There is no evidence as to whether Galileo was familiar with this and other works of B. Baldi. The fact that N. Aggiunti did not quote the origins of the problem sent to Galileo seems to suggest that this question was circulating without any specific paternity. For an extensive analysis of Baldi’s commentary on Aristotle’s Mechanical Questions, see Becchi (2004).
- 47.
“[…] quanto altius est velum, vi venti impulsum, tanto magis proram ipsius navis in aquam demergit” (Benedetti 1585, 155). Unfortunately, in this case, too, no other comments by Galileo can support this analysis. However, because of the obviousness of Aristotle’s mistake, and since all of the early modern commentators on this question accord with this critique, it is supposed that what Galileo called the “childish mistake” corresponds to what was universally accepted at his time and expressed by Benedetti.
- 48.
For more details on ancient shipbuilding, see Sherwood (1997). For an analysis of early modern commentaries on Aristotle’s Question 7, see Rank (1984, 41–46).
- 49.
Navigation a orza, because of the inclination of the ship, obliged a great part of the crew to be stationed on the opposite side in order to counterbalance the hull on the sea.
- 50.
Nuñes work was known by Galileo in 1615 at the latest, when Giuseppe Biancani published his commentary on Aristotle’s Mechanical Questions, reporting on Nuñes’ solution to Question 4 in its entirety. For more details about the reception of this work by Nuñes, see the introduction to the reprint of Nuñes’ work written and edited by Henrique de Sousa Leitão (Leitão 2000).
- 51.
A rowing unit of a Venetian galley was constituted of bench, oar, thole pin (and therefore protection). A large galley had from thirty-two to forty-six rowing units.
- 52.
The distinction between moving what is already in motion and moving what is stationary is also the main subject of Aristotle’s Question 31 (Aristotle and Hett 1980, 405–406).
- 53.
The remora is a shellfish considered to have special influence on both the motion of ships and on pregnant women. Among the many ancient sources that mention this shellfish, the most relevant are Aristotle, De Hist. Anim., Lib. 2, Ca. 14 and Plinius, De Hist. Nat., Lib. 9, Cap. 25 and Lib. 32, Cap. 1. In modern Italian the word is still in use: a person who has remora is one who is indecisive or hesitant, like a ship which is being rowed but does not move.
- 54.
From G. C. Lagalla to Galileo, July 30, 1621, in EN, XIII:72–73. Author’s italics. For the translation of the entire letter, see p. 263.
- 55.
Although no evidence directly shows that Galileo’s answer really existed, there are several indications suggesting that it did: first, because the correspondence between Galileo and Lagalla is quite copious; second, because the books by Lagalla that Galileo possessed and which are now preserved among the Galilean inheritance at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale of Florence are richly annoted in their margins, testifying that Galileo occupied himself with them; third, because Lagalla was, through his deep scholasticism, very closely acquainted with many members of the Accademia dei Lincei, as was Galileo; and fourth, because Galileo himself intended to support Lagalla for the chair of philosophy of the University of Pisa after Papazzoni’s death (1614). Although Lagalla held such an important position as the first chair for philosophy at the Collegio romano for thirty years, and although it seems that as a physician he had an almost revolutionary approach to surgery, only two biographical papers on him can be found (Gallo 1986 and 1987). Many commissioned researches at the Barberini Collection in the Vatican Library and on the collection of his main pupil, Leone Allacci (1586–1669), at the Biblioteca Vallicelliana in Rome, failed to uncover such an opuscolum in response to Lagalla’s request for an opinion, which presumably contains Galileo’s view of the functioning of the oars and a discussion about the analogy of the movements of the ship to a steelyard.
- 56.
Galileo and Giacomo Contarini first met thanks to the cultural circle around the patron G. Vincenzo Pinelli, resident in Padova, who helped Galileo obtain his chair in Padova. Contarini may have been aware of Galileo’s geometrical talent since 1589, when it was first attempted to obtain that chair for Galileo. For more details, see B. Zorzi to B. Valori, December 2, 1589, in EN, X:42.
- 57.
From Galileo to G. Contarini, March 22, 1593, in EN, X:55–57. Author’s italics. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 214ff. This letter was evaluated for the first time in Renn and Valleriani (2001).
- 58.
G. Contarini to Galileo, March 28, 1593, in EN, X:57–60. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 216ff.
- 59.
The “practical knowledge” of the shipwrights of the Venetian Arsenal was codified in part in the form of sets of ratios, one for each ship model. Given some main measures and the model of the ship, the ratios provided a method to obtain the measures of all other components of a ship. As concerns the handle of the oars, its length had to be the half of the width of the ship midships above deck.
- 60.
The way Contarini suggests calculating the force applied by each oarsman at a single oar is based on a comparison between the virtual circles drawn by the blade and those drawn by the points of the handle where each oarsman works.
- 61.
From G. Contarini to Galileo, March 28, 1593, in EN, X:57–60. For the translation of the entire letter, see pp. 216ff.
- 62.
The documents produced during the inquiry and collected by G. Contarini are preserved in a bundle entitled Fabrica di galee (Contarini 1592–1593).
- 63.
“che modo si deve tenere per rimediare al mancamento che hanno le galee grosse nella vuoga si che si possano in occasione vuogar senza remurchio,” “se si devono allargar le postizze ad esse Galie,” “che qualità de remi, et di che longhezza sara necessario adoperare,” “se si devono accommodar esse galee à doj remi per banco, o, à uno,” “La spesa che potesse andar in detto accommodamento,” “Il modo di cavar poi esse galee dall’Arsenal in caso che si dovesse allargar le postizze,” “Discorrendo oltra di cio intorno a tutto quello di piu, che gli paresse poter esser di pubblico servitio” (Contarini 1592–1593, 1v). Author’s enumeration.
- 64.
The masters of the Arsenal and its executive body, constituted of Lords and Commissioners, distinguished between large galleys for trade and those for military purposes. In detail, the galleys for trade were “rounder,” that is, a little bit wider than those destined for the military fleet. However, it was no rarity for trade galleys to be armed and sent as part of the military fleet or vice versa.
- 65.
“[…] si puo dire che possano esser un altra volta piu tosto di impedimento che di aiuto […] non potendo star dredo una armata sotile senza esser remurchiati, possono esser causa per questo di tardanza di far perdere infinite occasioni buone. et chi havera galee sotil solamente potria a sua voglia non accettar mai la battaglia essendo sicuro, che l’inimico che conveniva valersi di questo vassello dovendolo remurchiar non lo arivara mai; et havendosi armata composta di galee grosse et di sotili si convenira star sempre sul remurchio, essendo sicuri di non poter vincere con l’armata di galee sotili solamente che non saranno per numero come quelle dell’inimico. et per proveder a questo mancamento sara sempre prudenza valersi di questa sorte de navilij grossi quando se gli levino quelle imperfezioni” (Contarini 1592–1593, 7r).
- 66.
“[…] s’hanno da considerar cosi l’instrumento che lo fa caminare, che sono i Remi, come la forza dell’huomo che ha da adoprar essi Remi. Quanto al remo che si adopra al presente non è proporzionato al navilio […] che se havesse le postizze più larghe si daria piu ziron, et per consequenza piu asta, la qual trovaria l’acqua lontana dal navilio, et il Remo andarebbe piu piano, et la forza che bisognasse che l’huomo vi ponesse sarebbe naturale, perche non passarebbe al tirar il petto, et si potrebbono anco metter piu huomini […]. con questo rimedio di allargar le postizze non è alcuno intendente che non conosce che si provvedera a questo impedimento della tardanza facendo caminar questo navilio, se non tanto quanto le galee sotil buone, almeno quanto le galee mediocri, senza le quali non si potra mai andar avanti, et potranno servir senza remurchio, et mettersi alli sui luoghi da se stesse, et far grandissime operazioni” (Contarini 1592–1593, 7r). In this document, which starts at folio 6v and ends at folio 7v, and from which this quotation is extracted, the author is not cited. But two reasons suggest that this text was the one proffered by Contarini at the Collegio della Milizia da Mar of Venice: first, because it is the only writing collected by Contarini that does not bear any name; second, because both of the deeply significant similarities between Contarini’s reply to Galileo and this document, and of the presence of points like, for example, the one concerned with the movement of the oarsmen, which are not to be found in any other text submitted on the occasion of the inquiry.
- 67.
The mouth of a galley was the width of the ship measured midships above deck.
- 68.
“[…] essendo la porta dell’arsenale stretta semo di necessita di a far la mesura delle postizze non dalla bocca di essa galia come si doveria far a far ben: ma dalla strettezza della porta del Rastello, onde sono uscite dette postizze con difetto d’importanza non potendogli con così poco ziron come portano al presente adoperarsi come bisognarebbe nelle occasioni d’importanza […]” (Contarini 1592–1593, 2v).
- 69.
Contarini’s last letter indeed already contains the suspicion that the propulsion problem of large galleys depended on an erroneous ratio between the mouth of the ship and the length of the handles of the oar. On that occasion, however, Contarini did not further analyze this point.
- 70.
The inquiry also investigated whether it would have been better to substitute the rowing unit equipped with one oar with another equipped with two of them. Although the opinions directly concerned with this point of the inquiry will not be taken into consideration here, the following brief explanation of this issue could be helpful for the general understanding of the way the Venetian shipbuilders worked. According to the traditional sets of ratios governing shipbuilding activity in Venice during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a rowing unit equipped with one oar per bench of a certain and given length could be substituted by a different rowing unit with two or more oars, whose lengths were a certain ratio of the oars designed for a rowing unit with one oar. However, since in multiple-oar rowing units other factors had to be altered, such as the height of the benches, the Venetian masters of the Arsenal did not have any rule to foresee whether the two corresponding rowing units, the first equipped with one oar and the second, for example, with three, would effectively perform the same propulsive force. This was the main reason why the few masters who faced this opportunity remained conservative, suggesting that one large galley be prepared with a rowing unit equipped with two oars so that this construction could be tested. All other documents submitted propose retaining the rowing unit with a single oar per bench. First, because it meant lower costs in terms of the carpentry, material and screws needed and, second, because of the need to leave more space on the ship free for artillery and soldiers.
- 71.
The Ottomans’ conquest of the Balkan region started very early in the fifteenth century, but did not begin to affect the Venetian economy seriously until after the Venetian military defeat at Corinth in 1465. Although the conquest continued to the doors of Vienna, the peace treaty between the Ottomans and the Venetians, signed in 1479 and then ratified in 1503, ensured the Venetians some of the materials needed from the Balkan woods through commercial trading with the Ottomans. This was no longer the case toward the end of the sixteenth century, however, so that materials were provided from regions which belonged to the Republic and were located on the Italian peninsula, in particular from those regions known today as Friuli and Venezia-Giulia.
- 72.
1 Venetian step = 1.738 m = 5 feet: 1 Venetian foot = 34.76 cm.
- 73.
“[…] tirando in fuora le postizze un sol piede, bisognarebbe sussequentemente slargar il palamento a tale che quello di piedi 36 verrebbe ad esser di piedi 40, et quello di 38 di 42, li quali […], s’indeboliria si fattamente che ogni poco di sforzo, o di maggior numero de genti si scavazzaria, overo ch’el zirone veniria al petto di cui lo vogassero, per il che non potrebbe mai far cosa buona, et sendo che maggior sarebbe la fatica del galiotto nel liberarsi dall’impeto di esso ziron dal petto che non sarebbe quella del vogar, si come è benissimo noto a tutti quelli che intendono quella professione. Lascio da parte, che ogni borasca da mare, et ogni poco di straccolo che havessero andarebbero tutti in pezzi” (Contarini 1592–1593, 9v).
- 74.
“Volendone mo far tagliar di quella longhezza nelli boschi de Arciducali, bisognaria farli tenir si fattamente grossi, et pesanti, che non solo 4 huomini, me ne anco sei potranno, ne per molto, ne per poco adoperarli” (Contarini 1592–1593, 9v).
- 75.
“[…] facendole maggiori il palamento convenira esser di maggior longhezza et come il Remo sara maggiore non havera forza, che sara tenero, et fara che il galiotto non possa rogare, che il ziron li dara nel petto […]” (Contarini 1592–1593, 4v).
- 76.
“[…] ma ben si potra accomodar le galie che sono in esser al presente quella pero che ha il remo de longhezza de piedi 36, et il ziron sia pie 12 se potra accomodarle che habbi il remo de pie 39 che havera il ziron de pie 13, et quella che ha il remo de pie 38 che ha il ziron de pie 12 1/2 si potra accomodarla che habbi il Remo de pie 40, che havera il ziron pie 13 1/3” (Contarini 1592–1593, 4v).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Valleriani, M. (2010). The Knowledge of the Venetian Arsenal. In: Galileo Engineer. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 269. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8645-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-8645-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-8644-0
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-8645-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)