The New Science of Motion.

" A Study of Galileo's De motu locali

W I N I F R E D L. WISAN

Communicated by C. TRUESDELL

Abbreviations and Conventions

This paper uses a dual system of notes. Ordinary footnotes are used only to make substantive comments. Simple citations are made in the scientific style, except that classical references and references to the manuscripts of LEONARDO I)A VINCI are made in the customary manner, and certain works of GALILEO will be referred to as indicated below. A few other conventions are also listed.

Re/erences to Galileo's Writings Opere, or National Edition De motu antiquiora Le mecaniche Discorso Dialogo Discorsi
Framment/

De motu locali Codex A

Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, 20 vols. Edited by A. FAVARO. Florence : Barbara, t890-t909 De motu (Opere I, pp. 251-4t9) Le mecaniche (Opere II, pp. t55-t90) Discorso intorno alle cose che stanno in su l'acqua o che in quella si muovono (Opere IV, pp. 63-140) Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Opere vii, pp. 33-489) Discord e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno ~ due nuove scienze (Opere viii, pp. t90-3t3) Frammenti attenenti ai Discord (Opere viii, pp. 363-436) third and fourth giornate of Discorsi "Manoscritti Galileiani," div. 2, pt. 2, vol. 5 (Ms. Gal.72), fol. 28-194

motu tocali"

This p a p e r is a c o n s i d e r a b l y r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of m y d i s s e r t a t i o n , " GALILEO'S D e (i972).

8 Arch.Hist. Exact Sci.,VoL 13

104

W.L. WISAN: Re/erences to Certain Translations a

DRABKIN DRAKE SANTILLANA CREW

trans, b y DRABKIN of De motu antiquiora from the Latin (DRABKIN & DRAKE 1960) trans, b y DRAKE of Le mecaniche from the Italian (DRABKIN & DRAKE t960) trans, b y SANTILLANA of the Dialogo from the Italian (SANTILLANA t953) trans, by CREW & SALVlO of the Discorsi from Italian and Latin (CREw & GALVIOt9t4)

Typical Galileo Citation

(Opere VIII,

p. 19o;

CREW, p. 153)

passage from Opere, vol. v i i i , p. 19o, trans, b y CREW & SALVIO Other Conventions

De motu theerem the Postulate mean proportional corollary or Cor. 2 m(X,Y) t(AB) t (AB, C) AB 2

GALILEO' first theorem on motion along inclined planes (see p. t 52) sole explicit postulate of De motu locali (see p. 12t) De motu locali, Bk. II, Thm. II, Cor. 2b mean proportional between X and Y; X / m (X, Y) ---m(X,Y)/Y time to traverse distance AB from rest at A time to traverse distance AB after initial descent from CtoA square of magnitude represented b y line AB

Translations are mine unless otherwise noted. My translations from GALILEO and translations by other writers from medieval sources are from Latin unless indicated otherwise. My quotations and translations from the Frammenti substitute capital for lowercase letters in the diagrams. b Theorems and problems referred to in chapter headings and proofs are from Book I I of De motu locali. In general, particular propositions of Book I I will be referred to as theorems and problems (i.e., Theorem III, Problem XIII), whereas those in Books I and I I I will be referred to by proposition numbers (i.e., Proposition XII).

Galileo's Science of Motion

! 05

I n d e x of P r o p o s i t i o n s *

Book I
Page Definition . . . . . . . . . . Axioms I-IV . . . . . . . . . Propositions I-VI . . . . . . .

Book I I (continued)
Page
S c h o l i u m : (a) d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e r u l e . 2 3 4 (b) p r i n c i p l e s o f i n e r t i a a n d s u p e r position of motions . . . . . . 236 Theorem XV, Proposition XXIV . 238 Theorem XVI, Proposition XXV . 206 Problem X, Proposition XXVI . . (239) Theorem XVII, Proposition XXVII 239 Theorem XVIII, Proposition XXVIII*** .... 240 P r o b l e m X I , P r o p o s i t i o n XXIX , 241 T h e o r e m X I X , P r o p o s i t i o n X X X . 170 Theorem XX, Proposition XXXI . (170) Theorem XXI, Proposition XXXII t68 Problem XII, Proposition XXXIII 232 Problem XIII, Proposition XXXIV 250 Problem XIV, Proposition XXXV 249 Theorem XXII, Proposition XXXVI 1t 3n Scholium . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Problem XV, Proposition XXXVII 240 Problem XVI, Proposition XXXVII1265

111
111 112

Book I I
Definition . . . . . . . . . . . Postulate . . . . . . . . . . . T h e o r e m I, P r o p o s i t i o n I .... Theorem II, Proposition II Corollary I . . . . . . . . . . Corollary II . . . . . . . . . . Theorem III, Proposition III . . Corollary . . . . . . . . . . . Theorem IV, Proposition IV . . T h e o r e m V, P r o p o s i t i o n V . . . . Theorem VI, Proposition VI . . Corollary I** . . . . . . . . . Corollary II . . . . . . . . . . Corollary III . . . . . . . . . Theorem VII, Proposition VII Theorem VIII, Proposition VIII Theorem IX, Proposition IX . Theorem X, Proposition X .... Theorem XI, Proposition XI . Theorem XII, Proposition XII . P r o b l e m I, P r o p o s i t i o n X I I I . Problem II, Proposition XIV . . Problem III, Proposition XV . . Theorem XIII, Proposition XVI Corollary . . . . . . . . . . . Problem IV, Proposition XVII . P r o b l e m V, P r o p o s i t i o n X V I I I . Problem VI, Proposition XIX . Corollary . . . . . . . . . . . Problem VII, Proposition XX . Theorem XIV, Proposition XXI Problem VIII, Proposition XXII Problem IX, Proposition XXIII 121 121 113n l12n 112n t 12n t12n 124 124 189n it3n 105n
(171)

. .

(173) 190n , t65 t 73 185 I t9 197 232 242 246 246

Book I I I
T h e o r e m I, P r o p o s i t i o n I .... t 14 Theorem II, Proposition II .... 228 Theorem III, Proposition III. . . 263 P r o b l e m I, P r o p o s i t i o n I V . . . . 266 P r o p o s i t i o n V, P r o b l e m . . . . . 267 Corollary . . . . . . . . . . . 268 Proposition VI, Problem . . . . . 268n Theorem, Proposition VII .... 269 Corollary . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Theorem, Proposition VIII 269 Theorem, Proposition IX .... 27t Theorem, Proposition X . . . . . 271 Problem, Proposition XI .... 272 Problem, Proposition XII .... 273 Problem, Proposition XIII .... 274 Proposition XIV . . . . . . . . 275

247
. 230 . (231) . 23t t 19 . (232) 233 . 239 . 234

* T h i s i n d e x g i v e s p a g e n u m b e r s w h e r e a p r o p o s i t i o n is f i r s t s t a t e d ; w h e r e p a g e n u m b e r s a r e i n p a r e n t h e s e s , t h e p r o p o s i t i o n is n o w h e r e f u l l y s t a t e d b u t it is m e n t i o n e d on the page indicated. ** T h i s c o r o l l a r y is r e d u n d a n t a n d is n o w h e r e d i s c u s s e d ; i t is n e e d e d o n l y f o r t h e third proof given for Theorem VI, as this proof, unlike the first two, fails to establish the theorem in its full generality. *** T h i s is c a l l e d P r o b l e m X I i n t h e N a t i o n a l E d i t i o n , a n d P r o b l e m X I is c a l l e d T h e o r e m X V I I I (see p. 240).

8*

106

W.L.

WISAN :

Table of Contents Page

Introduction 1. T h e 1.t. 1.2. 1.3. t .4. t,5. 1.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 111 114 t 16 120 125 127 132 136 146 150 t 53 156 162 t 71 175 179 184 187 193 t 99 207 210 2t5 222 229 236 24t 249 258 263 266 269 271 276 281 286 288 295 296 299 Mathematical Treatise on Motion Structure and Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Mathematical Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T h e R o l e of E x p e r i m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Manuscript on Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Clues to Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

2. O r i g i n s o f t h e N e w S c i e n c e 2.1. A n c i e n t M e c h a n i c s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. T h e M e d i e v a l S c i e n c e of W e i g h t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. M e c h a n i c s i n t h e S i x t e e n t h C e n t u r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:4. GALILEO'S F i r s t T r e a t m e n t of t h e I n c l i n e d P l a n e . . . . . . . . . . 2,5. T h e P r i n c i p l e o f G r a v i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6. L e m e c a n i c h e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. T h e T h e o r e m V I F a m i l y 3.1. T h e L a w o f C h o r d s a n d S o m e E a r l y D e r i v a t i v e s . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. T h e R i g h t - A n g l e T h e o r e m a n d T h e o r e m I X . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. T h e 4.t, 4.2. 4.3, 4.4. 4.5. Search for the Brachistochrone Some Early Attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theorem XXII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Brachistochrone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Theorem III and the New Technique . . . . . . . The Theorem X Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. F o u n d a t i o n s 5.t. T h e P r o b l e m of A c c e l e r a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2, GALILEO'S E r r o n e o u s L a w o f F a l l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3. T h e C o r r e c t L a w o f F a l l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4. T h e o r e m I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5. T h e F o u n d a t i o n of 1609 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. T h e 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 7, T h e 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. Superstructure A New Set of Problems . . . Some Further Results . . . P a t h s of L e a s t T i m e . . . . GALILEO'S M e t h o d o f A n a l y s i s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of Projectiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M o t i o n of P r o j e c t i l e s The Parabolic Path . . . . . . . . . Some Digressions . . . . . . . . . Propositions IV and V on the Motion T h e M a x i m u m R a n g e of a P r o j e c t i l e The Ballistic Tables . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. C o m p l e t i n g t h e T r e a t i s e 8.1. T h e F o u n d a t i o n o f t 6 3 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2. U n i f o r m M o t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.3. T h e T i m e s - S q u a r e d T h e o r e m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4. T h e o r e m I o n A c c e l e r a t e d M o t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T a b l e 1. S t a g e s i n D e v e l o p m e n t of GALILEO'S D e m o t u

locali . . . . . . . . .

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Galileo's Science of Motion

Introduction

t07

GALILEO'S De motu locali is the treatise on motion which was published in 1638 as the third and fourth giornate of the Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematichi intorno ~ due nuove scienze. The Discorsi is made up of three separate dialogues in which appear the three friends who participated in the Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo of t632. SALVIATI is GALILEO'S spokesman, SAGREDO is the sympathetic and intelligent listener, and SIMPL!ClO the somewhat dense ARISTOTELIAN. The first two dialogues of the Discorsi are contained in the first two giornate and are entirely in Italian. These deal with various scientific questions including, among others, the nature of tile mathematical continuum and of matter, the fall of bodies through different media, and the strength of materials. 1 The third giornata begins abruptly with the first book of De motu locali, ostensibly composed b y an unnamed author and read b y SALVIATIto SAGREDOand SIMPLICIO. Although the third and fourth giornate include some dialogue in Italian, they are devoted primarily to a mathematical treatise written in Latin. The mathematical treatise is divided into three parts. In his introductory remarks, GALILEO tells us that these three parts treat uniform motion, naturally accelerated motion, and violent motion. For some readers it m a y be surprising to find GALILEO,who is supposed to have completely abandoned ARISTOTELIAN physics, retaining the ancient dichotomy between natural and violent motion in his last and most important scientific work. The reason for this is a natural one. In spite of repeated efforts over a period of some fifty years, GALILEO was unable to develop an adequate dynamics of fall. He made m a n y important contributions to modern dynamics, the most notable of which are his steps towards development of the principle of rectilinear inertial motion, the formulation of basic laws of free fall, and his mathematical analysis of projectile motion. He failed, however, to articulate a concept of force which would permit him to account for free fall, 2 and without such a concept he could not avoid making a distinction between free fall and those motions which are more obviously caused by an external agent. In his earliest writings, GALILEO, like the ARISTOTELIANS, defined natural motion as that which results from an internal principle, and he called violent, or accidental, that caused b y an external force. But GALILEO noted that horizontal motion did not fit into either category and he called this a motion that is neither natural nor violent. Later, he called uniform circular motion about the center of the earth a "natural" motion. But, again, the reason behind introduction of this concept m a y be found in GALILEO'S inability to give an account of such motion based on mechanical principles. Even though GALILEO never laid down a physical theory which embraced both natural and violent motion, his later mathematical treatise suggests that 1 The first giornata has not, to my knowledge, been thoroughly examined, but for a good summary and an analysis in depth of some of its contents, see THOMAS SETTLE (I 966). For a comprehensive analysis of the second giornata see C. TRUESDELL (1960). 2 See RICHARD WESTFALL (1966, 1971) for insightful analyses of GALILEO'S difficulties with the concept of force.

108

W . L . ~vVIsAN:

he m u s t have believed i n the possibility of such a theory. 3 The separate t r e a t m e n t s of the different kinds of m o t i o n are n o t logically i n d e p e n d e n t . De motu locali begins with a brief book of theorems on u n i f o r m motion. T h e second book, on n a t u r a l l y accelerated motion, is d e p e n d e n t on the first, a n d the third, on violent motion, depends u p o n the first two. Despite use of the ARISTOTELIANterminology, GALILEO'S three books on m o t i o n c o n s t i t u t e a novel, a n d even quite general, t r e a t m e n t of the subject. ~ I t does not, however, include a n analysis of circular m o t i o n except for a f a u l t y b u t quite suggestive t r e a t m e n t of m o t i o n a b o u t the arc of a circle as the limiting case of m o t i o n along the sides of a n inscribed polygon as the n u m b e r of sides increases w i t h o u t limit. GALILEO'S s t u d y of m o t i o n t h u s o m i t t e d some essential topics a n d it was soon obsolete. Moreover, his m a t h e m a t i c a l reasoning was sometimes f a u l t y a n d his m a t h e m a t i c s was lacking in originality a n d elegance. 5 Yet his work m a y have justified his claim t h a t it opened the door to a " n e w contemplazione filled with infinite a n d admirable conclusions which in times to come will be able to exercise other m i n d s " (Opere viii, p. 267). I n this s t u d y I will n o t t r y to determine how GALILEO'S work influenced later developments. This question c a n n o t be answered u n t i l we know b e t t e r j u s t w h a t he actually did. The present s t u d y is i n t e n d e d as a step in this direction. 6 I t There are also indications in the Dialogo of GALILEO'S groping towards a more general physical theory. I n one passage GALILEO has his spokesman SALVIA:rI argue that we do not know by what "principle or vertue" a stone moves downward, and he says that "it must be granted that the vertue which carries such a body upward is no less internal than that which moves it downwards; and I think the motion of heavy bodies ascending b y the impetus they have absorbed to be altogether as natural as the motion of descent depending on gravity" (Opere vii, p. 261; SANTILLANA, pp. 250-52). I n the fourth giornata of the Discorsi we find an argument which, ill effect, makes uniform motion a special case of accelerated motion (see section 7.3, below). I n fact, GALILEO sometimes remarked that rest is "infinite slowness" (see section 8.i). Again, in a sixth giornata of the Discorsi which was added posthumously, GALILEO considers two perfectly identical, ideal weights on an ideal pulley. If the weights are set in motion, he says, they would continue to move indefinitely since each exactly counterweighs the other, and he adds that the same thing happens ill the case of a body set in motion on a horizontal plazle (opere v i i i , p. 336; COFFA 1968, pp. 273-75). Sucll passages show clearly that GALILEOabandoned his earlier distinction between natural and violent motions, b u t he nowhere provides us with a new and more general theory and the organization of his treatise on motion is witness to his inability to do this. Such an a t t e m p t may not be entirely unprecedented. See EMIL WOHLWILL on _NICOLAS OF CUSA'Sexamination of the relation between natural and violent motions in connection with a rotating sphere (t883, pp. 375-77). 5 See CARL B. BOYER (1967) for a very nice assessment of GALILEO as a mathematician. Although mally volumes have been written on GALILEO, there have been few monographs dealing at any length with his last treatise on motion. CAVERNI(1895) did a pioneering study, b u t his analysis has been generally neglected. MIELI (1938) devotes over a hundred pages to the Discorsi, b u t mostly to summarize and celebrate. KOYR~'s studies of GALILEO (1939) devote relatively little space to the mature work on motion. SETTLE (1966) provides the best and most comprehensive treatment of the mechanics of the De motu locali. CLAVELIN (1968) deals primarily with the Dialogo, b u t also gives a detailed analysis of a number of propositions of tile work on motion. GEYMONAT & CARUGO'Sedition of the Discorsi (1958) provides comprehensive notes on the first two giornate, but less on the last two.

Galileo's Science o5 Motion

t 09

presents a detailed analysis of GALILEO'S work on motion and tries to reconstruct the way in which this work was put together during a period of nearly fifty years. Evidence for determining the order in which GALILEO'S propositions were found and proved is drawn from various sources, including correspondence and unpublished writings. The most important source is a collection of notes and drafts in Volume 72 of the " M a n o s c r i t t i Galileiani" in the National Library in Florence. This manuscript includes preliminary drafts and miscellaneous notes pertaining to most of the propositions in De motu locali, and these drafts exhibit linguistic, conceptual, and methodological changes from which, together with evidence from other sources, a chronological reconstruction can be made. This material has received surprisingly little attention since CAVERNI'S study (t895) of GALILEO'S work on motion. CAVERNI made a reconstruction based primarily on analysis of GALILEO'S handwriting and the assumption that certain changes in the development of the work were due to attempts b y GALILEO to conceal his sources. There are difficulties in analysis of GALILEO'S writing (see section t.5) and some of CAVERNI'S assumptions m a y be unwarranted. However, his work contains much valuable analysis and for more than three quarters of a century it has been the only study of its kind. Oddly enough, CAVERNI'S chapters on GALILEO'S science of motion are virtually unkown to present day scholars, and I have yet to find these mentioned in the vast literature on GALILEO. This peculiar situation appears to be due, at least in part, to strong opposition from powerful colleagues, such as ANTONIO FAVARO. For CAVERNI set forth the thesis that GALILEO'S science of motion evolved out of medieval statics. In fact he argued that a proof of the principle of the inclined plane attributed to JORDANUS DE NEMORE was the source for GALILEO'S first theorem on motion along inclined planes. This claim and similar ones denying GALILEO'S originality in other areas offended m a n y of his colleagues, and there seems to have been a tendency among Italian scholars to ignore CAVERNI'S study of GALILEO.7 However, it is also true that CAVERNI took no account of the medieval writings on dynamics and kinenlatics discovered b y DUHEM a few years later, and widespread dismissal of CAVERNI'S work on the history of mechanics m a y have been due to the advent of DUHEM'S studies. DUHEM particularly emphasized the work of the fourteenth century Parisians and the role of LEONARDO DA VINCI in transmitting different medieval traditions to GALILEO and other important figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Scholars have challenged certain aspects of DUHEM'S work, but nonetheless it has had a lasting influence on GALILEAN studies. Since DUHEM'S studies appeared, historians have paid little attention to the principle of the inclined plane as the matrix for GALILEO'S science of motion. CAVERNI'S thesis that GALILEO simply borrowed from JORDA~US is, at the very least, an oversimplification, but his analysis is still an important pioneering study and neglect of it has resulted in loss of insight into the way in which the new science evolved. Whether or not GALILEO actually drew upon medieval sources is not a question which can be settled here. This question is inextricably involved in more general 7 See TABARRONI (1969) and his introduction to the reprint (1972) of CAVERNI'S
Storia del metodo sperimentale in Italia for general background concerning CAVERNI'S

controversial work. See also section 1.5, below.

t t0

W.L.

\~ISAN :

problems concerning the origins of modern science. Did modern science arise out of internal elaborations of purely traditional matter as argued b y exponents of the continuity of scientific development, or was there an "intellectual mutation," as argued b y those who urge that there was a revolution (or renaissance) in Western scientific thought ? Those who take the first view emphasize the importance of medieval science in the development of GALILEO'S thought, whereas those who follow the second stress instead the role of the ancient Greeks. s I t is difficult to resolve this problem. Like m a n y men of his time, GALILEO preferred to cite classical writers rather than medieval or modern. Also, the germs of his most fruitful ideas can be found in those classical sources--especially ARCHIMEDES and ARISTOTLE (both genuine and spurious)--whom he most frequently cites. However, a number of important fundamental ideas can be seen taking more definite shape in medieval treatises and are further advanced in the writings of LEONARDO DA VINCI and those of various mechanicians of the sixteenth century. I t is possible, of course, that GALILEO only studied the ancient Greeks and from them alone repeated in his own thought the development that we can see from classical times to the sixteenth century. I t seems more likely, however, that GALILEO was familiar with a number of concepts which can be found in the main mechanical traditions from the ancient Greeks through the sixteenth century, including the medieval science of weights. I shall review some of this material and will try to show how GALILEO'S new science m a y have evolved as the result of transformations aud reorganization of numerous traditional elements. This is not to say that GALILEOwas not an original and creative thinker. Notwithstanding the presence of some borrowed elements, GALILEO'S work on motion is quite novel in its conception and execution. No more than two or three propositions concerning motion on inclined planes existed before GALILEO,and these were not yet fully detached from the medieval science of weights. GALILEO began with these same propositions and constructed a new science around them. I t is m y aim here to show how this was done. The main result of m y study is a reconstruction of three stages in the development of the work on motion (see Table t). The first stage begins with an early unpublished essay and a few results probably obtained shortly afterwards. In this stage, GALILEO takes concepts and principles which can be found in the medieval science of weights and develops a few simple propositions on motion along inclined planes. GALILEO warns us t h a t the results he has derived cannot be found in nature, for he has not taken account of "accidental" features of motion such as acceleration. Stage I gives us the beginnings of a rational science of motion based on elementary mechanics. B y the second stage, GALILEO is becoming more expert in the use of Greek mathematics and is trying to prove a claim that the arc of the circle is the p a t h of quickest descent. We find him using his Postulate and the times-squared 8 Another view, dismissed by KoYR~ (1939), but suggested again by EUGENIO GARIN (1965),would connect GALILEOwith Renaissance Hermeticism. Fresh examination of this question is also suggested by the writings of FRANCES YATES (t964, t968). In what way and to what extent GALILEO'Sthought may have been "touched" by Renaissance Hermeticism is an interesting question. I have not, however, attempted to answer it.

Galileo's Science of Motion

111

theorem, and there appears to be a new empirical emphasis. Acceleration is still an " a c c i d e n t " but one which m a y be studied mathematically. The science of motion is to be concerned with phenomena which can be observed in nature, and at least one proposition (the times-squared law) is confirmed by an experiment. GALILEO improves his method for deriving propositions on motion and begins to develop a new foundation. From this foundation he derives his first propositions on the motion of projectiles. During this period he can be seen using methods and concepts which m a y be found in medieval kinematics and he m a y also be drawing from medieval dynamics as well. In the third stage we see further development in foundations and the proliferation of a superstructure of propositions which are motivated, at least in part, b y new questions about paths of quickest descent (now conceived as paths of least time). In the published text these questions are not dealt with and we find instead his rather tedious propositions relating times of fall along an initial vertical path and times to traverse subsequent paths along a horizontal or inclined plane. There is no suggestion that these propositions can be confirmed experimentally. For GALILEO,however, his propositions, rigorously deduced from true fundamental principles, are necessarily true. In these three stages we can see GALILEObeginning with an essentially medieval mechanics; then as he becomes more and more proficient in use of Greek geometrical m e t h o d s to derive propositions on motion along inclined planes, he develops a mathematical science which begins to resemble the rational mechanics described b y NEWTON as " t h e science of motions resulting from any forces whatsoever, and of the forces required to produce any motions, accurately proposed and demonstrated" (1934, p. xvii). GALILEO, of course, avoided the concept of force and his treatment of circular motion is quite inadequate. But his development of a mathematical science of motion based on "obviously t r u e " principles looks forward to the eighteenth century both in method and in content. Thus, we have in the work of a single man a development which spans the striking gap which we perceive between medieval and modern science. GALILEO did not, as was once commonly believed, singiehandedly create modern mathematical physics. There were m a n y other contributors of equal, possibly even greater, importance. But examination of GALILEO'S CUriOUS treatise on motion, part medieval, part classical, yet very nearly modern, m a y help us to arrive at a better understanding of some of the essential steps which had to be taken before mathematics could develop into the powerful and pervasive instrument of modern science which finally emerged from the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century.
1. The Mathematical Treatise on Motion

1.1. Structure and Contents

The first book of De motu locali begins with the definition of uniform motion as t h a t in which equal distances are traversed during any equal time intervals (Opere VIII, p. t9t). There follow four axioms which tell us t h a t if the speeds (velocitas) are the same, the distances (spatia) v a r y with the times, and if the times are the same, the distances v a r y with the speeds. GALILEO uses these axioms to establish six theorems which m a y be paraphrased as follows, letting S i

112 and
D i

W . L . WISAN: be the speed a n d distance, respectively, d u r i n g t i m e if S 1 = S t, t h e n T1/T ~ = D 1 / D v if T 1 = T 2 , t h e n S1/S ~ =:D1/D 2. if D 1 = D 2, t h e n S1/S 2 -----Tz/T1. DI/D 2 = (S~/$2)(Tx/T2). T~/T~ ----(D,/D~)($2/S~).
T i.

Proposition I : Proposition II : Proposition III : Proposition IV: Proposition V : P r o p o s i t i o n VI :

s~/s2 = (D,/D~) (T,/T1).

T h e first four of these propositions are e m p l o y e d in proofs of several t h e o r e m s on a c c e l e r a t e d a n d projectile motion, while the fifth a n d s i x t h are u n u s e d v a r i a n t s on the fourth. GALILEO'S proof of his first p r o p o s i t i o n on u n i f o r m m o t i o n d e p e n d s on EUCLID'S definition of p r o p o r t i o n (EUCLID V, Definition 5), a n d is similar to t h e proof of an e q u i v a l e n t p r o p o s i t i o n in ARCHIMEDES' t r e a t i s e On Spirals. GALILEO'S second p r o p o s i t i o n on u n i f o r m m o t i o n is e s t a b l i s h e d in a similar m a n n e r a n d t h e first two are t h e n used to derive t h e rest. T h e fifth a n d s i x t h propositions are t r i v i a l corollaries of t h e fourth, b u t are l a b o r i o u s l y p r o v e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y from t h e first three. T h e second b o o k begins w i t h a definition of u n i f o r m l y a c c e l e r a t e d m o t i o n a n d t h e P o s t u l a t e (see section 1.4), a n d includes t h i r t y - e i g h t t h e o r e m s a n d problems, w i t h a n u m b e r of corollaries, lemmas, a n d scholia. T h e order of t h e propositions is rigorously d e d u c t i v e in t h e sense t h a t no p r o p o s i t i o n precedes those on which its proof depends, b u t the a r r a n g e m e n t is lacking in elegance a n d coherence. Complex propositions f r e q u e n t l y precede simpler ones, a n d special cases can be f o u n d preceding more general cases. T h e r e is little logical interd e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n d e r i v a t i v e propositions. T o t a l l y u n r e l a t e d propositions are p l a c e d in the m i d s t of those which share c o m m o n features, or are d i r e c t e d to the same end, t h u s obscuring w h a t little u n i t y of s t r u c t u r e t h e b o o k has. F o r t h e m o s t p a r t m y s t u d y will be concerned w i t h the propositions of Book II, as it is in t h e i r u n s c r a m b l i n g t h a t the m a i n clues to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of the whole will emerge. These propositions can be d i v i d e d into seven categories: C a t e g o r y (l) consists of t h e principles a n d m o s t f u n d a m e n t a l theorems. These include tile definition of accelerated motion, the Postulate, T h e o r e m s I, II, a n d III, t h e d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rule 1, the inertial principle a n d t h e principle of superposition of motions. 1 For the definition of uniformly accelerated motion and the Postulate, see section 1.4. Theorem I establishes t h a t a body moving with a uniformly accelerated motion m a y be treated as though it were moving uniformly at its average speed. Or, in language closer to GALILEO'S: if a body falling from rest through a distance D in time T acquires an instantaneous velocity V, a body moving with uniform velocity V/2 will traverse the same distance D in tile same time T. Theorem I t is the times-squared theorem : in the case of a freely falling body, T12/T22 = D1/D 2, where D n is the distance fallen from rest in T n. There are two corollaries to this theorem, the first of which will be referred to as the law of odd numbers: the distances traversed from rest in successive equal intervals of time are as the odd numbers, beginning with unity. The second is the mean proportional corollary (or Cor. 2), which says t h a t T1/T 2 ~ D1/m (D v D~) (see "Abbreviations and Conventions"). Theorem I I I says t h a t the ratio of the times of descent from rest along an inclined plane and its vertical height are as tile inclined plane to the vertical. The double-distance rule establishes t h a t if a body

Galileo's Science of Motion

1t 3

Category (2) consists of the law of chords and what will be called the Theorem VI family. These are the propositions which can be derived from the law of chords alone, and they form two separate groups. Those in the first group, Theorems V I I I , X I X , XX, and X X I , concern paths of quickest descent; they are probably the results of early explorations directed towards a proof of GALILEO'S claim that the brachistochrone was the circle. The second group may reflect efforts to establish some fundamental law relating times of descent and angles of inclination. It includes Theorems V I I and IX, the third corollary to Theorem VI, and the converse of the second corollary of this theorem. Category (3) includes the brachistochrone and Theorem X X I I from which it is inferred. Theorem X X I I depends on the Postulate and the times-squared theorem. In a scholium, GALILEO adds that it seems to follow that the path of swiftest motion would be along the arc itself, and he gives an argument which uses a concept of limits. Category (4) contains machinery devised for getting further results. This includes Theorems IV, V, X, XI, and XlI, and Problems V, VI, and VII. The three problems are the only propositions other than Theorems I and I I which deal only with fall rather than motion along an inclined plane or diversion into a horizontal path. These are easy results of the corollary on mean proportionals. Theorems IV and V are used to prove the law of chords from the times-squared theorem and Theorem III. Theorems X, XI, and X l I use the times-squared theorem to extend the scope of Theorem III, and may have been developed to provide an alternate and more elegant proof of Theorem X X I I . Category (5) consists in propositions deriving from the double-distance rule. These include Theorems XV and XVI, Problems X and XVI, and Proposition X X I X . The last mentioned is a problem on paths of quickest descent but is fundamentally different from the brachistochrone or the propositions of category (2). It is Theorem X V l I I in the National Edition and Problem X I elsewhere. Theorem XVI derives elementary results of the double-distance rule, while Theorem XV and Problem X explore the consequences of deflection upward along an inclined plane. Problem XVI attempts, unsuccessfully, to extend the new terrestrial mechanics to the heavens. Theorem XVI and Problem X V I derive solely from the double-distance rule; Proposition X X I X depends also on the mean proportional corollary; the others require, in addition, the Postulate and Theorem III. Category (6) consists in a family of problems and two related theorems. This family includes Problems I, II, III, IV, IX, xII, xIII, and XIV, and Theorems X I I I and XIV. Some of these propositions appear to be motivated by a search descends along an inclined plane, or vertical, AB in an interval of time T, and it is diverted along a horizontal path BC (assuming no loss of speed), then in an interval of time equal to T, tile body will traverse a distance along BC equal to twice AB. Theorem VI, or the law of chords [see category (2)3, says that a body descends in equal times along chords drawn from the highest or lowest points of a circle. Theorem X X I I [see category (3)i tells us that if we consider an arc in the lower quadrant of a circle, a body moves more slowly along the chord that subtends the whole arc than along any two chords meeting anywhere on the arc and terminating at the end points of the longer chord. See the "Index of Propositions" for statements of the remaining propositions.

1t 4

W.L. WISAN:

for paths of quickest descent, while others are directed towards a derivation of the double-distance rule which would make that rule independent of medieval assumptions. All propositions in category (6) are connected through a common strategy of analysis and proof, and arise from a conceptual base which is only distantly related to the brachistochrone. They depend on the Postulate, the corollary on mean proportionals, and Theorem III. Category (7) includes miscellaneous propositions. Theorem XVlI and Problem XV are related to solution of a paradox involving the Postulate and the De motu theorem. Problem VIII is the revised version of a problem suggested in De motu antiquiora. Proposition x x v I I I , or Problem XI in the National Edition and Theorem XVIII elsewhere, is probably related to speculations in connection with the law of chords. All of these depend on Theorem III; all but Problem VIII depend also on the mean proportional corollary. The only proposition on circular motion is the brachistochrone and in this case GALILEOattempts to reduce the problem to one involving motion along the sides of a polygon. In the Dialogo, where GALILEO argues against the objection that a rotating earth would extrude all objects on its surface, there is a hint that circular motion might be treated as the resultant of a rectilinear inertial motion and motion towards the center of the earth (see section 7.1, n.4, below). But in his treatise on motion, where GALILEOanalyzes the motion of projectiles in terms of the components of motion, there is no such treatment of circular motion. The third book is on the motion of projectiles, and it has a simple, orderly structure. From the first proposition, which establishes that the path of a projectile is a semi-parabola, and the next two propositions (basic theorems on the composition of motions), there follows a series of results leading up to Proposition vii, whose corollary establishes that the maximum range of a projectile will be attained when the angle of fire is forty-five degrees. Another series of propositions leads to the construction of tables on range, altitude, and angle of fire. There are, in all, fourteen propositions on the motion of projectiles of which the first five are the fundamental ones. The first proposition is proved from the inertial principle and the law of odd numbers, but the earliest proof of this proposition depends on the corollary on mean proportionals and the definition of uniformly accelerated motion. It is on this same type of proof that the remainder of the book depends. Propositions VI through XI are the main theoretical results, while Propositions XlI, XlII, and XIV establish the method for computing the tables.

1.2. Organization
The Latin treatise is organized like the works of the Greek mathematicians, EUCLID and A~CI~IMEDES. From definitions, axioms, and a single explicit postulate, GALILEOderives a body of mathematical propositions by use of geometrical theorems and methods of the Greeks. GALILEOalso introduces certain important principles quite informally, while others are never made explicit. Although the new science of motion is modeled after the Greek mathematical treatises, it falls far short of them in explicitness, precision, and elegance.

Galileo's Science of Motion

1t 5

GALILEO numbers his propositions and separates them into theorems and problems. The distinction which he makes is not clear, but for the most part the theorems are either basic propositions or those which establish relations which can be stated in a relatively simple form. Where the result follows from involved constructions not reducible to a simple formulation, the proposition is usually cast into the form of a problem in which one is to find the construction which will give the desired result. There are exceptions to this; a number of theorems are neither basic nor simple and look more like the bulk of GALILEO'S problems, while a few of the problems are quite simple and resemble other propositions presented as theorems. The theorems which look as though they should have been presented as problems turn out to be results of early investigations, while the problems which look like theorems are later. In fact, most propositions designated as problems are relatively late. Thus, in addition to the practical problem of finding the clearest way to present a given result, GALILEO was probably also guided by a tendency to regard as theorems the fruit of his early investigations, ~ while the later pursuit of further constructions would naturally result in the solution of what would be conceived as particular problems. The first two books of De motu locali follow the uniform procedure of giving two numbers to each proposition, indicating which theorem or problem it is, as well as which proposition. We have, for example, " P r o b l e m IX, Proposition XlII," or " T h e o r e m XXlI, Proposition X X X V I . " In Book III, however, only the first four propositions are numbered in this way. The next two give the number of the proposition first and then simply indicate whether the proposition in question is a theorem or a problem. Thus we find "Proposition V. Problem." With Proposition vii, this procedure is reversed so that we have "Theorem. Proposition V I I . " The remaining propositions then follow this style. Another difference between Book I I I and the first two books lies in the form of the propositions. In Books I and II, GALILEO generally follows the classical form of the Greek mathematicians. He first states his proposition in general terms and then restates it in terms of the diagram before beginning the proof. At the end, he usually, but not always, states what he has proved. Book I I I is frequently less formal. In fact, the problems of Book I I I are sometimes stated in incomplete sentences. Also, there is more discussion of method and of special cases, and there is a digression on GALILEO'S cosmogony. As will be shown in section 7.5, the ballistic tables appear to be out of place. These and other differences between the form and general style of the first two books and t h a t of the third suggest that the last book was probably finished later and in greater haste. In section 7, we shall see further evidence for this conclusion. In the second book there is only one case in which GALILEO fails to begin with a general statement of his proposition. This occurs in Proposition XXVIII, a miscellaneous theorem which m a y have been a late addition to the treatise (see section 6.2). Similarly, there is only one case in Book I I where a general statement is not followed by the usual restatement in terms of the diagram. This and other 2 For the etymology of the Greek term, and the distinction between theorems and problems as found in ARCHIMEDES,see HEATH (t 897, p. clxxxii). See also the summary of ancient views given by PROCLUS (HEATH 1926, vol. 1, pp. t24-29). GALILEOseems not to follow any of the traditional distinctions discussed by PROCLUS.

I 16

W.L. ~VIsAN:

irregularities in Theorem I, the equivalent speed theorem, suggest that there were last minute changes made in its proof and that it was sent to the publisher after hasty and careless editing (see section 8.5). Although its propositions, with the exceptions noted, follow the classical form, the book on accelerated motion is poorly organized. It was put together from many notes and drafts accumulated in some forty years of work. Almost all of the proofs are based on the first few theorems. There is little logical dependence among subsequent propositions, even where some might have been employed to prove others in a more elegant manner. The order of the propositions is sometimes unintelligible. The first three theorems are fundamental. The next six include the law of chords, two ~theorems developed to prove that theorem from the timessquared law, and three consequences of Theorem VI, one of which is no longer derived from it. Most of the next eleven propositions belong to category (6), but with unrelated propositions dispersed among them. Four of the following six are consequences of the double-distance rule, while two are unrelated to the rest. The next seven include four propositions on paths of quickest descent. One of these is Theorem XXlI, and the other three are those members of the Theorem VI family which look as though they might be loosely related to the search for the brachistochrone. Theorem X X l I is separated from these, however, by the three most complex problems of category (6). Although probably generated by questions concerning paths of quickest descent, they differ from the brachistochrone in origin, concept, and method. The last two problems are very elementary propositions. One probably relates to GALILEO'Ssolution of a puzzle concerning accelerated motion, while the other is an attempt to apply the double-distance rule to a cosmological problem. Although the order of the propositions in Book II is logical in the strict sense, there is little evidence of an organizing principle. It is as though GALILEO was not fully aware of the differences and similarities between his various lines of investigation. But this lapse is probably due more to the originality of the work than to any other factor. It is not the pioneers who construct the tidiest paths.
1.3. The Mathematical Tools

In De motu locali we do not find any new developments in mathematics, but rather a new use of Greek mathematics to study motion along inclined planes. GALILEO'S use of his tools is usually competent but not exceptional. His logical lapses are confined to the manuscript remains, to his scholia, to a careless remark in Book I, to those propositions which derive from medieval assumptions or some unspecified doctrine of his own, and to one of three proofs of Theorem VI. Arguments from limits and considerations involving the notion of points at infinity are used as tools of analysis in the manuscript and in the scholia, but do not appear in formal propositions. The brachistochrone, for example, is presented in a scholium as a result that seems to follow. Elementary geometry is generally assumed, but where a proof depends on some consequence which does not follow immediately from EUCLID, GALILEO usually supplies a lemma. He does not normally cite theorems on geometry or on motion; however in most cases, the application of theorems on motion is given

Galileo's Science of Motion

t 17

in complete detail, even though the theorems are not usually referred to explicitly. GALILEO leaves little to the reader other than completion of proofs involving more than one case, and there is rarely any difficulty in completely reconstructing GALILEO'S reasoning. Exceptions to this will be found in some very early theorems, in the brachistochrone, in theorems proved on medieval or other unstated assumptions, and in various inequalities. In his first a t t e m p t to solve problems on motion, GALILEO uses only the most elementary geometry of triangles and ratios. Later, in the propositions of the Theorem VI family, he draws on EUCLID III, which deals with the properties of circles. Still later, in the category (6) propositions, GALILEO encounters fairly difficult problems and his solutions require skill in manipulating geometrical ratios so as to express an unknown quantity in terms of given distances. He makes extensive use of Greek geometrical algebra and, as we shall see, he sometimes employs the Greek method of analysis and synthesis. 3 A well-known definition of the method of analysis and synthesis is found in PAPPUS, who gives, in a single sentence, two different definitions of the method of analysis. The first clause says that Analysis then takes that which is sought as if it were admitted and passes from it through its successive consequences to something which is admitted as the result of synthesis: Then, he continues with what is, in fact, a second definition: for in analysis we assume that which is sought as if it were (already) done, and we inquire what it is from which this results, and again what is the antecedent cause of the latter, and so on, until b y so retracing our steps we come upon something already known or belonging to the class of first principles, and such a method we call analysis as being solution backwards. There follows immediately the definition of synthesis as the reverse of analysis, in which: We take as already done that which was last arrived at in the analysis and, b y arranging in their natural order as consequences what were before antecedents, and successively connecting them one with another, we arrive finally at the construction of what was sought; and this we call synthesis. (HEATH 1926, vol. t, p. t38) PAPPUS goes on to remark that there are two kinds of analysis, one of which is directed to a search for the truth (that is, the establishment of theorems), and is called theoretical, while the other is problematical, and directed to finding what we are told to find (that is, the solution of problems). In his Dialogo, where GALILEO gives a definition of the method of analysis, he follows the medievals in calling this the resolutive method. His definition is 3 GALILEO'Sgeometrical algebra is that which employs the EUCLIDEANtheol7 of proportion. He uses the traditional terms for transforming proportions, such as permutando, invertendo, separando, dividendo, convertendo, componendo (HEATH t897, p. clxxix). He also compounds ratios in the modern sense, as did the Greeks, but without giving this operation a special name.

1t 8

W.L.

WISAI~ :

t h a t f o u n d in PAPPUS' first clause a n d his i l l u s t r a t i o n concerns t h e proof of a t h e o r e m (Opere V I I , p. 75), b u t t h e w a y in which he a c t u a l l y uses this m e t h o d follows t h e second definition of PAPPUS a n d is u s u a l l y a p p l i e d t o t h e solution of problems. I n f r a g m e n t s r e l a t i n g to P r o b l e m X I I I , we Shall find a f a i r l y c o m p l e t e record of this procedure, in which GALILEO assumes relations n o t y e t e s t a b l i s h e d a n d derives t h e result he seeks. Different f r a g m e n t s show how this process is r e p e a t e d u n t i l GALILEO finally arrives a t t h e k e y r e l a t i o n which m u s t h o l d b e t w e e n given planes a n d t h e i r p a r t s in order t h a t t h e p r o b l e m m a y be solved. H e can t h e n m a k e t h e necessary c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d proceed s y n t h e t i c a l l y . 4 T h e evidence e x h i b i t i n g GALILEO'S use of t h e m e t h o d of analysis a n d synthesis resolves a puzzle concerning t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e b r a c h i s t o c h r o n e p r o p o s i t i o n a n d T h e o r e m X X l I from which i t is deduced. T h e former is s t a t e d a n d p r o v e d in t h e language used before t h e t e c h n i q u e of proof of the l a t t e r is w o r k e d o u t a n d seems a n a c h r o n i s t i c when d e d u c e d from t h e l a t t e r . If GALILEO h a d p r o c e e d e d a n a l y t i c a l l y from the b r a c h i s t o c h r o n e proposition, a n d o n l y s u b s e q u e n t l y p r o v e d T h e o r e m XXlI, this w o u l d a c c o u n t for t h e d i s c r e p a n c y in language. T h e m e t h o d of analysis a n d synthesis (or resolution a n d composition) m a y t h e n h a v e p l a y e d an i m p o r t a n t role in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of GALILEO'S new science of motion. This is to be e x p e c t e d since he used Greek g e o m e t r y a l m o s t exclusively a n d h a d few o t h e r aids to analysis. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , w h e t h e r it can be said t h a t GALILEO used this m e t h o d to discover his principles, r a t h e r t h a n s i m p l y to find proofs, is a n o t h e r m a t t e r . 5 4 F o r a very useful study of Greek geometrical analysis, see MAHON]EY (1968), who argues t h a t the second definition of PAPPUS is a later interpolation which does not fit the method used b y the Greeks. MAHONEY does not regard the procedure laid down b y the second definition as a "powerful heuristic device" comparable to t h a t set forth b y the first (ibid., p. 323). I n one case this m a y be so, b u t in general it is difficult to find in GALILEO the p a t t e r n of discovery claimed for him in RANDALL'S celebrated study of the development of scientific method at Padua (1940, 1951). RANDALL finds in JAcoPo ZABAI~ELLA'Sdouble method of resolution and composition important elements of the " n e w m e t h o d " of modern mathematical physics (1961, pp. 66-57). According to RANDALL, the principles of the new science are no longer considered self-evident b u t are found through the analysis of experience, and the resolutive method of ZABAEELLAbecomes the procedure for the discovery o/these principles. GALILEO is said to use this method for the discovery of his principles and to describe it in ZABARELLA'Sterms. There are several passages which presumably show this, b u t upon examination none supports the belief t h a t he was using or describing the method of ZABARELLA,or even using the latter's terms. Two passages refer to the resolutive method as a method for finding a proof (Opere I, p. 318; opere VII, p. 75). That is, the method shows what principle, already established by other means, can be used to prove the proposition in question. Two contain no explicit reference to the terms in question and do not describe anything clearly recognizable as the method of ZABAI~ELLA(Opere V I I I , p. 212; XVII, p. 90). These concern the establishment of the definition of uniform acceleration and the derivation of the parabolic p a t h of projectiles. Two are not b y GALILEO himself (opere IV, p. 521 ; XVII, p. t60), although the first m a y actually have been drafted b y GALILEO; it Occurs in a tract b y BENEDETTO CASTELLI,much of the original of which has been shown b y FAVARO to be in GALILEO'S hand. However, the passage in question is missing from the original manuscript, and its authorship remains undetermined (Opere IV, pp. 13-16). In any case, the passage fails to support the thesis t h a t GALILEO borrowed his method or his terminology from ZABA~ELLA; on the contrary, it suggests t h a t GALILEO himself m a y have generally avoided the term while perhaps

Galileo's Science of Motion

1t 9

For solving most of his problems OH motion GALILEO developed a few simple techniques, the evolution of which provide clues to the chronological order of his propositions. I n his first theorems GALILEO used the principle of the inclined plane in order to compare "velocities." After discovery of the times-squared theorem a new technique evolved b y which the time of descent along the lower part of a plane could be determined, given the time along the whole of the plane. For example, given the plane AC, let the time to traverse t h a t plane be t (AC), and let B be a n y point between A and C. Then t (AB) m a y be found b y apphcation of the corollary on mean proportionals. T h a t is, if t ( A C ) = A C , then t (AB)----m (AB,AC). The time t (BC,A) along the lower part BC of the plane AC after an intial descent along AB can be found b y simply subtracting: t ( A C ) - t ( A B ) =

t(BC,A).
We shall see GALILEO first use this simple result in an a w k w a r d manner, after which it becomes a familiar relation which guides the search for solution of other problems. Although eventually formalized in Theorem X I , this relation is established every time it is needed b y reasoning from the corollary on m e a n proportionals. The corollary to Problem VI establishes a variant on Theorem X I : if t ( B C ) = B C , then t ( B C , A ) = t ( A C ) - - t ( A B ) = m ( A C , B C ) - - m ( A B , B C ) . This result is rarely used, but it provides the key to solution of one of GALILEO'S m o s t difficult problems. GALILEO'S most c o m m o n m e t h o d for solving problems on accelerated motion is to begin with one or the other of these basic relations, which will be referred to as the techniques of Theorem X I and Problem VI, respectively. I n section 6 we shall see how the technique of Theorem X I developed into a more general strategy for solving the problems of category (6). permitting its use by C A S T E L L I , who uses the same term again, in similar manner, in a letter to GALILEO ( O p e r e XVlI, p. 16o). Tile passage in the tract published under CASTELLI'Sname criticizes "grave errors" in arguments by GALILEO'S opponents who have used the resolutive method. I t is remarked parenthetically that properly used the resolutive method is an " o t t i m o " method of invention, and a description of the method is inserted: one takes one's conclusions as true and deduces consequences until reaching some manifest truth or a proposition already demonstrated, after which one concludes with the compositive method (I have not found this last term elsewhere in GALILEO). GALILEO'S opponents are accused of proceeding immediately (instead of going step by step) to some proposition from which they can draw their conclusion. This sounds rather like ZABARELLA'Smethod described in ~RAlgDALL(1940; t961) and EDWARDS (t960, pp. 262--68). t{ANDALL concludes that the method of analysis and synthesis of the Greeks is assimilated by GALILEO to the method of Z A B A R E L L A , SO that "' with this mathematical emphasis added to the logical methodology of Zabarella, there stands completed the ' new method' for which men had been so eagerly seeking" (196t, p. 66). Some difficulties with this interpretation have been indicated above; another appears in the next section of this chapter. It is quite possible, however, that GALILEOWaS, in fact, led to his correct law of fall (the definition of uniformly accelerated motion) by an early attempt to prove the parabolic path of projectiles (see section 5.1, n. 3). But instead of proceeding analytically from the times-squared law to the principle that speed of fall increases with time, and thence to the parabolic path, as supposed by I~ANDALLand others, it is more likely that he proceeded analytically from the parabolic path to the correct law of fall. The latter, however, was first proved from the times-squared law and the double-distance rule, and thus on assumption of the erroneous law that speed of fall increases with distance (see section 5.5). Nowhere, then, does GALILEO appear to be consciously using the resolutive method as a way of discovering new principles. This conclusion is in accord with recent remarks by SC~IMITT (t969) and SHEA (1970a).
9 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. ~3

120

W . L . WISAN :

1.4. The Role of Experiment GALILEO's contribution to an experimentally oriented physics was greatly exaggerated in the nineteenth century when students were taught that he was the inventor of the method of induction and that he derived his laws of motion from tables of carefully gathered data. This view was eventually undermined b y a new vision of scientific method as a priori and mathematical. KOYR~'S studies of GALILEO picture him as a PLATONIST and theoretical physicist whose contact with the lower world of experience consisted primarily in thought experiments. The role of physical experience was all but eliminated. T h a t KoYR~'s view is untenable has been shown b y SETTLE, who challenged KOYRt~'s claim that GALILEO could not have performed the famous experiment on the inclined plane as it is described in the Discorsi. SETTLE satisfactorily reproduced GALILEO'S results with comparable equipment, and he conjectured not only that the experiment was actually performed but also that experiments played a key role in the development of GALILEO'S science (t96t ; t966, Chapter II, 1967). These conjectures, based on experimental results together with a careful reading of passages in GALILEO which reveal him as a genuine experimenter, are now confirmed b y evidence from GALILEO'S manuscript3 The role of experiment, denied b y KOYRI~ and others, needs to be reassessed and SETTLE'S fine discussion of experiment in GALILEO (t966, Chapter II) marks an important turning point in GALILEO studies. Although m y own finding is t h a t most of GALILEO'S work on motion is more rationally oriented than SETTLE'S study suggests, it is difficult to argue with his conclusion that GALILEO'S "experimentation contributed to the development of his thought in such a way that he would not have produced what he did had he not experimented" (t966, p. t04). Experiment and experience doubtless played a key role in GALILEO'S science. But it is difficult to determine exactly what this role is, especially in the case of his work on motion. In his introduction to the third giornata of the Discorsi GALILEO claims to have discovered m a n y properties of motion which have been neither observed nor demonstrated: " s y m p t o m a t u m tamen, quae complura et scitu digna insunt in eo, adhuc inobservata, necdum indemonstrata, comperio" (Opere VIII, p. 190). 7 GALILEO specifically mentions the times-squared theorem and the proposition that the path of proiectiles is a semi-parabola, s and says that these and m a n y s Reported by STILLMANDRAKE in a paper read at the annual meeting of the History of Science Society (Washington, D.C., December 29, 1972). See section 1.5 for a discussion of this manuscript, There are considerable differences in the rendering of this clause. CREW & SALVIO construe comperio as " I have discovered by experiment" (CREw, p. 153). SALIJSBURY says that "there are sundry Symptomes and Properties in [the new science] worthy of our Notice, which I find not to have been hitherto observed, much lesse demonstrated by any" (t665, p. 125). CLAVELINhas GALILEOsay that the properties have not yet been observed or demonstrated a rna connaissance (1970, p. 125). The paraphrase given above follows GEONAT & CARIJaO'SItalian translation which seems the most literal (1958, p. 178). This last translation has been especially helpful in numerous instances. s It is possible that GALILEOknew of medieval derivations equivalent to the timessquared theorem, while it is certain that he knew of CAVALIERI'Spublication, in 1632, of the parabolic path of projectiles. See GALILEO'Sletter on this subject (@ere XIV, pp. 386-87), and CAVALIERI'Svery apologetic letter to GALILEO (ibid., pp. 394-95).

Galileo's Science of M o t i o n

~21

other things worth knowing are to be demonstrated in his work. De motu locali, then, is to establish properties of motion which are observed in nature. This point is emphasized even more at the beginning of the second book: And first of all it seems desirable to find and explain a definition best fitting natural phenomena. For anyone may invent an arbitrary type of motion and discuss its properties; thus, for instance, some have imagined helices and conchoids as described by certain motions which are not met with in nature, and have very commendably established the properties which these curves possess in virtue of their definitions; but we have decided to consider the phenomena of bodies falling with an acceleration such as actually occurs in nature and to make this definition of accelerated motion exhibit the essential features of observed accelerated motions. And this, at last, after repeated efforts Ediuturnas mentis agitationes~ we trust we have succeeded in doing. In this belief we are confirmed mainly by the consideration that experimental results are seen to agree with and exactly correspond with those properties which have been, one after another, demonstrated by us. (Opere viii, p. 197; CREW, p. t60) The properties of accelerated motion are to be derived from definition of a motion which occurs in nature, an assertion which, according to ARISTOTLE, would be a first principle or a derivative proposition (Posterior Analytics I, 10, 76a). In fact, the definition gives the correct law for free fall: velocities acquired are proportional to the time of fall. But GALILEOrarely refers to this proposition as a principle and sometimes even refers to it as an arbitrary definition (Opere XVII, pp. 90-91), whereas the Postulate is designated il solo principio (Opere VIII, pp. 205, 208, 266). The definition, GALILEOtells us, was found after long mental effort, and was confirmed by derivation of properties which correspond with experimental results. He is less precise about just how he discovered the timessquared theorem and the parabolic path of projectiles; however, there is a clear emphasis on the role of experience in confirmation of results. But exactly what GALILEO intends by this becomes a puzzle as we read further. The initial emphasis is on experience, but the arguments offered by SALVIATI in the ensuing dialogue are mainly rational, and experience is appealed to only for the purpose of demonstrating that motion increases continuously from rest. The final argument for the definition takes the form of a supposed refutation of the most obvious alternative, a rule relating the velocities acquired in fall to the distance of fall (see section 5.2). After this, the definition is said to be established: Uniformly accelerated motion is that which, beginning from rest, acquires equal moments of swiftness (celeritatis momenta) in equal times. (Opere viii, p. 204) The definition of naturally accelerated motion having been agreed upon, SALVIATI then announces the solo principio supposed by our unnamed author. This is the Postulate: equal speeds (gradus velocitatis) are acquired in descent from the same height. SAGREDO, persuaded by the lume naturale, finds this proposition so probable as to merit acceptance without question. SALVIATI,
9*

t 22

W.L. *vVIsAN:

however, describes an experiment (esper.ienza) which he says will so much increase the probability of the proposition that it can be considered almost as though it has been given a necessary (that is, rigorous) demonstration. The experiment makes use of a pendulum consisting of a bob on a string. If the bob descends from the point C without interruption it will ascend again to the point D, virtually at the same distance from the horizontal as C. T h a t is, in descending from C to B, the bob acquires sufficient momento to carry it upward to the same height2 Now, if the p a t h of the bob is altered b y placing a nail at the point F, the bob rises to the point I, and, if placed at E, the bob rises to G, I and G both on the line through C and D. Thus, in descending from C, the bob acquires that momento which is required to raise it to the same height regardless of the p a t h it takes. Then, since the bob gains the same momento in descending from D as from C, it is reasonable to suppose that it would also gain this same momento if it were to descend along the arcs IB and GB. Since the same bob is considered in each case, it can be said to acquire the same speed. The analogy with differently inclined planes, of course, is obvious.

SAGREDO is again ready to accept SALVlATI'S argument and regard the Postulate as demonstrated, but SALVIATIwarns against assuming too much from this. 1 In the first place, acceleration along the arc of a curve does not proceed in the same way as along a rectilinear plane. Secoladly, the same experiment cannot be duplicated for the case of descent along a plane, since a ball descending along one plane and diverted upward along a second plane would lose too much of its impeto. Thus, SALVIATI says, the result inferred from his experiment must be taken as a postulate, the absolute truth of which will be established when we see other conclusions built on this hypothesis correspond to and agree perfectly with esperienza.

(Opere v i i i , p. 208)
This last remark suggests that we have here a treatise based on the hypothetico-deductive-experimental method. Both the definition and the Postulate are to be confirmed b y experimental evidence. But a search through the remainder of the treatise reveals only one experiment offered to show the agreement between a proposition and that which can be observed. This is the well-known experiment b y which GALILEO demonstrates the times-squared theorem. Early in the fourth For GALILEO'S use of the term momento see section 2,6. 10 " I o non voglio ... che noi ci pigliamo pih del dovere ..." (Opere VIII, p. 207). CREw & SALVlOrender this " I do not wish ... that we trouble ourselves too much about this matter," which misses the point SALVlATIis making (CREw, p. t 72).

Galileo's Science of Motion

t 23

giornata some other experiments are described; however, the purpose of these is
to demonstrate that the results on projectile motion are not invalidated b y the effect of air resistance, provided the projectiles considered are not from firearms (see section 7.5). Another experimental result is referred to in the fourth giornata: the m a x i m u m range for a given initial speed is obtained when the projectile is launched at a forty-five degree angle. GALILEO proves this proposition, but does not argue that he has thereby confirmed the fundamental principles from which it is derived. On the contrary, he insists that The knowledge of a single fact acquired by [knowledge of] its cause opens the intellect to an understanding and sure knowledge of other facts without need of recourse to experience, precisely as it has come about in the present case, where having learned with certainty, b y demonstrative reasoning, that the m a x i m u m range is Eobtained with] an elevation of forty-five degrees, the Author demonstrates for us that which has perhaps never been observed in experience (per l'esperienza non ~ stato osservato), and this is that of all other angles of fire, those which exceed or fall short of forty-five degrees b y the same amount will have equal ranges. (Opere V I I I , p. 296) Here, GALILEO does not point to the methodological significance of the demonstration of something already known b y experience, but emphasizes that from this fact, now known through rigorous demonstration, he can derive other things which have never been observed, n The experiment on the inclined plane is the only one explicitly offered as confirmation of a fundamental principle, that is, the definition of naturally accelerated motion which is used in the proof of the times-squared theorem. The experiment is described in the course of some dialogue which follows the proof of the first corollary to the times-squared theorem. SIMPLICIO expresses doubt that the definition of accelerated motion actually describes that which occurs in nature, and having understood that there are m a n y experiments which show this, suggests that one of these be presented. SALVIATI agrees that this is a reasonable request from a man of science, for this is a proper custom ... in the sciences which apply mathematical demonstrations to the conclusions of natural science, as seen in perspective, astronomy, mechanics, music, and others which confirm with sensate esperienza their principles, which are the foundations of the subsequent structure. (Opere V I I I , p. 2t2) 12 11 There is a suggestion here that GALILEOis emphasizing this last point in order to minimize the fact that the proposition on the angle giving maximum range was already known. SAGREDO remarks that knowledge of the cause is infinitely superior to the "simple information" that the proposition is so. TARTAGLIA,who first published this in Nova scientia in 1537, is not mentioned. 12 CREW ~ SALVIOrender sensate esperienza by "well-chosen experiments" (CREw, p. 178). SALUSBURY uses "Sensible Experiments" (t665, p. t47). See GEYMONAT BRUNETTI (1966) and SCHMITT(t 969) for discussions of GALILEO'Suse Of the expression sensate esperienza. The passage I have quoted above is often cited to show how GALILEO employed the method of analysis and synthesis (or resolution and composition), according to which he proceeded from an analysis of experience to discovery of his principles and then deduces further consequences which are tested by experience (RANDALL, t 940, p. 199). The passage, however, calls upon experience for confirmation rather than for discovery of the principles, and nothing is said about the confirmation of further results.

124

W.L.

WISAN :

There follows a detailed account of an experiment demonstrating the timessquared theorem and the theorem that for planes of the same length, the times are inversely proportional to the square roots of the heights (published as Theorem IV). This is the experiment which was performed by SETTLE (1961, 1966), who suggests that GALILEO may have used some such experiment as a tool for tile initial discovery of the times-squared theorem, possibly in the form of the law of odd numbers. This result could easily have been found from an even simpler experiment in which one need only note the distances traversed in equal successive intervals of time (SETTLE 1967, p. 335)Whether GALILEO used experiment to discover the times-squared theorem or any other proposition on motion remains a moot question. GALILEO does not say that he did, and there are no accounts by witnesses. GALILEO,in a letter to GUIDOBALDO, does speak of using an experiment to "clarify" a proposition (Opere X, pp. 97-t00; SETTLE 1966, Appendix 1).13 On the whole, however, the precise function and extent of GALILEO'S experiments remain obscure. GALILEO claims to have many experiments which confirm the consequences of his principles, but he puts in evidence only one, and this only to support the acceleration principle. He fails to see that the same experiment can be used in the same way to support the Postulate. For Theorem IV depends upon Theorem I I I , which depends in turn upon the Postulate. GALILEO evidently does not see this, nor does he observe that the corollary to Theorem n I (which states that for planes of the same height, the times of descent are proportional to the lengths of the planes) might itself be established by an easy experiment using the same equipment and techniques, thus establishing the Postulate even more directly. Instead, the Postulate is left ungrounded. This gave rise to much criticism (CAVERNI 1895, pp. 333-34), and GALILEO eventually constructed a proof of the Postulate based on fundamental principles. 14 The most one can say is that the hypothetico-deductive-experimental method is here only in embryonic form. GALILEO himself is still trying to ground his treatise in more traditional ways. The principles of mechanics are not yet hypotheses as in astronomy, and the appeal to experience is intended to render them evident, as is appropriate for a mathematical science, not to confirm them as probable. In fact, it seems to have been a considerable obstacle for GALILEO that his principles could not be confirmed in the direct manner he thought necessary. The new science required a new set of assumptions which were not immediately evident and which needed to be established through confirmation of consequences reached b y a more complex chain of deductions than was yet customary for a mathematical science. Forced to break with the older view that the principles of such a science must be self-evident or confirmable in immediate 13 He says that "l'esperienza, con cite me sono principalmente chiarito di tal veritY, tanto certa ..." GALILEO'Sanalysis in this letter of GUIOOBALDO'Sdifficulties with an experiment attempted by tile latter shows beyond reasonable doubt that GALILEO himself had been doing experiments, and doing them with care, as S~TTLE maintains. 1~ This proof was added in a posthumous scholium to the Italian edition of 1656. It is grounded in tile revised dynamic principle, the correct law of fall, and the timessquared theorem. The proof was constructed at the urging of VIVlANI, as call be seen from VIVlANI'Sown account (@ere IX, p. 622), as well as some corroborating remarks by GALILEO(@ere VIII, p. 23), For GALILEO'Sdynamic principle, see p. 151 n. 15.

Galileo's Science of Motion

125

experience, 15 GALILEO shifted to the rhetoric associated with the hypothetical method of astronomy, and included a detailed description of his experiment on the inclined plane. But he was still operating largely within the original framework. His principles had to be true, not hypothetical, and they were to be confirmed by a single experiment which constituted the process by which they were rendered evident. They were not yet part of a hypothetico-deductive-experimental method. 1.6. The Manuscript on Motion GALILEO Manuscript 72, in the National Library at Florence, contains notes and drafts relating to the second of the "new sciences," the De motu locali. A large number of the drafts are more or less complete versions of published propositions. FAVARO made use of these in preparation of his critical edition of the Discorsi, and they may be reconstructed from his footnotes to the various propositions to which they pertain. In addition, FAVARO published most of the remaining fragments, which include notes, incomplete drafts, and a few unused propositions, in an appendix to the Discorsi entitled Frammenti attenenti ai Discorsi e dimostrazione matematiche intorno ~ due nuove scienze. 16 FAVARO tells us that the pages of this manuscript were originally loose sheets in " t u m u l t u o u s " order and were bound without regard to any logical or chronological relation which can be discovered among the different fragments. FAVARO examined these fragments and, after " m a t u r e reflection," ordered them in the following way (Opere v i i i , p. 35). First, the fragments are divided according to whether they relate to the first, second, third, or fourth giornate, and, since most pertain to the third giornata, this material is further subdivided according to whether the subject is uniform or accelerated motion. Then the fragments on accelerated motion, b y far the greater number, are again divided into three " t r e a t m e n t s " of motion purportedly based on successive stages in the development of the treatise. No explanation is given for the rationale behind this ordering. The propositions in the third " t r e a t m e n t " are supposed to follow the order of the corresponding propositions in the text, and for the most part they do. However, those in the first two " t r e a t m e n t s " do not follow any obvious order. FAVARO tells us only is See, for example, the optics attributed to PTOLEMY (GovI t885). Book I I I begins with three principles, one of which is the principle that the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence. This principle is demonstrated by a single experiment after PTOLEMY explains that knowledge begins with general principles which are "certain and indubitable as seen by their effects or by their internal consistency"; these principles, "to be know in themselves" are "made manifest by the appearances" (pp. 60-61). In other words, a basic assumption, illustrated by a simple experiment, is regarded as known. This characterizes GALILEO'Sprocedure in mechanics where he establishes his principles by making them "manifest by the appearances," after which he assumes that necessary conclusions are derived by rigorous mathematical deduction. GALILEO'Sprocedure in astronomy is quite different, and it is somewhat misleading to write, as is too often done, as though GALILEOhad a single, more or less unvarying, scientific method. 16 A few fragments were published elsewhere in GALILEO'SOpere, and a number of pages of calculations and some notes, too brief to be identified, were left unpublished.

t26

W.L. WISAN:

that, although the fragments are incomplete, when arranged in a rational order they exhibit very clearly the concepts which GALILEO employed at different times of his life in the a t t e m p t to create a new science of motionY However clear FAVARO'S ordering of these fragments m a y have been to him, there are impassable conceptual and logical gaps and it has been largely unintelligible to later students. PAUL TANNERY, after looking at FAVARO'S edition of the fragments, remarks that the way in which GALILEO'S treatise developed is likely to remain an insoluble problem (t926). A. R. HALL, studying FAVARO'S edition more recently, also finds his ordering a puzzle and suggests further study of the manuscript so as to establish a more accurate chronology (t965, p. t98). STILLMAN DRAKE, in two articles dealing with several of the fragments, also found difficulties in FAVARO'S treatment (1969a, t970). No historian concerned with GALILEO'S manuscript refers to the study b y CAVERNI in Volume IV of his Storia. Yet, CAVERNfS account supplies some missing pieces in FAVARO'S treatment and a rationale for the arrangement emerges quite clearly. FAVARO, however, does not mention CAVERNI'Sstudy, xs Unfortunately, subsequent scholars not only ignored CAVERNI'S work but also paid rather scant attention to the manuscript as well. 19 DUHEM'S great study, which links GALILEO'S work to medieval dynamics and kinematics, seems to have been written in ignorance of GALILEO'S manuscript, although it otherwise depends heavily on extensive and original examination of manuscript sources. KOYRt~'s Etudes Galildennes (1939) also neglects the manuscript, except for a very few fragments. While emphasizing the revolutionary nature of GALILEO'S science in opposition to DUHEM'S thesis that it was a continuation of medieval kinematics, KoYR~ nonetheless follows DUHEM in tracing GALILEO'S origins from the same sources, but with special emphasis on the sixteenth century revival of ARCHIMEDES. The most important studies of GALILEO'S science of motion since CAYERNI, those of THOMAS SETTLE and MAURICE CLAVELIN, are directed at analysis of finished treatises, not at chronological development of their parts, and they do not draw on the manuscript. Only CAVERNI a t t e m p t e d to trace the origins of GALILEO'S new science b y using evidence from the manuscript. Recently, STILLMAN DRAKE has undertaken a study of the manuscript notes in connection with a new English translation of the Discorsi, and he has disiv ,, Regarding those fragments, and they are the most numerous, that refer to the second part of the third Day, the reader is to be informed that we have at hand fragments belonging to three different treatments. Although incomplete, these fragments, if treated as a whole with all its elements placed according to a rational order of succession, manifest very clearly those concepts by which GALILEOWaS inspired in diverse moments of his life to create that science of motion which with full right he called new" (Opere, VIII, p. 36). 18 That is, he does not mention CAVERI'S study in his notes and comments on GALILEO'SOpere. However, in the preface to Vol. I of the Storia FAVARO compliments CAVERNI on his treatment of GALILEO'Smanuscript on motion. 1~ FAVARO'S treatment of the manuscript seems almost calculated to discourage further investigation of the fragments, and this may be connected with some strong objections FAVARO had to CAVERNI'S published interpretation of the manuscript. When writing the preface to Vol. I of the Storia, FAVAROseems to have had a different version of the relevant parts of Vol. IV. In particular, the early version seems to have omitted the argument linking GALILEOto JORDANUS.

Galileo's Science of Motion

12 7

covered useful clues to the chronological ordering of the fragments. DRAKE has made an extensive study of watermarks on GALILEO'Sletters and has concluded that there was no duplication of watermarks in letters written by GALILEOfrom Padua and from Florence, and that watermarks in the early composition at Pisa differ from both (t972, p. 6t). This may not be entirely accurate; certain watermarks of the same type do occur in more than one period and at least one occurs in all three. However, the possible exceptions in those letters of GALILEO'Swhich we now possess appear to be rare, and DRAKE'S listing of watermarks occurring in GALILEO'S correspondence m a y be used as a tentative guide to the relative chronology of other papers bearing watermarks of the same kind.* But evidence from watermarks should be used with caution and one should be especially careful about assuming that no paper was taken from Padua to Florence when GALILEO moved in t6t0. Even if paper with watermarks typical of the Paduan period was never used for correspondence in Florence, such paper may have been used for notes and drafts. Some evidence for this will be seen in section 6. Difficulties m a y also be encountered in using changes in GALILEO'S handwriting to date the fragments. CAVERNI,FAVARO,and others have noted distinguishing features of GALILEO'S writing which are characteristic of the periods before and after he moved from Padua to Florence in t 610. DRAKE discerns five different stages in GALILEO'S handwriting after 1600, which he then dates by study of GALILEO'S correspondence. However, a record book, supposed to be GALILEO'S, contains many dated notes which exhibit an irregular pattern of writing to about t6t6. 2o Thus, neither handwriting nor watermarks suffice to determine the order of undated fragments within a given period. To reconstruct the relative chronology of GALILEO'S drafts within the different periods, other evidence is needed. For m y own study the main evidence used is taken from variations in terminology and mathematical techniques. In the next section I will discuss some of the clues that arise from these sources.

1.6. Clues to Chronology

The most important clues to chronology which are used in this study are drawn from mathematical method, or technique, and language. It is not the more general methodological procedures that provide the evidence for ordering the fragments, but the development of special techniques for discovering proofs. Those drafts which exhibit clumsy or unsuccessful efforts to solve certain types of problems may generally be assigned an earlier date than those which show mastery of such problems. In some cases, of course, GALILEO may simply have forgotten what he had worked out at an earlier period. 21 Similarly, while sets of DRAKEvery kindly shared with me the results of his investigation of watermarks, At the same time (spring, 1972), he was also good enough to give me much detailed criticism of the dissertation on which this paper is based. For all this and our long conversations about GALILEO,I am very grateful. He is in no way responsible, of course, for any errors that remain. ~0 GALILEOMs. 26. GALILEOmay have been one of those rare persons who use more than one style of writing in the same period. It seems very likely that he used different formal and informal styles at the same time. On some of the difficulties in analysis of handwriting, see OSBORN (19t4). 21 In section 6.t we shall see what appears to be a case in point.

128

W . L . WlsAi~:

successive drafts reveal a steady evolution in use of terminology which also provides useful evidence for relative chronology, there appear to be cases in which terms are inherited, as it were, from earlier drafts of the same, or a closely related, proposition. However, where clues from method and language point to the same conclusion, and especially where this is borne out by additional evidence from correspondence, other writings, watermarks, or handwriting, the case that can be made is a strong one. A detailed discussion of technical procedures apart from the propositions in which they appear would be tedious and meaningless. However, one important methodological development and the way in which it led to discovery of linguistic clues will be outlined briefly. 22 In GALILEO'S earliest attack on the problem of motion along inclined planes he compares speeds with which bodies descend along given planes rather than times in which the planes are traversed. This approach persists in a few subsequent propositions and is then abandoned. When he begins comparing times of descent he first makes use of a detached line to represent the times in which given distances are traversed. He replaces this device with a different technique after the establishment of Theorem III on accelerated motion (that times of descent along planes of equal heights are proportional to the lengths of the planes). In working with this theorem, GALILEObegins to use a line in the diagram to represent the time of descent along that line, and times of descent along other lines are then referred to this line. With few exceptions this is the standard technique used, and most of the exceptions are plausible candidates for selection as GALILEO'S earliest propositions. This methodological development is accompanied by changes in terminology. For example, when GALILEO USeS a detached line AB to represent the time to traverse CD, he speaks of tempus A B or uses expressions such as tempus in quo permeat linea CD. After the detached line is eliminated, we find that tempus AB (or tempus casus AB, and similar expressions) no longer means the time represented by the line AB, but the time to traverse AB. These basic methodological clues allow separation of the propositions into those earlier than Theorem X X I I and those later than this key theorem. Once these are sorted out other patterns of change in terminology become evident. One of the most striking is to be found in reference to paths of quickest descent, or least time. In De motu antiquiora, where GALILEO compares speeds of a body along different planes, this speed is conceived simply as "quickness" and is scarcely distinguished from motion itself. The terms velocitas and motus are used interchangeably in this context. GALILEO'S first question is, why are motions along more steeply inclined planes quicker? In the brachistochrone, and in fragments relating to Theorem X X I I and to some of the theorems in the Theorem VI family, we find references to paths of quickest, or quicker, descent. GALILEO speaks of motions being completed, or made, more quickly or more slowly. In this context, the most common verb is absolvere (to complete), which in GALILEO'Swriting almost always takes motion (motus, latio, descensus) as subject, and is usually modified by citius. Facere (to make), modified b y velocius, also occurs but is less frequent. Both expressions survive in the published texts ~2 See section 4.4 for a. detailed examination of this development.

Galileo's Science of Motion

129

of the brachistochrone and Theorem X X I , but appear to have originated in the first stage of development of the new science, and are usually revised at subsequent stages. A bsolvere continues in use, but, with one exception, no longer to express the idea of a motion being made more quickly. In propositions on paths of least time which are not of the Theorem VI family, and which are necessarily dependent upon the times-squared theorem, GALILEO usually speaks of a given plane being completed, or traversed, in the briefest time. The verbs con/ieere or peragere, meaning "to complete" or "to traverse," are used, taking mobile as subject in the active tense and planum or spatium (sometimes spaeium, especially in earlier drafts) in the passive. Less frequently, and only in the manuscript, a plane is said to be completed more quickly (citius con/ieiuntur), and in rare instances we find mobile with citius absolver, planum with tempore breviori absolvi, and motus with eon/icere. The cases in which motion is used with con/icere, and space (or mobile) with absolvere, may belong to a period of transition between the first stage, in which GALILEOthinks in terms of motions being completed more quickly, and the second stage in which he has shifted to thinking of distances completed in less time. Independent evidence in support of this evolution in GALILEO'S terminology is obtained from comparing manuscript drafts with published versions of the same propositions and from observing additions and corrections made by GALILEO on copies of earlier propositions which were made by disciples after he moved from Padua to Florence. ~3 Where earlier drafts use expressions referring to quicker motions, published propositions usually refer to fall or descent in briefer times. In the manuscript the most frequent noun to express the descent or fall of bodies is casus. Rare in De motu antiquiora, this noun is frequent in the manuscript of De motu loeali, then less frequent in the published text. Descensus, frequent in the earlier work, is rare in the manuscript of the later work, and frequent again in the published text. Latio is rare both in the early work and the manuscript of the later one, but is frequent in the published text of the latter. Both latio and descensus do appear in the manuscript, evidently some time between t604 and t609. GALILEO'S use of latio, which derives from the perfect passive of/erre, "to be moved," or "to be carried," while not unprecedented, is somewhat unusual, and may exhibit an attempt to use language which is closer to ARCHIMEDES than to the medievals. 24 In the early drafts, the most frequent 23 MARIO GUIDUCCI and NlCCOL6 ARRIGHETTI. Little seems to be known about

ARRIGHETTI, but on GUIDUCCI,see Iq'AVARO(1916a). 24 The Latin verb [erm (or its greek cognate) is perhaps the most frequently used verb to denote local motion ill classical and medievM times. ]Bodies are not said to move, but to be moved. This suggests a fundamental assumption of peripatetic dynamics. In referring to accelerating bodies, GALILEOtends to use the verbs meaning "to complete" rather than ferre, while retaining the latter in passages on uniform motion. At the same time he tends more and more to use latio, a derivative of the perfect passive of/erre,
to render movement, or motion. The significance of this is not clear, nor was it to a close friend, FULGENZlO MICANZlO, who wrote in 1635 that he never understood GALILEO'S distinction between moto and latio (Opere XVI, p. 237). I have found few precedents for GALILEO'S u s e of latio; it occurs, however, ill ARCHIMEDES'treatise on spirals ill the editio princeps of his works (1544), and it is also in COMMANI)INO'S edition of PAPPUS (I 589, p. 304) and in BUONAMICO(t 591, Book V). HEATH remarks (t 897, p. clxxiv) that ARCHI~IEDESmade elegant ]lse of the perfect

t 30

W.L. WISAN:

verb to render traverse is peragere, which occurs in a wide variety of forms in the manuscript. These forms are " i n h e r i t e d " by one published proposition which closely follows the manuscript version, but elsewhere in the published text peragere usually occurs in the past participle. Con[icere is more frequent in the published text and in those fragments which can be assigned a relatively late date on the grounds of dated documents. Thus, we see that con]icere tends to become the dominant verb for traverse, while others, such as permeare, 25 pertransire, pervenire, [erre, and movere, all of which are in the manuscript and in the book on uniform motion, tend to be eliminated from the published text except in rare instances or where they refer to uniform motion. A principio motus, and minor variants, is another construction which is characteristic of earlier propositions. It probably belongs to the early part of the second stage, that is, to the period in which GALILEO has just shifted from his doctrine of natural uniform motion to the view that natural fall is necessarily accelerated. The expression persists in the published version of the times-squared theorem and its corollaries, but is otherwise rare in the final version of the treatise. With a single exception, additions and corrections to earlier drafts use ex quiete rather than any form of a principio motus. The shift from the latter to the former is probably connected with some refinements in GALILEO'S general concept of accelerated motion, and m a y date from around 1607, but is probably not fully developed until after the move to Florence and the beginning of the third stage of work. The third stage was probably under way b y t619, as can be seen from a letter to GALILEO written b y SAGREDO in that year (Opere XlI, pp. 458-60). SAG~EDO mentions FULGENZIO'S interest in GALILEO'S trattato de' moti and his hope that the enterprise will not be abandoned. As we shall see, GALILEO had a number of difficulties with the foundations for his treatise; however, some time after the move to Florence, he had a number of earlier drafts copied b y disciples. These copies include only about half of those pages in the manuscript which were used in the final published version, and there are numerous drafts which were copied but not used. From these facts, and from the variety of proofs which depend on different choices for the fundamental propositions, it is evident that the treatise was far from its final form at this point. The copies provide further evidence for determining GALILEO'S later terminology, as he makes a number of additions and corrections on the copies. In particular, we find him usually using descensus and tatio rather than motus or casus, and the formal statements of the propositions, often added b y GALILEO, are close to those found in the published treatise. Other clues from language can be found in GALILEO's use of the terms linea, planum, distantia, spatium. In his earliest writing on motion along inclined planes he speaks of motions per lineam AB or in ptanum secundum lineam AB. After the passive imperative, and also mentions that ARCHIMEDESliked to use a verb meaning "to complete." These observations suggest that GALILEOmay have been consciously adopting all AReHIM~DXANstyle of expression, especially ill the use of latio to render motion, and in the choice of absolvere and con]icere in order to speak of motions or spaces being completed. ~ Permeam is Italian, not Latin. The only precedent I find for its use as a Latin verb is in ARCHIM]ZDES'De lineis spiralibus ill the edition of his works printed in t 544.

Galileo's Science of Motion

131

above described shift in method the term lima begins to disappear. The Italian expression plani inclinati secondo le linee is used in a letter of t 602, with reference to the law of chords (Opere X, p. 99), and the Latin expression appears in two fragments, one relating to the law of chords and the other to the old De motu theorem. This expression is found in COMMANDINO'Sedition of PAPPUS where the inclined plane is discussed (1589, p. 305v). GALILEO'S usage m a y indicate something about the way in which his reading influenced the use of certain terms. In Le mecaniche GALILEO refers to tile argument of PAPPUS, so it is clear that he was familiar with it (Opere II, p. t8t). I t is therefore probably significant that when GALILEO begins work on certain fundamental propositions in which he uses methods suggestive of medieval work in kinematics the term spacium begins to appear. This term is common throughout medieval writings and is also in the Basel edition of ARCHIMEDES (t 544). In the latter, however, li~,ea is more common. In GALILEO'S earlier drafts, lima is used to refer to an indefinite line as well as to a given line, as in linea AB. As lima AB disappears from the drafts, lima in the more general sense tends to be replaced by planum, and sometimes in/lexus. These terms characterize later propositions as does a shift in the spelling spacium to spatium. In earlier fragments on foundations GALILEO uses spacium, and sometimes distantia, both in a general way and in reference to specific lines. Later fragments use spatium occasionally, but only in a general way. Spatium AB, for example, does not occur. GALILEO is sparing in his use of easily recognizable medieval terms. However, in his late proofs of the double-distance rule and Theorem I on accelerated motion, we find (for the first time) the terms repraesentare, extensio, and/luxus. In some early fragments he uses velocitas or gradus velocitatis for instantaneous velocity, but also uses his own expression momenta velocitatis. These terms usually occur where parallel lines are employed to represent degrees of velocity as was done by the medievals. GALILEO also uses areas of figures to represent total degrees of velocity acquired as a body descends along a given line. This total velocity is never called velocitatis totalis, but la valocit~ con che ha passata la linea or velocitas in

omnibus punctis lineae.

Additional clues which are of some use in determining relative chronology include a tendency to replace duo b y ambo, where the pair being discussed are connected lines forming a continuous path of descent, and to use temporibus equalibus instead of eodem tempore. More extensive and sophisticated linguistic analysis should lead to discovery of yet more clues b y which to differentiate successive periods in the half-century during which GALILEO wrote on the subject of motion. The clues from language discussed here, when considered along with other evidence, lead to a coherent picture of the way in which the treatise developed. However, certain irregularities in the pattern of language appear in those propositions on accelerated motion which, by other evidence, were the last to be completed. Among these are the more complex problems of the later period. For two of these, drafts in a fairly complete stage can be found on letters dated 1630 and t 531. In a number of late propositions the uniform usages generally found in the third period are no longer followed. This suggests t h a t there was a final stage of rather hasty editing, and this conjecture will be confirmed b y evidence from

132

\V. L. WISAN
:

correspondence and from other signs of careless editing just before the manuscript was sent to the publisher. Odd variations in the standard form for published propositions will provide further clues to GALILEO'Sfinal touches to his treatise. Our story will now begin. In the next chapter we shall review some ancient and medieval background, after which we shall follow the development of GALILEO'S treatise on motion. 2. Origins of the New Science

2.1. Ancient Mechanics

One of the oldest extant works dealing with mechanics is a treatise long thought to have been written by ARISTOTLE, but now generally regarded as a product of his school composed during the first half of the third century, B.C. (MooDY & CLAGETT 1952, p. tl). 1 This ancient Mechanica (the author of which is often called Pseudo-ARISTOTLE) provides informal discussion of a miscellaneous collection of mechanical problems, some dealing with simple machines, some with motion, and some with the strength of materials. These questions are of considerable importance for later mechanics. Although there is little evidence that the Mechanica was known in the Middle Ages, the medieval science of weights seems to reveal traces of its contents (MooDY 6: CLAGETT 1952, p. t70). It appears, however, to have become well known by the end of the fifteenth century (ROSE & DRAKE 197t, pp. 67--68), and during the sixteenth century it was subjected to criticism by followers of ARCHIMEDES.The most important discussion in it concerns the principle of the balance, which is explained in a curious manner. The balance is considered to be the diameter of a circle with the fulcrum at the center of the circle; then weights placed farther from the center are said to be more effective because they move more rapidly by virtue of the properties of the circle (Mechanica, 848"). The reasoning behind this explanation is thought by some historians to involve the principle of virtual velocities (MOODY& CLAGETT t952, p. 5). According to this interpretation, if weights W 1 and W~ are placed on a balance so as to be in equilibrium, then if one supposes a minute displacement to occur the weights are set in motion along an arc; the weights thus acquire "virtual velocities" which are inversely proportional to these weights, or W1/W 2 =V1/V2. ~ The author of the Mechanica, however, does not give 1 The discussion here of ancient and medieval mechanics is drawn primarily from translations and commentaries by E. A. MooDY & M. CLAGETT(1952) and M. CLAGETT (1959). In addition, I have consulted J. E. BROWN'S unpublished dissertation (t967) and am indebted to BROWN for reading and commenting on the material in these sections. (He is not, of course, to blame if I persist in error.) BI~OWN'Swork is a continuation of that done by MOODY& CLAGETT.He has edited and translated a number of additional texts, on the basis of which he has been able to show much about how the medieval science of weights originated and developed. 2 This principle is also known as the principle of virtual displacements. When it is the vertical distance that is considered, it becomes (after introduction of the concept of work) the principle of virtual work. As will be noted below, tile displacement considered is vertical in the JORDANIAN treatises, and the principle of work is implicit. Pseudo-ARISTOTLEdoes not indicate that the displacement is supposed to be infinitely small, as it is in the version of the principle developed ill the eighteenth century (CLAGETT t959, p. 8). JORDANUS,however, seems to have made such an assumption (MOODY & CI.AGE~T 1952, pp. 135, 180).

Galileo's Science of Motion

133

this formula, but explains the reason why the movement of the body is slower, the closer it is to the center, through analysis of the motion of a point moving on a circle. There is a " n a t u r a l " motion along the tangent and an " u n n a t u r a l " motion towards the center. For the point nearer the center, the " u n n a t u r a l " motion is " m o r e influenced" by the center (Mechanica, 849a). ~ This is demonstrated b y showing that a weight which is further from the center of a balance suffers less vertical displacement in describing a given arc. That is, if bodies moving on the concentric circles B G E D and XNMI, respectively, describe equal V
[3 p

E arcs BO and XT, the corresponding vertical displacements are BY and XZ, the former, of course, less than the latter. Consequently, it is said that the radius BA has less" unnatural" motion (motion towards the center) than does the radius XA. Variants on this analysis appear in medieval treatises and seem to have led eventually to the problem of the brachistochrone, as we shall see. Also significant for later students of mechanics is Question 8 of the ancient Mechanica (85tb): " W h y are round and circular bodies easiest to m o v e ? " The answer given is not very clear, but again there is the suggestion of a natural tangential motion (852 a, t0). This problem was attacked by mechanicians of the sixteenth century who used ARCHIMEDEAN methods and concepts to criticize ARISTOTLE,whom they regarded as having been the author of the Mechanica. Pseudo-ARISTOTLE'S attempt at crude mathematical explanations of mechanical problems m a y represent gropings towards a mathematical science of mechanics like that which appears somewhat later in works of ARCHIMEDES and in others attributed to EUCLID. One of these is the Book on the Balance and another is the

Book o/Euclid on the Heavy and the Light and on the Comparison o/ Bodies to Each Other (CLAGETTt959, pp. 9, 24-30; MOODY & CLAGETT t952, pp. 21--3t). The second of these appears to be an a t t e m p t to give a deductive treatment of ARISTOTLE'S dynamics for bodies falling through a medium. Its contents include nine postulates and five theorems. What is of interest here is that the postulates define the force (virtus) of a body in terms of its motion through a medium. Bodies are said to be "equal in force, whose motion through equal places, in the same air or the same water, are in equal times" (MOODY & CLAGETT t952, p. 27). Those "which traverse equal places in different times, are said to be different in force" (ibid.), and "Bodies
s Translation from the Greek by W. S. HE'rT (1963, p. 343).

134

W.L. ~VISAN:

are of the same kind which, if of equal volume, are of equal force" (ibid.). More "solid" bodies are said to be more powerful. The "force" of a body is not distinguished from its speed, and the definition of equal force is analogous to the ARISTOTELIAN definition of equal velocity (Physics vii, 4, 249b). The first theorem in the EUCLIDEAN fragment corresponds to one of two ARISTOTELIANdefinitions of the quicker, with force substituted for quickness: "Of bodies which traverse unequal places in equal times, that which traverses the greater place is of greater force" (MooDY & CLAGETT t952, p. 27). Similarly, the other ARISTOTELIAN definition of the quicker as that which traverses equal space in less time finds an analogue in the sixth postulate of the EUCLIDEAN fragment. The fragment concludes with the proposition that when volumes and forces are in the same proportion, the bodies are "of the same kind," a notion defined implicitly by the theorems. These concepts are further developed during the middle ages and the sixteenth century and are among the basic tools with which GALILEO begins his work on motion. The Book on the Balance attributed to EUCLID is a very brief treatise with one definition, two axioms, and four propositions. The axioms and first three propositions explore the conditions for equilibrium in the case of equal weights placed on a balance. The third proposition introduces the concept of the "force of weight": equal lengths of a beam are supposed to be of equal force of weight (CLAGETTt959, pp. 27--29). It is established in this proposition that if two equal weights held in equilibrium on the same arm of a balance are moved equal distances, one away from and the other towards the fulcrum, equilibrium is not disturbed. The fourth proposition of this fragment demonstrates that equilibrium will be obtained when the lever arms are inversely proportional to the magnitudes of the weights. The demonstration is for the special case in which the weights are in the ratio 3 : t. The argument goes as follows: The beam A B . . . is divided at point C into two unequal segments, and two weights are suspended at points A, B, and the ratio of weight A to weight B

CI.

is as the ratio of distance CB to the distance CA. Then I say that the two weights A, B maintain the beam AB parallel to the horizon. Demonstration: We increase CA in distance by the quantity AE so that EC is equal to CB. Let the distance EC be three times AC. Thus, when the weight A is removed, and a weight equal to weight B is placed at point E, and another weight equal to weight B is placed at point C, the beam EB is balanced. It is known from what went before that the movement of weight E to Z and the movement of weight C to A balances the beam EB. And because, if one adds at point A another weight equal to the first, its force will be as the force of

Galileo's Science of Motion

13 5

the first, it follows from this that if the weight Z which was at point E is moved to point A, and there is also placed at A another weight equal to each of the two equal weights moved from Z to A and from C to A, the beam AB will be balanced and the three equal weights which are at point A, and each of which is equal to the weight B, will, with weight B, keep the beam AB parallel to the horizon. (Ibid., pp. 27-28) From this, of course, the conclusion follows for the special case. As CLAGETT notes, there is no trace here of the reasoning employed in the Pseudo-ARIsTOTELIAN mechanics. The proof is similar to that of ARCHIMEDES, who gives a more elegant and more general treatment. ARCHIMEDES' proof has been examined and discussed many times. It depends on a definition of center of gravity which is not given in any extant work b y ARCHIMEDES, but which evidently led to the conclusion that a body supported at its center of gravity is in equilibrium. It also depends on the assumption, pointed out by MACI~, that equilibrium depends on weights and distances alone (1893, pp. 9-t0). Another criticism, raised by DIJKSTERHUIS, is that ARCHIMEDES' proof establishes only a sufficient, and not a necessary, condition for equilibrium, whereas he uses his theorem as though he had established both (t956, pp. 280-9t). What we are concerned with here is the type of proof and later modifications of it. It is sufficient to remark that the ARCHIMEDEANproof is a more general version of the EUCLIDEAN one and that it makes explicit use again and again of the concept of the center of gravity, t ARCHIMEDES' mechanical treatises are those on the equilibrium of planes and on hydrostatics. Although they were not well known in the Latin middle ages, certain of their fundamental ideas and procedures may have been employed in some writings of the time. ARCHIMEDES' more sophisticated use of mathematics and his avoidance of the " d y n a m i c " treatment of Pseudo-ARISTOTLE has led some recent historians to distinguish between the dynamical-physical approach of the ARISTOTELIAN treatise and the statical-mathematical approach of ARCHImEDES (MooDY & CLAGETT t952, p. 9). However, there are important dynamic assumptions underlying ARCHIMEDES' hydrostatics. These assumptions taken together become a postulate in the medieval science of weights and are later adopted by TARTAGLIA and by GALILEO as fundamental principles. ARCHIMEDES assumes (a) that a heavy body descends along a line directed towards the center of the earth and (b) that the force with which a body tends to descend is equal to that with which it resists being moved upward. Assumption (a) is implicit in the genuine ARISTOTLE but is not apparent in the PseudoARISTOTELIAN treatise on mechanics. In the latter it is assumed that a weight on a balance has a " natural" tangential motion and a n " unnatural" motion towards the center of the balance. The idea that " n a t u r a l " motion is directed towards the center of the earth will be seen to dominate medieval mechanics. Assumption (b), which enters the proof of the sixth proposition of ARCHIMEDES' hydrostatic treatise, is not to be found either in the works of ARISTOTLE or in that of PseudoThe best English translation of t h e ARCnlMEDEAN proof is to be found in CLAGETT (t959, pp. 34-36) and there is a v e r y useful p a r a p h r a s e in CLAGETT (t955, pp. 236-37). ~0 Arch,Hist. Exact Sci.,Vol.13

t36

W.L. Wlshl~:

ARISTOTLE. It becomes explicit in the medieval science of weights and is the keystone of GALILEO'S mechanics. Another proposition of great importance for GALILEO'S mechanics is one long known as the principle of the inclined plane: two connected weights are in equilibrium on two inclined planes when Wx/W 2 = L1]L2, where Wi is the weight resting on a plane of length L i. This, of course, is equivalent to the modern formula that gives WISinA = W ~ S i n B , where A is the angle of inclination of L 1 and B of L~. This correct formulation does not appear to have been made by the ancients, although both HERO and PAPPUS OF ALEXANDRIA studied the problem. Examining a cylinder on an inclined plane, HERO drew a line perpendicular to the horizontal and passing through the point of contact between the cylinder and the plane. The larger section, according to HERO, overpowers the smaller and makes the cylinder roll down the plane. To maintain the cylinder in equilibrium, then, one must counterbalance it with a weight equal to the difference between the two segments. HERO observed that only a minimal force is required to move a given weight along a horizontal plane (DRACHMAN 1963, pp. 46--49), and his analysis is highly suggestive of one made centuries later by GALILEO.After HERO, however, PAPPUS assumed that the force required to move a body along a horizontal is proportional to the weight of that body, and he used this assumption in his own treatment of the inclined plane. PAPt'US' solution was later adopted by GUIDOBALDO DEL MONTE, but rejected by GALILEO. Both of the ancient treatments of the inclined plane employ the concept of the center of gravity, and LEONARDO DA VINCI later uses somewhat similar methods in his study of the motion of a sphere along such a plane. Other important developments found in ancient mechanics include implicit use of the later concept of static moment and correct treatment of the bent lever. Moreover, in HERO'S work we find a primitive version of the principle of conservation of work. This is his "principle of slowing down." That is, speaking of the wheel and axle, HERO says " t h e r e occurs a slowing down, because by the amount that the moving power is weaker in relationship to the weight moved, by such an amount do we increase the t i m e " (CLAGETT 1959, p. 47). There is as yet no evidence that either HERO'S or PAPPUS' work on mechanics directly influenced medievals in the Latin West (CLAGETTt959, pp. 15, 18). However, it may be worth keeping in mind the possibility that some of their ideas may have been passed on to the West by means of oral transmission based on works in Arabic literature.

2.2. The Medieval Science o/Weights

If HERO and PAPPUS were not known to the Latin West in the middle ages, a number of writings from ancient mechanics did become known, mainly through Arabic sources. These included the fragments attributed to EUCLID, which were discussed above, and some others attributed to ARCHIMEDES. Another, on the Roman balance and of unknown origin, was translated into Arabic by THABIT IBN QURRA and then into Latin, possibly by GERARD OF CREMONA (MOODY& CLAGETT 1952, p. 84). This is the Liber Karastonis. It is important for its first three theorems, which establish the law of the lever. The first theorem is a more general

Galileo's Science of Motion

137

version of the proposition with which the EUCLIDEAX fragment on the balance began: if two spaces are described in the same time by two moving bodies, then the spaces are in the same proportion as the power of the motions (virtutis motus).S This proposition is said to he "immediately evident to the intellect" after a brief remark that if two walkers traverse, respectively, thirty miles and sixty miles in the same time, the power of the motion in the first case is half that in the second (MooDY ~ CLAGETT t952, p. 91). The second theorem considers the balance as a line divided into two unequal parts and allowed to rotate about the point of division. The movement, according to the author, produces two similar sectors of two circles and the ratio of the arcs is the same as that of the parts of the rotating line. Now, supposing weights be placed at the extremities of the line, one sees by the first theorem that the powers of their motions are in the same ratio as the lengths of the arcs, or, by the second theorem, as the lengths of the arms of the balance. The law of the lever (the third theorem) is now proved as follows. Let GE equal AG and place equal weights at A and E. These will be in equilibrium since the power of the motion of the two points is the same. If, however, the weight at E is
D

A C~~'~b a ~ , ~ ~'~ E T

moved to B, the weight at A must be increased so that the total weight at B is to that at A as AG is to BG, "since the power of the point B exceeds the power of point A by the amount that BG exceeds A G " (ibid., p. 95). In other words, the author assumes that the power of a body's motion is proportional to the weight of the body and that equilibrium will result when the total power of motion is the same on both sides of the balance. Since it has been shown that the power of motion is also proportional to the length of the balance arm, there will be equilibrium when the absolute weights are inversely proportional to the lengths of the arms. This proof, of course, is in the tradition of the Pseudo-A~ISTOTELIAN Mechanica. It is in the thirteenth century that we find the first extant Latin treatises on the science of weights which are not entirely translations from ancient or Arabic sources. One is the Elementa jordani super demonstrationem ponderum. As MOODY tells us, most of the theorems in this work "have an ancestry in the Greek and Arabic writings dealing with the problem of the balance"; however, some of the principles and methods seem to be either original with JORDANUS or due to some source which was accessible to JO~DANUS but still unknown to us (ibid., p. 124). The Elementa begins with seven postulates. The first two state that the motion of every weight is towards the center of the world and that heavier bodies descend more rapidly. The third tells us that a body is "heavier" in descent when its path is more direct. The remainder develop the notion of positional heaviness (gravitatis secundum situm), which depends on "obliqueness" of descent, defined in terms of 5 This proposition, with velocity substituted for force, appears as a supposition in BRADWARDINE'SOn the continuum (CLAGETT1959, pp. 230-3t, 233). t0"

t 38

W . L . WISAN:

the vertical component of the motion (ibid., p. 129). This way of defining obliquity m a y have been suggested b y the Psend0-ARISTOTELIAN Meehanica. A given arc or plane is said to be more oblique than another if equal lengths of the first have smaller vertical projections. This defines inclination with respect to the vertical. The concept of positional gravity was used with success in some theorems; however, the method of determining positional gravity was also employed in an erroneous way and some incorrect results were obtained. JORDANUS thus derived the theorem that if equal weights are placed at the ends of equal arms of a balance and tile balance is moved from the horizontal position, it will return to that position. I t will be instructive to look at the attempted proof of this proposition as it shows one reason why the methods of JORDANUS were so vigorously rejected b y GUIDOBALDODEL MONTE and others in the sixteenth century. For the proof of this theorem (which is the second part of the second theorem of the Elementa) a circle is described about the balance BC as its diameter, and the weight B is supposed to be below the horizontal while the weight C is above it. Weights B and C are supposed equal and it is argued t h a t C has a greater force of descent because, if the weights descend along equal arcs CD and BG, CD has the

larger vertical component. MOODY points out t h a t to apply the principle properly, one must consider the arc cut off in a corresponding ascent for the body B, rather than in its descent. 6 In this case the vertical components would be equal and it would be clear t h a t equilibrium still obtains (ibid., p. 379). Two erroneous theorems on the bent lever are derived through a similar determination of positional weight. However, there are a few successful proofs based on this principle, and only three employ a different method. One is proved b y the method used in the ]EUCLIDEAN" treatise on the balance, and one employs an equivalent of the modern principle of work: whatever suffices to lift a given weight W through the vertical distance H will lift kW through H/k. The theorem proved in this manner is the law of the lever, and the proof is worth examining. Let the balance beam be ACB, as before, and tile suspended weights a and b; and let the proportion of b to a be as the proportion of AC to BC. I say t h a t the balance will not move in either direction. For let it be supposed that it descends on the side of B; and let there be drawn a line DCE obliquely through ACB; and let a weight equal to a be suspended at D, and a weight equal to b at E. And let the line D G be drawn vertically downward, and the line E H vertically upward. I t is then evident that the triangles DCG and ECH are s This error is also noted by G. B. BENEDETTI (DRAKE DRABKIN 1969, p. 175).

Galileo's Science of M o t i o n 0

t 39

Aa

similar, so that the proportion of DC to CE is the same as that of D G to E H . But DC is to CE as b is to a; therefore D G is to E H as b is to a. Now suppose CL to be equal to CB, and let l be equal in weight to b; and draw the perpendicular LM. Since then LM and E H are shown to be equal, D G will be to LM as b is to a, and as 1 is to a. But as was proved, a and 1 are inversely proportional to their contrary (upward) motions. Therefore, what suffices to lift a to D, would suffice to lift t through the distance LM. Since therefore 1 and b are equal, and LC is equal to CB, I is not lifted b y b; and, as was asserted, a will not be lifted b y b. (MooDY & CLAGETT t952, pp. t39--41) The proof is straightforward and the application of the principle of work is clear. However, the argument upon which the crucial step rests is obscure. I t evidently follows from the first theorem of the Elementa, which says that The proportion of the velocity of descent [vdocitatis in descendendo], among heavy bodies, is the same as that of the weight, taken in the same order; but the proportion of the descent to the contrary ascent is the inverse proportion. (Ibid., p. t29) The diagram indicates bodies descending along two unconnected vertical lines and there is no indication that a connected system is assumed or that descent in the same time is intended. But after demonstration of the first part, it is added that The same reasoning applies in the case of the contrary motions of ascent... because the body which is heavier is the one which will ascend less. (Ibid., pp. 129, 131) Now, how do heavy bodies ascend unless by means of some mechanical device ? Also, the appeal in the proof of the law of the lever to a demonstration that "a and l are inversely proportional to their contrary (upward) motions," can only refer to this theorem, in which case it would seem that the behavior of weights on a balance is intended. As MooDY explains, If we do suppose the theorem to be concerned with two weights on the ends of an equal armed balance, the two parts of the theorem would have a relatively simple interpretation consistent with the ARISTOTELIAN" l a w of m o t i o n " which holds that velocity is a function of the ratio of mover to moved. JORDANUS' theorem would then state that if a and b are two unequal weights, suspended at the two ends of a balance of equal arms, the speed with which the heavier weight descends will be determined b y the ratio of the weights. Thus, if a is greater than b, the arm on which a hangs will descend, and its velocity of

t40

\. L. WISAN: descent will be proportional to the ratio a/b. And if b is greater in its natural weight than a, the arm on which a hangs will ascend, and its velocity of ascent will be proportional to the ratio b/a (or inversely proportional to the ratio a/b). "Velocity of descent" apparently does not mean the speed along the curved arc, but the amount of vertical descent accomplished by the movement of the end of the lever arm, in a given time. (MOODY & CLAGETT t952, pp. 376--77)

MOODY adds that this is the interpretation given b y ALBERT OF SAXONY, and he remarks that the theorem is a formulation, "for the special case of weights in connected systems, of the basic ARISTOTELIANlaw of motion, according to which speed is determined by the ratio in which the motive power exceeds the resistance overcome b y i t " (ibid., p. 377). Oddly enough the argument given for the theorem provides no hint of this ;~ however, the most important medievM commentator also argued that the theorem applies to weights in a balance (BRowN t967, pp. 18t-95, 207-t6), and, of course, it is used to prove the principle of the lever. I t must, then, be intended for justification of what we now see as an application of the principle of work. We m a y be able to understand the reasoning behind the medieval conception of the principle of work if we look back at the Liber karastonis. There, the law of the lever is demonstrated b y an appeal to the concept of the "force of motion." This "force" depends both on weight and on position. Equilibrium results when the force is the same on both sides of the balance. In the Elemen, ta there is no mention of such a force. The weights a and l are simply said to be inversely proportional to their upward motions (that is, velocities, or distances traversed in equal times). W h a t lifts a to D and l to M, however, must be a" force of m o t i o n " which is the same in both cases. This assumption is not made explicit, but it m a y be what the author had in mind. T h a t is, the force which causes the weight at B to descend to E must be equal to the " f o r c e " which causes weights on the other arm of the balance to rise, and this "force" must be the same, whatever the weights and wherever they are located. Here perhaps is the idea out of which came the principle of work. It could have been grasped intuitively as a constant relation between the weights lifted and their distances from the center for any given counterbalance, which must always exert the same " f o r c e " when it is the same distance from the center. 8 T h a t is, for a given weight at B, any weight placed on AC must be inversely proportional to its distance from the center C, or to the vertical lift. From this elementary observation the principle of work as it is applied in the medieval treatises could easily have emerged. So far, however, the principle of work is restricted to weights on a balance, but in a later treatise, also attributed to JORDANUS, we find it applied without this restriction. We also find some significant changes in the first postulate and the first theorem. The second part of Theorem I is dropped and to the first 7 The demonstration is, in fact, circular. It is assumed that if the greater weight is divided into unequM parts, these parts traverse distances proportional to their respective weights in equal intervals of time. 8 The shift that we see here from consideration of arcs to verticals is, of course, crucial in this development and a significant advance in itself (BROWN 1967, pp. 4t,

307).

Galileo's Science of Motion

141

postulate there is added the assumption that a body has a power of tending downward which is the same as its resistance to being raised. The equation between the force downward and resistance to movement upward, assumed in ARCmMEDES, is now explicit. The first postulate of the Liber Jordani de ratione ponderis reads as follows: The movement of every weight is toward the center (of the world), and its force is a power of tending downward and of resisting movement in the contrary direction. (Ibid., p. 175) The clause which has been added to this first postulate m a y have been intended as a new justification for the principle of work. In this case it would replace the second part of Theorem I and would explain why this part is now dropped. For, suppose that the first part of Theorem I is now meant to apply to free fall. Then the bodies descend with speeds proportional to their weights. B y the addition to the first postulate, resistance to motion in the contrary direction is equal to the tendency to descend. But, according to ARISTOTLE,speed is inversely proportional to resistance. From this it would follow that the weights a and 1 "are inversely proportional to their contrary (upward) motions." This line of reasoning permits application of the principle of work to a case in which the weights are not on a balance, and in the De ratione we find a new theorem which presents just such a case." This theorem gives us the first known correct version of the principle of the inclined plane. It is stated and proved as follows: If two weights descend along diversely inclined planes, then, if the inclinations are directly proportional to the weights, they will be of equal force in descending

(virtus in descendendo).
Let there be a line ABC parallel to the horizon, and let BD be erected vertically on it; and from D draw the lines DA and DC, with DC of greater obliquity. O

yG z/H
K A B

\
\
C

I then mean by proportion of inclinations, not the ratio of the angles, but of the lines taken to where a horizontal line cuts off an equal segment of the vertical. Let the weight e, then, be on De, and the weight h on DA; and let e be to h as DC is to DA. I say that those weights are of the same force in this position. For let D K be a line of the same obliquity as DC, and let there be on it a weight g, equal to e. If then it is possible, suppose that e descends to L, and 9 The correct result for the bent lever is also derived from the principle of work, and the two erroneous theorems of the Elementa are dropped.

t 42

W.L. WISAN: draws h up to M. And let GN be equal to HM, which in turn is equal to EL. Then let a perpendicular on DB be drawn from G to H, which will be G H Y ; and another from L, which will be TL. Then, on GHY, erect the perpendiculars NZ and MX; and on LT, erect the perpendicular ER. Since then the proportion of NZ to N G is as that of DY to DG, and hence as that of DB to DK, and since likewise MX is to MH as DB is to DA, MX will be to NZ as D K is to D A - - t h a t is, as the weight g is to the weight h. But because e does not suffice to lift g to N, it will not suffice to lift h to M. Therefore they will remain as they are. (MooDY & CLAGETT t952, p. 191)*

The proof is b y contradiction. If e and h are not in equilibrium, suppose t h a t e descends to L, drawing h up to M. But if h is drawn up to M, then g will be drawn up to N, b y the principle of work. For, (1) N Z / N G = DB/DK, and MX/MH ----DB/DA. (2) Also, MX/NZ = (DB/DA)(DK/DB) = D K / D A , since M H = NG. (3) But it is supposed that DK]DA = DC/DA = e/h =g/h. (4) Therefore, MX/NZ ----g/h, and M X . h ----NZ. g. (5) Therefore, the force which raises h through MX will raise g through NZ. (6) But e and g are equal weights on equally inclined planes; therefore, e cannot raise g, and consequently cannot raise h. The principle of work is assumed in step (5), where it is not, of course, restricted to the case of weights on a balance. As we shall see, this point appears to have been misunderstood b y TARTAGLIAwho, in a later treatment of the principle of the inclined plane, follows JORDANUS down to the key step in the proof. Then he applies, not the principle of work, but a theorem applicable only to weights on a balance. As we shall also see, GALILEO gives an entirely different proof of the principle of the inclined plane. I t is a direct proof, based on the first postulate of JORDANUS and the law of the lever, and does not invoke the principle of work, explicitly or implicitly. Before going on to TARTAGLIAand later developments, we must follow another line of thought which can be traced from the medieval science of weights. There is a Liber Jordani de ponderibus which is also attributed to JORI)ANUS. This one lacks mathematical proofs and is generally less sophisticated than the Elementa. Its importance here lies in a long prologue which makes explicit some of the ideas behind the notion of positional gravity. After explaining that longer arcs of the same circle are " m o r e c u r v e d " than shorter arcs because the longer arc is subtended b y a proportionately shorter chord, it is argued t h a t the weight of the arm of a balance becomes " l i g h t e r " as it descends along its circular path. For, consider descent from the position of horizontal equilibrium through a small arc. The arc differs little from the chord and relatively little "violence" (constraint) is required to make it follow the arc rather than the chord. But as one considers larger and larger arcs, the arc deviates more and more from the chord, and the motion is considered to be more and more constrained. This introduces an impediment to the motion and the "gravity" of the body is diminished. * In my quotations from MOODY ~: CLAGETT (1952) I include correction of typographical errors in accordance with the second printing of 1960.

Galileo's Science of Motion

t 43

This analysis of motion about the arc of a circle naturally suggests the isochronism of such motion. T h a t is, the shorter the arc traversed, measured from the lowest point in the circle, the slower the motion. This notion is not explicit in the medievats, but a fragment will be seen among GALILEO'S notes which suggests such an analysis. Some such considerations m a y also have inspired the formulation of the brachistochrone b y LEO~qARDO DA VINCI, whose notes include a paraphrase from a treatise b y BLASIUS OF PARMA who drew upon the Liber de ponderibus (MooDY & CLAGETT 1952, p. 232). The passage used b y LEONARDO is as follows: Any h e a v y body at all which is outside of its natural place and is not held back seeks to descend by a chord rather than b y an arc. This is evident because when any heavy body is outside of its natural place, the place which it conserves, it seeks in as short a time as possible to attain t h a t perfection [of place]. And because a chord will be described in less time than an arc of the same circle, hence it is that and so on. From this supposition three corollaries follow: t. The movement of a heavy body on a balance is not simply natural. This is obvious from the second supposition which said that the arms of a balance in descent describe arcs and hence curved lines. Therefore, the corollary is true. 2. The movement of a h e a v y body on a descending arm is not simply violent. This is obvious because b y that movement [in a balance] it acquires the place natural to it. 3. Such a movement of a h e a v y body on a balance is midway between natural and violent movement. This is evident since every movement is natural or violent, i.e., outside of nature, and so on. (MooDY & CLAG~TT 1952, pp. 239, 24t) T h a t is, the chord is the path of quickest descent, and therefore a body naturally seeks to descend b y a chord rather than along an arc. From this assumption, for which no justification is given, 'there follows an analysis of the movement of a weight on a balance, such movement being said to be midway between natural and violent. Throughout L~ONARDO'S notebooks we find frequent remarks to the effect that descending bodies tend to move along the shortest p a t h (Ms. A folio 35r; Ms. G folio 75r; Arund. folio 175v). 1 The passage quoted above from BLASlUS OF PARMA is paraphrased without comment (Atl. folio 335v). Then, in another manuscript we find LEONARDO attempting to prove the contrary, that is, that a body will traverse the arc more quickly than the chord. The first paragraph is as follows : The weight P will descend more quickly along the arc than along the chord, and the reason is that [for] half of the arc, it falls from P to R along the perpendicular line; and Efor] the rest of the journey the motion is reflected, [having] seven eighths of the velocity of the incident motion, as proved in the 10 LEONARDO'Spreoccupation with the path of least time is particularly noticeable in the manuscript on hydrostatics put together from L1?;ONARDO'Snotes by ARCONATI in 1643 and more recently edited by CARIJSO & FAVARO (1923). I am also indebted to UCCELLI'S selection of LXONARDO'Snotes on mechanics (1940). Few of these are yet available in English, but some may be found in MAcCIJRDY (1955).

144

W.L. WlSAN"

~M

fifth. And if one lets the weight descend by the chord PN, its motion is fully half as slow as if by PR, that is, by four eighths, while we have already said that the reflected motion RN is seven eighths of the motion along PR. (Sab. folio Iv; my translation from the Italian) In other words, it takes twice as much time to traverse PN as to traverse PR, while it takes seven eighths of the time to traverse RN as to traverse PR. Hence, it takes slightly less time to traverse the combination of P R and RN as to traverse PN. The proof given in three subsequent paragraphs actually establishes a different ratio, while the accompanying diagram suggests yet another. The assumptions are not clear; they seem to include a proposition on the reflection of motion that, even if valid, would apply only to motion on a horizontal plane. One of the tools for this proof, however, may be a theorem which can be found in at least three different versions and which governs the ratio of speeds along inclined planes of the same height. One version of this theorem says that the speeds are inversely proportional to the lengths of the planes (Atl. folio 2t0v). This theorem is suggested by JORDANU$' proposition on the inclined plane if one considers the ratio of speeds (or forces of descent) for the same body on two differently inclined planes rather than the conditions for equilibrium for two different bodies on such planes. GALILEO'S first theorem on motion along inclined planes is the very theorem that LEONARDO used in his attempt to prove the brachistochrone and it is interesting to find that the brachistochrone, handled by a similar strategy, was one of GALILEO'S earliest concerns (see section 4, below). This coincidence naturally raises the question whether GALILEO knew of LEONARDO'S attempt and was thereby induced to pursue the problem of the brachistochrone. However, it is not now known to what extent the contents of LEONARDO'S notebooks on mechanics either represented or contributed to the common knowledge of the time. LEONARDO'S notebooks were not published until the end of the nineteenth century. During that century there was much speculation about his role in the development of modern science and in the early twentieth century DuI~IEM published a series of studies showing how ideas from medieval mechanics might have been transmitted by LEONARDO to GALILEO and others of his time (1906, t909, 1913). Recent research, however, has shown that the most important ideas in LEOI, IARDO'S notebooks were more readily available directly from the original authors or other published works, and, moreover, there is no direct evidence of transmission from LEONARDO to others. Also, LEONARDO'S treatment of the medieval material is inferior to what was available. His notes are disorganized, inconsistent, and incomplete, and on many topics he lacks the sophistication of

Galileo's Science of Motion

145

earlier medievals. However, LEOZCARDO'Sprobings appear as the harbinger of significant change. He raised questions about the relation between force, weight, and motion which were not dealt with by medieval dynamics nor answered by medieval treatises on statics. But the latter did furnish a foundation for studying the simple machines, a matter of great interest to LEO_~ARDO, both in itself and as an aid to the study of the motions of living things. LEONARDO knew some of the literature on the science of weights and searched out what he could of ARCm5mI)ES himself. 11 His notebooks seem to reveal a pioneering effort to broaden the scope of elementary mechanics in such a way as to include the study of bodies in motion. At the very least, then, LEONARDO'Snotebooks may reveal a kind of thinking which had to take place before a GALILEOcould emerge. Of particular importance is the shift in view that appears in LEONARDO'S attempt to prove the contrary of the assumption, laid down by BLASlUSOF PARMA, that motion along a chord is made in less time than along the arc. LEONARDO'S analysis of motion was based on the concept of the center of gravity of the moving body and a clearer understanding and application of the principle that a body tends to move towards the center of the world. A sphere will not rest on a plane, LEOI~ARDO says, unless the line extending from the center of the world to the center of the sphere passes through the point of contact between the sphere and the plane (Atl. folio 246r). L~ONARDOrecognized that an ideal horizontal plane touches the ideal earth at a single point, and that if the line joining the center of gravity of the sphere and that of the earth does not pass through the point of, tangency, then the center of gravity of the sphere will tend to move downward until it cannot approach any nearer to the center of the earth. Once it has moved into this position, however, it will lie still unless set in motion by some external force. On an inclined plane, of course, the center of gravity of a sphere does not lie on the line through the point of contact and the sphere will always tend to descend. Out of these considerations LEONARDOattempted to establish his theorem on the ratio of the speeds of a body on differently inclined planes and this type of reasoning m a y be what led him to the brachistochrone. In any case, more rigorous examination of the motion of a body along an arc and along the chord subtending that arc, in the light of the first postulate of JORDANUS and by analysis in terms of the center of gravity of the body, led LEOZCARDOto discard the conclusion of BLASlUS. Straightness versus curvature no longer determined relative constraint. A new era in mechanics seems to have been at hand. Did LEONARDO, after all, help to prepare for it ? 1~ it See CLAGETT (1969); also, CLAGETThas recently completed a more extensive review of LEONARDO'Smechanics which reveals a deeper and broader knowledge of the medievals than has yet been suspected. I am indebted to Professor CLAGETTfor allowing me to see the manuscript he has prepared for the Dictionary o/ Scienti/ic Biography. See also TRUESDELL (1968) for an assessment of LEONARDO'Saccomplishmerits and limitations as mathematician and scientist. 1, Although many scholars have stated that GALILEOcould not have known of LEONARDO'Snotes on mechanics, the only argument I have found ill support of this view is ill FAVARO (t9t6b). FAVARO,attacking DUHEM'S rather exaggerated claims for LEONARDOas GALILEO'Sprecursor, refutes all old story about how GALILEOmight have come in contact with the manuscripts of LEONARDO. Apparently, around 1587,

t46

W.L.\ISAN:

2.3. Mechanics in the Sixteenth Century

LEONARDO'S analyses of mechanical problems m a y have remained unknown, but they nonetheless bear witness to important developments which were taking place in mechanical thought. In particular, there is a new focus on centers of gravity and an increasing interest in the science of ARCHIMEDES.This new direction becomes more evident in the sixteenth century as the works of the Greek mathematicians became more widely available. By the end of that century medieval mechanics and the Mechanica of Pseudo-ARIsTOTLE, which was translated into Latin early in that century, were subjected to vigorous criticism b y students of ARCHIMEDES. One of the last treatises on the science of weights in the medieval manner was composed by TARTAGLIA in 1546. TARTAGLIA drew on JORDANUS and other medieval sources. He used the methods of JORDANUSand followed the Elementa in a number of errors. In addition to JORDANUS'method for determining obliquity, TARTAGLIAattempted to employ the angle of contingency for measuring curvature. He did not notice the difficulty of differentiating between such angles and, in effect, he implicitly used the lengths of arc cut by a given verticM to determine curvature. Also, TARTAGLIAfailed to understand JORDANUS' demonstration of the principle of the inclined plane and his own proof is fallacious. However, for his proof of the law of the lever TARTAGLIAdeveloped the necessary machinery in detail more meticulous than is found in the medieval treatises. TARTAGLIA carefully develops the distinction between simple heaviness (weight), specific heaviness (roughly, specific gravity), positional heaviness as in JORDANUS, and heaviness in descent which is compounded of one or more of the first three. He then establishes a few basic theorems concerning weights on a balance. For bodies of the same specific heaviness the power of descent is proportional to the simple heaviness. I t is also proportional to the speed of descent and inversely proportional to the speed of ascent. Then, for bodies of equal simple heaviness but unequal positional heaviness, he argues that the power of descent is again proportional to the speed of descent and inversely proportional to the speed in ascent. The method of proof used is the same as that for Theorem I of certain manuscripts were stolen from the 1V~ELZIfamily in Milan, taken to Florence, then to Pisa, and back again to Milan about t 590. An account of these events is given some forty years later by one of the participants, whose righteous version of his own role in the affair may not include the whole story. Yet FAVARO accepts his evidence quite uncritically and uses it to show that during the movement of the manuscripts it was not possible that they were ever in the same place at the same time as GALILEO,who moved back and forth between Pisa and Florence during the same period. FAVARO also eliminates the possibility of transmission through CARDANO,who very likely did see the manuscripts, by a piece of flagrantly fallacious reasoning. Then, after what may have been a more adequate examination of a claim connecting BENEDETTO CASTELLI and the manuscript compiled from LEONARDO'Snotes on hydrostatics, FAVAEOconcludes these "buried treasures" of LEONARDOfailed to have any influence whatever on the science of GALILEOand his school. FAVARO'Sconclusion may be correct; however, he fails to consider several important clues which could lead to a quite different interpretation of the story he cites, and his handling of the evidence raises a serious question. Was FAVAROoverly anxious to refute DI~HXM'Sversion of the thesis for which CAVERNIhad been expelled from the inner circle of GALILEOscholars ? If so, this whole matter should be reviewed.

Galileo's Science of Motion

14 7

the Elementa. These results are used to establish Theorem IV: for bodies of equal simple heaviness but unequal positional heaviness, the powers of descent are proportional to the distances from the support, or the center of the balance. The next three theorems are traditional propositions (including the erroneous second part of Theorem II of the Elementa), after which we find Theorem viii, the law of the lever. The proof is by contradiction and it follows from Theorem IV and the first part of Theorem V, which states that equal weights equally distant from the center of a balance are in equilibrium. The proof of Theorem VIII may be paraphrased as follows: (t) Let AB be a balance with center C, and let weights A and B, placed respectively at points A and B, be such that the weights are inversely proportional to the distances from the center.

A,

(2) Suppose that the weights are not in equilibrium and that A rises to the point D while B descends to E. (3) Describe circles about the center C having radii CD and CE. Drop perpendiculars DF and E H from D and E to AB and connect DE. (4) The weight B is to the weight A as D F to EH. (5) On CD mark off CL equal to CB and place a weight L, equal to weight B, at the point L. (6) Drop the perpendicular LM from L to M on AB. (7) Then DF/LM----DC/LC. (8) If the weights at D and L are simply equal in heaviness, then the positional weight at D is to that at L as DC to CL, by Theorem IV. (9) But the weight L is simply equal to the weight B and the weight at D is the weight A; therefore, the simple weight at D is to that at L as the simple weight A to B, and this is as CL to DC. (t0) Therefore, the weights at D and L are equally heavy in descent (that is, if the positionM weights are inversely proportional to the simple weights, the powers of descent are equal; this is the assumption underlying the proof in the Liber karastonis). (1t) Therefore, the same power that lifts the weight A to the point D will lift the weight L from M to L and if the weight B can lift A it can also lift L. (12) But the weight ]3 is the same as L and the same distance from the center; therefore, by Theorem V, B cannot lift L and so cannot lift A, and so A and B are in equilibrium.

t48

W.L. WISAN :

TARTAGLIA'S distinction between the different meanings of weight and his more methodical development of the machinery needed for proof of the law of the lever appear to be genuine advances. However, he did not understand how the principle of work was applied in De ratione and his proof of the principle of the inclined plane fails because he overlooks tile fact that his Theorem IV is not applicable to weights on inclined planes, but only to weights on a balance. TARTAGLIA'S proof of the inclined plane principle follows that of JORDANUS through step (4) of that proof (see section 2.2), after which TARTAGLIAsays that by however much the body G is simply heavier than the body H, by so much does the body H become heavier by positional force than the said body G and thus they come to be equal in power. (DRAKE& DRABKIN 1969, p. t42) He adds that since the same power that makes one ascend makes the other ascend also, then if E makes H ascend to ~I it would also make G ascend, which is impossible. Therefore, E is not of greater force than H. The proof depends on the assumption quoted immediately above, but there is no ground for this conclusion which, for the analogous step in the proof of the law of the lever, followed from Theorem IV. The weights H and G are not on the arm of a balance and the conclusion does not follow from the argument given. 13oth JORDANUSand TARTAGLIA were severely criticized by later sixteenth century mechanicians, particularly GUIDOBALDO DEL MONTE and G. 13. BENEDETTI. GUIDOBALDO'Streatment of the balance departed considerably from that to be found in the medieval science of weights. He emphasized the concept of center of gravity and based his theorems on three new postulates. Every body, he said, "has but a single center of gravity," and this remains in the same place with respect to that body; also, " A heavy body descends according to its center of gravity" (DRAKE 6: DRABKIN 1969, p. 259). GUIDOBALDO'S first proposition states that "If a weight is supported at its center of gravity by a straight line, it will remain stationary only if that straight line is perpendicular to the horizon" (ibid., p. 260). From this he attempted to develop a new concept to replace that of positional heaviness. He wrote t h a t " the same weight, by diversity of position, will be heavier or lighter, and this not because by reason of its place it sometimes truly acquires greater heaviness and sometimes loses it, being always of the same heaviness wherever it is, but because it presses Fgrava] more or less on the circumference [of the balancel" (ibid., p. 269). He thus speaks of weights' being sustained or pushed by circumferences or by lines representing the arm of the balance in different positions. With this foundation, GUIDOBALDO attempted to develop a comprehensive treatise on the simple machines. He insisted, however, that plumb lines were not parallel, and he endorsed the doctrine that the "power that sustains is less than the power that moves" (DRAKE & DRABKIN 1969, p. 300). Moreover, following PAPPUS, GUIDOBALDO supposed that a given force is required to move a given body on a horizontal plane. Proceeding on these assumptions, GUIDOBALDOwas unable to develop an adequate theory of simple machines. GUIDOBALDO'S proof of the law of the lever is a variant on that of ARCHIMEDES. He does not attempt to prove propositions on the inclined plane but refers his readers to the erroneous theorem of PAPPUS. He does not suppose the

Galileo's Science of Motion

149

principle of virtual velocities in any form, nor does he make use of a principle of work. In general, methods of ARCHIMEDESand PAPPUS replace those of PseudoARISTOTLE and JORnANus. This is also true of GIOVANNIBENEDETTI. The latter did not write a systematic treatise on the science of mechanics but composed short essays on selected topics and did an extensive critique of the PseudoARISTOTELIAN Mechanica. BENEnETTI'S first few chapters deal with the lever. Assuming the basic theorems of ARCHIMEDES, he goes on to explain the bent lever, which he handles correctly. He avoids the medieval concept of positional weight in a manner similar to that of GUII)OBALDO, telling us that a weight is "less or more heavy, according as it is more or less suspended from the center, or rests, more or less, upon the center" (ibid., p. 169). From this he derives the general proposition that the effect of one weight is to that of another (on a balance) as the lengths of the perpendiculars drawn from the center of the balance to the lines along which the weights tend to act (ibid., p. t 70). BENEDETTI correctly analyzed the error made by both JORDANUS and TARTACLIA in the second part of the second theorem of JORDANUS, where positional weight was incorrectly determined. Generally, BENEDETTI seems much more sophisticated than TARTAGLIA. However, like GUInOBALnO, BENEDETTI insisted that plumb lines could not be considered parallel, and, unlike GUIDOBALDO, he made no a t t e m p t to reorganize and unify the science of mechanics. Although both of these men appear to have been talented, their a t t e m p t to replace JORDANIAN and ARISTOTELIAN mechanics b y using only ARCHIMEDES, PAPPUS, and others of the ancient Greek mathematical tradition was not entirely successful. One striking failure is in treatment of the inclined plane. GUIDOBALDOsimply referred to PAPPUS, and BENEDETTI does not appear to have touched upon this topic at all. There seems to have been little exploration of this problem between the times of TARTAGLIA and GALILEO. CARDANO,however, did try to prove that the effective weight of a body on an inclined plane depends on the angle of the plane. In connection with this he remarked that only a minimal force is required to move a sphere on a horizontal plane (t663, Vol. IV, p. 480). This proposition, he added, is common knowledge. This last topic is dealt with b y BENEDETTI in his commentary on the mechanics of Pseudo-ARISTOTLE. Discussing Question 8, BENEDETTI concludes that a perfect sphere m a y be pulled laterally along a horizontal plane by a minimal force "since necessarily the weight of this figure [ANEU] is not more elevated at any one time than at another, but always rests in the same way upon the [horizontal] line B A D " (DRAKE & DRABKIN t969, p. t84). Here, evidently, BENEDETTI does assume that plumb lines are parallel and he reasons in a way which suggests the first three postulates of JORDANUS. Bodies tend to descend towards the center and this descent is swifter the more direct the path (that is, the nearer to a vertical). Also, they resist being moved away from the center and this resistance is equated to the force with which they descend. Since there is no force of descent on a horizontal plane there is no resistance to motion along that plane. As GALILEO will later remark, a body on a horizontal plane is "indifferent" to rest and to motion. This observation, which I will call the proto-inertial principle, appears to have evolved in a natural way from the medieval science of weights. In the light of CARDANO'Sremark, mentioned above, it seems rather likely that GALILEO

150

W . L . WISAI~ :

k n e w some t r a d i t i o n a l version of t h e p r o t o - i n e r t i a l principle a n d p r o b a b l y some a r g u m e n t s used t o s u p p o r t it. 13 If so, this m a y well a c c o u n t for t h e w a y in which GALILEO first w r o t e on t h e s u b j e c t of t h e inclined plane.

2.g. Galileo's First Treatment ol the Inclined Plane

Some t i m e before D e c e m b e r 1590, GALILEO w r o t e a dialogue on m o t i o n which he s u b s e q u e n t l y revised a n d e x p a n d e d into an essay on t h e s u b j e c t (DRABKIN, pp. 123--25). 14 This e a r l y w o r k deals w i t h a n u m b e r of t r a d i t i o n a l topics concerning motion. I n C h a p t e r 14, however, GALILEO begins w i t h two new questions: w h y do bodies m o v e m o r e swiftly (citius) along planes t h a t are m o r e s t e e p l y inclined a n d w h a t is t h e r a t i o of t h e m o t i o n s (proportio talium motuum) along differently inclined planes ? To m a k e his question clear, GALILEO refers to a d i a g r a m which shows several s t r a i g h t lines of t h e s a m e l e n g t h b u t of different inclination. W h y , he asks, does a b o d y descend m o s t q u i c k l y (citissime descendat) along AB, a n d m o r e q u i c k l y (citius) on B D t h a n on B E , b u t m o r e slowly (tardius) A

t h a n on A B ? F u r t h e r , how m u c h faster (velocius) is a b o d y on A B t h a n on B D ? T h e answers to these questions, GALILEO tells us, d e p e n d on "known a n d obvious principles of n a t u r e , " as he f o u n d b y a n a l y z i n g " its solution into its basic princip l e s " (Opere I, p. 296; DRABKIN, p. 63). is In fact, as WOHLWlLL has shown, there seems to have been considerable discussion of the proto-inertial principle in the late middle ages and Renaissance. WOHLWlLL examines this concept in the works of NICOLASOF CUSA, LEONARDODA VINCI, CARDANO, BENEDETTI, STEVIN, and GALILEO, and he shows how it grew out of the question whether the earth could rotate eternally. He argues further, and quite rightly, t h a t GALILEO'S doctrine of the persistance of motion derived from the "general proposition t h a t to continue motion in a p a t h concentric with the earth's surface the least force will suffice" (1884, p. 97). He also remarks t h a t GALILEO'S inertial theory is a "generalized and clarified version of the doctrine of !~ICOLAUSCUSANUS," b u t argues t h a t it is essentially different from the modern law of inertia because of the restriction to a circular p a t h (ibid., pp. 8t-89., 337-45). I am indebted to Professor DALE BURRINGTON of Hartwick College for a translation of WOHLWILL'S analysis. 1~ GALILEO never published this work and the first complete publication of the essay part was b y I~'AVAROin the National Edition. I~'AVAROentitles it De motu; however, it will be referred to here as De motu antiquiora, following FREDETTE (1969). FREDETTE'S comprehensive examination of the dialogue, the essay, and the ma~luscript remains relating to these reveals the order in which these different parts were written and provides important insights into the nature of this early material on motion. For other studies see KoYR~ (1939), GIACOMELLI(1949), MOODY (195t), and SETTLE (1966, 1967). For all English translation of the dialogue see DRAKE (~ DRABKIN (1969, pp. 33i--87).

Galileo's Science of Motion

151

GALILEO lays down only one explicit principle: a h e a v y body is moved downward (gravi deorsum/erri) with as much force as is necessary to draw it up (sursum trahendum), or, it is moved downward with the same force with which it resists being raised (Opere I, pp. 296-97). This is, of course, the postulate of JORDANUS. Speed is identified with force of descent, and the problem is to find the force with which a body descends (vi descendat) a given plane. 15 This force will be the same as that required to hold the body at rest on the plane. GALILEO uses the postulate of JOI~DANUS and the principle of the lever, applied to the case of the bent lever, and he assumes that the motion of a body at any point around the lower quadrant of a circle m a y be identified with the motion along an inclined plane tangent to that point. His result is equivalent to t h a t of JORDANUSand TARTAGLIA,but his procedure is more or less the reverse. Instead of finding the conditions for equilibrium from the "force of descent," he finds the latter from the former. The proposition on the inclined plane is itself mentioned only casually, which is rather odd. However, GALILEO m a y have wished to avoid offending his patron, GUIDOBALDO,who followed PAPPUS and who condemned the methods and results of JORDANUSand TARTAGLIA. GALILEO makes use of key ideas which m a y be found in the medieval tradition, but his proof is a direct proof and it avoids the difficulties in the earlier attempts by JORDANUSand TARTAGLIA. He begins b y remarking that we shall know how much greater is the force of descent along BD than along BE when we know how much more force is required to draw the same body up along BD than along BE, and we shall know this when we find out the ratio of the effective weights (gravitas) of the body on the respective planes. GALILEO considers the balance CD, with center at A, and supposes equal weights at C and D. Then, supposing the arm AD to rotate about A to the point S, the body at S would descend as though along the line GH, tangent to the circle at S. The ratio of the weights of the same body at D and at S will give the ratio of the speeds along E F and GH. Draw a perpendicular from the point S to the line CD, and let the point of intersection be P. Then the weight at S (])ondus in S) is as though it were suspended from P (and here GALILEO E

/
H F 15 This implicitly assumes the ARISTOTELIANdynamic principle that a constant force generates a constant speed. GALILEOinitially assumes this relation, thinking of natural fall as uniform. When he realizes that free fall is necessarily accelerated, he shifts to a modified version of the ARISTOTELIA~principle and assumes, in effect, that acceleration is proportional to the force. Whether he actually conceives the relation in these terms is not clear, but he does assume that the force with which a body descends generates increasing momenti and that these momenti generate velocities which are proportional in some sense to the force (see section 5.5). This will be referred to as GALILEO'Sdynamic principle.
t] Arch. Hist. Exact ScL, Vol. ~3

t 52

W.L.

WISAN :

assumes the principle of the bent lever), and the weight of the body at D is to that at S as AID to AP. Also, from elementary geometry, AD/AP----QS/PS. Consequently, the speed (celeritas) on E F is to the speed on G H as QS to SP, or as a length of oblique descent to the vertical height of that length. Now, the ratio between the lengths of these lines gives tile ratio of the speeds along the indefinite lines E F and GH. GALILEO assumes the motion along these lines to be uniform, and the distances found measure tile speeds because they measure tile forces which produce the speeds, not the distances traversed in given times. GALILEO states the principle of the inclined plane only after drawing his conclusion concerning the ratio of the speeds. He adds: And it is clear [constat igitur] t h a t the same weight [idem pondus] can be drawn up [trahi sursuml an inclined plane with less force than vertically, in proportion as the vertical ascent is smaller than the oblique. Consequently, the same heavy body [idem grave I will descend vertically with greater force [maiori vi I than on an inclined plane in proportion as the length of tile descent on the incline is greater than the vertical fail. (Opere I, pp. 297-98; DRABKIN, p. 65) These remarks begin with a statement of the principle of the inclined plane in the manner of PAPPUS, who considered the ratio of the forces required to raise a body along an inclined plane and its vertical. The finai statement, made in terms of the force with which a body descends, is more like that found in JORDANUS and TARTAGLIA. But instead of the condition for equilibrium of two bodies on two differently inclined planes, GALILEO speaks of the ratio of forces of descent of the same body along the inclined plane and its vertical. Through his identification of speed with force of descent, GALILEO has, in effect, abstracted a proposition on motion from a proposition traditionaily used to establish conditions of equilibrium. This theorem will be called GALILEO'S De motu theorem. Continuing this line of thought, GALILEO derives some very elementary consequences from his De motu theorem. He deduces the more general theorem that ratios of speeds along planes of any inclination, but with the same vertical height, will be inversely as the lengths of the planes. 16 Then he adds that planes can be constructed so that the speeds along them will be in any given ratio for a given body, or so that bodies of different specific gravity will descend with the same speedY Similar problems can also be solved, GALILEO suggests, but he is In one place GALILEOexpresses his result in terms of slowness (tarditas) instead of speed (Opera I, p. 30t ; DRABKI?, p. 68). The tarditas, of course, is directly proportions1 to the lengths of the planes. This is sometimes taken to be a statement of GALILBO'Sthird theorem on accelerated motion, reading " t i m e " for "slowness" (see section 4.4). 17 In the first few chapters of De motu antiquiora, GALILEOdeveloped the theory that, in the case of free fall in the void, bodies descend with speeds proportional to their specific gravities (gravitas). His concept is not precisely that of specific gravity in the modern sense but it is used in an equivalent way. One body is said to have more gravitas than another if an equal volume has greater weight (Opere I, p. 25t ; DRABKIN, p. 14). Gravitas is also used to mean effective weight and is sometimes a synonym for pondus (weight). Primarily, however, gravitas means the tendency of bodies to move downward (see section 2.6, below).

Galileo's Science of Motion

153

warms his readers t h a t these theoretical ratios will not be observed. This is not only because of the imperfections of matter, but also because of the "accident" of acceleration. The new science of motion begins as a purely rational science concerned with the "natural" or intrinsic motion of a body, and without regard to physical reality. 18 GALILEO'S science of motion will be seen to evolve gradually from this beginning in the science of simple machines. Its roots then m a y lie in medieval statics as suggested b y CAVERXI. If SO, however, it is hardly a simple case of direct borrowing, but rather one in which basic elements are radically transformed. The De motu theorem, of course, was suggested b y b o t h LEONARDO and CARDANO. But neither of these a t t e m p t e d to establish a science of motion based on principles developed for such a science. GALILEO, on the other hand, isolated fundamental principles governing motion along inclined planes and proceeded to deduce m a t h e m a t i c a l consequences of these principles. The direction of GALILEO'S efforts m a y well have been suggested b y remarks such as can be found in writings of LEONARDO and CARDANO, however, GALILEOseems to be the first to detach propositions on motion along inclined planes from the medieval science of weights and to incorporate them into a new science. GALILEO does not tell us w h y he is interested in s t u d y i n g motion along an inclined plane. However, in the next section we shall see t h a t GALILEO used his De motu theorem to derive the proto-inertial principle which we found in works of CARDANO and BENEDETTI.

2.5. The Principle o/ Gravity

As we have seen, LEONARDO,CARDANO, and BENEDETTI all considered the problem of the ideal sphere on a perfect horizontal plane. The last two state t h a t such a sphere can be m o v e d b y a minimal force. All three applied reasoning based on the first postulates of JORDANUS : a b o d y descends along a line connecting its center of g r a v i t y with t h a t of the earth, its resistance to motion a w a y from the center is equal to its t e n d e n c y to descend, and this t e n d e n c y is greater as the p a t h of descent is more direct (that is, nearer to the vertical). F r o m this, as has already been pointed out (section 2.3), it follows t h a t there is no resistance to motion on a horizontal plane. In Chapter t 4 of GALILEO'S early work on motion he also asserts t h a t an ideal sphere on a perfect horizontal plane can be m o v e d b y a minimal force, and is Since GALILEO supposed that speed of fall in the void was proportional to the specific gravity of the falling object, for him the speed of fall would obviously be uniform. As I remarked in m y Introduction, GALILEOdistinguished between" natural" and "accidental" motions. The former is that which results from an internal principle, whereas the latter is that caused by an external force. "True natural" motion would occur only in the void where the falling body would be affected solely by its own specific gravity. The acceleration observed in the fall of heavy bodies was due, according to GALILEO,to an accidental (external) cause, that is, to the presence of a self-expending force which has been impressed upon the body in order to raise it to the point from which it begins to fall, For a different interpretation of GALILEO'Sremarks about the lack of correspondence between his ratios and empirical results, see SETTLE (t967, pp-328--33) and FREDETTE (1969, p. 284).
11"

154

"W. L. WIGAN:

he demonstrates this proposition in two different ways. He derives it from the principle of the inclined plane and again from the principle of the balance. GALILEO adds a further argument from the observation that water will flow naturally downhill wherever there is an inclination, however slight, and will flow uphill only under force. On a plane with no slope a body is subject neither to natural nor to forced motion, and it can be moved b y a force less than any assigned force. GALILEO is thinking about this problem in purely dynamic terms, or, one might say, in terms of cause rather than effect. No more than in the case of his theorem on motion does it occur to him to describe the result in terms of distances traversed in given times, and there is no indication here that a body set in motion on a horizontal surface would continue to move uniformly unless interfered with b y an external force. I t can be set in motion b y a minimal force, but that the motion is "indelibly impressed," as GALILEO will later say, is not yet hinted (see section 6.2). Still, he adds a significant restriction to motion along a horizontal. Like LEObtARDO, GALILEO observes that a horizontal plane must be tangent to the surface of the earth. Therefore, if one should try to move a sphere with minimal force, this effort would not succeed. This is not merely because of the imperfections of matter, but because if the sphere is moved away from the point at which it is tangent to the horizontal plane which is in turn tangent to the surface of the earth, the center of gravity of the sphere moves away from the center of the earth, and the sphere would resist such motion. GALILEO will later define the horizontal to be equidistant from the center of the earth, thus opening up the possibility of a circular inertial motion, once an imparted motion is conceived to be indefinitely conserved. (See further remarks on GALILEO and the principle of inertia in section 7A.) For GALILEO, the proto-inertial principle is but one aspect of a more general principle which I will call GALILEO'S principle of gravity. This principle incorporates concepts in and immediate corollaries of the first three postulates of JORDANUS and it looks like an attempt to provide a general description of the behavior of heavy bodies. A long explanation of the principle of gravity occurs in an early version of an unpublished treatise on the mechanics of the simple machines : 19 To understand the nature of the screw and how it acquires its force, we begin from a principle which m a y seem somewhat remote from our purpose (nostro instituto). This is not so, for it is the most appropriate means for explaining the nature of the screw. Consider that a heavy body, not being impeded from its natural inclination, moves downward, not only descending along a plumb line, but also on any surface whatever, however small the inclination from the horizontal. I t is for this reason that rivers run through the open country wherever there is any slope however small. But when we have a plane without ally inclination at all, the heavy bodies placed on it never move b y 19 Two versions of this treatise are given in DRAKE (1958). I t is a rough and very elementary draft, probably a lecture outline. The final version is published in Volume I I of the National Edition as Le mecaniche. All of the mechanical treatises are in Italian; none of them were published by GALILEO, and the dates are uncertain. The earliest extant version may be as early as t 593 (DRAKE 1958, pp. 262-67). The final version is generally dated about 1600 (DRAKE, p. t 37).

Galileo's Science of Motion

t 55

themselves (da per loro), but in fact a minimum force suffices to move them from their place. For heavy bodies resist motion only when they must ascend a plane. If the plane is even a little elevated, a body will not move upward without some greater force, which finds resistance (repugnanza) in the heaviness (gravitY) of the moving body while forcing it upward, this resistance being greater as the plane is more elevated; and finally the greatest resistance is found in trying to raise the weight (peso) perpendicularly. (DRAKEt958, p. 276; m y translation) This discussion is not unlike that given by HERo in his Mechanica (DRAcHIVlANN 1963, pp. 46-48). Again, GALILEO does not say that a heavy body once placed in motion on a perfectly horizontal plane would continue to move indefinitely, but he does, like LEO~ARI~O, remark that such a body would not move by itself. Still thinking entirely in terms of the resistance to force, GALILEO gives a more succinct statement of his principle of gravity in Le mecaniche, the final version of the mechanical treatise. Again, the principle is introduced in the chapter on the screw. As before, GALILEO begins with the example of the river which requires only a minimal slope to allow its flow, and then goes on to the case of a perfectly smooth body on a perfectly smooth surface, such as a frozen lake, on which the body would stand still, "though with a disposition to be moved b y any extremely small force" (@ere II, p. t 79; DRAKE, p. t 70). In short, " o n an exactly balanced surface [a] ball would remain indifferent and questioning between motion and r e s t " (Opere II, p. 180; D~AKE, p. t7t). And from this we may take it as an "assioma indubitato" that : heavy bodies, all external and adventitious impediments being removed, can be moved in the plane o/the horizo~ by any minimum force. But when the same heavy body must be driven upon an ascending p l a n e . . , there will be required greater and greater violence the more elevation the said plane shall have . . . . This comes from its having greater impetus to go downward along the line EA than along DA, and along DA than along CA. So that we may E

likewise conclude heavy bodies to have greater resistance to being moved upon variously inclined planes, according as one is more or less tilted than another; and finally the resistance to being raised will be greatest on the part of the heavy body in the perpendicular AF. But what proportion the force must have to the weight in order to draw it upon various inclined planes must be explained precisely . . . . (OpereII, p. t80; DRAKE, pp. t 7t--72, emphasis added) These long discussions in the De motu antiquiora and the essays on mechanics suggest that GALILEO, aware of an earlier tradition concerning the proto-inertial

156

W . L . WISAN:

principle, the postulates of JORI)ANUS, and the principle of the inclined plane, was attempting to clarify and unify these concepts and propositions. After first deriving the proto-inertial principle from the principle of the inclined plane, he then took the former as an axiom from which to derive the latter. But the protoinertial principle is not sufficient. W h a t is needed is the key principle from which it derives: a body resists being moved only insofar as it is moved away from the center of the earth. In Le mecaniche, we see this idea developed in connection with a rudimentary concept of the conservation of work.

2.6. Le mecaniche
GALILEO briefly states a principle of conservation in De motu antiquiora: "the same body, in the same medium and over the same line, is moved b y the same force with the same velocity" (Opere I, p. 3t5; DRABKIN, p. 84). This becomes the dominant theme of Le mecaniche. GALILEO argues in his introduction that machines do not enable man to " c h e a t " nature b y overcoming a greater resistance b y a lesser force. Nature would be cheated " o n l y if the lesser force should transfer the greater resistance with its speed of motion (velocit& di moto) equal to that with which the latter travels" (Opere II, p. t 56; DRAKE,p. 148), and this, as GALILEO indicates, would be impossible in principle. A smaller force ([orza) can do the work of a greater force only b y taking more time, or if moving in the same time, then b y moving at greater speed. 2 A given weight, GALILEO says, is always conducted a given distance b y a given force. In Le mecaniche, the term ]orza, which usually means static weight, sometimes incorporates the notion of time. 21 Scarcely mentioned in his earlier work, time is now added explicitly to those factors to be considered: ... there lie before us at first four things to be considered; the first is the weight [peso] to be transferred from one place to another; the second is the force or power [[orza o potenza] that must move it; third is the distance between the beginning and the end of the motion [moto]; and fourth is the time in which the change [mutazione~ must be made which time comes to the same thing as the swiftness and speed [prestezza e velocitY] of the motion, that motion being determined to be speedier than another which passes an equal distance in less time. (Opere II, p. 156; D~AI~E, p. t48) GALILEO does not define velocity, or speed, as such, but like ARISTOTLE (Physics VII, 4, 249 a) he tells us what is meant b y saying one body is quicker than another. Only later will GALILEO begin to treat velocity in a different manner. In Le mecaniche, however, GALILEO defines gravitdt and momento in a way that suggests some reworking of fundamental ideas relating to motion. In the De motu antiquiora, the term gravitas means, roughly, weight per unit volume, or it means effective weight and sometimes absolute weight (although the latter is usually rendered b y pontius). In all cases, gravitas refers to the tendency of a body to descend. In Le mecaniche GALILEO defines gravit~ (which translates 2o This rule is given by HERO OF ALEKAI~DRIA(CLAGETT1959, pp. 17, 47). 31 The best discussions of GALILEO'S concept of force are ill WESTFALL (t966, 1971). A useful treatment can also be found in BIAGI (1965, pp. 60-68).

Galileo's Science of Motion

15 7

gravitas into Italian) as the tendency (propensione) of a body to move naturally downward. Now, however, he adds that gravit~ depends on the quantity of matter (materi@ GALILEO does not elaborate on this definition, and his statement here
m a y be deliberately ambiguous. Does he again mean something like specific gravity, or does he intend absolute weight ? Whichever it is, he introduces momento as a more general term for the tendency to move downward, and this term embraces the concept of effective weight, which is no longer designated b y gravit~ or gravitas. Thus moment is that impetus to go downward composed of heaviness [gravitY], position, and of anything else by which this tendency m a y be caused. (Opere u , p. t59, DRAKE, p. t5t) This includes the arrangement which different heavy bodies have among themselves. It is through such moment that a less heavy body will often be seen to counterbalance some other of greater heaviness, as in the steelyard a little counterweight is seen to raise a very heavy weight, not by excess of heaviness, but rather b y its distance from the suspension of the steelyard. (Ibid.) Here, then, we see momento in the sense of static moment; later we will find it appearing as, in effect, the product of weight and speed. 2~ After discussing his definitions of gravit~ and momento, GALILEOdefines center of gravity as " t h a t point in every heavy body around which parts of equal moments are arranged" (ibid.). ~ From this, he says, we may suppose that Any heavy body will move downward in such a way that its center of gravity will never depart from the straight line produced from this center (placed at the first point of the motion) to the general center of heavy things. This is a very reasonable assumption; for since this single center must go to join the common center, if not impeded it will necessarily go to meet this by the shortest line, which is the unique straight line. (Opere II, p. t6o; DRAKE,

p. 152)
GALILEO then adds that Every heavy body gravitates principally upon its center of gravity and receives therein, as its proper seat, every impetus, every heaviness, and in sum every

moment. (Ibid.)
22 This is made explicit in the Discorso of 1612 (Opere IV, p. 69). 2~ This definition is in writings of COMMANDIXOand GUIDOBALDO,who also give a definition from PAm~USwhich does not use the concept of moment (see SETTLE 1966, p. 217 n). SETTLEnotes that whereas COMMANDINOand GUIDOBALDO give the definition of PAPPUS first, GALILEOmakes the definition by moments the main one. SETTLE examines GALILEO'Suses of this term throughout his writings and concludes that "he was reaching for an idea or principle that would help him unite into a single science a variety of phenomena ranging from those exhibited by simple machines or by hydrostatics to those observed in free vertical motion and in impact or percussion" (1966, p. t 57). This appears to be a sound insight which sheds light on an important aspect of GALILEO'Swork on mechanics and on his scientific bent in general.

158

~7. L. WISAN :

Finally, GALILEO supposes that " T h e center of gravity of two equally heavy bodies is in the middle of that straight line which joins the two said centers" (ibid.). Thus, in the case of the balance CD, GALILEO assumes the point of equilibrium to be at the midpoint E when equal weights are suspended from C and D, "there being no stronger reason to tilt from one side than from the o t h e r " (ibid.). He thus derives the fundamental postulate of ARCHIMEDES from the principle of sufficient reason, a device often employed throughout GALILEO's writings. From this assumption, GALILEOthen derives the law of the lever in two ways. The first method employed is in the EUCLIDEAN-ARCHIMEDEANtradition. GALILEO

2m

i!
n I
m

supposes a horizontal, homogeneous prism suspended at its extremities from a bar of the same length. The bar is in turn suspended from its midpoint. In this case equilibrium obtains because if a line should be drawn from this midpoint to the center of the earth it would pass through the center of the solid and "parts of equal moments would exist about such a line" (DRAKE, p. 1 53). GALILEO'S argument may be paraphrased as follows: ~4 suppose the length of the bar and the prism to be 2 (m + n), where m and n are not equal. Cut the prism into portions equal to 2 m and 2 n. Let the inside extremities of these portions be fastened to the bar by threads and equilibrium is not disturbed. Suspend the two segments by their midpoints. The threads at the extremities may be removed and the prism remains in equilibrium. Since the length of the bar is 2 (m + n), the length of each half is (m + n). The right hand portion of the prism is supended at a distance m from the center of the bar and the left hand portion from a distance n. Since the prism is homogeneous the weight of the right hand portion is proportional to n and the weight of the left hand portion to m, and the conclusion follows that equilibrium obtains when the weights are inversely proportional to the distances from the center to their points of support. Following this proof, which GALILEO evidently regards as rigorous, he offers "another agreement [congruenza] and probability" (ibid., p. 155) by which the same theorem can be confirmed. The method in this case is reminiscent of the proof in the Liber karastonis, and in it GALILEO employs momento in a new way. GALILEO supposes the balance AB to be divided into unequal parts AC and CB with weights inversely proportional to the distances suspended at points A and B. He then remarks that the weights are in equilibrium but that if an insensible weight were added to the body B, the point B would descend towards E while A would rise to D. GALILEO adds that 84 My paraphrase draws on the analysis in MACH (1893, p. t12).

Galileo's Science of Motion

159

since to make the weight B descend, a n y minimal heaviness added to it is sufficient, we shall leave out of account this insensible q u a n t i t y and shall not distinguish between the power of one weight to sustain another, and its power to move it. (Ibid., p. t 56) This permits examination of the conditions for equilibrium in terms of the behavior of the balance in motion. Since in a n y motion of the balance, the weights move in the same time, the speeds of the weights are proportional to the distances t h r o u g h which t h e y move. GALILEO remarks t h a t this is in accordance with nature, for the speed of B must compensate for its lesser heaviness, while the greater weight A m u s t be m o v e d more slowly. This, of course, is consistent with the concept of conservation with which GALILEO begins his treatise on mechanics, Also, it implies t h a t momento is the product of weight times speed. ~5 I t further implies t h a t momento is increased when speed is increased. That4s, we m a y arrive at the knowledge t h a t the speed of motion is capable of increasing moment in the movable b o d y in the same proportion as t h a t in which this speed of motion is increased. (Ibid.) This remark suggests the doctrine of BURIDA~, according to which a b o d y begins to fall due to its gravity, but as it falls an impetus is acquired which then moves the b o d y more swiftly with a further increase in its impetus and, again, in its swiftness (CLAGETT t959, pp. 55t-52). 36 It should then follow t h a t free fall is necessarily accelerated. This conclusion is not drawn in Le mecaniche, b u t a new proof of the principle of the inclined plane includes a rather suggestive analysis. I n Le mecaniche, GALILEO approaches the principle of the inclined plane directly and without reference to his earlier theorem on motion. The proof is 35 Again, GALILEO'S methods and concepts can be seen to be close to those found in the JORDANIANtradition. z~ Many historians have identified the dynamics of De motu antiquiora with the impetus theory developed in the fourteenth century by t3URIDAN and ORESME, and later elaborated by ]~ENEDETTI (KOYR]~ 1939, pp. 54-55; GEYMONAT& CARUGO 1958, p. 759; BIAGI 1964, pp. 56--57; CLAV~LIN t968, pp. 103--6, 136--38). However, as MooDY points out in a recent article (1966), BUI~IDAN(and the same applies to BANEDETTI) assumed impetus (a power transmitted to projectiles by a projector) to be of a permanent nature, while in GALILEO'S early work he assumed a self-expending impressed force. From this MOODY argues that if GALILEO'S Pisan dynamics reflects a medieval tradition, it is not that of BURIDAN, but that of FRANCISCUS DE MARCHIA, older contemporary of URIDAN, who follows an earlier tradition associated with HIPPARCHUS and PHILOPONUS. One might object that ORESME, of the same school as BURIDAN, also assumed a non-permanent impetus (CLAGETT 1959, p. 552), showing that the later medieval tradition included both views. However, MOODY is quite right in saying that GALILEO'Slater writings show far more familiarity with the ideas and terminology of the fourteenth century Parisians than does the De motu antiquiora. In particular, it is notable that in the earlier work GALILEO generally uses the term vis impressa which is explained and justified by means of various analogies, while impetus, apparently first used in a technical sense by BURIDAN, is less frequent and not treated as a technical term (Opere I, pp. 309-11). Also, GALILEO'Sanalysis of fall in terms of specific gravity, while close to that of BENEDETTI, is altogether foreign to the dynamics of either BURIDAN or ORES~E. As MOODY has shown (1951), it is closer to that of AVEMPACE.

t 60

W.L. WISAN:

preceded b y remarks on the principle of gravity, after which GALILEO refers to the proof of PAPPUS, pointing out the error in the latter's assumption that a given force is required to move a given weight on a horizontal plane. On the contrary, GALILEO says, no sensible force is required, and thus to determine the force which will move a given body on an inclined plane, one must consider instead the force required to lift the body vertically. The general strategy of the proof is the same as that in De motu antiquiora," the difference lies in the deeper analysis which accompanies the proof and in the explicit assumption that there is no resistance to transverse motion. When the proof is completed, GALILEO emphasizes the point made earlier: whatever is gained in force is lost in time and speed. To make this clear GALILEO remarks

that while in the case of connected bodies on an inclined plane the body E moves the same distance in the same time as the body F, the former moves through a smaller vertical distance than does the latter. And he emphasizes t h a t " h e a v y bodies do not have any resistance to transverse motions except in proportion to their removal from the center of the earth" (Opere II, p. t86; DRAKE, p. t77). In the course of the proof, GALILEO elaborates on a very interesting analysis. He considers two weights of equal momenti to be balanced at A and C, then supposes BC to be rotated to the position indicated b y the line BF, the weight originally at C now at F. The momento of the weight at F is as if it were suspended from K, and the momento of the weight at F is to that of the weight at A as K B is to BA. If BC continues to rotate until it coincides with BL, the momento of the weight continues to diminish. GALILEO then remarks: You see, then, how the weight placed at the end of line BC, inclining downward along the circumference CFLJ, comes gradually to diminish its moment and its impetus to go downward, being sustained more and more b y the lines BF and BL. But to consider this heavy body as descending and sustained now less and now more b y the radii BF and BL, and as constrained to travel along the circumference CFL, is not different from imagining the same cir[3

Galileo's Science of Motion

161

cumference C F L J to be a surface of the same curvature placed under the same movable body, so that this body, being supported upon it, would be constrained to descend along it. For in either case the movable body traces out the same path, and it does not m a t t e r whether it is suspended from the center B and sustained by the radius of the circle, or whether this support is removed and it is supported by and travels upon the circumference C F L J . . . . if the movable body is located at the point F, then its heaviness is partly sustained b y the circular path placed under it, and ... at the first point of its motion it is as if it were on an inclined plane according to the tangent line GFH, since the tilt of the circumference at the point F does not differ from the tilt of the tangent FG, apart from the insensible angle of contact. (01~ere II, pp. t 8 t - 8 3 ; DRAKE, pp. 173-74) All of this, of course, simply makes explicit the assumptions behind the proof in De motu antiquiora. GALILEO is now clearly thinking of a body moving continuously about the lower quadrant of a circle as in the medieval Liber de ponderibus; however, GALILEO assumes that the motion at each point is the same as if the body were on an inclined plane tangent to that point. GALILEO'S reference to the angle of contact recalls TARTAGLIA'S a t t e m p t to use this angle to measure curvature, or, rather, the obliquity of the p a t h of such a body. GALILEO passes from consideration of the angle between the tangent and the curve to the tangent itself considered as an inclined plane. As before, GALILEO assumes that the force with which a body tends to descend is exactly equal to that with which it resists being raised. Now, however, he stresses the notion that the arm of the balance sustains the weight. This might be, as has been suggested (DRAKE, p. 174), because GALILEO was thinking of a pendulum. However, the language used is suggestive of that of GUIDOBALDOand BENEDETTI. GALILEO knew the Mecanicorum liber of GUIDOBALDOand he developed an analysis of simple machines which was similar in m a n y ways even though significantly different in several important aspects. In fact, GALILEO'S treatment of mechanics, and especially that of the inclined plane and the lever, appears as a synthesis of the most useful elements from a number of earlier works. In particular, his discussion of the motion of a body around the lower quadrant of a circle shows how he combined the static analysis of GUIDOBALDO with the dynamic analysis of the JORDANIAN tradition by identifying the motion at each point with that on a plane tangent to that point. An interesting consequence can be derived from this analysis. GALILEO has already shown that motions are swifter along more steeply inclined planes. What, then, as the body descends along its circular path ? Is the motion swifter at the higher point F than at the lower point L ? This is obviously absurd. W h a t would cause it to slow down ? The speed that would be acquired along the tangent at F must be added to that which the body would have if subsequently diverted along a path parallel to the tangent at L; consequently, the motion at L must be swifter than that at F, and the motion around the circumference of the lower quadrant of a circle is necessarily accelerated. This effect would occur whether an impressed force tends to decay or remain constant. Did GALILEO see this and conclude that motion downward is necessarily accelerated, and did he at this point abandon the concept of a self-expending impressed force, which is no

162

W.L. WISAN:

longer needed to account for acceleration ? This cannot be answered with any certainty, for GALILEOmakes no comment. However, in his subsequent writings, natural motion may come to mean that which necessarily occurs within a given system and is thus no longer restricted to that which is intrinsic to the body. The new view is not expressed in Le mecaniche but may already have been adopted, for "natural acceleration" is clearly assumed by 1604. 2~ With the new doctrine of natural acceleration GALILEO'Searlier dynamics of fall required revision and this in turn led to derivation of GALILEO'S Postulate that the velocities acquired in descent from the same height are always the same regardless of the lengths of the planes along which the body descends. This proposition was probably first derived from two fundamental principles: heavy bodies have no resistance to motion except that which moves them further from the center of the earth, and the force with which they tend to descend is equal to that with which they resist being moved. From this it would follow that the force acting on a descending body is directed along the vertical. Finally, assuming the dynamic principle that forces generate velocities proportional to those forces, then equal velocities (disregarding direction) must be acquired in descent through the same vertical height. GALILEOprobably had this proposition by about t 600, but the main evidence indicating the analysis outlined here is dated 1609, and it will be discussed later (section 5). However GALILEO arrived at his Postulate, he used it by t602. I t furnished the grounds for his proof of Theorem x x n and hence the brachistochrone, and he m a y well have had it before the times-squared theorem. In the next section we shall examine a group of propositions, all or some of which are probably GALILEO'S earliest theorems on motion after the De motu antiquiora. 3. The Theorem VI Family

3.1. The Law o] Chords and Some Early Derivatives

GALILEO'Slaw of chords, or Theorem VI of the second book in De motu locali, states that the times of descent are equal along all chords drawn from the highest 27 For different reconstructions of the way in which GALILEOarrived at the new doctrine of naturally accelerated motion, see SETTLE (t967, pp. 334--35) and I~REDETTE (t969, pp. 284--93), who point to GALILEO'Sfailure to find instances in experience where free fall is uniform. For GALILEO,however, the " t r u e " uniform motion of a body would be found only in a vacuum. The question is, why did he become interested in a science of motion as it occurs in nature ? GALILEO'Streatment of the concept of momento suggests a new direction of thought, possibly associated with BURIDAN or ORESME, especially in view of his adoption of the principle of conservation of motion, or impetus, as he will frequently say in his later writings. ]But changes in GALILEO'S views on motion around t 600 may be even more intimately linked with his adoption of COPERNICANastronomy. In 1597, GALILEOwrote to KEPLER that adopting the COPERNICANpoint of view "enables me to explain many phenomena of nature which certainly remain inexplicable according to the more current hypotheses" (KoESTLER 1959, p. 356). If COPERNICANISMprompted GALILEO to adopt the doctrine that motion is indefinitely conserved unless interfered with by external forces this would have entailed abandoning his earlier theory of acceleration. A body projected upward would not slow down due to the decaying of the impressed force but only because of a tendency to accelerate downward. Thus, free fall would have to be "naturally," or at least necessarily, accelerated. GALILEO'Sletter of t 604 to SARPI(Opere X, pp. t t 5-16) reveals some of his thinking on this point.

Galileo's Science of Motion

163

or lowest points of a circle. This is probably the oldest of the propositions published in t638. I t is used in all of the theorems which, according to evidence from language and method, are the earliest propositions on motion after the De motu theorem and its corollaries} The law of chords is first mentioned in a letter dated t602, written to GUIDOBALDO DEL MONTE (@ere X, pp. 98-t00). In this letter GALILEO claims to have a proof of his Theorem XXlI, the theorem from which his brachistochrone is inferred. Unless he had an argument for this theorem which differs from the published proof, the law of chords assumed in that proof must date from some time before 1602. Several proofs of the law of chords can be found in the manuscript. In one of these we find a number of relatively rare expressions, most of which tie this proof conceptually and linguistically to the De motu antiquiora. Another seems more closely linked to the proof of the principle of the inclined plane in Le mecaniehe. These will be referred to as t h e " mechanical" proofs. Others, depending on Theorem I I I and the corollary on mean proportionals, are later, as will be shown in section 4.4. The first proof of the law of chords m a y be that on folio 151r, in GALILEO'S hand. This proof is more closely linked to Le meeaniche than to the early De motu. However, the theorem is proved here only for the case in which one of the chords is the vertical diameter, and the proof is sketchy, depending for its details on the treatment of the bent lever in GALILEO'S proof of the principle of the inclined plane. But GALILEO rarely omits details of a proof if these involve anything more than simple geometry. This suggests that tile draft on folio 151r is a relatively early attempt. The proof on folio 151 r is as follows: Sit GD erecta ad orizontem, DF vero inclinata: dico, eodem tempore /ieri motum ex G in D et ex F in D.

Momentum enim super FD est idem ac super contingente in E, quae ipsi FD esset parallela; ergo momentum super FD ad totale momentum erit ut CA ad AB, idest AE: verum ut CA ad AE, ita ID ad DA et dupla FD ad duplam DG; ergo momentum super FD ad totale momentum, scilicet per GD, est ut FD ad GD: ergo eodem tempore/iet motus per FD et GD. (Opere V I I I , p. 378; emphasis added)

F
H

The handwriting and watermarks on fragments relating to these theorems supports the conjecture that they must be from the Paduan period.

t 64

W.L. WISAN:

That is, given the circle GBD in the figure above, with GD the vertical diameter, and FD any chord meeting GD at D, the motions from G to D and from F to D are made in equal times. For the momentum, or tendency to descend, on FD is equal to that on the tangent to the circle which is parallel to FD, and the totale momentum, that along the vertical, is the same along any part of the vertical. Let E be the point of tangency and the momentum on FD will be to the totale momentum as CA is to AB. This relation was established in the proof of the principle of the inclined plane in Le mecaniche, and the proof is not repeated here. Then, since AE is equal to AB, and since by elementary geometry the point I bisects FD and DA is half of GD, the triangles ACE and ADI are similar. Therefore, the momentum on FD is to the totate momentum on GD as DI to DA, or FD to GD. From this GALILEOconchldes that the motions must be made (flee motus) in the same time. The conclusion follows from the converse of the medieval assump tion, which we have seen in the Liber karastonis and in BRADWARDINE,that in equal time intervals, speeds are proportional to distances traversed. Speed is not distinguished from momentum. A complete proof of the general theorem is on folio 160r, in GALILEO'Shand. it begins as follows: Sit BA aequalis ipsi DA, et ducantur perpendiculares BE, DF: constat ex elementis mecanicis, momentum ponderis super plano secundum lineam ABC

elevato ad momentum suum totale esse ut BE ad BA, emsdemque vero ponderis momentum super elevatione AD ad totale suum momentum, eamdem ob eausam, esse ut D F ad DA vel BA; ergo eiusdeln ponderis momentum super plano secundum DA inclinato ad momentum super inelinatione secundum ABC est ut linea DF ad lineam BE; quare spatia, quae pertransibit idem pondus temporibus aequalibus super inclinationibus CA, DA, erunt inter se ut lineae BE, DF. At ut BE ad DF, ita demonstratur se habere AC ad DA; ergo idem mobile temporibus aequalibus pertransibit lineas CA, DA. (Opere V I I I , pp. 22122, 22t-222n; emphasis added) * * The text of folio t60r is not given in the Frammenti (see section 1.5) ; it is here reconstructed froln the text of Theorem VI in the Discorsi together with FAVARO'S footnotes indicating variations from the text. I will follow this procedure throughout for those fragments not included in the Frammenti and will occasionally (as will be noted) correct FAVARO'Sreading of the manuscript. Variations in GALILEO'Sspelling will be flagged by sic only where this occurs ill FAVARO'Snotes.

Galileo's Science of Motion

165

GALILEO shows that D F is to BE as DA to CA. This follows from elementary geometry and the argument leading to this result is omitted here. The proof employs the principles used on folio t5tr, but the strategy is different. In the diagram above, let BA----DA, and construct BE and D F perpendicular to the horizontal. Then the momentum of the weight on CA is to total momentum as BE to BA. Also, the momentum of the weight of the same body on AD is to its total momentum as D F to DA, or BA. Therefore, the momentum of the same weight on DA is to that on CA as D F to BE. GALILEO again applies the converse of the medieval proposition to get his conclusion that tile times to traverse the given chords are equal if the momenta are proportional to tile distances. This proof, slightly revised, appears in the published text as the second of three proofs. In the text the result is said to follow " e x propositione secunda primi libri," that is, from tile second proposition in the book on uniform motion. We shM1 examine this proposition and its proof in section 8 and see how GALILEO established several fundamental theorems on "local m o t i o n " by proving them as propositions on uniform motion much as ARCHIMEDES established such propositions in his treatise on spirals. The terminology of folio 160r is quite unusual. There is a rare reference to causes, dropped in the published proof, which suggests GALILEO'S earlier way of thinking. Also unusual is the reference to planes "inclined according to," an expression found in the chapter on inclined planes in De motu antiquiora. This expression is otherwise found only in a revised proof of the De motu theorem, which suggests a close conceptual or chronological link with the earlier material. The term pondus, used throughout De motu antiquiora and rendered as peso in the mechanical treatises, appears in no other proof, either in the manuscript or in the published text of De motu locali. Pertransire, a relatively rare verb for traverse, is used most often in propositions and statements about uniform motion. All of these clues point to an early origin for this proof, and only the use of slbatia rather than s~acia suggests otherwise. Handwriting and watermark both indicate that the draft was composed during the Paduan period, and this is also true of what appears to be a later copy on folio 172r. The draft on folio t60r, although fairly well polished, shows corrections which are incorporated into that on folio t72r. The draft on folio 160r, then, must be the earlier one and m a y itself be a redraft of a yet earlier version. There are several early consequences of the law of chords. These propositions depend on no other propositions on motion and the way in which the proofs are handled is uncharacteristic of the rest of GALILEO'S proofs. The first of these is Theorem V I I I of De motu locali. In the manuscript there is a draft of Theorem V I I I in GALILEO'S hand. He compares the motions of a body along tile vertical diameter of a circle and along chords drawn from an arbitrary point on the circumference such t h a t they terminate at some point other than the points where the vertical diameter cuts the circumference. If the chord does not cut the vertical diameter at all, then motion is completed more quickly along the chord than along the vertical diameter; if the chord does cut the diameter, motion along the chord will be slower than along the diameter.

t 66

W.L.

WISAN :

Si in semicirculo ... quae cure perpendiculo non habeat terminum communem, motus per illam citius absolvitur quam per diametrum perpendicularem. Si enim BB fuerit perpendiculus, ducta quaelibet linea CA in semicirculo non terminetur ad B : patet quod, si connectatur linea CB, erit CA ipsa CB brevior et minus inclinata: ex quo patet propositum.

Si in circulo, cuius diameter sit ad perpendiculum, ducatur linea quae a diametro secetur, motus per ipsam tardius absolvetur quam per diametrum perpendicularem. In praecedenti enim figura sit linea quaelibet; et quia ipsa erit longior quam CB et magis inclinata, propositum fit manifestum. (Opere V I I I , p. 394; fol. t64t, emphasis added) ~ The argument is not given in detail. As mentioned above, this is unusual in GALILEO'S proofs, for he generally provides all steps which involve reasoning about motions. GALILEO'Sreasoning must be as follows: motion along CA is swifter than that along CB since the former makes a greater angle with the horizontal. 3 This follows from the De motu theorem. Then, by the definition of the swifter (given in Le mecaniche), equal spaces along CA are traversed in less time, and a ]ortiori the shorter distance CA would be traversed in less time than CB. B y the law of chords, CB and BB are traversed in the same time. Consequently, CA is traversed in less time, or is completed more quickly, than BB. The second part follows b y similar reasoning. Note that b y the De motu theorem motions would be " q u i c k e r " along the vertical than along any other line. I t m a y be so as to avoid this ambiguity that GALILEO introduces the verb absolvere in order to speak of motions' being completed more quickly, meaning completed in less time. I t is curious that GALILEO 2 There is a tear in the manuscript after the first three words. What GALILEOsays here is that CA is less inclined, meaning with respect to the vertical. This is the only case found so far in which GALILEOspeaks of inclination in this way, rather than with reference to the horizontal. The former usage, of course, was customary in the medieval science of weights (see section 2.2). This linguistic discrepancy raises the possibility that formulation of Theorem VIII, and therefore of the law of chords, could predate the chapter on inclined planes in De motu antiquiom. Variations in linguistic usage cannot, of course, be assumed to occur in a uniformly consistent manner, and this single clue can carry little weight; however, the possibility it suggests should be kept in mind in the event that further investigation should turn up additional evidence pointing in the same direction.

Galileo's Science of Motion

167

does not give his proof in terms of times since this is the way in which he must reason. T h a t he would translate such reasoning into terms of quicker and slower motions supports the conjecture that his research began with a proposition conceived in those terms. In fact, his brachistochrone was so conceived and Theorem V I I I m a y have been developed as part of an a t t e m p t to find a proof of that proposition. Theorem V I I I was later revised in terms of equal times, and the proof in the published text is as follows: In planis ab eodem sectis circulo ad horizontem erecto, in iis quae cum termino diametri erecti conveniunt, sive imo sive sublimi, lationum tempora sunt aequalia tempori casus in diametro; in illis vero quae ad diametrum non pertingunt, temtSora sunt breviora," in eis tandem quae diametrum secant, sunt longiora.
A

Circuli ad horizontem erecti esto diameter perpendicularis AB. De planis ex terminis A, B ad circumferentiam usque productis, quod tempora lationum super eis sint aequatia, iam demonstratum est. De plano D F ad diametrum non pertingente, quod tempus descensus in eo sit brevius, demonstratur ducto plano DB, quod et longius erit et minus declive quam DF; ergo fempus per DF brevius quam per DB, hoc est per AB. De plano vero diametrum secante, ut CO, quod tetanus descensus in eo sit longius, itidem constat; est enim et longius et minus declive quam CB. Ergo patet propositum. (Opere viii, pp. 226-27; emphasis added) The argument here is much the same as before, except that what is now to be shown is that the time of descent along D F is less than that along AB, while the time along CO is greater. GALILEO remarks that the time of descent is the same along all chords of the circle drawn to the points A or B. Then the time of descent along D F is less than that of DB, and therefore AB, since DB is longer and less steeply inclined. 4 Also, the time along CO is greater than that along CB, and therelore AB, since CO is longer and less steeply inclined than CB. But, as in the earlier proof, the argument is not given in detail. Notice that in shifting from the concept of quicker and slower motions to briefer and longer times, GALILEO uses different terms for motion. In the revised version of Theorem V I I I casus, descensus, and latio replace motus. These same 4 Here GALILEOrefers the inclination to the horizontal in his usual manner.
t2 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. t 3

168

W.L. WISAI~:

changes in terminology are frequently found whenever we are able to compare drafts in the manuscript with published versions of the same proposition, whereas it is very rare to find any one of the first three replaced by motus. Moreover, wherever GALILEOhas added lines to drafts which are in the hands of his disciples, the terms descensus or latio almost invariably occur. This can be seen in the case of three propositions similar to, but more complex than, Theorem VIII. Two of these propositions, Theorems X I X and XX, are stated and proved only in terms of briefer times, but they retain traces of the earlier mode of thought. A third theorem, Theorem XXI, has two parts, the first of which is stated and
B A

proved in terms of quicker motions, while the second is in terms of equal times. The first part of Theorem X X I says that, given the horizontal AB and the inclined line BC, the path of quickest descent from the point A to the line BC will be the line AD, where BD is equal to AB. The second part says that the times of descent will be equal along any two lines from the point A to the line BC which make equal angles with the line AD. In the manuscript there is a draft of Theorem X X I on folio t68r, in GALILEO'S hand. It begins as follows: Si in orizonte sumantur duo puncta, et ab altero ipsorum quaelibet linea inclinetur, ad quam ex altero puncto orizontis altera recta ducatur, ex ea secans partem aequalem ei qnae inter puncta orizontis intercipitur, casus per hanc ductam citius absolvitur quam per qnascunque alias rectas ex eodem puncto ad eandem lineam inclinatam protractas. In aliis autem, quae per angulos aequales supra et infra AB hac distiterint, casus [iunt temporibus aequalibus. (Opere VIII, p. 252, 252n; emphasis added) This states the theorem; the first part is put in terms of a fall being more quickly completed, while the second is in terms of equal times of fall along two paths. In the proof the same difference in terminology occurs: Sint in linea orizontali duo puncta A, B, e t a B inclinetur recta Be, in qua ex termino B sumatur BD, ipsi BA aequalis, et iungatur AD: dico, casum per AD velocius [ieri quam per quamlibet ex A ad inclinatam BC productam. E x punctis enim A, D a d ipsas t3A, BD perpendiculares ducantur AE, DE, se se in E secantes: et quia in triangulo aequicruri ABD anguli BAD, BDA sunt aequales, erunt reliqui ad rectos DAE, EDA aequales; ergo, centro E, inter-

Galileo's Science of Motion

169

vallo autem EA, descriptus circulus per D quoque transibit, et lineas BA, BD tanget in punctis A, D. E t cure A sit terminus perpendiculi AE, casus per AD citius absolvetur quam per quamcumque a/dam ex eodem termino A usque ad lineam BC ultra circumferentiam circuli extensam: quod erat primo demonstrandnm. (Opere viii, pp. 252-53, 252-53n; emphasis added} This proves the first part: the line BD is marked off equal to AB, and AD is said to be the line of quickest descent from point A to the line BC by implicit appeal to the law of chords. The reasoning, again not given in detail, must be in terms of times, but there is no mention of time and the result is stated in terms of motions completed more quickly. The initial statement that fall would be quicker along AD is ambiguous in the light of the De motu theorem which says that motion would be quicker along AF than along AD. Again, the expression casus per AD citius absolvetur may be intended to avoid the ambiguity. In the second part of the proof it is not feasible to argue in terms of motions and GALILEO shifts to comparison of times. Quod si, in perpendiculo AE sumatur infra E quodcumque centrum F, et secundum intervallum FA circulus AGC describatur, lineam BC in pnnctis G, C secans, iunctae AG, AC per angulos aequales, ex antedemonstratis, a media AD dirimentur; et patet, per ipsas eodern tern#ore [ieri rnoturn, cum ex apice perpendiculi ad circumferentiam AGC sint ductae. (Opere viii, pp. 254, 254n) From construction of the larger circle passing through points A, G, and C, it follows from a lemma inserted for that purpose that the angles GAD and DAC are equal. And, by the law of chords, the lines AG and AC are traversed in the same time. For this part the argument is made in terms of times. In the published version of this theorem there are few changes. However, at the end of the proof of the second part, the expression eodern tempore ]ieri motum is replaced by lationes ternporibus aequalibus absolventur. We shall find other instances in which a statement about motions' being " m a d e " will be replaced b y one on motions completed; however, two expressions of the first type remain unchanged in the published text. Another unusual feature is use of casus for oblique descent and complete absence of descensus. These residues from the early period may be due to the fact that what we have on folio t 68r is an unusually early draft prepared for publication. Although there are several corrections, the form is that of a final draft. The draft begins with a general statement of the proposition to be proved. This is a rare occurence in the manuscript, where most drafts begin with a statement of the theorem in terms of the diagram, and if there is a general statement it is usually added at the end, or to one side. That folio t68r was prepared before GALILEO moved to Florence is borne out by handwriting and watermark. It probably was not touched again until just before publication of the finished work. Theorems X I X and XX, proved entirely in terms of briefest times, like Theorem X X I deal with paths of quickest descent. In a fragment relating to Theorem X I X there is a trace of the language of quicker motions. This is in the statement of the theorem which tells us that rnoturn per CE citius absolvi quarn
12"

170

W.L. WISAI~:

per CF aut CG (Opere viii, pp. 405-6). In this theorem the proof is argued in more detail than in Theorems VIII and X X I ; because of the greater complexity of the argument it is no longer possible simply to construct the diagram and state the conclusion. The construction and proof of Theorem X I X may be summarized as follows. Draw the horizontal AC, drop the perpendicular BD, and on BD mark off BE = BC. Draw CE; then, of all lines drawn from C to the line BD, CE will be that along which descent will take place in the least time. For the proof:

o (t) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) Construct CF and CG so as to cut BD above and below the point E. Construct IK perpendicular to AC at C. Construct a circle with radius BC, and center at B. Draw E K parallel to CF cutting the circle at L; draw IE parallel to CG, cutting the circle at H. Then t (LE) = t (CE). But, t (KE) > t (LE); therefore, t (KE) > t (CE). Also, t ( K E ) ~ t (CF), since these lines have the same length and slope. Similarly, t (CG) = t (IE). Also, HE < IE. Therefore, t (HE) < t (IE), and since t(CE) = t ( H E ) , t ( C E ) < t ( I E ) .

From (6) and (7), it follows that t ( C E ) < t ( C F ) , and from (8) and (tl) that t(CE) < t (CG). Since CF and CG are arbitrary lines drawn from C to the line BD, CE is the path of least time. GALILEO'Sproof ends abruptly with step (tl). In this proof of Theorem XIX GALILEOgives explicit arguments in terms of greater and lesser times. In fact, it would have been quite awkward to follow the procedure used in the proofs of Theorem VIII and the first part of Theorem XXI, translating steps into terms of quicker and slower motions. Discarding this terminology may, then, be a natural consequence of greater complexity in the proof. Theorem XX is relatively simple, and the proof follows a pattern similar to that for Theorem XXI. It is given without details, but the language used is that

Galileo's Science of Motion

17

of Theorem X I X , rather than that of Theorems v n I and X X I . Theorem X X , then, m a y have been proved after Theorem X I X and the emergence of the new pattern of proof. In the manuscript an earlier draft of Theorem X X follows an unused revised version of the first part of Theorem X X I . In this version of Theorem X X I we find a very rare construction: motuum ... iber rectas linens eon/iciuntur (Opere VIII, p. 407). In those theorems that follow from the times-squared law, the verbs con/icere and peragere generally replace absolvere, but they almost always take space as subject in the passive, and mobile in the active. Rarely will we find con/icere (and never peragere) taking motion as its subject. On the other hand, absolvere will rarely take space rather than motion as its subject. The construction just quoted, in which eon/icere takes motus as subject, probably belongs to the transitional period between the earliest propositions and the beginning of further work along new lines. Comparison of the manuscript with published versions of Theorems X I X and X X shows that these were revised at a later time. The version of Theorem X I X in the manuscript uses motus and citius absolvi," it also uses the verb movere, which is frequent in De n~otu antiquiora, but rare in De motu locali. The published text uses descendere, descensus and latio, but retains easus in two instances, both for oblique descent. The published version of Theorem X X substitutes latio for casus, used in the manuscript, and uses deseensus for motus. The original drafts in GALILEO'S hand of Theorems X I X and X X lack general statements of the propositions to be proved, but in both cases GALILEO has written the general statements on copies by a disciple. These statements use terminology of a later stage (Opere viii, pp. 406n, 40711). To summarize: evidence from language and method indicate that Theorems viii, x I x , x x , and X X I originated at an early period in GALILEO'S work on motion. They depend only on the law of chords, which appears to be the first of the published propositions on motion, and they m a y precede the times-squared law. Two more propositions suggest a quite different line of development which m a y also precede that theorem.

3.2. The Right-Angle Theorem and Theorem I X

In the manuscript we find two propositions in GALILEO'S hand which derive from the law of chords, but which are proved by means of the medieval assumptions employed in the mechanical proofs of the law of chords itself. The order of successive proofs of these propositions can be fairly well determined on methodological grounds, and linguistic clues suggest an early origin. The earliest proofs required no theorems on motion, and the language used in them is early rather than late. Furthermore, the language used in later proofs contains rare usages suggesting the period of transition. Consequently, the theorems themselves must be early, and remarks made in connection with the first proofs suggest that they m a y be remnants of a search for some fundamental principle, or for a deeper understanding of the relation between motion and slope. The first of these propositions, which is the converse of the second corollary to the law of chords (Opere v n I , p. 223), is an important result that plays a role in the solution of a puzzle concerning accelerated motion (see section 5). From

t 72

W . L . WISAN:

the horizontal AB draw the vertical BC and the inclined plane BD. From the point E draw the perpendicular E F cutting BC in F. Then t (BE) ----t (BF). Since angle B E F is a right angle, this will be called t h e " right-angle theorem." GALILEO proves it as follows: Ducatur ex E perpendicularis ad AB, quae sit E G : et quia impetus per BD ad impetum per BC est ut E G ad BE (ut infra demonstratur); ut autem E G ad A G IB

DJ

~\,,
F c

BE, ita BE ad BF, ob similitudinem triangulorum GEB, B E F ; ergo ut BF spacium ad spacium BE, ita impetus per BF ad impetum per BE: ergo eodem tempore fiet motus per BF et per BE. (Opere p. 377; fol. 147t, emphasis added)

viii,

The proof is similar to that for Theorem VI on folio t5tr. Let E G be perpendicular to AB. The impetus (GALILEO uses momentum in his proofs of Theorem VI, the significance of this change, if any, being not clear) along BD is to that along BC as E G to BE. A proof of this is promised but is not in the manuscript; it is an easy result of the principle of the inclined plane. Now, BE is to BF as E G to BE, so that the spaces BE and BF are in the same proportion as the impetus along these spaces. As before, GALILEO concludes that the spaces are traversed in equal times. GALILEO could have given a proof from the law of chords. Since angle B E F is a right angle, a circle m a y be inscribed about B, E, and F, such that BF is the vertical diameter. By the law of chords, t (BE)----t (BF). The initial construction suggests that GALILEO m a y have had this proof in mind, and it is somewhat odd that it should be proved as above. A note on the same page of the manuscript suggests a reason why. Advertas cur cadentia ex A sint semper una in locis sibi respondentibus, ut O, p. 377; fol. 147t, S, ita ut angulo AOS sit aequalis angulo BAS. (Opere emphasis added)

viii,

The question is, why does this relation hold ? Perhaps it is for the answer to this that GALILEO goes back to his dynamic principle. c
k

Galileo's Science of Motion

173

The same basic problem is explored further in another proposition on the same page. Theorem IX, which can also be derived from Theorem VI, is proved in the same way as the right-angle theorem: Beneath the horizontal AB, draw from the point C equal straight lines, CD and CE, at any angles, and from the extremes D and E, erect perpendiculars, DA and EB, to tile horizontal; at the point D of the line CD construct the angle CDF equal to the angle BCE. I say that as DA is to BE, so is DC to CF.
A C B

D Draw the perpendicular CG. Since [the angle] CDF is equal to the angle BCE and the right [angle] G is equal to the right [angle] B, one will have DC to CG as CE to EB. But CD is equal to CE itself; therefore, CG is equal to BE. And since angle CDF is equal to angle BCE, and the angle FCD is common, the remaining angle DFC will be equal to the remaining angle DCA, and the angles at A and G are right angles; therefore, the triangles ADC and CGF are similar, and. AD is to DC as CG is to CF, and, permutando, as AD is to CG, that is, to BE, so is DC to DF. Quod erat probandum. Now, since the impetus along CD is to the impetus along CF as the perpendicular AD is to the perpendicular BE, it results that the motions along CD and CF take place in the same time (motus per CD et CF eodem tempore absolvi). Therefore, the distances taken on diverse inclinations that are completed (con/iciuntur) in the same time, are determined b y the line that (as DF) intersects the inclined lines according to the angles, permuted, that the inclines form with the horizontal. (Opere viii, p. 379; fol. t47t, emphasis added) The last sentence is particularly revealing. The distances traversed in equal times are determined according to the angles that the planes make with the horizontal. For those unfamiliar with EUCLIDEAN geometry this will seem an obscure result. However, since the times along CD and CF are to be equal, it must be possible to inscribe a circle through D, C, and F, such that C will be the terminal point of the vertical diameter of the circle. From this we can see how this proposition emerged from the law of chords. By EIJCLID I I I , 2t, if the chord CD is fixed we see that the angle CFD remains the same for any position of F on the circumference of the circle. This suggests the relation that holds between the two pairs of angles, and once this is proved the result can be generalized to the case of any pair of planes, drawn at any angles to the horizontal, cut off b y the line DF so as to form the required angles. There are two published proofs of Theorem IX. One follows from Corollary I I I of Theorem VI. ~ A second, more elegant proof, depends on Theorem vii, which 5 The text erroneously refers to Corollary I.

174

W . L . ~vVIsAN:

in the text is based on the mean proportional corollary and Theorem I I I (Opere viii, pp. 227-28). Note that while the treatments of the right-angle theorem and Theorem I X are quite different, both begin from consideration of the law of chords and study the relations that must hold for the case of descent in equal times along differently inclined planes of different lengths. These propositions appear to be quite early. The strongest evidence for this lies in a revised version of the right-angle theorem which was prepared for publication before 1609. On folio 180r, we find a general statement of the proposition followed b y a statement in terms of the diagram. The proof that follows is similar to that on folio 147t, but with more details supplied. Latio is used throughout, but with con]icere as well as absolvere. The former usage does not occur again, and indicates an early stage in the transition from speaking of motions being completed (using absolvere) to spaces being completed (using con]icere). Therefore, the argument on folio 180r should be only slightly later than that on folio t47t, and both should belong to the early period of work on motion. Evidence from handwriting and watermarks support this conclusion3 We have now surveyed six propositions which later appear in De motu locali, as well as the De motu theorem and its corollaries, and the right-angle theorem, making a total of ten propositions on motion along inclined planes. None of these required machinery beyond the principle of the inclined plane and the law of chords. Language and method indicate that they are all quite early and evidence from handwriting and watermarks is consistent with t h e belief that they belong to the Paduan period. Quite possibly these theorems were developed not long after the De motu theorem and the beginning of the treatise on mechanics. Although the law of chords and Theorem V I I I m a y have originated in a search for the brachistochrone, the right-angle theorem, Theorem IX, and Theorems X I X , XX, and X X I , do not have a close connection with that problem. They appear to be exercises in the derivation of theorems on motion from the law of chords and the principle of the inclined plane and they recall the way in which GALILEO set out to derive the corollaries to his De motu theorem. These corollaries were not conceived to be empirically true but were simply consequences of the fundamental proposition, derived without regard to the possibility of empirical verification. Similarly, the early theorems derived from the law of chords appear as purely mathematical derivations, true because rigorously derived from true principles, but themselves lacking empirical reference. This approach to the science of motion characterizes what I call the first stage in the development of the new science. In this stage GALILEO m a y still regard motion as "naturally" uniform. In the next stage he is aware that it is necessarily There is a difference between the writing of the right-angle theorem and Theorem IX, which suggests a possible lapse of time. In fact, Theorem IX looks as though it might have been written at the same time as the contents of the recto of folio 147, which includes a proof of the mean proportional corollary (see section 4.4), and an attempt to prove that all bodies fall with equal speeds. This last uses a fallacious argument (later marked "paralogismus"). The fallacy is one GALILEOwould probably have been well aware of by time he composed the Diseorso of 1612; therefore, the fragments on both sides of folio t47 were probably composed before he moved to Florence.

Galileo's Science of Motion

175

accelerated and he begins using his times-squared law, which is confirmed b y experiment. This stage is marked b y development of the proof of Theorem x x n , from which the brachistochrone is inferred. As has been remarked, there is nothing yet to suggest a line of thought leading to the times-squared theorem, or even to a general law of fall. In the next section we shall see that the search for a proof of the brachistochrone could have led quite naturally to the right question. 4. The Search for the Brachistochrone

4.1. Some Early Attempts

Many historians automatically assume that GALILEO began his chief work on motion with a search for his times-squared theorem. There is little agreement about exactly how this law was found, but that a law of fall was the foremost object of GALILEO'S investigations is assumed without question. Yet, when we examine the context in which the times-squared theorem suddenly appears, we find GALILEO asking why bodies fall so, not how they fall. His first question was

not directed towards a law o//all as such, but towards finding the reason why bodies /all ]aster along more steeply inclined planes. As we saw in section 1, the medievals answered this question b y simply saying that bodies are "heavier in descent" along a path that goes more directly towards the center of the world. By determining "heaviness of descent," JORDANUS derived the law of the lever and the principle of the inclined plane. BLASlUS Or PARMA expressed the view that bodies naturally tend to descend along the path of least time and LEONARDO DA VINCI frequently noted the tendency for bodies to take the "shortest way." GALILEO made a fresh attack on these questions. Assuming the law of tile lever, he gave a mathematical explanation for the variation in the tendency to descend along differently inclined planes and began his quest for a mathematical science of motion. After he discovered his law of chords he began investigating which paths are traversed more quickly and asking why bodies traverse certain distances along differently inclined planes in the same time. Such questions do not lead directly to the times-squared theorem. But if we suppose that one of GALILEO'S earliest goals was a proof of the brachistochrone, we can find in the manuscript a point at which the right question naturally arises. W h a t is the ratio of times in which the same body traverses different distances along the same plane ? GALILEO gives us no clue concerning the origins or motivation of his conjecture that the arc of the circle is the path of quickest descent. We have seen that BLASIUS OF PARMA assumed the chord subtending the arc to be the path of least time, and we know that LEONARDO DA VINCI tried to prove that this path would be the arc rather than the chord. 1 Possibly then this was a traditional problem, at least among some mechanicians of the time, but one receiving little mention in written works. In fact, it is possible that it was the brachistochrone which originally turned GALILEO'S attention to motion along inclined planes. We have seen that his initial question concerned the comparison of speeds and
1 It would be very interesting to know why LEONARDO and GALILEOthought this proposition to be true.

t 76

W.L. WISAN:

that he continued to speak in this way even after using the law of chords for comparing times rather than speeds. If GALILEOwas already searching for a proof of the brachistochrone when he composed the chapter on inclined planes in De motu antiquiora, he could make little progress until he found his times-squared theorem. This theorem, however, presupposes that motion is "naturally," or necessarily, accelerated, and with the shift to this new doctrine the science of motion becomes a science of that motion which occurs in nature. In tile times-squared theorem, and perhaps in the brachistochrone as well, we can see a new empirical orientation in GALILEO'Swork and the beginning of a new stage in which his efforts are directed, not towards purely mathematical consequences of fundamental principles, but the development of proofs for known or expected results which are to be in accord with nature. The first attack on the problem of the brachistochrone is on a page in the manuscript which contains four quite different entries, set down at different times, as one can see by variations in the writing and the way in which they are distributed on the page. FAVARO transcribes the whole as follows: Take the mean between RC and BT, and suppose DO equal to this; the remainder CO will be the same as found from the mean between CD and DF, which is the same DO. Consider that the momentum in a single point of the quadrant of the circumference diminishes in proportion as the point approaches the perpendicular, as T, to the center. As BC is to CD so CD ... The momentum on the plane DC is to the totM momentum as the line T R is to RD, tracing LB equidistant from CD. (Opere viii, p. 4t7; fol. 13tr)
R T D

The first sentence is well above the diagram and at the top of the page; the last two are near the bottom, while the second is in the center of the page by the diagram. The second and fourth entries look as though they belong together and accompany the initial drawing of the diagram, whereas the first and third seem to have been written at a different time and may be later. In this case, the letters O and V on the diagram should also be later. 2 2 It is not possible to determine this from a superficial examination of the manuscript, and for matters like this it would be desirable to have the benefit of opinions from experts ill the field of documents examination.

Galileo's Science of Motion

177

Now, if the momentum (still identified with speed, of course) is said to diminish as the point T approaches the center R, the isochronism of motion along any arc would appear as an intuitive conclusion. This remark might, then, be directed at the search for a proof of isochronism, rather than the brachistochrone. 3 The last sentence follows from the principle of the inclined plane, assuming that LB is tangent to the circle at B. These remarks do not lead anywhere, but evidently GALILEO is thinking of the method by which he finds the momentum at any point along the lower quadrant of the circle and is also considering the momentum along the chord that cuts off the given quadrant. This suggests the beginning of a search for a proof of the brachistochrone, and, if so, it is closely connected to the analysis of the inclined plane in Le meeaniche. The first sentence, however, hints at an altogether different approach. Finding DO, which is a mean proportional between D F and DC, suggests application of the mean proportional corollary. So does the third entry. 4 These m a y be steps towards the final proof. For if VA ----m (AC, AB), the relation between CO and CV is the key to that proof once the corollary on mean proportionals is employed. When this is done, however, the lines RC and BT are no longer relevant. It may be conjectured, then, that the central part of this fragment exhibits a very early stage in the investigation of the brachistochrone, and that the first sentence (together with the smaller circle and the points 0 and V) is a later addition stemming from a new attack that makes use of the corollary on mean proportionals. Another fragment shows what m a y be a later stage: We say that the time in which a body traverses (permeat) the lines DB and BC is less than that in which BC alone would be traversed (permeat). Let AE be equal to BC; then, if the points of the beginning of the motion should be A and B, the lines BC and AE would be traversed (peragentur) in the same time. Let the time in which AE or BC is traversed (con/icitur) be equal to MN, and let AE to the mean between AE and AC be the same as MN to NX. NX will be the time over the whole of AC. Let CA be to the mean between CA and AB as the time XN (tempus XN) to NR. RN will be the time to traverse AB (RN tempus ipsius AB), and R X that to traverse BC after AB (XR must be less than MN). It is to be shown that BC, after AB, will be traversed more quickly than FC after D F (citius transiri BC post A B quam FC post DF). Let DS be the time in which the whole of DC, or BC, is traversed (peragitur); and let the time SD be to D R (tempus SD ad DR) as the mean between CD and D F to DF. It results that the time along FC (tempus @sius FC) is RS. Moreover, since 3 In GALILEO'Sletter of t 602 to GUIDOBALDO(Opere X, pp. 98-I 00), he mentions that he has not succeeded in proving isochronism for the arcs of the circle and that this is what he is trying to do. 4 A lemma for Theorem X X l I shows that CD is the mean proportional between AC and BC (Opere VIII, p. 260). The construction of AC in the diagram on folio 131r suggests GALILEOmight be considering this relation. GALILEOfrequently speaks of the "mean" between two magnitudes when he intends "mean proportional." He seldom, if ever, uses "mean" in any other sense.

t 78

W.L. WISAN: the time along BC, or AE, is the same DS, then let EA be to the mean between EA and the whole of AC as SD to DT, and DT will be the time along the whole of AC. If, moreover, we make TD to DV as CA is to the mean between CA and AB, VT will be the time along BC after AB. It is necessary to show that this is less than the time RS.

Nota. In the circumference let DO be drawn, and trace the conjugate CO. I say that the body moves more quickly (citius moveri) from D to O than from
O to C. It is, in fact, shown that the body moves from O to C and from D to C in the same time; but it is clear that the motion is made more quickly (celerius fieri motum) from D to O than from D to C. (Opere V I I I , pp. 416-t7; fol. 186t) ~ The first paragraph begins with a statement of what is to be proved: t (DBC) < t (BC). The corollary on mean proportionals is then applied to find a line which represents the time to traverse BC after an initial descent through AB, or in the notation used here, t (BC, A). The argument is as follows:
V S R

Tx

FO~//
/

4R
I

~M

c (t) Let AE = B C . (2) Then t (AE) = t (BC).

(3) Let t(AE) = M N , and choose NX such that AE/m(AE, AC) ----MN/NX. (4) Then t (AC) = NX, by Cor. 2. (5) Also, let AC/m (AC, AB) ~ NX/NR, and (6) NR = t (AB), by Cor. 2. (7) Then t (BC, A) = t ( a c ) - - t (AB) = N X - - N R = RX. It must then be shown that t (BC, A), or t (BC, D), is less than t (FC, D). GALILEO makes several assumptions which are not stated. First, he supposes that a circle m a y be described through the points D, F, and 13 where D is the highest point of the circle. It then follows from the law of chords that t (DF) = t (DB). He further assumes that a body will descend along BC in the same time whether it has previously descended from D or from A. This, of course, is GALILEO'S Postulate with the assumption of continuity of speed at corners. The proof is not finished but it shows GALILEOdeveloping the general strategy by which he will eventually complete his proof. In order to establish that the 5 The first sentence of the second paragraph is placed by FAVAROat the end of the first paragraph. The nota which appears here and in FAVAROas a last paragraph is a note in the left margin of the manuscript.

Galileo's Science of Motion

179

path DBC is traversed more quickly than DC, it must be shown that t (DBC) < t (DC). If one constructs the circle DFB, the problem reduces to comparing t (Be, D), or t (Be, A), with t (FC, D). The first step, of course, is to find t (BC, A) and t (FC, D). The argument in the first paragraph on folio 186t uses the technique of Problem VI (see section 1.3) to find t (BC, A) in terms of t (AB) and t (AC). On folio t 86 GALILEOuses this technique in an unusually clumsy way. Instead of using the line BC to represent t (BC), he uses segments of the separate line XN to represent the times to traverse the different lines in the figure. The procedure is further complicated by GALILEO'S failure to realize that he can apply his corollary on mean proportionals to find t (AC) from t (Be) directly. Instead, he marks off AE = B C so as to compare times along segments of the same line beginning from the same point. This is unnecessary and he will not do this again. Also, after he proves Theorem X X I I he will drop the auxiliary line and use a line in the diagram to represent the time along that line. Times along other lines will then be found in terms of the standard line and the procedure for finding proofs will be greatly simplified. Use of the detached line appears as a relatively primitive technique, as does the unnecessary construction of the line AE. Thus, we may have here GALILEO'Searliest attempt to apply the corollary on mean proportionals. In the second paragraph on folio t86t GALILEO begins again, using another line AT to represent the times and choosing the segment DS to represent the time of descent along either DC or BC. Applying the technique of Theorem XI (see section t.3), he gets t(FC, D)=RS and t(BC, A ) = V T . It remains to be shown that VT is less than RS. Finding the way to prove this was not easy, as fragments relating to this part of the proof demonstrate (Opere VIII, pp. 417-t 8). On folio 186 the problem remains unsolved. The marginal note published by FAVARO as a last paragraph may have been intended as a guide for further work on the proof. The remark that a body moves more quickly from D to O than from O to C (meaning the point O indicated on the circumference) derives from Theorem VIII, as is clear in the last sentence. The marginal note is written entirely in terms of quicker motions (using the expressions citius moveri and celerius /ieri motum), while most of the discussion above it is in terms of spaces traversed in given times (using the verbs con/icere, permeare, and peragere). The key question is put in terms of quicker motions. But in the process of trying to work this out GALILEOmust find the ratios of the times in which different paths are traversed. We may have here his first attempt to develop a method for doing this, and possibly the point at which he began his search for the times-squared theorem. Examination of the more complete proof of Theorem X X I I and of the brachistochrone will strengthen this conjecture.

~.2. Theorem X X I I
A complete proof of Theorem X X I I is found in the manuscript in GALILEO'S hand. As is usual in the manuscript, this version does not include a generM statement of the proposition, but begins immediately with a statement in terms of the diagram: Sit circuli circumferentia CBD, et diameter MC ad orizontem erecta, et ducatur DC, non maior subtendente quadrantem, et a terminis D, C aliae

180
M

W.L. \VisAx :

duae ad quodcumque puncture B: dico, mobile ex termino D Evelocius/erri]* per duas DB, BC lineas tempore breviori quam per DC ex eodem termino D,
vel per solam BC ex termino B. Ducta sit per D, ipsi CM perpendicularis, MDA, cui CB extensa occurrat in A; sitque DN ipsi MC parallela, et BN ad BD perpendicularis, et circa triangulum rectangulum DBN semicirculus describatur DFBN, secans DC in F; et ipsarum CD, D F media sit proportionalis DO, ipsarum autem CA, AB, AV. (Opere viii, pp. 262, 262 n; fol. t 63 r, emphasis added) This part states the theorem and describes the construction, which is substantially the same as that on folio 186t but with addition of the semicircle DFBN, as on folio t3t r. We see that GALILEO first wrote that the body would be carried from D more quickly (velocius/erri), but changed his mind as he wrote, perhaps copying from a previous draft, and said instead that the body would be carried along DB and then BC in less time than along CD from D, or along BC alone from B. In the published version, this reads: ... dico, ten*pus descensus per an*bo plana DBC brevius esse ten.pore descensus per solum DC, vel per unicum BC ex quiete in B. (Opere viii, p. 262; emphasis added) Again descensus appears in the final proof but not in the version found in the manuscript. Occurrences of ex quiete follow the same pattern; rare in the manuscript, it is frequent in published versions. Here also we find an.bo instead of duo and planun, instead of linea or linea secundun, planun.. The proof begins with construction of the detached line, TP, the parts of which are to represent the times along the various paths. Sit autem PS tempus quo peragitur tota DC, vel BC (constat enim, eoden. ten.pore peragi utrarnque), et quam rationem habet CD ad DO, hanc habeat tempus SP ad tempus P R : erit tempus P R id, in quo mobile ex D peragit DF ; RS vero id, in quo reliquum FC. Cure vero PS sit quoque ten.pus quo mobile ex B peragit BC, si fiat ut BC ad CD, ita SP ad PT, erit PT ten.pus casus ex A in C, cure DC media sit inter AC, CB, ex ante demonstratis. Fiat tandem ut CA ad AV, ita T P ad PG: erit PG tempus quo mobile ex A venit in B, GT veto tempus residuum n.otus BC consequentis post n.otun, ex A in B. Cum vero DN, circuli D F N diameter, ad horizontem sit erecta, ten.poribus aequalibus peragentur DF, DB lineae: quare si demonstratum fuerit, mobile citius

* Vdocius [erri is cancelled.

Galileo's Science of Motion

~81

con[icere BC post casum DB, quam FC post iSeractum DF, habebimus intentum.

(Opere VIII, pp.

262-63, 262-63n; fol. 163 r, emphasis added)

This part of the proof is essentially the same as that on folio 186t, but has been somewhat simplified b y use of a lemma and b y elimination of the extra step that used the line AE. I t m a y be paraphrased as follows: (t) Let t(DC)-----t ( B C ) = P S . (2) Let P R be constructed so that DC/DO = PS/PR, where DO = m (DF, DC). (3) (4) (5) (6) Then t(DF) ~ P R , by Cot. 2. Also, t(FC, D) = t (DC) - - t (DF) = P S -- P R = R S . Let PT be such that BC/DC = PS/PT. Then t (AC) = PT, b y the first lemma, which shows that DC = m (AC, BC) (Opere VllI, p. 260). (7) Let P G be such that AC/AV = PT/PG, where AV = m (AC, AB). (8) Then t (AB) ~ PG, b y Cor. 2, and (9) t (BC, A) = t (AC) - - t (AB) = P T -- PG -----GT. (t0) Also, t (DF) = t (DB), by the law of chords. The theorem will now follow if it can be shown that t (FC, D) > t (BC, D), or R S > GT. Note the use of citius con[icere here: the body will " m o r e quickly complete" BC than FC. To get this result, GALILEO begins with an appeal to the Postulate : At eadem temporis eeleritate con]icier mobile BC veniens ex DB, ac si veneret ex AB, cum ex utroque casu DB, AB aequalia accipiat velocitatis momenta," ergo demonstradum erit, breviori tempore peragi BC post AB, quam FC post DF. Explicatum est autem, tempus quo peragitur BC post AB, esse GT; tempus vero ipsius FC post DF esse RS: ostendendum itaque est, RS maius esse quam GT. (Opere V I I I , p. 263,263n; fol. 163r, emphasis added) The language with which the Postulate is introduced is curious, to say the least. A body is said to "complete [as ?] quickly in the same t i m e " the line BC, whether it comes from DB or AB, since it acquires equal velocitatis momenta. 6 The expression eadem temporis celeritate con/icet is another sign of the transition between the older way of thinking in terms of completing motions more or less quickly and the newer conception of completing them in longer or shorter times. In the published version, the last part of this sentence is altered so that the mobile comes "from D, along DB, or BC," and "from A, along AB," but celeritate eon/icet remains, while in the expression citius conficere, permeare replaces con]ieereY The older terminology is not completely altered. Application of the Postulate is thus made explicit. CAVERNIsupposes the derivation of Theorem X X I I on folio 163r made without use of the Postulate (I 895, pp. 34849). CLAVELIN also misses this application of the Postulate, as well as a number of others (t968, p. 368). 7 Citius con[icere occurs a number of times in the manuscript, but is edited out of the published text as though GALILEOfelt it inappropriate to use con/icere, which derives from tile Greek ]erre, with citius, which derives from kinesis.

182

W . L . WISAN :

Now for the remainder of the proof: quod sic demonstratur: quia enim ut SP ad PR, ita CD ad DO, per conversionem rationis et convertendo, ut RS ad SP, ita OC ad CD, ut autem SP ad PT, ita CD ad CA; et quia est ut T P ad PG, ita CA ad AV, per conversionem rationis erit quoque ut PT ad TG, ita AC ad CV; ergo, ex equali, ut RS ad GT, ita CO ad CV: oste ... cum vero CF sit major CB est autem OC major quam CV, ut mox demonstrabiturS: ergo tempus RS maius est tempore GT: quod demonstrate oportebat. Cure veto CF maior sit quam CB, FD vero minor BA, habebit CD ad DF maiorem rationem quam CA ad AB; ut autem CD ad DF, ita quadrature CO ad quadratum OF, cure sint CD, DO, D F proportionales; ut vero CA ad AB, ita quadratum CV ad quadratum VB; ergo CO ad OF maiorem rationem habet quam CV ad VB: igitur, ex lemmate praedemonstrato, CO maior est quam CV. Constat igitur, tempus per DC ad tempus per DBC esse ut DOC ad DO cum CV. (Opere viii, p. 263,263n; fol.
t 63 r)

In other words, (tt) Since P S / P R ----DC/DO, by (2), then (PS -- PR)/PS = (DC -- DO)/DC. (t2) Also, R S / P S = C O / D C , or, R S / C O = P S / D C , DC/AC, from (5) and (6). and PS/PT-----BC/DC=

(t3) Then PS/DC = P T / A C , and PT/PG----AC/AV, from (7). (14) Therefore, PT/(PT -- PG) ----AC/(AC -- AV). (15) From this, P T / G T =AC/CV, or PT/AC-----GT/CV. (t6) Then, RS/CO----GT/CV, and R S / G T = C O / C V , and (15). by (t2), (t3), (t4),

Thus, GALILEOlaboriously establishes that in order to show that t (FC, D) > t(BC, D), o r R S > G T , we must show that C O > C V . By his later method of simply choosing a line in the diagram to represent both the time and the distance traversed in that time, the above result would follow by simply letting t (DC) = DC. Then (i) t (BC) = DC, by the law of chords, and (ii) t (AC) = AC, by the first lemma, while (iii) t (AB) ----m (AC, AB) = AV, by construction and Cot. 2. (iv) Then t (BC, A) = t (AC) -- t (AB) = AC -- AV ~ CV. (v) Similarly, t (FC, D) = CO. From (iv) and (v) it is clear that what is wanted is to show that CO is greater than CV. GALILEO could have avoided the construction of the first lemma by using Theorem III. This theorem, however, is not employed in the proof; nor is it used as a heuristic device in any of the fragments exhibiting the search for a s The line "oste ... cum vero CF sit maior CG" is cancelled and part of it is not transcribed by FAVARO.

Galileo's Science of Motion

~83

proof of T h e o r e m X X I I . This argues t h a t T h e o r e m I I I is n o t y e t p a r t of his deductive machinery. 9 I t is difficult to show t h a t CO > CV. Two l e m m a s m u s t be used. T h e a r g u m e n t goes as follows: (t 7) Since D C / D O = D O / D E , b y (2), t h e n D C / D F = (DO/DE) 2. (18) Also, C O / O F = D O / D E , so t h a t D C / D F = (CO/OF) ~. (t9) Similarly, A C / A B -----(CV/VB) 2. (20) T h e n C O / O F > CV/VB, b y an i n e q u a l i t y d e r i v e d from the t h i r d lemma. 1 (2t) Therefore, CO > CV, b y t h e second l e m m a , n a n d t h e t h e o r e m is proved. T h e p u b l i s h e d version of t h e t h e o r e m has o n l y a few m i n o r v a r i a t i o n s in a d d i t i o n to those which h a v e been noted. T h e r e is, of course, a g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t of the theorem, which is missing in t h e m a n u s c r i p t . Si in circulo a d h o r i z o n t e m erecto a b imo p u n c t o e l e v e t u r planum non m a i o r e m s u b t e n d e n s c i r c u m f e r e n t i a m q u a d r a n t e , a t e r m i n i s cuius duo alia p l a n a a d q u o d l i b e t circumferentiae p u n c t u m i n f l e c t a n t u r , descensus in planis ambobus in/lexis breviori tempore absolvetur, q u a m in solo priori plano elevato, Eel q u a m in altero t a n t u m ex illis duobus, n e m p e in inferiori. (Opere V I I I , pp. 26~-62; e m p h a s i s added)

Planum again occurs i n s t e a d of linea, mobile [erri has been e d i t e d out, a n d descensus is now used with absolvere. These last t e r m s occur o n l y in t h e p u b l i s h e d version, while casus a n d latio are missing from b o t h versions. Con[icere a n d permeare a r e used o n l y in rare instances, while peragere occurs m a n y times in
9 In the next section we shall see the emergence of Theorem I I I and new proof techniques, with accompanying changes in terminology. Both CAVERNI (1895) and HUMPHREYS (t967) assume t h a t GALILEO used Theorem I I I in his earliest proofs. CAVERNI supposes t h a t GALILEO proved Theorem X X l I b y using Theorem X which extends Theorem I I I to the case of an initial fall (1895, pp. 348-49). However, we shall find t h a t Theorem X was developed after the above proof of Theorem X X l I . lo According to the third lemma (Opere viii, pp. 260-61), CF > CB, from which it follows t h a t F D < BA, and CD/DF > CA/AB. GALILEO does not explain how he derives these inequalities. That F D < BA follows immediately from the assumption t h a t CD < CA (GALILEO does not provide a geometrical lemma for this step), together with the result of the third lemma, from which CF > CB. Subtracting CF from CD and CB from CA leaves F D < AB. To get the second inequality, begin with the third lemma, t h a t CB < CF. Let CB + BG ~ CF; then (CB + ]3G)/BA < CF/FD, b y the first inequality, and CB/BA < CF/FD. Now add unity to both sides, and (CB/BA + ]3A/BA) < (CF/FD + F D / F D ) . Collect terms and (CB + BA)/BA < (CF + FD)/FD, or CA/BA < CD/FD. GALILEO probably did this geometrically. I t follows from Prop. 30 which was added to EUCLID V b y CAMPANUS. See BROWN (t967, p. 193). 11 According to the second lemma, if A C > DE, and A B / B C > D E / E F , then AB > DE. In the diagram below, which is used in the proof of the lemma, the letters in parentheses correspond to those in the diagram for the proof of Theorem X X l I . Since C F > CB, b y the third lemma, and CO/OF > CV/CB, b y (20), then CO > CV.

A(C)

B(O)

C(F)

D(C) E(V) G

F(B)

3 Arch.Hist.ExactSci.,Vol.t3

184

W.L. WISAN:

various forms. Only in the proof of the times-squared theorem and its corollaries will peragere be as conspicuous as it is here; however, except in theorem x x I I , it will generally occur in the past participial form. The variety of forms of peragere in the proof of Theorem X X I I is unique and testifies to a period of early use of the term before a customary usage has developed. Thus, the content of the draft on folio i63 r, if not the actual draft, may well date from around t602, when GALILEO claimed to have a proof of this theorem. In any event, both handwriting and watermark are characteristic of the Paduan period. In drafting the proof of Theorem XXlI, GALILEOis finally reasoning primarily in terms of spaces traversed in greater or lesser times. Hints of the older way of thinking appear from time to time, but these seem to be gradually forced out by methodological necessity. With one notable exception, all other propositions concerning paths of quickest descent will use the language of spaces traversed more quickly (citius conficere) or in briefer times. The exception is the brachistochrone itself, which is derived in a scholium to Theorem X X l I .

4.3. The Brachistochrone

There is no manuscript version of the brachistochrone; the published text is as follows: Ex his quae demonstrata sunt, colligi posse videtur, lationem omnium velocissirnam ex termino ad terminum non per brevissimam lineam, nempe per rectam, sed per circuli proportionem, ]ieri. In quadrante enim BAEC, cuius latus BC sit ad horizontem erectum, divisus sit arcus AC in quotcunque partes aequales, AD, DE, EF, FG, GC, et ductae sint rectae ex C a d puncta A, D, E, F, G, et iunctae sint rectae quoque AD, DE, EF, FG, GC: manifestum est, lationem per duas ADC citius absolvi quam per unam AC, vel DC ex quiete in D. Sed ex quiete in A citius absolvitur DC quam duae ADC: sed per duas DEC ex quiete in A verisimile est, citius absolvi descensum quam per solam CD : ergo descensus per tres ADEC absolvitur citius quam per duas ADC. Verum similiter, praecedente descensu per ADE, citius /it latio per duas EFC quam per solam EC; ergo per quatuor ADEFC citius ]it motus quam per tres ADEC. Ac tandem per duas FGC, post praecedentem descensum per ADEF, citius absolvitur latio quam per solam FC; ergo per quinque ADEFGC breviori adhuc tempore [it descensus quam per quatuor ADEFC. Quo igitur per inscriptos polygonos magis ad circumferentiam accedimus, eo citius absolvitur morns inter duos terminos signatos A, C. Quod autem in quadrante explicatum est, contingit etiam in circumferentia quadrante minori; et idem est ratiocinium. (Opere viii, pp. 263-64; emphasis added) Although GALILEObegins by saying that the swiftest of all motions are those along the arc of the circle, in the end he concludes only that that motion is swifter along the arc than along the chord subtending the arc. He fails, however, to establish even the weaker statement. The basic structure of the argument he intends to make may be outlined as follows, statements about

Galileo's Science of Motion

B A

185

F C

quicker motions being translated into statements about distances traversed in less time (time is mentioned only once in the scholium on the brachistochrone) : (t) t (ADC) < t (AC), (2) t (ADEC) < t (ADC), (3) t (ADEFC) < t (ADEC), and so on. Therefore, since the time is less (or the motion swifter) as the inscribed polygon approaches a circle, GALILEO would conclude that the descent is swifter along the arc. Step (2), however, is not established. T h a t is, it is not shown that Theorem X X I I holds for the case of an arbitrary initial fall. The argument in detail is as follows : (t) t(ADC) < t ( A C ) , and (2) t (ADC) < t (DC), by Thm. X X I I . (3) Also, t (DC, A) < t (ADC), and it seems that (4) t (DEC, A) <~ t (DC, A). (5) Therefore, t (ADEC) < t (ADC), and so on. Step (4) does not strictly follow from the previous steps, as GALILEO'S own language (verisimile est) indicates. This type of failure in a proof is rare in De motu locali. In fact, as we shall see in the next subsection, GALILEO established his Theorem X in order to show that Theorem I I I holds for the case in which there is a preliminary fall, and it will appear that this endeavor was part of a project, apparently never carried out in detail, to construct a proof of Theorem X X I I that would follow from Theorem X. This proof is not given, but only indicated in a somewhat cryptic fashion in the last line of the published proof of Theorem X X l I . There is no sign that GALILEO a t t e m p t e d a proof of Theorem X X I I which would establish it for the case of an arbitrary fall, but the fact that he did this for Theorem I I I and his indication that this same step in the argument made for the brachistochrone is not proven show that he paid some attention to this problem. Indeed, the very fact that the brachistochrone is presented informally in a scholium rather than as a corollary or theorem suggests that GALILEO was aware that his proof was not satisfactory. Another difficulty, in fact, is to be found in his treatment of the arc of the circle as the limit of a sequence of inscribed polygons as the Sides become vanishingly short. If he had considered both inscribed and circumscribed
t3"

186

W.L. WISAN:

regular polygons, he might have argued convincingly that the lengths of all such sequences approach one and the same limit. GALILEO fails to do this and his argument, again, is unsound. Also, here as elsewhere throughout his treatise, GALILEO does not make explicit his assumption that speed is continuous at corners.12 Why, we may ask, does GALILEO give such a faulty demonstration of a proposition which was clearly of importance to him ? I shall argue from language clues that the brachistochrone was drafted at a very early time and then given only a very perfunctory editing before publication. Probably, GALILEOhad hoped to give a more comprehensive treatment of the general problem of paths of least time (see section 6 for some later propositions evidently directed to this end). Failing this, he m a y have revised his old brachistoehrone at the very last minute. Although the brachistochrone is supposed to follow immediately from Theorem X X I I , it does not use the newer language of briefer times, or the verbs peragere, con[icere, or permeare, the first of which is so frequent in Theorem X X I I . On the other hand, the proof of the brachistochrone does use descensus and latio, as well as ex quiete, all of which mark later writings. Perhaps, then, the brachistochrone was not composed immediately after Theorem X X I I , at which time one would certainly expect the use of similar language, but some years later, possibly while GALILEO looked over his earlier propositions on paths of quicker descent. At that time GALILEO might naturally enough have composed the scholinm on the brachistochrone using the mixture of early and late terminology. This possibility cannot be ruled out; however, in subsequent chapters we shall see that in those propositions on quicker descent which can be shown to be later than Theorem X X I I the language used is consistently that of briefer times, or of spaces completed more quickly. Sometimes, in different contexts, GALILEO speaks of motions being velocior, and in the Dialogo he refers to the brachistochrone 1~ For my discussion of the faults in GALILEO'Sargument for the brachistochrone, I am indebted to a private communication from C. TRUESDELL,who goes on to remark t h a t " Nobody in that day could have proved that the limit exists [for the times of descent along incribed polygons], but everybody would have agreed that it did, and we know it does. GALILEOcould have shown easily, with tools available to him, that the limits of the times for descents along two different sequences of inscribed polygons could not be different. Moreover, when the speed is continuous (by assumption) on the approximants, anyone in the 17th century would have concluded it was necessarily so on the limiting path, namely, the circular arc. If we grant that he saw all this, we can say that he (in effect) de]ined the smooth motion on a circular arc as being the common limit of his particular motions on the approximants. In fact, his claims refer only to the time of descent, but the more general suggestion lies close at hand and is of the sort that anyone competent in rational mechanics at any period would see and explore. We can summarize GALILEO'Sresult, though not his uncertain and questionable way to it, as follows: A body falling along a circular arc has, at the point it occupies, the same tangential acceleration as would a body falling along the tangent there." TRUESDELLadds that "HuYGENStook this passage on circular fall in GALILEO'S book as his starting point. For motion along an arbitrary smooth arc subject to gravity, he assumed in effect that the tangential acceleration at the point presently occupied is that which the body would have, were it failing along the tangent. This assumption is exactly GALILEO'S result, with tile restriction to circular arcs set aside. In turn, if the restriction to gravity is set aside, it becomes the tangentiM component of NEWTON'Ssecond law."

Galileo's Science of Motion

187

both ways, la but all proofs of propositions on paths of quickest descent or least time constructed after Theorem X X I I are made in terms of briefer times. Furthermore, if we look back at Theorem X X I (see section 3.t), we find precisely the editorial change which if made in the case of the brachistochrone would have transformed a very early draft into the published version. In the second part of Theorem X X I , the revised version replaces the phrase eodem temDore /ieri motum with lationes temporibus aequalibus absolventur. In this case the motions are made in the same time, but note that lationes absolventur replaces ]ieri motum. Also, we find in comparing earlier and later versions of Theorems XIX, XX, and X X I I that descensus and latio tend to replace motus and that GALILEOtends to edit out expressions such as citius transire and veloeius ]erre. Perhaps in preparing the brachistochrone for publication he was in too great a hurry to rewrite the whole passage in terms of briefer times, and simply made some of those changes which we see elsewhere. The result would be the version we find in the text. Thus, we can account for the language used in the brachistochrone if we suppose a very early draft and late editing. This would be consistent with the conjecture that the times-squared theorem was found only after work had begun on the proof of Theorem X X I I . In any case, the first drafts of Theorem X X I I can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be earlier than almost all the propositions on accelerated motion that remain to be discussed. To demonstrate this we must look at some drafts which relate to Theorem I I I and show the development of the techniques and terminology used with few exceptions in the remainder of the treatise.

4.4. Theorem H I and the New Technique

The corollary to Theorem I I I on accelerated motion says that the times of descent along inclined planes of the same height are directly proportional to the lengths of the planes. This simple proposition is assumed in most of GALILEO's theorems on accelerated motion and it looks as though it should have been one of his earliest results. CAVERNI supposed that it was derived from GALILEO'SDe motu theorem, understanding tarditas as time, and assumed that it was the most fundamental theorem on motion. He also supposed that it was used in the proof of Theorem X X I I which we have examined. Theorem III, however, is not used in that proof and does not appear even as a hueristic device in fragments searching for it. In fact, wherever we find Theorem I I I (or its corollary), we also find techniques and terminology that are developed after the proof of Theorem X X l I . Also, some results derived from Theorem I I I lead to construction of an alternate proof of Theorem X X I I which is indicated in the last line of the proof on folio 18 ,, Aggiugnete l'altra meraviglia, qual ~ che i moti de i cadenti fatti per gli archi della quarta AB si fanno in tempi pi~l brevi che quelli che si fanno per le corde de i medesimi archi: talch~ il moto velocissimo ~ fatto nel tempo brevissimo da un mobile per arrivare dal punto A al termine B ..." (Opere VII, p. 476). A paraphrase of the proof is given in a letter on hydraulics of 1630 (Opere VI, p. 643). In this paraphrase the argument is made in terms of the lempo pi~breve until the end where it is concluded that the passage being always pit~ veloce as the path approaches an arc, it would be velocissimo along the arc itself.

188

W . L . WISAN :

t63 r. From these facts it appears that Theorem I I I must be somewhat later than the initial development of the proof of Theorem X X l I . A fragment in the manuscript suggests that Theorem I I I was indeed derived from the De motu theorem. The fragment is on folio t 77 in the hand of a disciple, and it m a y have been copied from a no longer extant original drafted b y GALILEO himself. I t says that if bodies descend along inclined planes of the same height their speeds will be in the same proportion whether they move with uniform acceleration or with uniform velocity. Then it gives as an example Theorem I I I which, in fact, holds only for accelerated motion, but which is assumed valid for uniform motion, which is false. The fragment breaks off after an expression of doubt whether the theorem does hold for accelerated motion. If the fragment on folio 177 is, in fact, a copy of an original draft by GALILEO, it represents an early stage of questioning about the relation between uniform and accelerated motion, and this aspect of it will be discussed in the next section. I t m a y also indicate how GALILEO first derived his third theorem on accelerated motion. For, in the De motu antiquiora GALILEO assumes a traditional rule for local motions: when equal distances are traversed, the speeds are inversely proportional to the times. 1~ Now, in the next section, we shall examine a case in which GALILEO applies this rule while overlooking the necessary condition that the distances be equal. If he had similarly misapplied this rule for local motion to explore the consequences of his De motu theorem, his Theorem I I I would follow. For, b y the De motu theorem, the speeds of descent along two inclined planes of the same height are inversely proportional to the lengths of the planes. Thus, if the difference in distances traversed is neglected and the times are taken to be inversely proportional to the speeds, then the times are directly proportional to the lengths of the planes. If this result appeared to follow from the De motu theorem, GALILEO might easily have supposed it valid for uniform motion, which was assumed in the proof of that theorem. Later, however, he began to puzzle over the relation between his Postulate and the De motu theorem and the relation between accelerated and uniform motion. At this time, perhaps, the doubt entered. Quite possibly, then, we have here a clue to the reasoning which first led to the third theorem on accelerated motion. Now it is possible, as was mentioned above, that the times-squared theorem was discovered experimentally, and we now know that it was, in fact, verified b y an experiment. Theorem I I I might easily have been discovered or established b y a similar experiment. In this case, however, GALILEO should have had no doubts about its applicability to accelerated motion. Moreover, such an experiment might have been used to confirm the Postulate once this was used to prove Theorem I I I (as will be shown in section 5). This, however, was never done, which 14 This rule may be found in BRADWARDINE: " O m n i u m duorum motuum localium super idem spatium vel equalia deductorum velocitates et tempora proportionales econtrario semper esse, i.e., sicud velocitas prima ad secundum ita tempus secunde velocitatis ad tempus prime" (CLAGETT 1959, p. 233). GALILEO assumes this rule when discussing the ratios of speeds for bodies failing through different media. Since the distances of fall are always assumed equal, one may compare speeds or times. GALILEOusually speaks only of the speeds, assigning arbitrary values for the speeds in any given case. However, he occasionally shifts to consideration of the times (Opere I, p. 282).

Galileo's Science of Motion

189

suggests that GALILEO'S experimental orientation was still limited and that Theorem I I I was neither discovered nor proved by means of an experiment. Theorem I I I m a y have been first sought as a fundamental proposition from which to prove the times-squared theorem, or its mean proportional corollary. On folio 147r, we find a proof of the latter which is based on Theorem I I I together with the law of chords: (t) t (AD)/t (AC) = A D / A C , by Thm. I I I , and (2) t (AB) ----t (AC), by Thm. VI. (3) Also, t (AB)/t (AE) = A B / A E = A S / A D . (4) So, t (AD)/t (AE) = A S / A C , and (5) AS/AC = A S / m (AS, AB), by a lemma. 1~ (6) Also, AS/m (AS, AB) = AD/m (AD, AE). (7) Therefore, t (AD)/t (AE) = A D / m (AD, AE):
A

E
D

There are several fragments (on folia t89t, 35, 37, and 58r) which explore the relations between times of descent and lengths and heights of planes. Folio t 8 9 t appears to be in GALILEO'S early (Paduan) handwriting, while the others are written by disciples. Folia 35 and 37 have additions and corrections in GALILEO'S later (Florentine) hand. These fragments ultimately lead to establishment of Theorems IV and V on accelerated motion and derivation of two later proofs of the law of chords which appear in the published text along with the mechanical proof on folio 160.18 Clues from terminology suggest that most of these fragments 15 This lemma is not given on folio 147, but GALILEOtells us that it has been demonstrated. It can be found on folio 35r in the hand of a disciple (Opere VIII, p. 619). HUMP~REYS (1967) reconstructs a proof of the times-squared theorem which is similar to the one on folio 147 r. Although ostensibly based on Theorem VI and the Postulate, it actually depends on Theorem I I I rather than the Postulate. tt~JMPHREYS suggests that such a derivation shows how GALILEOmay have discovered the timessquared theorem. He does not, however, explain why GALILEOwould have made the derivation, nor does he realize that Thm. I I I was not in use until after the timessquared theorem. 16 Theorem V is a more general version of Theorem IV: for planes of different length, height, and inclination, the times of descent are as the product of the ratio of the lengths and the reciprocal of the ratio of the heights. Theorem IV is restricted to planes of the same length.

190

W . L . WISAN:

originated relatively early and that they are associated with exploration of consequences from Theorem I I I together with the mean proportional corollary. One other early consequence of Theorem I I I is a derivation of the law of chords, which is entirely in GALILEO'S hand. I t is as follows: Si in circulo ad orizontem erecto a puncto sublimi quotcumque ducantur lineae rectae usque ad circumferentiam, per quas cadant gravia quotcumque, omnia temporibus aequalibus ad terminos suos pervenient. Sit enim circumferentia ad orizontem erecta ABC, puncture sublime A, a quo lineae quotcumque ad circumferentiam usque protrahantur AC, AB, et per ipsas cadant mobilia: dico, temporibus aequalibus ea perventura esse ad terminos C, B. Sit enim AC per centrum ducta, cui ex B perpendicularis sit BD: patet, AB mediam esse proportionalem inter CA, AD; quare, ex demonstratis, tempus quo mobile ex A cadit in C a d tempus casus ex A in D est ut linea BA ad AD. Verum, simititer, ex demonstratis, tempus casus ex A in B a d tempus casus ex A in D est ut BA ad AD: ergo tempora casuum AB, AC erunt aequalia, cure eandem ad idem tempus casus AD habeant rationem. E t similiter de reliquis omnibus motibus demonstrabitur: ergo pater propositum. (Opere viii, PP-392-93; fol. t 72r, emphasis added) To paraphrase the proof, let AC be the vertical diameter of the circle, draw the chord AB from the highest point of the circle, and show that t (AB) = t (AC). (1) The chord AB = m (AC, AD), b y the properties of right triangles. (2) Then, t (AC)/t ( A D ) = A B / A D , b y Cor. 2. (3) Also, t (AB)/t ( A D ) = A B / A D , b y Thm. I I I . (4) Therefore, from (2) and (3), t ( A B ) = t (AC).
A

c j

The handwriting, watermark, and language all point to a fairly early origin for this proof. However, both language and method indicate that it was constructed after development of the proof of Theorem XXlI,17 and this is also true of the i~ At the bottom of folio 172r is a copy of the mechanical proo~ of Theorem VI on folio 160r. Between these two proofs of the law of chords is a proof of Theorem vii, an immediate corollary of that theorem. Theorem VII says that if a body traverses unequal planes in equal times, the lengths of the planes are proportional to the square

Galileo's Science of Motion

191

notes on folio t 8 9 t and other drafts which exhibit an early use of Theorem III. The earliest use of Theorem I I I is probably that found in the first of a sequence of drafts leading to the alternative proof of Theorem X X l I . This sequence exhibits significant changes in method and language from which the relative chronology of the published proof of Theorem X X I I can be determined. The first fragment is rather unstructured. It leads to a proof for Theorem X, which establishes that Theorem I I I holds for an arbitrary initial velocity. From the same point A, let fall to the horizontal DB any lines AB, AC, AD, and taking any point G, draw GFE parallel to the horizontal. Let AR be the mean between BA and AG, and through R draw a second parallel RTV. It results that the lines AT and AV are means between CA and AF, and between DA and AE. I say that if we assume AB to be the time in which a body falls (cadit) from A to B, the time RB (tempus RB) will be that in which GB is completed (con/icitur), TC that for CF, and VD that for ED. But this is noted : in fact, since AR is the mean between BA and AG, and BA is the time of fall (casus) along the whole of AB, the time AR (tempus AR) will be the time of fall (casus) along AG. Therefore, the remaining time RB will be the time of fall (casus) along GB after [fall alongJ AG. One can say the same of the other times TC and VD and of the lines FC and ED. Moreover, it is clear that the times of falls (tempora casuum) along GB, FC, and ED, are among themselves as the times GB, FC, ED. However, if one supposes AB the measure of the time taken to complete (con[iciatur) the line AB, the quantities of time lalong the lines GB, FC, ED] are not determined by the lengths of the same lines GB, FC, ED, but by the lines RB, TC, VD. (Opere viii, pp. 380-8t ; fol. t64r) What is sought here is a method for finding the times in which GB, FC, and ED are traversed after initial descent from the point A. For GB, the result is obtained as follows: (t) Let t(AB) = A B , and (2) let AR = m ( A B , AG). (3) Then A R = t ( A G ) , by Cor. 2. (4) Hence, t (GB, A) = t (AB) -- t (AG) = AB -- A R = RB. If we compare this procedure with that employed to obtain a comparable result It (BC, A)] in the course of proving Theorem X X l I (see section 4.2), we roots of their heights. The argument is simple: (t) since AE ~ = A C . AF and AB 2 = A C - A D , and (2) since (AC" AF)/(AC. AD) = AF/AD, (3) then, AF/AD = AE2/AB2. This proof assumes only the law of chords. The published proof is derived from the corollary on mean proportionals and Theorem I I I and uses the language of the later period. The draft on folio 172r could be from a very early proof, possibly deriving from an earlier version of the mechanical proof of Theorem VI. This is suggested by an occurrence of the term pertransire in the proof of Theorem VII. But Theorem VII also uses another term, gravia, which is rare in De motu locali and its fragments, and this term appears in the proof of Theorem VI at the top of folio 172r.

192

W. L. WISAN: A

E V T

G R

see an important change in technique. The auxiliary line used on folio t 6 3 r is dropped on folio 164r. A line in the main diagram is chosen to represent the time to traverse that line and the times along all other lines are determined b y reference to this line. Thus t (AG) is represented b y AR since the latter is the mean proportional between AB and AG. This simpler and more elegant m e t h o d is used in all proofs other than for Theorem X X I I , wherever a comparable result is sought. To get the times to traverse FC and ED after descent from A, GALILEO employs his third theorem on accelerated motion: if t (AB) = AB, then t (AC) = AC, and t (AD) = AD. Thus several lines in the diagram represent times to traverse those same lines whereas other lines in the diagram represent times to traverse different lines. Aware of the confusion this might cause, GALILEO remarks that if one takes AB equal to t (AB) then the times to traverse GB, FC, and ED are not represented b y the lines GB, FC, and ED, but b y RB, TC, and VD. This remark warns explicitly against the chief difficulty one might fall into when shifting to the new technique of doing proofs. I t is repeated nowhere else, further indicating that we have here an early stage in the development of the new technique which soon becomes too familiar to require the warning. This suggests a chronological development in which folio t 6 4 r represents the transitional stage between earlier proofs using a separate time line and later proofs which do not. A change in terminology further supports this conjecture. GALILEO sometimes uses tempus X Y to mean the time XY, and sometimes to mean the time to traverse the distance XY. On folio t63 r, GALILEO uses tempus X Y to mean the time represented b y the line segment XY. Similarly, on folio t64r, GALILEO uses tempus in this same way. Ternpus AR is the time represented b y the line AR, but it is the time to traverse the line AG. The line AB, however, is used to represent the time to traverse the line AB itself, as we have seen. Here is a potential ambiguity in the expression tempus XY, and the reason for GALILEO'S warning. The time to traverse AB is the line AB, but the time to traverse AG is not AG but AR. Nothing in the diagram indicates this distinction and at first it was no doubt confusing. In addition to the expression tempus XY, GALILEO also uses, in his earlier fragments, expressions such as tempus in quo permeat XY. The new technique once established, however, GALILEO generally uses tempus casus XY, tempus descensus XY, or a comparable expression, and if tempus X Y does occur, it

Galileo's Science of Motion

193

always means the time in which XY is traversed and not a time represented by the line XY itself. This eliminates the possibility of confusion in using some lines of the diagram to represent the times along these same lines and other lines to represent the times along different lines. In fact, folio t 64r exhibits the sole case in which GALILEO uses the new technique which dispenses with the separate time line, while using the term tempus as he does when employing such a line. Even in a similar argument at the bottom of folio t64r there is no trace of the ambiguous terminology. This makes it clear that tile use of the auxiliary line is earlier and that a new technique is emerging on folio 164r. From this one gets a division of most of the fragments on accelerated motion into those which are before folio t64r and those which are after. Those which are definitely before are those related to the proof of Theorem X X l I on folio 163 r. Those which are surely after folio 164r are those which employ Theorem III. The remaining propositions can be fairly well placed by using other clues. For example, those propositions which are definitely later than folio t64r, yet do not employ Theorem III, are those which do not deal with motion along inclined planes but with that along vertical or horizontal paths. Theorems v i i i , XlX, XX, and X X I are the only ones on motion along inclined planes which do not employ Theorem I I I . These share linguistic and conceptual characteristics which I have argued to belong to the early period. It is very likely, then, that these are before Theorem III, or before folio 164r. As has been mentioned, Theorem X seems to have been used in an alternative proof for Theorem X X I I . This suggests that the new theorems and techniques emerged initially from further research in connection with that theorem. In the next section we shall examine some fragments relating to Theorem X which will show how this development came about and how it provided the starting point for GALILEO'S later propositions. Examination of the language and method used in these fragments will provide important additional evidence for the chronological clues used so far and will furnish additional ones as well.

~l.5. The Theorem X Sequence

At the bottom of folio 164r is a somewhat sketchy proof of Theorem X, to which is added a general statement of that proposition, is Sit AC perpendicularis ad orizontem CDE, ponaturque inclinata BD, fiatque motus ex A per ABC et per ABD: dico, tempus per BC post casum AB ad

18 CAVERNI assumes this to be a very early result which is used in the proof of Theorem X X I I on folio 163r (see section 4.2); he thus reconstructs GALILEO'Sfirst series of propositions, culminating in the brachistochrone, without supposing application of the Postulate (1895, pp. 342-49). The reconstruction is ingenious but cannot be correct, as has been shown.

194

\. L. ~VIsAN*:

tempus per BD post eumdem casum AB esse ut linea BC ad BD, Ducatur AF parallela DC et protrahatur DB ad F; erit iam tempus casus per FBD ad tempus casus per ABC ut FD linea ad lineam AC: est autem tempus casus per FB ad tempus casus per A B u t linea FB ad lineam AB: ergo tempus casus reliquae BC post AB ad tempus casus reliquae BD post FB erit ut reliqua BC ad reliquam BD. Sed tempus casus per BD post FB est idem cure tempore per BD post AB, cum AF orizonti aequidistans sit; ergo patet propositum.

Colligitur autem ex hoc, quod tempora casuum per BC et BD, sive fiat principium motus ex termino B, sive praecedat motus, ex eadem tamen altitudine, eandem inter se servant rationem, nempe earn quae est lineae BC ad BD. (Opere VIII, pp. 38t-82 ; emphasis added) As is often the case in the manuscript, the statement of the proposition follows the proof. We see also that GALILEO'S Postulate and the principle of continuity are assumed in the last sentence of the proof. The time to traverse BD after descent from FB is assumed to be the same as if the initial descent were from the point A. The argument is incomplete, depending on the analysis given at the top of the page. It may be paraphrased as follows: (t) Since t (FD)/t (AC) = FD/AC, and (2) t (FB)/t (AB) = FB/AB, by Theorem III, (3) then t (BC)/t (BD) = BC/BD. Although the argument implies that one may simply subtract FB and AB, respectively, from FD and AC, it is clear from the fragment above it that this is not intended. A later draft in the hand of GIUDUCCI fills in the missing step.
Tempora casuum in planis quorum eadem sit altitudo, eamdem inter se servant rationem, sive illis idem impetus praecedat, sive ex quiete incipiant.

Sint plana AB, AC, quorum eadem altitudo; extenso autem BA utcumque in D, fiat casus ex D per ambo AC, AB: dico, tempus per AC ad tempus per AB esse in eadem ratione ac si principium casus foret in A. Sit enim ipsarum BD, DA media DF, et ducta parallela ex F ipsi BC, quae sit FG, erit GE media inter CE, EA. Facto igitur principio lationis ex D, tempora casuum per AC, AB erunt inter se ut AG, AF: quod si casus incipiat ex A, erunt tempora per AC, AB inter se ut AC, AB lineae: ergo patet propositum. (Opere viii, p. 382; fol. 38r; emphasis added) The argument is still not complete, but introduction of the mean proportionals indicates that it follows from the result later established as Theorem XI. (1) Let t(DA) = D A and m(DA, D B ) = D F . (2) Then t (AB, D) -- t (DB) -- t (DA) = D F -- DA = AF. (3) Similarly, t(AC, E) = A G , and (4) t(AB, D)/t (AC, D ) = A B / A C by the Postulate and elementary geometry.

G a l i l e o ' s S c i e n c e of M o t i o n

t 95

This is essentially the argument that appears in the published proof which is as follows:

Tempora lationum super diversas planorum inclinationes, quorum elevationes sint aequales, sunt inter se ut eorumdem planorum longitudines, sive fiant lationes ex quiete, sire praecedat illis latio ex eadem altitudine.
Fiant lationes per ABC et per ABD usque ad horizontem DC, adeo ut latio per AB praecedat lationibus per BD et per BC: dico, tempus lationis per BD ad tempus per BC esse ut BD longitudo ad BC. Ducatur AF horizonti parallela, ad quam extendatur DB occurrens in F, et ipsarum DF, FB media sit FE; et ducta EO ipsi DC paraUela, erit AO media inter CA, AB. Quod si intelligatur, tempus l~er AB esse ut AB, erit tempus per FB ut FB, et tempus per totam AC erit ut media AO, per totam vero FD erit F E ; quare tempus per reliquam BC erit BO, per reliquam vero BD erit BE: verum ut BE ad BO, ita est BD ad
A F

B E D 0 C

BC: ergo tempora per BD, BC post casus per AB, FB, seu, quod idem est, per communem AB, erunt inter se ut longitudines BD, BC. Esse autem tempus per BD ad tempus per BC ex quiete in B u t longitudo BD ad BC, supra demonstratum est. Sunt igitur tempora lationum per plana diversa, quorum aequales sint elevationes, inter se ut eorumdem planorum longitudines, sire motus fiat in ipsis ex quiete, sire lationibus iisdem praecedat alia latio ex eadem altitudine : quod erat ostendendum. (Opere viii, pp. 228-29; emphasis added) The proof needs no further discussion ; it is the language used in these different drafts that is of interest here. In the first proof, on the bottom of folio t 64r, the new technique developed at the top of that page is used without trace of the expression tempus AB meaning the time represented by AB rather than the time to traverse AB. Tempus casus is used throughout this draft and in the one on

t 96

W.L. WISA~ :

folio 38r. Motus is also used on folio 164r, whereas impetus and latio appear on folio 38r. Latio is used throughout in the published version, replacing casus and motus, except for one occurrence of each. Also, there is a shift from speaking of lines (for example, liuea AB) to speaking only of planes, and there is atendency to omit the designation of either line or plane before the symbol AB. This is seen on folio 38 as well as in the published version of Theorem X and is the general practice in revised drafts. Another significant clue is the introduction of ex quiete in the draft on folio 38 and in the published proof. As has been remarked, this term seems to come into use about 1609 in propositions on the motion of projectiles. These clues m a y be used to give an approximate date to several fragments relating to the brachistochrone but devoted to the problem of finding an exact ratio between the times to traverse the larger chord and that to traverse the two smaller connected chords. Two of these fragments include calculations which make use of Theorem I I I and the new method established on folio t64r and employ such terms as ex quiete and ambo, both of which appear only after the draft of Theorem X X I I on folio t63r. These fragments exhibit an interesting aspect of gALILEO'S method in which he makes a hypothesis and then tries to confirm it through making calculations (see, especially, folia t66r and 183r, OpereVIII, pp. 4t 9-22). Evidence from method, language, writing, and watermark together indicate that these fragments are after folio t63 r, but before i609. Finally, we have some fragments relating to the alternate proof of Theorem xxII, which has been mentioned. The first step in this development is on folio t 26r. Sit FG orizon, et ex sublimi A / i a t motus per ABF, et protracta AB usque ad D, sit media inter DA, AB ipsa AC, et orizonti aequidistans sit CE: dico, lempus per AB ad tempus per BF esse ut AB ad BE. N a m tempus per AB ad tempus per BD est ut AB ad BC: tempus veto per BD post AB ad tempus per BF post AB est ut 13D ad BF, idest BC ad BE: ergo, ex aequali, tempus per AB ad tempus per BF est ut AB ad BE. (Opere viii, p. 397; emphasis added) The argument here is similar to that on folio t 64r. Tempus per BF and tempus per BD must be understood throughout as the times to traverse BF and BD

z/

B~/

after descent from A, although this is not specified every time. Such carelessness, rare even in GALILEO'S sketchiest drafts, supports the general impression that he is here using a technique which is still quite new. The argument m a y be paraphrased as follows:

Galileo's Science of Motion (1) (2) (3) (4) I say that t (AB)/t (BF) = A B / B E . For t (AB)/t (BD) =AB/BC. In fact: t(BD, A)/t(BF, A) = B D / B F . Therefore, since B D / B F = BC/BE, t (AB)/t (BF) = AB/BE.

197

The argument is sound, of course, if we read t (BF, A) for t (BF) and t (BD, A) for t (BD). Use of the abbreviated form tempus per is characteristic of later drafts, as is the use of AB, BF, and so on, without stipulation that these are planes, lines, or planes inclined according to the lines. Writing and ink, however, support methodological evidence that the draft is relatively early; hence it m a y well be among the first of tile drafts using the later terminology. The diagram is so drawn that one can describe the lower quadrant of a circle about the points A, 13, and C. The result is suggestive of Theorem X X l I and the alternate proof of that theorem which follows from Theorem X I I on folio t69t. The writing and ink are similar to that on folio t26 and the language is much the same except for one use of lima and one of casus. Also duo is used, as in Theorem XXlI, to refer to a path composed of two differently inclined planes. Folio t d9t is as follows:

Fiat motus per ABC et per duas ABD, sitque RA media inter CA, AB, et ipsi DC parallela ducatur RS: dico Jam, ternpus per ABC ad tempus per ABD esse ut linea AC ad A R cum SD. Si enim protrahatur DB usque ad occursum cum
AF, orizonti DC parallela, erit FS media inter DF, FB; et ut CA ad AR, ita tempus per CA ad tempus per AB; ira ut, si ponatur AC tempus per AC, erit A R tempus per AB, et RC tempus per BC; et similiter SD demonstrabitur esse tempus per BD post casum ex F, vel ex A: ex quo patet, tempus per t o t a m AC ad tempus per duas ABD esse ut A R cure RC ad AR cure SD. (Opere viii, P- 395; emphasis added) The argument is made with more care than on folio 126. As in the latter, the Postulate is assumed and the result follows from Theorem XI. I t m a y be paraphrased as follows: (t) I say that t (ABC)/t (ABD) = AC/(AR + SD). (2) Extend DB to cut AF which is parallel to DC. (3) Let FS = m ( D F , FB). (4) Then CA/AR = t (AC)/t (AB), and if one supposes AC = t (AC), then A R =t (AB) and RC = t (BC, A).

A-~N--/F

,/
C

2
D/~//

198

W.L. WISAN:

(5) Similarly, it can be demonstrated that SD = t ( B D , F), or t(BD, A). (6) Clearly then, t (AC)/t (ABD) = (AR + RC)/(AR + SD). In the published version GALILEO adds the line NO (not on folio t69t, but indicated here by a dotted line) and remarks that the theorem holds for the case in which an inclined plane replaces the perpendicular. From this, a key part of the alternative proof for Theorem X X l I will follow. In the diagram below, DFB is a semicircle and D'O' is parallel to DO and passes through B. Also, AV----m(AC, AB), D O = m ( D C , DF), and D'O'---m (D'C', D'B). Let t (DC) ----DC, and the argument goes as follows: (t) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) t (D'BC) = D ' O ' +CV, by Theorem XlI. Now since t (D'B) = D'O', then t (BC, D') = CV. Also, t(BC, D ' ) = t ( B C , D), by the Postulate, and t (DB) = t (DF) by Theorem VI (law of chords). But t(DF) ----DO by Cot. 2. Therefore, t (DBC) = t (DB) + t (BC, D) -- DO + CV. But t(DOC) = D O + C O .
D D' A

F
o E

//

C'

Proceeding as before, one could show that CV is less than CO, and the theorem would follow. Use of Theorem III eliminates the necessity for the first lemma and with this device and application of Theorem X l I the first part of the proof is greatly shortened. GALILEO does not write this out anywhere, but the last sentence on folio t63r strongly suggests this line of reasoning. Nothing in the proof as given leads to the last line: "Constat insuper, tempus per DC ad tempus per DBC esse ut DOC ad DO cure CV" (Opere viii, p. 263). It follows immediately from the steps above. Indication of such a proof only at the end of the long proof begun on folio "!86t and finished on folio t 63r supports the conclusion from language and method that Theorem X and its consequences are after the proof of Theorem XXlI. The analysis on folio t 26r, together with the law of odd numbers and doubledistance rule, will lead to a quite different set of propositions which may have

Galileo's Science of Motion

199

been begun at Padua but which was not completed until around 163t. These propositions will exhibit a new stage in GALILEO'S application of mathematics to motion. The first steps are taken in De motu antiquiora where GALILEO proves a fundamental theorem and indicates how various consequences m a y be deduced. In the first stage, however, the mathematics is very elementary, certainly no more advanced than that used in some medieval treatises on mechanics. Furthermore, the propositions are based OH an assumption which does not lend itself to development of a mechanics which will be applicable to the empirical world. Nonetheless, the conception of a science of motion along inclined planes, based on its own appropriate principles, is an important start. The second stage is exhibited in GALILEO's search for the brachistochrone. Here GALILEO'S efforts are directed towards proof of a proposition which, once his earlier assumptions about "natural" motion were altered, was conceived to apply to the empirical world. The search for this proof resulted in the formulation of new principles and use of more sophisticated mathematics. The third stage, which will be described in section 6, will see GALILEO moving into a new phase in the development of his mathematical physics. In this phase he combines the procedures of the first two stages. Having grounded his theorems in what are more or less experimental principles and having demonstrated a number of propositions which are at least loosely linked to experience, GALILEO begins to employ more difficult techniques from Greek geometry in an exploration of more remote consequences of his fundamental propositions. Although less elegant and rigorous, GALILEO'S treatise begins to take on the appearance of a work b y ARCHIMEDES. In his introductory remarks, however, GALILEO calls attention to the fact that his own treatise, unlike one on spiral motion (obviously, that of ARCHIMEDES),sets forth the properties of motion as it occurs in nature. But very few of GALILEO'S propositions, especially the later ones, are experimentally verifiable according to GALILEO'S own view, even in principle. They are true because they are rigorously derived from " t r u e " principles. Selecting and establishing his principles, however, was one of GALILEO'S most difficult problems. We turn now to that problem.
5. Foundations

6.1. The Problem o/Acceleration

In this section we shall see how GALILEO went about trying to establish the foundations for his mathematical treatise on motion. The central problem was the relation between accelerated and uniform motion. In the beginning, GALILEO attempted to solve this problem by establishing his double-distance rule. h the earliest a t t e m p t to derive this rule he assumed that, in fall from rest, acquired velocity was proportional to distance. This erroneous law of fall was then used in an attempt to prove the times-squared theorem (see section 5.2). About this time, however, GALILEO derived the parabolic p a t h of projectiles b y using the correct law that acquired velocity is proportional to time (see section 5.3). This m a y have prompted what appears to be an abortive a t t e m p t to use the correct law of fall in a derivation of the double-distance rule. After this, we find GALILEO
t4 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. t3

200

W . L . WISAN:

explicitly assuming his incorrect law in a new proof of Theorem I I I on accelerated motion. In fact, this proof actually depends on the Postulate, not the law of fM1 (see section 5.4). By 1609, GALILEO was using the Postulate and his dynamic principle for the foundations of his treatise, and he derived the correct law of fall, needed for the propositions on the motion of projectiles, as a theorem (see section 5.5). This derivation, however, depended on the double-distance rule and the corollary on mean proportionals. The second of these could be derived (as we saw in section 4.4) from the law of chords and Theorem I I I , but the first was not satisfactorily established until much later. In section 8 we shall see how the problem of foundations was eventually solved; her e, we shall follow GALILEO'S work on foundations to about t610. First, we return to the fragment, referred to in section 4.4, which shows how Theorem I I I m a y have been first derived and which also reveals the way in which GALILEO saw the problem of acceleration. The velocities (velocitates) of bodies, which begin motion with unequal moment (inaequali momento ineipiunt motum), are always among themselves in the same proportion as if they moved (progrederentur) with uniform (aequabili) A

motion: as, for example, the body moving along AC, beginning its motion with a momentum which is to the momentum along AD as AD is to AC; if it moves with uniform motion (si aequabili motu progrederetur), the time along AC to the time along AD will be as AC is to AD. On the other hand, that this happens in the case of accelerated motion, I doubt (quod in accelerato dubito quidem); and therefore demonstrate ...

Aliter sic:
The time along AC is to the time along AB, by tile preceding, as the line AC is to the line AB; but [the time along AC] has the same proportion also with respect to the time along AD, AB being the mean proportional between AC and AD; therefore, the times along AD and AB will be equal. (Opere viii, p. 386; fol. 177r) A

Galileo's Science of Motion

20~

The language of the first paragraph is obscure. We are told that the velocities of bodies, which begin moving with unequal moment, are in the same proportion as if they moved with uniform motion. What exactly does this mean ? GALILEO sometimes speaks of the velocities of a body when he intends an accelerated motion, that is, a motion having different (increasing) velocities at successive moments in time. Since he speaks here of "bodies" in the plural, it is not certain that velocities in this context refers to acceleration. However, the contrast with uniform motion supports this interpretation, and the example given leaves little room for doubt. If a body moves with uniform motion along the two paths, then the times are said to be in proportion to the distances. But then doubt is expressed for the case of accelerated motion. The proposition, of course, is true for accelerated but not for uniform motion. The fragment breaks off and is then followed by a proof of the right-angle theorem based on Theorem I I I and the corollary on mean proportionals. The first paragraph is struck out and the second refers to an unspecified "preceding" proposition. In the last section I suggested a line of reasoning by which GALILEOmay have arrived at his conclusion that Theorem I I I would be valid for uniform motion. It is not, however, the purpose of the dubito fragment to prove this theorem and no argument for it is given. The theorem is mentioned to illustrate another concept: that the velocities of bodies beginning from rest at the same point and moving with accelerated motion are in the same ratio as if they were moving with uniform motion. This concept might have arisen naturally from the supposition that free fall is uniformly accelerated. It would be fairly intuitive that uniform acceleration must behave much as uniform velocity. For if a body accelerates continuously from rest one could argue from symmetry that the speed lacking in the first half of the time would be compensated for in the second half, and thus the two kinds of motions would be comparable. 1 That is, the " r a t i o s " of the motions should in some sense be the same. GALILEO'Sconception of this lacked clarity. He did not conceive of accelerated motion in terms of average speed and he generated a paradox out of the meaning of "equal velocities." This paradox is probably what lay at the basis of GALILEO'S doubts in the dubito fragment, and it was never completely resolved. Another fragment (to be called the m i r a n d u m fragment) exhibits the paradox. 1 GALILEO'S reasoning might be similar to that of the fourteenth century MERTOIVIANS, such as HEYTESBURYand SWINESHEAD, in proofs of the so-called MERTON mean speed theorem. As we shall see in section 8, GALILEOlater used an argument quite similar to that of HEYTESBURV,who (as paraphrased by CLAG~TT)reasoned that every excess in distance traversed by a body moving uniformly with the mean velocity during the first half of the time over the distance traversed by the body uniformly accelerating during that same first half of the time is just compensated for in the second half of the time by a corresponding de/iciency in distance traversed by the body moving uniformly with respect to the distance traversed by the body uniformly accelerating during that second half. Thus the gain in velocity in the first half is precisely compensated for by the loss of the velocity in the second half. The two bodies, therefore, in the whole time will move the same distance. Thus the uniform acceleration is said to be equivalent to the mean velocity for the traversal of the same space in a given time. (CLAGETTt959, pp. 265--66)
14"

202

W. L. WISAN: A

Mirandum. The motion along (motus per) the perpendicular AD is not perhaps quicker (velocior) than that along the inclined plane AB ? It seems so; in fact, equal spaces are traversed more quickly (citius con/iciuntur) along AD than
along AB: still it seems not so; in fact, drawing the horizontal BC, the time along AB is to the time along AC as ABels to AC; then, the moments of velocity (momenta velocitatis) are equal along AB and along AC; in fact, the velocity (veloeitas) is always the same which in unequal times traverses unequal spaces which are in the same proportion as the times. (Opere VIII, p. 375 ; fol. t64t) GALILEO tells us that motion along the vertical seems to be quicker (velocior) than that along the inclined plane since equal spaces along the vertical are traversed in less time. But if the time along AB is to that along AC as AB is to AC, the speeds must be the same, or the motions equally swift, and that along the vertical cannot be swifter. The first conclusion follows from the ARISTOTELIAN definition of the quicker. The second is suggested by a theorem of ARCHIMEDES: if the speeds are the same, the times are proportional to the distances traversed. ARCHIMEDES restricts his proposition to uniform motion and this proposition becomes GALILEO'S first theorem on uniform motion in De motu locali. In fact, the proposition holds for average speeds and might have been used to dispose of the apparent contradiction of the mirandum fragment. Although the acceleration is greater along the vertical than along the inclined plane, the average speed of a body beginning from rest is the same in both cases. GALILEO, however, never clearly formulated this concept of speed and resorted instead to a rhetorical explanation of the paradox. This explanation is found in the Dialogo (Opere vii, pp. 47-50). 3 First, SALVIATI leads SAGREDOto grant the Postulate; then he asks whether the motion of a body along the inclined plane CA would be slower than along the vertical CB. SAGREDO is confused; this seems true, but it also seems to contradict the C

B See KUHN (1963) and RAVETZ (197t) for examinations of this material from different--and very interesting--viewpoints.

Galileo's Science of Motion

203

Postulate that the velocities at A and B are the same. SALVIATIbegins to unravel the paradox by defining swiftness in the usual way. One body is swifter than another when it traverses a greater distance in the same time, or the same distance in less time. Also, two bodies are equally swift when the same distance is traversed in the same time. SAGREDO adds to this, with SALVIATI'S approval, the "more universal definition" that "bodies have equal velocity when the distances passed are the same proportion of Ehave the same ratio as] the times wherein they are passed" (Opere vii, p. 48; SANTILLANA,p. 30). Now, this definition applies very well to average speed, but not to acceleration. In fact, if we measure acceleration b y distances traversed in equal times, the acceleration along CA is to that along CB as CB is to CA. This, of course, is the De motu theorem, substituting acceleration for uniform speed, and we will find this version of the De motu theorem in GALILEO'S manuscript (see section 5.5). By this interpretation, of course, the theorem is perfectly correct. The puzzle thus arises when SALVIATI leads his companions to see that, b y the ARISTOTELIAN definition, motion along CB is quicker than that along CA, while, b y the definition of equal velocities, the bodies are equally swift. SAGI~EDO agrees to this since he has accepted the Postulate, but he remarks that in this case the time along CA must be to that along CB as CA to Ct3, and he does not understand how this can be. SALVIATI promises that there will be a proof of this proposition in a separate treatise on local motion. But this treatise will also include a proof of the rightangle theorem, which establishes that motion along the vertical CB is swifter than along the plane CA since the segment CT is less than CB, but is traversed in the same time. SALVIATI points out that if one compares the motion along CA, not with that along CB extended, but only with that along CB itself, then motion along CA will take a longer time during which the body will accelerate more. Furthermore, one can find portions of the inclined plane on which the motion is as swift as along the vertical, or, along the lower part of the plane, even swifter. I t is then reasonable, he argues, that the time along CA would be to that along CB as the distance CA to CB. Both interpretations are thus seen to be equally correct and the result is treated as a paradox. SALVIATI'S analysis of accelerated motion is illuminating in m a n y ways. He points out that in considering accelerated motion one must stipulate the point at which the motion begins. Hence, GALILEO'S great care in most of his propositions on accelerated motion to specify the point at which the motion begins. 3 For all his acuteness, however, GALILEO was unable to give a mathematical account of his paradox. In the mirandum fragment, we see GALILEO deriving his Postulate from Theorem I I I : that is, he justifies the statement that the moments of velocity are the same along AB and along AC by remarking that "the velocity is always the same which in unequal times traverses unequal spaces which are in the same proportion as the times." At the same time, of course, he points to what appears to be an inconsistency with his De motu result that motion along the vertical is This stipulation is conspicuously lacking in the earliest propositions.

204

W.L. WISAN:

swifter. Is it possible, then, that in the dubito fragment GALILEO saw both arguments as consequences of the De motu theorem, and thinking he has derived contradictory results from the same theorem, stops in doubt ? Whether or not this is the meaning of the dubito fragment, we can see in the mirandum fragment that GALILEOdid encounter a deep and genuine puzzle and that he did not know what to do with it. It is perhaps for this reason that we find a wholly new line of thought introduced in several fragments which exhibit concepts and methods suggestive of fourteenth century kinematics. GALILEO'S first few attempts to do this kind of analysis are crude and unsuccessful. This suggests that if he did study fourteenth century sources he failed to understand them. The difficulty, however, probably lies in his adherence to concepts rooted in his mechanics which had evolved out of ancient and medieval statics. GALILEO'SPostulate, for example, seems to have suggested the erroneous rule that for falling bodies the velocity acquired is directly proportional to the distance fallen. This rule is, of course, to be found in medieval literature along with the correct assumption that the velocity is proportional to the time. GALILEO'S choice between the two principles was probably dictated by belief in his Postulate and confusion over its precise meaning. It is unlikely that GALILEO had much confidence in medieval results and he would hardly have adopted medieval assumptions without subjecting them to rigorous criticism. Nonetheless, GALILEO developed a concept of total velocity similar to that of the medievals. He did not use the medieval term velocitatis totalis, but spoke instead of "all the velocities" at all the points of a line. He supposed these velocities could be represented by parallels drawn from a line representing the distance of fall and that the sum of these velocities could be represented by an area made up in some way by these parallels. GALILEOfurther supposed that the rules for local motion could be applied to the total velocity as though this were, as he puts it in one fragment, the speed with which the line is traversed. In fact, when set up as an area under a curve with time and velocity the coordinates, the total velocity represents distance traversed, not velocity, and we shall see GALILEO encountering difficulties with his conception of total velocity. The speed acquired at each point along the line is sometimes called by GALILEO the gradus velocitatis (the medieval term) or the momenta velocitatis, and sometimes gradus or momenta ceteritatis. In the first two fragments using this type of analysis, however, these terms do not occur, and ill subsequent fragments GALILEO evolves a terminology which suggests an attempt to develop an independent theory of the relation between uniform and accelerated motion. GALILEO'S first attempt to use some form of fourteenth century analysis may be his demonstration of a "double-velocity" rule from which he inferred his better known "double-distance rule." The double-velocity rule is somewhat suggestive of the medieval " t h e o r y of the most intense degree" (CLAGETT 194t, pp. t03-5). It is as follows: Factus sit motus ex A in B naturaliter acceleratus: dico, quod si velocitas in omnibus punctis AB fuisset eadem ae reperitur in puncto B, duplo citius [uisset peraetum spacium AB; quia velocitates omnes in singulis punctis AB lineae, ad totidem velocitates quarum unaquaeque esset aequalis velocitati BC,

Galileo's Science of Motion

205

earn habent rationem quam triangulus ABC ad rectangulum ABCD. (Opere viii, pp. 383-84; emphasis added) Consider a body which is first moved from A to B with naturally accelerated motion beginning from rest at A, and then moved again from A to B with a uniform motion which is equal to the m a x i m u m speed attained b y the accelerated motion. In the second case, the body would complete the space AB "twice as A
\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \,,\ .... \4

quickly" as in the first case. This, GALILEO argues, is because the velocities at all tile points of the line AB, in the case of the accelerated motion, are to just as m a n y velocities along AB, taken equal to that at B, as the triangle ABC to the rectangle ABCD. In this fragment GALILEO does not talk about degrees of velocity or parallel lines representing these degrees. But the medieval analysis is quite evident in his assumption that the areas represent the velocities with which equal spaces are traversed b y the respective motions. Since the rectangle is twice the area of the triangle, the total velocity of the uniform motion is twice t h a t of the accelerated motion and so the space AB is traversed "twice as quickly" b y the former as b y tile latter. The next step gives the double-distance rule: Sequitur ex hoc, quod si ad orizontem CD fuerit planum BA elevatum, sitque BC dupla ad BA, mobile ex A in B, et successive ex B in C, temporibus aequalibus esse pervencturum" ham postquam est in B, per reliquam BC &

uniformi velocitate et eadem move~r, qua in ipsomet termino B post casum AB. Patet rursus, totum tempus per ABE ad tempus per AB esse sesquialterum. (Opere V I I I , p. 384; emphasis added) Here we encounter a new concept, and a new diagram must be used. GALILEO wishes to find BC such that t(BC, A)=t(AB). This is possibly the first hint that the proto-inertial principle has been transformed into a new kinematic principle. GALILEO clearly assumes here that a given motion is conserved unchanged along a horizontal path. 4 From this assumption and the proof just given, 4 There is a copy of the first two paragraphs of folio 163t in the hand of ARRIGH:ETTI, who adds the following note: "Huic demonstrationi necessarium mild videtur ostendisse antea, motum orizontalem uniformiter progredi in infinitum" (Opere viii, p. 384n).

206

W . L . WISAN :

he derives t h e d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rule. T h a t is, if BC = 2AB a n d t (AB) = T, t h e n t (BC, A ) = T . On t h e lower p a r t of t h e page, two corollaries are derived. One says t h a t if B E = 112 BC, t h e n t (BE, A) = l / 2 t (AB) = I / 2 T , a n d t (AB) + t (BE, A) = T + I/2T-----3/2T. T h e other, l a t e r formalized as T h e o r e m X V I , says t h a t if D is an a r b i t r a r y p o i n t b e t w e e n B a n d C, t h e n t (AB)/t (BD) = 2 A B / B D . T h e reasoning b y which t h e d o u b l e - v e l o c i t y a n d d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rules are inferred is n o t m a d e clear. If t h e line A B were t a k e n to r e p r e s e n t t i m e i n s t e a d of distance, t h e n t h e areas of t h e triangle a n d rectangle would r e p r e s e n t distances, a n d b y t h e t r a d i t i o n a l rule for local motion, since twice t h e distance is t r a v e r s e d b y t h e u n i f o r m motion, this m o t i o n would be " t w i c e as quick," or it w o u l d h a v e twice the v e l o c i t y of t h e a c c e l e r a t e d motion. B u t GALILEO t a k e s A B to r e p r e s e n t distance. Thus, " t w i c e as q u i c k l y " m u s t be t a k e n to m e a n " i n half t h e t i m e . " To get t h e d i s t a n c e rule a different d i a g r a m is used which shows t h e distances t r a v e r s e d in equal i n t e r v a l s of time. T h e conclusion follows from t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the distances t r a v e r s e d in equal t i m e s are d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to t h e t o t a l velocities. Since a b o d y m o v i n g u n i f o r m l y t r a v e r s e s an e q u a l distance in half t h e t i m e as t h e b o d y accelerating from rest, t h e former will t r a v e r s e twice t h e distance as t h e l a t t e r in an equal i n t e r v a l of time. T h e d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rule is n o t suggested b y the d i a g r a m for t h e doublev e l o c i t y rule a n d it seems r a t h e r likely t h a t discovery of some such rule was a l r e a d y in GALILEO'S mind. One reason m i g h t be GALILEO'S search for a proof of t h e p a r a b o l i c p a t h of projectiles. 5 W i t h his principle of the p r e s e r v a t i o n (hence independence) of a n y m o t i o n s i m p a r t e d to a b o d y , GALILEO o n l y needed t h e d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rule to calculate t h e h o r i z o n t a l c o o r d i n a t e for corresponding v e r t i c a l fall a n d he w o u l d h a v e t h e p a t h of a projectile. ~ Also, of course, the d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rule promises t h e r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n acc e l e r a t e d a n d u n i f o r m m o t i o n which was w a n t e d in t h e dubito fragment. A b o d y s RAYMOND FREDETTE has examined evidence relating to an experiment reported in a manuscript b y GUIDOBALDO I)EL MONTE (t969, pp. 147--63). I t appears t h a t GUIDOBALDO performed an experiment suggesting the parabolic p a t h some time before 160t and t h a t GALILEO was present. In fact, the experiment described b y GuIDo]3ALDOis very like one GALILEO mentions in the second giornata of the Discorsi. A small metal ball is projected along a hard surface in a nearly upright position. I do not know how accurate a result can be obtained from such an experiment, b u t it seems to have suggested to GUIDOBALDO t h a t the p a t h of a projectile would be a parabola or a hyperbola. GALILEO, of course, knew the p a t h was parabolic b y the time he gave his own description of the experiment. This p a t h will not be parabolic if the incorrect law of fall is assumed. F o r suppose t h a t a b o d y falls along a verticaI ACB and t h a t the velocity acquired at C is to t h a t at B as AC is to AB. I n the time of fM1 along AC the body would traverse a horizontaI p a t h CD equal to twice AC, and in the time along AB it would traverse a p a t h BE equal to twice AB. Then points A, D, and E give the p a t h of the projectile. But this p a t h is a straight line! (See the diagram on p. 227; this diagram m a y have been constructed with this problem in mind.) If, on the other hand, GALILEO were to suppose t h a t the velocities are proportional to the times, and therefore t h a t the velocity at B would be to t h a t at C as the mean proportional between AB and AC, then the projectile would describe a parabola. W e shall see t h a t it was b y reasoning in just this way t h a t GALILEO first derived his propositions on the motion of projectiles (see sections 5.5 and 7.3). Search for the parabolic path, then, m a y well be what lay behind the development of the doubledistance rule and m a y also have led to discovery of the right law of fall.

Galileo's Science of Motion

207

traversing the same distance under acceleration from rest has half as much "motion" (or total velocity) as if it moved uniformly over the whole distance at the m a x i m u m speed acquired under acceleration. The total velocities of two different accelerated motions, that is, acceleration along two differently inclined planes, will be in the same ratio as those of the corresponding uniform motions over the respective planes at the m a x i m u m speeds acquired in acceleration. This must have been a satisfying result, but the problem of the relation between accelerated and uniform motion is not yet solved. As will be seen, GALILEO will encounter some difficulties in further use of the mistaken assumption that in free fall the velocity acquired is directly proportional to distance of fall. We shall examine this problem next.

5.2. Galileo's Erroneous Law o/Fall

The argument on folio t63t assumes that in free fall the velocities increase in proportion to the distance traversed from rest. We know from a letter written to SARPI in 1604 (Opere X, pp. 1t5-t6), that GALILEO held this assumption at that time. Evidence from the manuscript shows that he used it as late as 1608, and there are indications that he still believed in this law for some time after he moved to Florence in t6t0. A fragment which has long been a puzzle to historians is one on folio 85t, in the hand of MARIO GIUDUCCI. I t is, in part, a Latin version of GALILEO'S wellknown a t t e m p t to prove the times-squared theorem from the incorrect law of fall. There is no original b y GALILEO and since the draft on folio 85t was copied by or dictated to a disciple after 1611, it is sometimes thought to be a later version of the a t t e m p t in 1604 to prove the times-squared theorem. The form, however, is not that of a finished proof and the argument as a whole is quite unlike that of any published proposition. I shall quote it in full and then give a paraphrase. Assumo, earn esse cadentis mobilis per lineam AL accelerationem, ut pro ratione spacii peracti crescat velocitas ita, ut velocitas in C a d velocitatem in B sit ut spaeium CA ad spacium BA, etc. Cum autem haec ita se habeant, ponatur AX cum AL angulum continens, sumptisque partibus AB, BC, CD, D E etc. aequalibus, protrahantur BM, CN, DO, E P etc. Si itaque cadentis per AL velocitates in B, C, D, E locis se habent ut distantiae AB, AC, AD, AE etc., ergo se quoque habebunt ut lineae BM, CN, DO, EP. Quia vero velocitas augetur consequenter in omnibus punctis lineae AE, et non t a n t u m in adnotatis B, C, D, ergo velocitates illae omnes sese respicient ut lineae quae ab omnibus dictis punctis lineae AE ipsis BM, CN, DO aequidistanter producuntur. Istae autem in]initae sunt, et constituunt triangulum A E P : ergo velocitates in omnibus punctis lineae AB ad velocitates in omnibus punctis lineae AC ita se habent ut triangulus ABM ad triangulum ACN, et sic de reliquis, hoc est in duplicata proportione linearum AB, AC. Quia vero pro ratione incrementi accelerationis tempora quibus motus ipsi fiunt debent imminui, ergo tempus quo mobile permeat AB ad [empus quo

208 A B

W . L . WIS&N:

cI

Di
E F G

H IJ

~\X

permeat AC erit ut AB linea ad eam quae inter AB, AC media proportionalis existit. (Opere viii, p. 383; fol. 85t, emphasis added)
The first paragraph begins with a statement of the assumption that in the case of a body accelerating along the line AL, the velocities increase in proportion to the distances traversed. There is no statement, general or otherwise, of what is to be proved, and the last paragraph gives a quite informal argument for the mean proportional corollary. This informal structure looks more like a search for a proof than the presentation of a completed proof. The argument is as follows: suppose AX drawn at any angle to AL, and take equal parts AB, BC, CD, DE, etc. along AL. Draw BM, CN, DO, EP, etc., parallel to the horizontal. Since the velocities acquired at the points B, C, D, E, etc. are proportional to the distances AB, AC, AD, AE, etc., they are also proportional, respectively, to BM, CN, DO, EP, etc. But the velocity is increasing not only at the points indicated but at every point along the line AE. These points are infinite and the infinite number of lines from these points constitute the triangle AEP. Therefore, t h e velocities at all the points on the line AB to those at all the points on the line AC are as the triangle ABM to triangle ACN, or as the squares of the lines AB and AC. The argument so far is rigorously mathematical and correct if we accept the assumption that the velocities acquired in free fall are directly proportional to the distances fallen from rest. The concluding paragraph, however, is rhetorical rather than mathematical. Since successive equal increments of acceleration take place in diminishing intervals of time, then the time to traverse AB to the time to traverse AC is said to be as AB to the mean proportional between AB and AC. GALILEO never mistook an argument such as this for a rigorous proof. If it is indeed a copy of a draft by the master himself, it must be an early exploratory draft in which he was searching for a way to construct his proof. It is especially curious that GALILEO should have derived the result that the total velocities are proportional to the squares of the distances traversed. This is inconsistent with the assumptions on which GALILEO based his double-distance rule and he should have realized that there was something wrong with his basic assumption that the acquired velocities are proportional to distance. However, if GALILEO did come to see this, he did not do so very quickly. Around 1609 he set out to prove the result on total velocities as a separate theorem, possibly

Galileo's Science of Motion

209

intending this as the fundamental theorem on accelerated motion (see section 5.4). As we shall see, he stops in the middle of this proof and leaves it incomplete. And, about t h a t time, he seems to be developing an entirely different foundation, based on the Postulate. The draft on folio 85t, then, must be earlier than 1609, even t h o u g h it was copied later. I n fact, the draft on folio 85t appears to be quite early on the basis of linguistic clues. As in the case of folio t63t, absence of the expressions gradus or momenta velocitatis suggests an early stage in the development of the techniques employed. The use of spacia is also suggestive of the earlier rather than the later period, as is tempus quo mobile permeat in the last paragraph. Notice also t h a t beside the diagram there is a vertical line marked S. This line has no function w h a t e v e r in the proof. I t is not mentioned in the a r g u m e n t and there is no apparent reason for it. After we have looked at a few more fragments, we shall see t h a t this vertical line m a y be a geometrical note and t h a t this m a y account for the preservation of folio 85 t a m o n g those fragments which were later copied b y disciples. ~ A n o t h e r reason for supposing folio 85t to have an early origin is to be found in examining GALILEO'S a t t e m p t in 1604 to derive the times-squared theorem. This attempt, in GALILEO'S own h a n d on folio t28, is more complete and elegant, and it is unlikely t h a t the draft on folio 85t is a later revised version. On folio t28, GALILEO begins again in an informal m a n n e r b y discussing his fundamental assumption t h a t the velocities acquired in free fall are proportional to the distance of fall. The a r g u m e n t follows the line of reasoning on folio 85t but is given in more detail, and the conclusion--this time the times-squared theorem itself--is derived b y an erroneous but mathematical argument. The key part of the argument is as follows :s Then the vetocit~ with which the line AD is traversed to the velocit~ with which the line AC is traversed is as the square of AD to the square of AC. A n d since velocit~ to velocit~ has contraria pr@orzione of time to time (for it is the same thing to increase the velocit~ as to decrease the time), then the time of the motion (tempo del moto) on AD is to the time of the motion on AC, as the square root of the distance AD to the distance AC. The distances then from the beginning of the motion (principio del moto), are as the squares of the times, and, dividendo, the spaces passed in equal times are as the odd numbers from unity. Which responds to t h a t which I have always said and con e@erienze osservato; and thus all the truths are in accord. (Opere viii, pp. 373-74; fol. t28) 7 A number of copied pages bear numerals in the upper right corner which suggest a possible ordering, and folio 85t bears the number I a. Several other pages, mostly originals, have tabs pasted on them, which may also indicate an ordering. So far I have not found enough of the number series or tile tabs to suggest a rationale for such orderings, but further attention to these m a y reveal some stages in the development of the final work. s GALILEO wrote this draft in Italian rather than in Latin, the language he uses in most of his notes on motion. He begins with the remark that he supposes, and perhaps can demonstrate, that a naturally falling body continually increases its velocity (velocitY) as the distance from its starting point increases. Thereafter, he uses the expression grado di velocitg for instantaneous speed and la velocit~ con che ha passata la lines for the speed with which a line is traversed. Where he cites the traditional rule for local motion, however, he uses the term velocita, unmodified.

21o

W.L. WlSA~:

We have already seen reason to suspect (from the dubito fragment) that GALILEO m a y have applied the "contrary proportion" rule to velocity and time without observing the restriction to equal distances. Here is an instance that shows GALILEO falling into precisely that error. After finding the total velocities to be proportional to the squares of the distances, he takes the times as being inversely proportional to these velocities, and therefore to the squares of the distances. GALILEO'S result follows only if the total velocity m a y be treated as the speed to which ]3RADWARDINE'Srule for local motion applies and if the difference in the distances is neglected. Apparently, GALILEO was not very familiar with the fourteenth century tradition but took his rules for local motion from the naturally restricted applications which he encountered in his mechanics and in the study of the ratios of speeds (always assumed through the same distances) of bodies falling through different media. Another error, of course, is his assumption that the inverse of a square would be the square root. A good deal has been written about the mistakes in GALILEO'S proof of t 604 (HALL1959; DRAKE t969a, t973). Although DRAKE tries to save GALILEO from the charge of what appear to be inexplicable elementary errors, perhaps the most charitable conclusion is that GALILEO was too deeply engrossed in the larger problem of adapting traditional methods to an entirely new treatment of motion. His effort to provide elegant mathematical proofs in the style of ARCHIMEDES to matter previously dealt with in largely rhetorical terms had led him into new territory where no trail breakers had preceded him. Apparently, GALILEO was aware of some difficulty in his law of fall. During the period between 1604 and t609 he appears to have tried a new proof of the double-distance rule based on the correct law of fall. But this attempt also led to an impasse as the next section will show.

8.3. The Correct Law o/Fall

On folio t 52r, in GALILEO's hand, we find a very curious argument together with a number of obscure notes. In view of the fragmentary nature of tile argument and the notes, any interpretation is necessarily conjectural. However, if, as I suppose, folio t52r exhibits an unsuccessful attempt to use the correct law of fall in a derivation of the fundamental relation between accelerated and uniform motion, a number of puzzles about the subsequent course of GALILEO'S work on foundations can be resolved. The central argument on folio 152 is as follows: Let BA be to AD as DA to AC, and let BE be the gradus velocitatis at B. Let BE be to CF as BA to AD; then CF will be the gradus velocitatis at C. With, then, CA to AD as CF to BE, the square of CA to the square of AD will be as the square of CF to the square of BE; but as the square of CA is to the square of AD, so is CA to AB ; therefore, as CA is to AB, so is the square of CF to the square of BE. Therefore, the points E and F are on a parabola. (Opere VIII, p. 426; fol. t52r) To paraphrase the argument: (t) Let BA/AD = DA/AC, BE = dv (B), and BE/CF = BA/AD AD/AC. (2) Then CF = d r ( C ) .

G a l i l e o ' s Science of M o t i o n

211

!
(3) Also, CA/AD = C F / B E and (CA/An) 2 = (CF/BE) 2.

(4) But (CA/AD)~=CA/AB.

(5) Therefore, (CF/BE) 2 =CA/AB, and the points E, F lie on a parabola. FAVARO takes this fragment to be related to GALILEO'Swork on the motion of projectiles, and at first glance it looks as though it might be an early derivation of the parabolic path. This is possible. But in this case, BE and CF would not represent velocities acquired in fall through AB and AC but the distances traversed with the same horizontal component of velocity in t (AB) and t (AC), respectively. That is, the argument would have to be as follows: (t) Let AB/AD =AD/AC, and let t ( A B ) = A B . (2) Then t (AC) = AD. (3) If a projectile is launched horizontally it will have horizontal and vertical components of motion. (4) Suppose a projectile launched horizontally at A, consider the points B and C in its vertical fall, and find the corresponding points on its trajectory. (5) Suppose that after fall through AB in t ( A B ) = A B , the projectile has traversed the horizontal distance BE. (6) Then after fall through AC in t (AC)=AD, it will have traversed a horizontal distance CF with the same uniform velocity with which it traversed BE. (7) But CF/BE = AD/AB, by Prop. I on uniform motion. (8) Now, (BE/CF)~=(AB/AD)~= (AD/AC)2=AB/AC, from (t) and (7). (9) Therefore, the points E and F lie on a parabola with A as its vertex. What I have outlined is a very crude demonstration of the parabolic path. If, as I~'REDETTE has shown, GALILEO probably knew of the parabolic path as early as 1600, the argument on folio 152 may indeed indicate how he first derived that path. In fact, the method used to develop the entire book on the motion of projectiles, with the sole exception of a more elegant proof of the parabolic path itself, makes use of a line of reasoning similar to that suggested above. Folio t 52, however, may have had a different purpose which may be connected with several scattered notes on that page.

212

W.L.

WISAN:

At the top of the page is (t) 4 miles with 10 of speed in 4 hours, 9 miles with 15 of speed in t ~/?) hours. The last figure cannot be simply a 1 as written, or else the last word cannot be " h o u r s " (hore). However, a mark above a n d to the fight of the 1 m a y be either a two or a three written horizontally. GALILEO often made these numbers in this way. The last number, then, is probably intended to be a 12 or a 13. Thirteen here would make sense as can be seen from (2) through AB speed as 4, through AC speed as t3~. In the second set of notes, the 13 is quite clearly written, which suggests that the obscure number in the last line of (1) m a y be from a first, rough calculation. Before we can see the meaning of (2) we must look at the remaining sets of notes. (3) 4 miles with t5 of speed in 4 8 miles in 8 (4) through AB speed as 10 through AC as t 5 time through AB 4 AB 4 AD 6 BE 20 AC 6 AC 9 CF 30 (6) with one degree of impetus it makes 2 miles per hour (7) with 4 degrees of impetus it will make 8 miles in one hour, and t6 in 2 Note (6) is accompanied b y a diagram that suggests the double-distance rule. The horizontal line from the point B is marked off in such a way as to suggest that the vertical line represents time rather than distance. T h a t is, AB should represent one hour, AC two hours, and so on.
A

(5)

The meaning of (4) and (5) is quite clear. These notes fit with the main argument quoted above, which derived the result that E and F are on a parabola. If AB is four units and AC nine units, then if t (AB) = 4, t (AC) = 6 by the mean proportional corollary. By the correct law of fall, the ratio of the degrees of velocity acquired at B to that acquired at C must be in the ratio of two to three, and thus 20 and 30 for the values of BE and CF would be correct. So also are t0

Galileo's Science of Motion

213

and 15, given in (4). All of these numbers satisfy the formulae for acceleration from rest. They also satisfy GALILEO'S fourth proposition on uniform motion which gives the ratio of velocities in terms of the compound ratio of distances and the reciprocM of the times. T h a t is, V1/V ~ = (D1/D2) (T2/T1), where V i are the speeds, D i the distances, and T i the times. This formula was used in medieval writings on kinematics, but GALILEO does not seem to have had it until after his move to Florence (see section 8). He may, however, have had some such formula in mind when working on folio t52. If so, this will help account for notes (t) and (2). Now we must examine (3). The diagram on folio t52r shows the line AB marked off in four units. The line BD is about two units and AC is about eight units. But according to the figures given in note (5), AC should be nine units. Note (3) seems to assume the distances as constructed and to consider uniform motion with t5 degrees of speed. If 4 miles are traversed in 4 hours, 8 miles are traversed in 8 hours. Suppose, now, that having derived his parabolic p a t h for projectiles in the manner suggested above, which assmnes that velocity of fall is proportional to time, GALILEO then thinks to derive the double-distance rule, or in any event, to investigate the relations between uniform and accelerated motion. He would wish to compare total velocities at uniform motion with those generated b y accelerated motion. To represent the total velocity at uniform motion over the distance AC, with its degrees of velocity equal to the m a x i m u m velocity acquired by acceleration along the same line, one would construct a rectangle having as its base a line representing the m a x i m u m velocity and having the line AC as one side. Suppose the line AC to be eight units and let a body accelerating along AB traverse four miles in four hours. By the law of fall, the velocity acquired at B will be proportional to the time. Let this velocity be represented by BE = 4 . Then, to find the m a x i m u m velocity acquired, that at C, construct CF = m (AB, AC), and draw AEF. The resulting figure appears to be a parabola, and this is confirmed by the argument which has been quoted. If the rectangle representing the total velocity at uniform motion along AC were constructed, the total velocities would be seen to be as 4 to 3. This, of course, contradicts the doubledistance rule and defies intuition. W h a t m a y have gone wrong, of course, is this. GALILEO has made an error induced by the method he is now accustomed to employ. As in the Theorem X sequence, the line AC represents distance rather than time. To get the correct result, CF must be constructed at D, since AD represents time and the velocities are proportional to the times of fall. The remainder of the notes suggest that GALILEO is trying to locate his difficulty. Mentally changing his diagram from 4 and 8 units to 4 and 9, he can check his results b y easy calculations as in (5). Then, perhaps reverting to some vaguely recalled medieval formulas for local motion, GALILEO attempts in (t) to see what the times must be if he assumes 4 and 9 for the distances and t0 and t5 for the speeds. If he did not know the correct formula at this time (which is most likely the case), he might have tried a somewhat different one, for example, V1/V2 = (D1/D2)(T1/T2), or T~/T2 = (D1/D2)(V~/V2).

2t4

W . L . WISAN :

If D1/D ~ is t a k e n to be 4]9, a n d V1]V 2 or T1/T 2 t a k e n in t u r n as 2]3, w i t h T 1 or V 1 t a k e n to be 4, t h e unknown, T 2 or V~ comes out t3~. Here, then, is t h e m y s t e r i o u s t3 in (2) a n d quite possibly t h e last n u m b e r in (t). 9 T h e difficulty does n o t a p p e a r to h a v e been discovered a t this time. H a v i n g accomplished so m u c h b y a b a n d o n i n g t h e s e p a r a t e t i m e line a n d l e t t i n g lines in t h e d i a g r a m r e p r e s e n t b o t h t i m e a n d distance, GALILEO was n o t y e t r e a d y to e x t r a c t a s e p a r a t e line for distances a n d let t h e v e r t i c a l AC r e p r e s e n t times only. H e therefore a b a n d o n e d t h e a t t e m p t to use t h e correct law of fall a n d b e g a n to w o r k on some propositions on u n i f o r m m o t i o n from which he w o u l d establish T h e o r e m I l l b y m e a n s of a new m e t h o d . B y a6t0, however, GALILEO was deriving propositions on t h e m o t i o n of projectiles from t h e correct law t h a t v e l o c i t y increases w i t h time. P e r h a p s a b o u t this time, he reviewed his earlier proofs of t h e t i m e s - s q u a r e d t h e o r e m a n d t h e m e a n p r o p o r t i o n a l corollary on folia 128 a n d 85t, realized t h e error in his m e t h o d on folio t52, a n d d r e w t h e line S on t h e original of folio 85t as a geometrical n o t e showing t h a t t h e line r e p r e s e n t i n g space t r a v e r s e d m u s t be s e p a r a t e d from t h e line r e p r e s e n t i n g t i m e of fall. Thus, in T h e o r e m I on a c c e l e r a t e d motion, where we see t h e p r o b l e m of f o u n d a t i o n s finally resolved, t h e r e is a line CD to one side of t h e d i a g r a m a n d t h e v e r t i c a l in t h e d i a g r a m itself represents only time. Possibly, t h e original d r a f t from which folio 85t was l a t e r (presumably) copied, c o n t a i n e d o t h e r writing which bore on t h e l a t e r proof of T h e o r e m I. l I n a n y event, t h e line S, i n d i c a t i n g w h a t m u s t be 9 DRAKE suggests a very different reconstruction for folio 152. In fact, he believes t h a t it reveals the way in which GALILEO discovered the times-squared law. GALILEO, DRAKE suggests, was seeking " a general rule of proportionality for uniform growth of distances, times, and speeds" (1973, p. 89), and he discovered the times-squared relation b y having accidentally selected the square numbers 4 and 9 for distances. For, " t o the mind of any mathematician of the time, continued proportion was immediately suggested b y the squares of two integers" (ibid.). Thus, GALILEO " e n t e r e d the point D on his vertical line six units distant from A just because it created a continued proportion Ebetween 4 and 9]," and this led him to a new working hypothesis out of which the times-squared relation emerged. However, it can easily be seen from the diagram, which DRAKE reproduces in facsimile (ibid., p. 84), t h a t if AB = 4, then AC ~ 7.8, and AD = 5.6. The point I), then, did indeed m a r k the mean proportional between AB and AC, b u t GALILEO'S "working hypothesis" had to be one in which AB = 4 and AC = 8, at most. The mean proportional between 4 and 8 is 5.66. DRAKE'S reconstruction is seriously weakened b y this point, and there are a number of other difficulties in his argument. To mention only one: close examination of the number in (1), which he takes to be a a rather than a 1, shows his reading to be unlikely. The link DRAKE suggested between folia 152 and 128 raises some interesting questions. Apparently referring only to the first occurrence of the term velocit~ on folio t28 (see m y n.8, above), DRAKE assumes t h a t for GALILEO this term means w h a t we mean t o d a y b y the square of the instantaneous velocity, whereas gradus velocitatis on folio 152 means instantaneous velocity. He then argues t h a t the two different assumptions are mathematically consistent, and he is thus able to legitimize GALILEO'S assumption t h a t velocit~ is proportional to distance. But how can he explain the use of grado di velociti~ elsewhere on folio i28 ? And how are we to interpret the total velocity (velocit~ con che ha passata la linea) which is proportional to the distances squared ? 10 If the draft on folio 85t had been copied from an earlier version b y GALILEO, the line S might have reference to a cancelled note on the original.

Galileo's Science of Motion

215

done to the earlier method of proof, may well be at least part of the reason why the original draft of the proof on folio 85t was kept with material to be copied later, whereas the more polished proof of the times-squared theorem on folio 128 was never copied. The next two sections will show how, around t608, GALILEO returned to his incorrect law of fall in a demonstration of Theorem III, and how, in t609, he intended to ground the treatise in his Postulate and his dynamic principle. 5.4. Theorem H I In section 4.4, I considered how GALILEO might have inferred that the times of descent along planes having equal heights are proportional to the lengths of the planes, and I argued that he may have reached this conclusion by reasoning from the old De motu theorem. Since GALILEO'S demonstration of the De motu theorem assumed that motion is "naturally" uniform, this might account for the confusion exhibited in the dubito fragment. Doubts about the validity of the third theorem on accelerated motion would then explain why this theorem was not among GALILEO'S earliest tools. The first proof of this theorem which appears in the manuscript is on folio t63t, immediately after the double-distance rule and before the corollaries to that rule. This is odd. There is no apparent relation between the demonstration of the double-distance rule and that which establishes Theorem III. The latter is as follows: Tempus casus per planum inclinatum ad temtSus casus per lineam suae altitudinis est ut eiusdem plani longitudo ad longitudinem suae altitudinis. Sit planum inclinatum BA ad lineam orizontis AC, sitque linea altitudinis perpendicularis BC: dico, tempus casus quo mobile movetur per BA ad tempus in quo cadit per BC esse ut BA ad BC. Erigatur perpendicularis ad orizontem ex A, quae sit AD, cui occurrat in D perpendicularis ad AB ducta ex B, quae sit BD, et circa triangulum ABD circulus describatur: et quia DA, BC ambae sunt ad orizontem perpendiculares, constat, tempus casus per DA ad tempus casus per BC esse ut media inter DA et BC ad ipsam BC. Tempus autem casus per DA aequatur tempori casus per BA: media veto inter DA et BC est ipsa BA: ergo patet propositum. (Opere viii, pp. 384-85; emphasis added) This proof may be paraphrased as follows: (1) Let AD be the vertical diameter of a circle through points A and B. (2) Then t (DA) -----t(BA) by the law of chords. (3) Also, t (AD)/t (BC) = m (AD, BC)/BC, by Cor. 2. D

A
5 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. 13

2t6

w . L . WISAN: (4) But BA = m (AD, BC) by elementary geometry. (5) Therefore, t (AD)/t (BC) = t (BA)/t (BC) = BA/BC.

A corollary establishes that t (BE)/t (BA) -----BE]BA. The proof depends on the corollary on mean proportionals and Theorem VI. Apparently, GALILEOwas satisfied with his proofs of these fundamental propositions and so sought to use them in demonstrating Theorem III. The language and method used suggest that of the Theorem X sequence, from which we may infer that the proof is not long after 1604. B y this time, of course, GALILEO had at least three proofs of Theorem VI, those on folla t 5t r, 160r, and 172r. He also had the demonstration of the times-squared theorem on folio t28, and probably the original version of folio 85t, indicating how the corollary on mean proportionals might be demonstrated, A short time after this, probably in t608, we find GALILEO working on an entirely different proof of Theorem III. The new proof depends on the Postulate, on a proposition from ARCHIMEDES on uniform motion, and on a corollary to this which GALILEO derived but never published. The propositions on uniform motion and the associated demonstration of Theorem III reveal an attempt by GALILEO to rework his foundation using ARCI-IIMEDEAN methods rather than those of the medievals, which were used to establish the times-squared theorem on folio 128. Although the revised proof of Theorem III actually depends on the Postulate and not on the incorrect law of fall, GALILEO appears to confuse the two. A long and repetitious statement of the erroneous law suggests that after the unsuccessful attempt on folio t 52 to use the correct law, GALILEO returned to his earlier principle that velocity increases with distance. Let us examine GALILEO'S theorems on uniform motion and the new proof for Theorem III. GALILEO'S first proposition on uniform motion says that: If a moving particle, carried uniformly at a constant speed, traverses two distances the time-intervals required are to each other in the ratio of these distances31 (Opere VIII, p. t92; Crew, p. 155) An early draft of this proposition is found in the manuscript on folio t38r in what appears to be GALILEO'S own hand. The writing is characteristic of the Paduan period, but the language used is that of the period in which GALILEO'S terminology seems to have more or less stabilized. Thus, folio 138 must be after the early Theorem X fragments and is probably close to 1609. The first two paragraphs exhibit the language used. Si mobile aequabiliter latum duo pertranseat spacia, erunt tempora lationnm inter se ut spacia peracta.

Pertranseat enim mobile aequabiliter latum eadem duo spacia AB, BC, et sit tempus motus ex A in B, DE; tempus vero lationis per BC esto E F : dico, ut spacium AB ad spacium BC, ita esse tempus DE ad tempus EF. (Opere VIII,
p. t92, t92n; emphasis added) 11 Compare with Theorem I of ARCHIMEDES'On Spirals.

Galileo's Science of M o t i o n

217

Tempora la~ionum, tempus lationis, and peracta are forms characteristic of many later propositions and the published versions of earlier ones. On the other hand, tempus motus is relatively rare in later propositions and spacia, as has been remarked, seems to be the early spelling of spatia. A second proposition (never published), on the tergo of folio t38, establishes that if two bodies move through two different spaces which are divided into parts so that in any pair of corresponding spaces the motions are equal and uniform, then as all the parts of the first space are to all the parts of the second so are all the times in the first to all the times in the second. With this second proposition, GALILEO is ready to attempt his new proof of Theorem III on accelerated motion. ~ The exact language and method used are significant and so this fragment will be quoted in full, followed by a paraphrase of the steps in the proof.
Si in perpendiculo et in piano inclinato, quorum eadem sit altitudo, feratur idem mobile, tempora lationum erunt inter s e u t plani inclinati et perpendiculi longitudines. Sint ad planum orizontis CB perpendiculus A B e t planum inclinatum AC, quorum eadem sit altitudo, nempe ipsa perpendicularis AB, et per ipsa descendat idem mobile: dico, tempus lationis per AB ad tempus lationis per AC esse ut longitudo AB ad longitudinem AC. Cum enim assumptum sit, in naturali descensu velocitatis momenta, continue augeri secundum rationem elongationis perpendicularis a linea orizontali, in qua fuit lationis initium, constat quod, producta linea orizontali AM, quae ipsi BC erit paralMa, sumptisque in perpendiculo AB qnotcumque punctis E, G, I, L, et per ipsa ductis paralMis orizonti ED, GF, IH, LK, erit mobilis per AB momentum seu gradus velocitatis in puncto E idem cure gradu velocitatis lati per AC in puncto D, cure punctorum E, D eadem sit distanzia perpendicularis ab orizonte AM: et similiter concludetur, in punctis F, G idem esse velocitatis momentum, et rursus in punctis H, I, et K, L e t C, B. (Et quia velocitas semper intenditur pro ratione elongationis a termino A, constat, in latione AB tot esse velocitatis gradus seu momenta diversa, quot sunt in eadem linea AB puncta magis ac magis a termino A distantia; quibus totidem in linea AC respendent Esic~, et per parallelas lineas determinantur, in quibus iidem sunt gradus velocitatis.) Sunt igitur in linea AB quasi innumera quaedam spaciola, quibus multitudine quidem aequalia, et secundum eandem rationem respondentia, 1~ alia signantur in AC per lineas innumeras parallelas ex punctis lineae AB ad linam AC extensas; 14 suntque in singulis binis sibi respondentibus iidem velocitatis gradus. Ergo, ex praecedenti, tempora omnia simnl sumpta lationum omnium per AB, ad tempora omnia similiter accepta lationum omnium per AC, eandem
1~ I a m i n d e b t e d t o STILLMAN DRAKE for p o i n t i n g o u t t h e c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n

the proposition on folio t 38t and that on folio 179r.

t5"

218

W.L. WISAN: habebunt rationem quam spacia omnia lineae AB ad spacia omnia linae AC; hoc autem idem est, ac tempus casus per AB ad tempus casus per AC esse ut linea AB ad AC: quod erat demonstrandum. (Opere I I I . pp. 387-88)

Besides the two marginal insertions noted, there is another which is to be placed in the third paragraph between momenta and continue. This reads as follows : M --& ,G
I

/K/. C

t. B

eadem semper reperiri in punctis aequaliter ab orizonte distantibus iuxta perpendiculares distantias. T h a t is, the same momenta velocitatis is acquired at points equally distant from the horizontal: this is, of course, GALILEO's Postulate. The underlined passage beginning with continue says that the velocities increase continuously in proportion to the vertical distance of descent; this obviously assumes the erroneous law of fall. Similarly, the second underlined passage begins with the statement that the velocities increase in proportion to the vertical distance from the point A. I t has generally been assumed that one or both of the underlined passages are to be deleted (Opere V I I I , p. 388; DRAKE t970, p. 24; GEYMONAT& CARUGO 1958, pp. 873-74). In fact, neither is struck out and it is not at all evident that the marginal insertion quoted above is intended to replace the underlined passage beginning with continue. In fact, there is a manuscript copy in ARRIGI~ETTI'S hand which shows the marginal passage assuming the Postulate included in the text and tile underlined passages retained without the parentheses about the second one. 15 The decision to delete the underlined passages assuming the erroneous law of fall, if this is what GALILEO'S markings indicate, cannot have been made until after ARRIGttETTI'S copy, hence some time after GALILEO moved to Florence. The steps in the proof proceed in the same way whether or not the velocity is assumed to be proportional to the distance, for it is enough to assume the Postulate. The proof m a y be paraphrased as follows. (t) Take any number of points E, G, I, L, along AB, and from these points construct lines parallel to the horizontal and intersecting AC at points D, F, H, K, respectively. 13 A marginal note indicates that bina sumpt~ is to be inserted between et and secundum. 14 Another marginal note indicates that after extensas the following should be inserted: "(intercepta enim spacia AD, DF, FFI, etc. ad spacia AE, EG, GI, etc. respondent singula singulis secundum rationem AC ad AB)." 15 See (Opere VIII, p. 3aS) and folio 88. FAVARO does not note these differences between the original and the copy.

Galileo's Science of Motion

219

(2) Then m v (AE) = m v (AD), m v (AG) = m y (AF), etc., for each pair of corresponding points. (3) We have, then, quasi innumera small spaces along AB which correspond one to one with those along AC, and the degrees of velocity are the same at corresponding points. (4) Therefore, from the preceding (propositions?) all the times of all the motions along AB, taken together, are to all the times of all the motions along AC as all the spaces along AB are to all the spaces along AC. GALILEO argues for step (2) at great length and in such manner as to suggest that he does not distinguish between his incorrect law of fall and the Postulate. This would explain the persistence of the former at a time when GALILEO had probably already derived the correct law. If he identified the erroneous law with the Postulate, he would not be quick to assume it invalid. If bothered by an inconsistency, he m a y have thought he had here another paradox, eventually to be resolved in some unexpected fashion. Step (3) establishes a one-to-one correspondence between spaces along AC and along AB cut off b y parallel lines. In step (4), referring to a "preceding proposition," GALILEO " t a k e s together all the times of all the motions along A B " and "all the times of all the motions along A C " and gets a ratio of the time along AB to that along AC. The preceding proposition must be the unpublished proposition on uniform motion cited above. GALILEO assumes, then, that the quasi innumera spaciola between the innumera parallels remain finite and that the motion can be considered as though uniform over such finite spaces. He later abandons this argument for a new proof which depends only on showing that there is a one-toone correspondence between the momenta velocitatis along AB and along AC. In the later proof he concludes: If, now, we imagine that we have conducted not only these parallels, but those from all the points of the line AB to the line AC, the moments or degrees of velocity at the ends of each of the parallels are always equal among themselves. A D

F C M B

Therefore, the two spaces AC and AB are completed with the same degrees of velocity. But it is demonstrated that if two spaces are completed b y a body moved with the same degrees of velocity, the ratio of the spaces is the same as that of the times; therefore, the time of the motion along AC to the time along AB is as the length of the plane AC to the length of the perpendicular AB. Quod erat demonstrandum. (Opere V I I I , pp. 215-t 7)

220

W.L. WISAN:

The demonstration referred to c a n 0nly be GALILEO'S first proposition on uniform motion applied here to acceleration. That the argument made does not depend upon Theorem I on accelerated motion 16 is made clear by the fact that SAGREDO is allowed to suggest such a proof. He points out that the sums of the accelerated motions along AB and AC are in both cases the same as that of a uniform motion whose degree of velocity would be one half the maximum degree. 1~ Then, since AC and AB are traversed with the same uniform motion, it is clear from the first proposition of the first book (and SAGRE30 cites this proposition explicitly) that the times are as the spaces. If SAGREDO'Sargument were that on which the proof in the Latin text depended, there would be no point in offering it as another way of reaching the same conclusion. The Latin text, then, does not depend on Theorem I but is an unambiguous case in which GALILEO applies a rule for uniform motion to acceleration where this application is not formally justified. In the published text GALILEO carefully defines uniform motion So that the rules for uniform motion cannot be applied to accelerated motion except through Theorem I. GALILEOtakes great pains to define uniform motion as one in which the distances traversed during any equal intervals of time are equal. This stipulation eliminates the possibility of using the rules for uniform motion for the case of average or total velocity. Yet, the habit of thinking exhibited in the published proof of Theorem I n is deeply ingrained, harking back to GALILEO'Searly study of mechanics. As will be argued later, the proof of the double-distance rule in the Dialogo makes precisely the same assumption. Still, there are signs that GALILEO was unsatisfied with this argument and tried to justify his results by a different line of reasoning. In section 8 we shall see h o w the Substitution of Theorem I for the double-distance rule m a y have been made in order to eliminate the necessity of assuming the proportionalities between distance, time, and velocity, which are established by the rules for uniform motion. The language of folio 179r is similar to that of folio t38r, and it is reasonable to suppose that these drafts belong to the same period of activity. At this time, GALILEO seems to be trying to treat uniformly accelerated motion as though it were uniform and it is possibly due to the influence of ARCHIMEDES'propositions on uniform motion that GALILEO develops his book on uniform motion instead of attempting to establish these fundamental propositions for a more general concept of speed. Also, about this time, GALILEO seems to have given up his demonstration of the times-squared theorem, which he made in t604. Evidence for this is found on the tergo of folio 179, where there is an interrupted demonstration of the rule that the total velocity is proportional to the square of the distance. Apparently, GALILEO thought to establish this as a fundamental theorem on acceleration but then changed his mind. The fragment is as follows: le Which establishes that a body moving with uniformly accelerated motion may be treated as though it were moving uniformly at its average speed. 1T SAGREDO'Sargument depends on the Postulate and the one-to-one correspondence between the points on the two lines. It is not the case, as CLAVBLI assumed (1968, p. 368), that the Postulate is not used in this alternate proof. In the next section we shall find even more extensive use of the Postulate.

Galileo's Science of Motion

221

Si in linea naturalis descensus a tSrincipio lationis sumantur duae distantiae inaequales, momenta velocitatis cure quibus mobile permeat illas distantias sunt inter se in duplicata proportione ipsarum distantiarum. A

Sit linea naturalis descensus AB, in qua ex princi#io lationis A sumantur duae distantiae AC, AD: dico, momenta vdocitatis cure quibus mobile permeat AD, ad momenta velocitatis cum quibus permeat AC, esse in duplicata proportione distantiarum AD, AC. Ponatur linea AE ad AB quemlibet angulmn continens ... (015ere v i i i , p. 380; fol. t79t, emphasis added) The fragment breaks off and is covered over b y an altogether different proposition. The language used in the unfinished note suggests that it must have been composed about the same time as the demonstration of Theorem I I I on tile recto. GALILEO must have thought to prove the times-squared theorem agMn, much as on folio 128, but in a more formal manner. W h y did he change his mind ? I t cannot be supposed that the difficulty was with the law of fall which is used in Theorem I I I . Nor is there any indication that GALILEO was yet aware of any difficulty with his concept of total velocity. Possibly, his work on the basic rules for local motion had led him to see the elementary error he had made in using the rule that velocity is inversely proportional to time. However, the few clues to a change in his thinking, which are to be found in the terms he used, point to a fresh concern with the Postulate and the meaning of momento. In the proof of Theorem I I I on folio t 79r, GALILEOstipulates that it is for the same body (idem mobile) that the result is to follow. In the course of the proof he uses the expression gradus seu momenta velocitatis. In the abortive demonstration on the reverse we find that the velocities at all the points of the line have become the momenta velocitatis with which the distances are traversed. This last expression will suggest the development of GALILEO'S dynamic principle and a new foundation for his treatise (see next subsection). The unfinished demonstration on folio 179t is covered over with a new statement of an old proposition.

Momenta gravitatis einsdem mobilis super plano inclinato et in perpendiculo permutatim respondent longitudini et elevationi eiusdem plani.
Sit ad orizontem AB planum inclinatum CA, in quo sumatur quodcumque puncture C, et demissa perpendicularis ad orizontem CB sit plani CA altitudo

222

W . L . WISAN:

seu elevatio: dico, momentum gravitatis mobilis D super plano CA ad totale suum momentum in perpendiculo CB esse ut altitudo CB ad eiusdem plani longitudinem CA. Id autem in mecanicis probatum est. (Opere viii, p. 376; fol. t79t, emphasis added) This, of course, is the principle of the inclined plane, or the De motu theorem, restated in terms of momenta gravitatis. At this point, then, GALILEO seems to have returned to his earlier mechanics and the Postulate and to have attempted to rebuild the foundations of his treatise on motion without recourse to the methods he began to use around t604. The language used on folio 179r reflects this change. The Postulate, moreover, is linked to the concept of momenta and its application is thought to be restricted to consideration of the same body. Some light on the reasoning behind GALILEO'SPostulate will be shed through examination of another fragment and a letter written to GALILEO by LUCA VALERIO in t609.

5.5. The Foundation o~ 1609

GALILEO wrote to VALERIO,in a letter now lost, asking his opinion of two principles and a theorem. VALERIO'S answer is confused, but it may be interpreted in the light of a fragment in GALILEO'S manuscript. This fragment gives a new proof of the De motu theorem. Let ABC be the plane o/the horizon, from which the lines DB and DA form two inclined planes: I say, that the same body moves more slowly along DA than along DB, according to the ratio between the lengths of DA and DB.

If, in fact, one erects at B a perpendicular to the horizon, BE, and at D draws D E perpendicular to BD, meeting BE in E; then, circumscribe a circle about the triangle BDE, which will be tangent to AC at B, from which draw BF parallel to AD, and complete FD. It is clear that the slowness along FB is similar to the slowness along AD. But since a body moves over DB and FB in the same time, it is clear that the speeds (velocitates) along DB are to the speeds along FB as DB is to FB, since the two bodies, departing from points D and F, always require equal times to traverse (peregerint) portions of the lines DB and FB which are proportional to the whole lines DB and FB.
But since the angle BFD in the portion [of the circle] is equal to the angle DBA to the tangent, while the angle DBF is equal to the alternate angle BDA, the triangles BDF and ABD are equiangular, and as BD is to BF, so is AD to DB. Therefore, as AD is to DB, so is the speed (velocitas) along DB to the speed along AD, and, consequently, the slowness along AD to the slowness along DB. If we assume this (Si hoe sumatur), we can demonstrate the rest (reliqua). Therefore, one assumes that the speed of the motion augments or diminishes according to the proportion with which the momenta of gravity augment or diminish; and since we know that the momenta gravitatis of the same body on the plane DB are to the momenta on plane DA as the length DA to the length DB, then the velocity along DB is to the velocity along DA, as DA is to DB. (Opere viii, pp. 378-79; fol. 172t)

Galileo's Science of Motion

E

223

~
/

By the law of chords, a body traverses DB and FB in the same time. GALILEO further assumes that two bodies departing from D and F at the same instant will, in any equal intervals of time, traverse portions of DB and FB which are proportional to the whole lines. Inclusion of this remark and use of speed in the plural to refer to motion along a given line show that GALILEOis thinking of the motions as accelerated. If the times are equal, then by the old medieval rule the velocities are proportional to the distances traversed. This gives the result that the speeds along DB and FB are proportional to the distances DB and FB. By elementary geometry, DB/FB = A D / D B , and the speeds are proportional to tile distances AD and DB. Then, GALILEO argues, the speed along FB is "similar" to that along AD, which is parallel to FB, so that the speed along DA is to that along DB as DB is to DA, which is, of course, the De motu theorem, or, rather, its immediate corollary. Now, however, the motions are accelerated. But vdocitas is neither average nor instantaneous velocity. It is quickness in the sense that that which is quicker is that which traverses greater space in the same time. To compare qnicknesses GALILEO compares distances traversed in the same time. Interpreted as acceleration, his result is perfectly correct. The last paragraph is obscure; but it clearly gives another argument for the De motu theorem, this time from tile principle of tile inclined plane as stated on folio t79t (see section 5.4). The language of folio t72t suggests the emergence of GALILEO'S own dynamic principle, is Use of the plural form momenta indicates that the " m o m e n t of gravity" is something that increases along a given plane. Moreover, the implication is that it is the " m o m e n t " due to heaviness that is increasing. Later GALILEOwill speak only of momenta velocitatis, but here velocitas is distinct from, albeit proportional to, the momenta gravitatis. Thus, GALILEO must be thinking here in terms of an increasing velocity which is, at each instant, proportional to an increasing momentum, while the latter is, in turn, generated by and in some sense proportional to, the static momentum, or the effective weight of the body. If so, GALILEO's analysis would be close to that of BURIDAN (CLAGETT 1959, p. 525) and consistent with the peripatetic principle that a constant force generates a constant velocity. This interpretation will be strengthened by examination of the argument in VALERIO'S letter. Before proceeding with the letter, however, it should be remarked that GALILEO'S De motu theorem does not say that the velocities generated are proportional to the angles of inclination, but that they are inversely proportional to planes of the same height. But in GALILEO'Sdiscussions of the De motu theorem is See section 2.4, n. 15, above.

224

W.L. WISAN:

or the principle of the inclined plane he often begins with a diagram such as that below and remarks that the speeds increase according to the elevation of the planes. Thus, his language when speaking of the variation of speed with inclination is ambiguous and may have caused some of the confusion in VALERIO'S letter. The above considerations will help us in understanding VALERIO'S comments. VALERIO begins his letter by assuring GALILEO that his propositions are clear enough as principles of a middle science (scienza di mezo). For such a science, he adds, the principles need not be immediately evident (sodis[accino in prima vista) to one without training in the higher sciences. Apparently, then, GALILEO was concerned because his principles were not as evident as he should have liked. VALERIO goes on to say that they can be substantiated by a "metaphysical" argument: if one multiplies the force of a "sufficient" cause, then one multiplies the force of the effect according to the same proportion. Using this rule, VALERIO then recapitulates GALILEO'S argument: Therefore, if the impeto or inclination of the weigl~t of the body A on the plane inclined to the horizontal according to the angle B, is supposed to be double the impeto of the weight of the same A on the plane inclined to the horizontal according to the angle C, greater than the angle B ; a n d such two diverse impeti are generated (nascono) b y the weight of A, limited to the production of the different impeto by the different inclinations of the planes; one sees, as an immediate consequence, that the velocity of the natural motion of A on the plane less inclined will be double the velocity of the motion of the same A on the other more inclined. Therefore, the vigor of the immediate cause of the double velocity, that is, the impeto or the inclination to double velocity, must be double the inclination to the half velocity, according to the greater inclination of the other plane. (Opere X, pp. 225-26; my translation from the Italian) A

I/ J
E
gf

J
0
t

The letter contains no diagram; VALERIO must be referring to a diagram in GALILEO'S lost letter. According to VALERIO'S analysis, this diagram must show two planes, one inclined to the horizontal at an angle B and the other at an angle C, greater than angle B. Then the impeto along the first plane (at a lesser angle) is double that along the second. This, of course, is absurd. GALILEOalways makes it clear that the impeto is greater along the more steeply inclined plane. Also, VALERIO makes the impeti along the planes inversely proportional to the angles which the planes make with the horizontal, whereas GALILEOwould make the impeti inversely proportional to lengths of planes having the same height. VALERIO'S account is obviously confused. Yet, according to his analysis, the velocities are proportional to impeti which are generated along the different

Galileo's Science of Motion

225

planes, and the impeti are said to be generated by the weight (gravitd). This sounds very much like the fragment quoted above. In the fragment, however, GALILEO makes tile momenta gravitatis and the velocities inversely proportional to the lengths of the planes. If this is what he wrote VALERIO,how could it have been so misunderstood ? The answer may be as follows. Perhaps GALILEObegan with his usual diagram showing planes inclined at different angles, such as the one just above. What he wished to make evident is the way in which the impeti are generated along a given plane in proportion to the effective weight of the body on that plane, and that the velocities are proportional to the impeti. This is the fundamental principle; the rule that these impeti are inversely proportional to the lengths of planes having the same height is not part of the principle, but is a consequence of it. GALILEO may have given this rule rhetorically, saying only that the impeti are proportional to the planes inter se permutalim (an expression which GALILEO commonly uses to express inverse proportionality). Now, the diagram suggests that the impeti are proportional to the angles of the planes as in CARDANO,and VALERIO may assume that this is what GALILEOintends. 19But GALILEO'Smention of an inverse proportionality suggests to VALERIO that he must be thinking in terms of the angle with the vertical, which, as we have seen, was a common usage. Possibly VALERIO himself was more accustomed to thinking in such terms. Perhaps then he considers GALILEO'S principle translated into these terms, sees that it is sound, and then gives his own version using a concrete example where the impeto of the weight on BE is twice that on CE, but the angle which BE makes with tile vertical is half that made by CE. In composing his reply, however, he looks at GALILEO'S diagram and refers the inclination of the planes to the horizontal, while still thinking in terms of the vertical. I conjecture then that in his letter to VALERIO,GALILEOattempted to explain the ideas obscurely expressed on folio 179t, and that VALERIO misunderstood. GALILEO then presented an argument for his Postulate, and this is probably reflected quite accurately in VALERIO'S discussion. The next paragraph reads as follows: 20 The second supposition seems to me no less clear than the first: since the motion of the heavy body D, moved along AC to the horizontal BC, is composed of two rectilinear motions, one along a parallel to BC, mobile verso la BC, and the other along a perpendicular to the horizontal, it is clear that when the body D reaches the point C, it will have acquired as much impeto, or inclination to move itself swiftly (velocemente), as is the quantity of the effect (the quantity of the effect, I say, being that part of the composite motion which takes place along the perpendicular, and which is equal to that
~9 Both FAVARO and CAVERNI suggest diagrams which are in accord with VALERIO'S assumption (Opere X, p. 225; CAVERNI 1895, p. 355), but these are of little use in reconstructing GALILEO'S argument. 2o The diagram given by FAVARO is similar to that of CAVERNI (1895, p. 367), which is taken from the one in the manuscript where GALILEO again states that the "momenta gravitatis eiusdem mobilis super plano inclinato et in perpendiculo permutatim respondent longitudini et elevationi eiusdem plani" (Opere VIII, p. 376, fol. 179t, GALILEO'S hand).

226

W. L. WISAN:

along AB), as much having been acquired as if D were moved solely along the perpendicular AB: and this I say in view of (in vigore) the above-mentioned metaphysical principle. (Opere X, p. 226; m y translation from the Italian) This is clearly GALILEO'S Postulate: a body acquires as much impeto at the point C as at the point B. VALERIO assumes GALILI~O'Sprinciple that there is no resistance to motion along the horizontal, but that the total resistance is along the vertical and that the entire effective force acting on the body is directed along that vertical. Then, assuming the dynamic principle that the impeto generated is directly proportional to this force, the body must acquire equal impeti, that is, equal velocities, after descending through equal vertical distances. This analysis is so close to that which accompanies a proof of the Postulate in a posthumous scholium that it is very likely a reflection of GALILEO's own thought (Opere viii, pp. 2t4-19). But the analysis suggests that free fall is directly proportional to absolute weight, a proposition GALILEO disproved in his early De motu antiquiora. As SETTLE has pointed out, however, stipulation of the same body allows GALILEO to evade the question whether acceleration is related to absolute or specific weight. In the first giornata of the Discorsi GALILEO has a proof that all bodies fall with the same speed, and there is evidence that he considered this proposition even before he left Padua (see section 3, n. 4, on folio t47r). But there were numerous difficulties in GALILEO'S attempt to extend his mechanics to include a science of accelerated motion. ~1 In particular, the question of what caused acceleration plagued him to the end of his life, for this question is crucial to the development of a foundation for the new science. Apparently, then, he began with the principle of the inclined plane and traditional rules for local motion to derive the law of chords and its consequences. Then, encountering a puzzle over the relation between accelerated and uniform motion, GALILEO began to use some concepts and techniques which m a y be found in fourteenth century kinematics. However, he was unable to get a satisfactory demonstration of tile times-squared theorem and an early attempt to use the correct law of fall led to difficulties. So he returned to his mechanical foundation to ground the Postulate, from which he could derive Theorem I I I . From this 21 See, especially, SETTLE (1966, Ch. V) for an analysis of a number of these difficulties. SETTLE draws on several of GALILEO'Sworks to show how he attempted to use his concept of momento as a unifying principle for his mechanics and his science of motion. The way in which the term momento is used in the proof of Theorem I I I and appears in the unfinished fragment on folio i 79t (and elsewhere) lends support to SET'rLE'S analysis. My study also corroborates SETTLE'Sview that GALILEOreached an impasse in his attempt to develop a unified mechanics and that this involved the incorrect law of fall. I focus more on the Postulate, but these propositions may not have been entirely distinguished in GALILEO'Smind at this time.

Galileo's Science of Motion

227

theorem and the law of chords he could then derive the times-squared theorem as it appears on folio t47r (see section 4.4). But this foundation does not yield the double-distance rule, which is essential in derivation of propositions on the motion of projectiles. In the next section we shall see that after tile move to Florence GALILEO did manage a rather loose demonstration of the double-distance rule from Theorem I I I and the mean proportional corollary. However, b y 1609 he must already be using the double-distance rule and the correct law of fall to derive his earliest results on projectiles. Moreover, we find a proof of the law of fall, based on the double-distance rule, which cannot be dated later than 1610. The argument is on folio 91t in GALILEO'S hand. In motu ex quiete eadem ratione intenditur velocitatis m o m e n t u m et tempus ipsius motus. Fiat motus enim per AB ex quiete in A, et accipiatur quodlibet puncture C; et ponatur, AC esse tempus casus per AC, et m o m e n t u m celeritatis in C acquisitae esse pariter ut AC, sumaturque rursus quodlibet punctum B: dico, tempus casus per AB ad tempus per AC esse ut m o m e n t u m velocitatis in B ad m o m e n t u m in C. Sumatur AS media inter BA, AC; et cum positum sit, tempus casus per AC esse AC, erit AS tempus per AB: demonstrandum igitur est, m o m e n t u m celeritatis in Cad m o m e n t u m caeleritatis [sic] in B esse ut AC ad AS. Sumantur orizontales CD, dupla ad CA, BE vero dupla ad BA: constat, ex demonstratis, cadens per AC, conversum in orizonte CD, conficere CD motu aequabili aequali tempore atque ipsa confecit motu accelerato naturaliter AC; et similiter, BE confici eodem tempore atque AB: sed tempus ipsius AB est AS: ergo orizontalis BE conficitur tempore AS. Fiat ut tempus SA ad tempus AC, ita EB ad BL; cumque motus per BE sit aequabilis, erit spacium BL peractum tempore AC secundum m o m e n t u m celeritatis in B : sed secundum m o m e n t u m caeleritatis [sic] in C, eodem tempore AC conficitur spacium CD; m o m e n t a autem celeritatis sunt inter se ut spacia, quae iuxta ipsa m o m e n t a eodem conficiuntur tempore: ergo m o m e n t u m celeritatis in C a d m o m e n t u m celeritatis in t3 est ut DC ad BL. Quia vero ut DC ad BE, ita ipsarum dimidia, nempe CA ad AB ; ut autem EB ad BL, ita BA ad AS; ergo, ex aeqnali, ut DC ad BL, ita CA ad AS: hoc est, ut m o m e n t u m celeritatis in C ad m o m e n t u m celeritatis in ]3, ita CA ad AS, hoc est, tempus per CA ad tempus per AB. Quod erat demonstrandum. 22 In other words, what is to be proved is that the velocities acquired in motion from rest are in proportion to the times. This is clear from the first sentence, the

L
1

TS
B

32 This has been reconstructed from Theorem I I I on projectile motion ill the published text, together with FAVARO'S footnotes (Opere VIII, pp. 28t-82), and has been corrected from a microfilm of the manuscript (folio 91t). lq'AVAROincorrectly gives the statement which is underlined as: "dico, momentum velocitatis in t3 ad momentum in C esse ut tempus casus per AB ad tempus per AC." FAVARO does not mention that this is underlined; he does say that the draft is in mano giovanile.

228

W . L . WISAN:

underlined clause (the underlining is by GALILEO), and the concluding remark. We now paraphrase the proof, using m v ( A B ) to indicate the momenta velocitatis acquired in descent through the distance AB, or that with which a body traverses the horizontal AB. (t) Let AC = t ( A C ) , and also let AC = m y ( A t ) . (2) Take any point B, and let AS = m ( A B , AC) = t ( A B ) . (3) What must be shown is that m v (AB) = AS, or that m v (AB)/m v (AC) = t (AB)/t (AC) = AS/AC. (4) Take CD = 2AC and BE = 2AB. (5) Then, t ( C D ) = t ( A C ) = A C , and t ( B E ) = t ( A B ) = A S , by the doubledistance rule. (6) Let B E / B L = A S / A C . (7) Then t(BL) = A C , b y Prop. I of Bk. I. (8) But t ( C D ) = A C , from (5). (9) Therefore, m v (CD)/mv (BL) = CD/BL, b y Prop. I I of Bk. I. (t 0) But m v (CD)/m v (BL) = m v (AC)/m v (AB). (11) Also, DC/BE = AC/AB, and B E / B L = AS/AC, b y construction. (t2) Therefore, D C / B L = A S / A B =AC/AS, from (11) and (2). (t3) Consequently, m v (AC)/mv (AB) ----DC/BL ----AC/AS = t (AC)/t (AB), which was to be demonstrated. Obviously, this is a proof of the law of fall. I t is generally thought that GALILEO, discovering that his incorrect assumption led to a contradiction, searched for an alternative and found the correct law an obvious choice, primarily on the grounds of simplicity. 23 The draft on folio 9 I t has been overlooked b y historians, possibly because it is later modified to become Proposition I I I on the motion of projectiles. Above it, on the same page, is a draft of Proposition I I which establishes that if a body is moved b y two uniform motions, one horizontal and the other vertical, the impetus of the resultant motion (impetus seu momentum lationis) is the square root of the sum of the squares of the two components (Opere V I I I , p. 280; CREW, p. 257). Below is an outline of the proof for Proposition IV (see section 7). According to FAVARO, the writing on folio 9 t t is that of GALILEO before t6t0, and it is, in fact, much the same hand that is found in drafts Of the Sidereal Messenger, as well as other fragments on projectile motion. It is larger and more careless than the writing on other early drafts, but is unlike the squarish hand that is characteristic of GALILEO'S later notes and correspondence. The watermark is consistent with the conjecture that the fragment is Paduan and the language suggests that it is late in that period but based on an earlier draft. Tempus casus, tempus per, eodem tempore, and peragere are all found in earlier drafts and spaeia is the earlier spelling of spatia. Momentum celeritatis, relatively 23 See for example the account in I. B. CO~IEN (t960, pp. 97-t00); also KoYR (t939, p. 147). KOYR does not stress the contradiction GALILEO supposed that he found so much as his gradual conceptual grasp of the role of time in motion. By reasoning which is "analytique dans le sens le plus profond de ce terme," GALILEO will "remonte--ou descend--k sa d6finition essentielle."

Galileo's Science of Motion

229

rare in De motu loeali, is frequent in the earlier essay on motion. E x quiete is typical of later drafts and revisions, but other late terms, such as latio and descensus, do not occur. The presence of so m a n y earlier terms and absence of latio and desce~dere, together with the probability that the relatively polished draft on folio 9 t t was not the first one, support the conjecture t h a t it was revised from an earlier draft. Also; we know from GALILEO'S correspondence with ANTONIO DE' MEDICI and BELISARIO VINTA (Opere X, pp. 228-30, 348-53) that by 1610 he had some propositions on the motion of projectiles and so must have had the law of fall. Hence, it seems safe to conclude that folio 91t dates from f 610, at the latest. By t610, then, GALILEO must have been quite sure that in free fall velocities acquired are proportional to times of fall. Yet he seems to have remained undecided about the foundations for his treatise. When he resumed work on motion after moving to Florence, he had m a n y of his old notes copied b y disciples. Among these copied fragments there are a number which reflect different approaches to a foundation for the new science. The double-distance rule on folio 163t, the different proofs of Theorems I I I and VI, and a number of other propositions and proofs which will be discarded are all copied. Either GALILEO had his assistants copy from his notes before he had time to do any further work on motion, or else he was busy pursuing new ideas. In fact, a number of fragments which appear to belong to the period between 16t 0 and 1630 suggest that GALILEO,frustrated b y the problem of foundations, turned his attention to building a superstructure of new propositions based on his fundamental, but still ungrounded, theorems. 6. The Superstructure

6.1. A New Set o/ Problems

Theorem X X l I dominated the Paduan period of GALILEO'Swork on accelerated motion, but there are indications that even in this early period he had begun work on a new set of problems which perhaps grew out of the brachistochrone but which led to the use of mathematics for discovering new consequences of his fundamental propositions. Possibly guided b y the general problem of finding paths of least time, GALILEO investigated the "accidents" of acceleration and " t h e manner in which it varies with slope" (Opere viii, p. 267; CREw, p. 243). These results do not appear as the solution to previously explored problems or as the discovery of experimentally verifiable consequences. Rather they arise from an exploration of the fertility of the new mathematical theorems on motion and a search for deeper understanding of accelerated motion through discovery of particular results. I t is difficult to establish a reliable chronology for the fragments relating to the superstructure of De motu locali. Many of these fragments have no watermark, while a few of them have w h a t appear to be Venetian watermarks. If, on the assumption that GALILEO did not take along to Florence any Paduan paper, we treat these as earlier than those which watermarks, handwriting, or both, indicate to belong to the Florentine period, we then get a highly implausible sequence of steps in the establishment of one of GALILEO'S more difficult propositions. As I have mentioned, however, there are difficulties with both watermarks

230

W.L. WISAN:

and handwriting as firm clues. It is true that b y 1616, GALILEO'S writing seems to stabilize into a fairly uniform style which resembles that of the Pisan De motu antiquiora, but which is slower, less embellished, and written with a broader point and different ink. Thus, in general, Florentine fragments can be identified by the handwriting. On the other hand, on five fragments (on folia t42, 143, t44, t45, and t61) the handwriting seems to be that of GALILEO but does not quite fit into any definite period. Moreover, the content of these fragments suggests distribution over several years' time, beginning with the last years at Padua. The watermarks suggest the Paduan period, but methodological analysis leads to the difficulty mentioned above. This raises the question whether the drafts on this set of fragments might not be in the hand of an unknown assistant who copied GALILEO'S hand very closely. Thus some of the original drafts might be quite early and others later. If so, this would resolve the puzzle over chronology. Until these and other questions about writing and watermarks are answered, caution must be exercised in assuming the exact order in which GALILEO developed his propositions, especially in the later Florentine period. However, two fragments on the reverse of dated correspondence will aid in determining fixed points in at least two lines of investigation. We shall begin here with one of the most elementary of the new sets of propositions, in which we can easily see how GALILEO developed his technique for solving the problems of category (6), and how these relate, through language and method, to investigations in the Paduan period. In section 4 we examined an argument on folio t26 where GALILEO established the ratio between the time to traverse an initial segment AB of an inclined plane AD and that to traverse another inclined plane BF, joining AB at the point B, after an initial descent from A. I t turned out that if t (AB) were set equal to AB, then t (BF, A) would be equal to BE, where E is the point on B F which is cut b y a line parallel to the horizontal and passing through the point C on AD, such that AC = m ( A B , AD). From this it can be seen that if one should wish to construct the plane BF such that it would be traversed, after an initial fall from A H

JEi
..........

"c

,,,

A, in the same time that the initial segment A is traversed, the segment BE must be equal to AB. To find BF, then, extend BE until it intersects a horizontal line passing through A. Then, calling this point H, construct H F so that it is the third proportional to H B and HE. By GALILEO'S Postulate and his assumption of continuity of the speed at corners, it does not matter whether the body descends from A or from H. Let t (HB) = HB, and b y the relation established in Theorem XI, t (BF, A) ---= (BF, H) = t (HF) - - t (HB) = H E - - H B = BE. Since BE has been t constructed equal to AB, the result follows. This solves Problem IV of the published treatise. The solution is found on folio 143 r, which bears a Venetian

Galileo's Science of Motion

23t

watermark and is in a hand very much like GALILEO'Shand during the Paduan period, but with slight differences. In the draft of Problem IV on folio t43r we find eodern tempore occurring twice and aequari ternpore once. The published version substitutes the latter for the former, but with l instead of r in aequari. The draft uses spacia instead of spatia, and lacks ex quiete, which occurs four times in the published version. Both versions use plana and inflexa. Another proposition on the same page of the manuscript is one of the three propositions after Theorems I and I I on accelerated motion which deal only with motion along a vertical. All three of these propositions, both in published and unpublished versions, use language that is typical of the early period rather than the later one. Particularly conspicuous are #eragere, latio, and the expression principio lationis. These terms also appear in two propositions which develop out of Problem IV and lead to a new attack on the double-distance rule. Before looking at this development, it will be worth glancing briefly at another proposition on folio 143r and two more in the same set of fragments, one on folio 145 and the other on folio 161. The second proposition on folio t43r is Problem VI, a corollary of which plays an important part in GALILEO'S most complex problem on accelerated motion. In Problem VI, we are given the vertical AB, an initial segment AC and a final segment DB where DB -----AC. We are to find t (DB). The solution is easy:
A

-D

(1) Describe a semicircle with AB the diameter. (2) Construct CE perpendicular to AB. (3) Join E and A and mark off E F -----CE. (4) Then CE = m (AC, CB) = m (AC, AD) and AE ----- (AB, AC). m (5) Therefore, if AC ----- (AC), then t (DB, A) ----t t(AB) -- t (AD) = m (AB, AC) -m (AD, AC) = AE -- CE = AE -- E F = AF. A corollary establishes the more general rule that if we are given t (DB) = DB, then t (DB, A) for any point A will be the difference between the two pairs of mean proportionals, or, m (AB, DB) -- m (DB, AD) ~ t (AB) -- t (AD) ----- (DB, A). t There are two more problems, Problems V and VII, which deal only with motion along a vertical. These are similar to Problem VI, but no use is made of them in subsequent propositions. Problem V is found on folio 143t, whereas
16 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. t 3

232

W.L. WISAN:

Problem V I I is among the very few propositions of which there is little or no trace among the fragments. As has been mentioned, these problems use language characteristic of the early period. Problem I is another relatively early problem. The diagram is much the same as that for Problem IV. If we extend the vertical AB to a point C on the horizontal, Problem I shows how to find BF such that t (BF, A) = t (AB) where AB ----BC. The diagram on folio 126 is again suggested and Problem I m a y have developed out of the same basic analysis. A fairly complete and polished draft (including a general statement of the proposition to be established) is on folio t45. This page has a watermark typical of the Paduan period and is in the somewhat puzzling hand mentioned above. Like the others in this set, with the exception of folio t44, the draft is well polished and complete, including a formal statement of the proposition (generally lacking in original drafts, or added later). The language is that of a relatively early period. Tempus casus is used throughout, and we find

eodem tempore, ]iat motus post casus, linea in[lecta.

Still another problem in the same set of fragments is Problem X I I on folio 161. For this problem the diagram is quite different and no longer uses much the same lettering as on folia 126, 143, and 145. Problem X l I shows, in the diagram for Problem IV, how to find A such that t (BF, A) is equal to t (BC). The draft on folio, t6t uses planum, ex quiete, eodem tempore, tempus c~sus, tempus per, and speaks of traversing (con[icere) the spacium AC, a very rare usage which could indicate an origin as far back as t604, or shortly afterwards, when the methods of the Theorem X sequence were still relatively new and GALILEO began to use spacium in his fundamental theorems. Two other unusual, and probably early, terms on folio t61 are grave and tempus ipsius AC, the latter pointing even more definitely to the draft on folio 164r. Planum and ex quiete, on the other hand, are definitely later. Folio t 6t, then, must surely give us the final version of an earlier, but no longer existing, draft. Many of these same characteristics mark folio t42, on which we find the final draft of Problem XIV. However, folio t44, which appears to belong to the same set of fragments, contains an anaiysis leading to the solution on folio t42. Some other fragments, with handwriting and watermark definitely of the Florentine period, lead from the analysis on folio t44 to that on folio 142. This is a puzzle that needs to be resolved by further study of evidence from GALILEO'S handwriting and the watermarks occurring in his manuscript. Folio t44r and other related fragments are discussed in more detail in section 6.4. Here we shall examine some simpler propositions. GALILEO'S law of odd numbers gave a rule which determines the distance along a vertical that iS traversed after an initial vertical fall during an equal interval of time. This distance, of course, is three times that of the initial fall. The double-distance rule established similarly that if a body falls through an initial p a t h in a given interval of time, and it is diverted along a horizontal without loss of speed, it will, in an equal interval of time, traverse a distance along the horizontal equal to twice the distance of fall. GALILEO developed somewhat analogous propositions for the deflection of the motion downward along inclined planes and for deflection upward as well. In the process of this research, there emerged an attempt to prove the double-distance rule from Theorem I I I and the

Galileo's Science of Motion

233

mean proportional corollary. This research may, then, have been directed at, among other things, establishment of the double-distance rule in a way t h a t would be independent of medieval techniques and which would permit the entire treatise to follow from the foundation indicated in VALERIO'S letter. I t is Theorem X I V which lays the foundation for the double-distance rule. I t follows immediately after Problem V I I and incorporates Problem IV without reference. Using a different diagram, Theorem X I V repeats the construction in Problem IV in order to find the distance CG along the inclined plane, such that t (CG, A) = t (AC). W h a t is to be shown is that 2AC < CG < 3AC. Letting AC -CF, and finding G, such that E F = m (EC, EG), gives (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) E C / E F = E F / E G, and (EF -- EC)/EF -----(EG -- EF)/EG. Then CF/EF ~ FG/EG, and CF/FG = E F / E G = EC/EF. Since E C < E F , then C F < F G , by (2). Therefore, 2CF < CG, and 2AC < CG, which proves the first part. Since C F = A C , and AC<EC, E F < 2 E C . Also, EC/EF = E F / E G -= (EF -- EC)](EG -- EF) ----CF/FG -=-EC/EF. Then FG < 2CF, and GC < 3 CF, or GC < 3AC, which proves the second part. A E

At the end of this proof, GALILEO remarks that it m a y be given in more general (universalium) form, as the result also holds for the case in which the initial motion occurs along a plane which is inclined in any way. This is a characteristic procedure, in which GALILEO proves the case of fall through a vertical, and then says that the demonstration will proceed in the same way for the more general case. Theorem X I V is followed immediately b y Problem V I I I (see section 6.2), which bears no relation to the set of propositions into which it is inserted, and the above development continues with Problem IX. Problem I X shows how to construct a given plane that satisfies the requirements of Theorem XIV. T h a t is, one is to find the plane CO, which, after preliminary fall through a vertical AC, is traversed in the same time as AC, and where CO is to be an assigned length IR, such that 2AC < CO < 3AC. First, the distance EC is found b y taking the third proportional to I N and MN, where M N = N R = A C and I M = I R - - M R . Since AC is given, the inclination of the plane can be found. Now, letting CF = AC---FG, and GO = IM, then, since
16"

234

W.L. WISAN: A

o~/

/t:
s

(t) EC/MN =MN/IM, or EC/CF = C F / G O , and (2) GO/FG = CF/EC; then (3) (GO + FG)/FG = (CF + EC)/EC = FO/FG = EF/EC = FO/CF = (FO + EF)/(CF + EC) -= EO/EF. (4) Then EO]EF = EF]EC, and E F = m (EO, EC). (5) Also, if t(AC) =AC, then t(CE) = E C , by Thm. III, (6) and t (EO) = EF, by Cor. 2. (7) From this, E F -- EC = CF = t (CO, E), while (8) t (CO, E) -~ t (CO, A), by the Postulate. (9) But C F = A C = t ( A C ) , so that t(CO, A ) = A C = t ( A C ) , and CO is the required plane. GALILEO remarks again that it can be proved similarly that the same proposition holds in case the preliminary motion occurs along an inclined plane.

I ,

'

In a draft of this proposition on folio 85r, in GALILEO'Shand, he adds that as CO approaches 3AC, the plane approaches the perpendicular, while, on the other hand, as CO approaches 2AC, the plane approaches a horizontal position (Opere VIII, pp. 240-41). In the scholium to Problem IX, he elaborates this remark into an attempt to prove the double-distance rule. Hence we can infer that, if, after descent along the inclined plane AC of the adjoining figure, the motion is continued along a horizontal line, such as CT, the distance traversed by a body, during a time equal to the time of fall through AC, wiU be exactly twice the distance AC. The argument here employed is the same as the preceding. For it is clear, since OE/EF = EF/EC, that FC measures the time of descent along CO. But, if the horizontal line TC which is twice as long as CA, be divided into two equal parts at V then this

Galileo's Science of Motion

235

line must be extended indefinitely in the direction of X before it will intersect the line AE produced; and accordingly the ratio of the infinite length T X to the infinite length VX is the same as the ratio of the infinite distance VX to the infinite distance CX [ratio in]initae T X ad in]initam V X non erif alia a ratione in]initae V X ad in[initam SC]. (Opere v u I , p. 242; CREW, p. 214) T h a t is, let AC be inclined to the horizontal TX, construct AE parallel to TX, and let
(1) T C ----2AC and TV ----VC.

(2) Extend T X until it intersects AE. (3) This point of intersection is at infinity since these are parallel lines. (4) Then TX/VX--~VX/CX, since there is no difference between ratios of infinite quantities. 1 (5) Let t ( A C ) = A C ; then t ( C E ) = C E , approaches the horizontal CX. and t(CX) approaches CX, as CE

(6) Then t (TX) ~-VX, b y Cot. 2, and (4); and (7) t ( T C ) = t ( T X ) - - t ( C X ) = V X - - C X - - - - - V C : A C , b y use of the Theorem X I device. (8) Therefore, T C - - 2 A C is traversed in t (AC) ~-AC. This is the one instance in which the reader is left to work out for himself the details of an application of Theorem XI. I t requires subtracting CX from VX, both infinite magnitudes representing, respectively, the times along CX and TX, and getting the finite distance VC to represent the time to traverse TC. GALILEO knew that his theorem was correct, but perhaps he instinctively shrank from actually writing out the absurd formula which was required to prove it in this manner. Instead, he goes on to say that the same result can be obtained b y another procedure, similar to that used in the demonstration of the first proposition (that is, Theorem I on accelerated motion), and he gives a new proof using medieval methods and assuming the correct law of fall (see section 8.1). The second demonstration m a y have been added because GALILEO had qualms over the juggling of infinite magnitudes in the first. However, the first one is not dropped, and the application of Theorem X I m a y have been intended only to show that the result is consistent with usual procedures and that there is no contradiction in the argument from limits. This argument is not presented as a formal proof but, as in the case of the brachistochrone, it is the subject of a scholium. The argument for the double-distance rule from Problem I X was probably developed in order to prove that rule from the dynamic foundation of ~609, and work on it m a y have been started before GALILEO left Padua, At first glance the related drafts in the manuscript seem to indicate a Florentine origin. There is a draft of Theorem X I V on folio 65r, in the hand of MARIO GuIDuccI with additions and corrections b y GALILEO in his typical Florentine hand and ink. The draft of 1 Note that in the last clause quoted above, GALILEOsays that the ratios of infinite quantities are not different; CREw has GALILEOsay that they are the same. GALILEO may have intended a distinction.

236

W . L . WISAN:

Problem I X is also in GALILEO'S Florentine hand, and it is on the reverse of folio 85t, which has the Latin version, in GuII)UCCI'S hand, of the early attempt to establish the corollary on mean proportionals. Folia 65r and 85t must both belong to the Florentine period, and there are no drafts showing preliminary steps in the construction of the proofs. There must, however, have been some prehminary drafts, for the extant drafts are fairly complete and even have general statements of the propositions to be proved. Yet these drafts exhibit language suggesting an origin in stage II. Both, like the problems on motion along a vertical (Problems V, VI, and vii), use peragere frequently, with con/icere less conspicuous. Spacia is frequent in both, and Theorem X I V uses the expressions a principio latiouis and tempus motus, with motus appearing frequently. These terms suggest either a relatively early origin or a particularly close association with the times-squared theorem and its corollaries, all of which use peragere and principio latiouis or motus principio, terms not otherwise in general use. Tempus motus occurs on folio t63t in the corollary to the double-distance rule and tempo del moto is used in the draft of the times-squared law on folio t 28. Since Theorem X I V and Problem I X are involved in an attempt to derive the double-distance rule from the times-squared theorem, there m a y be an inheritance of earlier terms at a later date. On the other hand, it is quite possible that GALILEO began this derivation before t5t0. But the program is still in progress after his move to Florence, which suggests that the proof of the double-distance rule from the correct law of fall is not yet constructed. In section 8, this proof and a similar one in the Dialogo will be examined. Here we shall look at some other arguments in the scholium.

6.2. Some Further Results

The scholium to Problem I X is quite long. First, there is the attempt, described above, to prove the double-distance rule from the foundation laid in Theorem X I V and Problem IX. Then there is another proof using methods of fourteenth century kinematics (see section 8). After this GALILEO adds some remarks on his inertial principle: Furthermore we m a y remark that any velocity once imparted to a moving body will be rigidly maintained lest in illo suapte natura iuddebiliter impressus] as long as the external causes of acceleration or retardation are removed, a condition which is found only on horizontal planes; for in the case of planes which slope downwards there is already present a cause of acceleration, while on planes sloping upward there is retardation; from this it follows that motion along a horizontal plane is perpetual; for, if the velocity be uniform, it cannot be diminished or slackened, much less destroyed. Further, although any velocity which a body m a y have acquired through natural fall is permanently maintained so far as its own nature is concerned, yet it must be remembered that if, after descent along a plane inclined downwards, the body is deflected to a plane inclined upward, there is already existing in this latter plane a cause of retardation; for in any such plane this same body is subject to a natural acceleration downwards. Accordingly we have here the superposition of two different states, namely, the velocity acquired during the preceding

Galileo's Science of Motion

237

fall which if acting alone would carry the body at a uniform rate to infinity, and the velocity which results from a natural acceleration downwards common to all bodies. (Opere VIII, p. 243; CREW, p. 2t 5) The old argument for the proto-inertial principle, which states that a body on a horizontal plane can be moved with a force less than any assigned force, has been transformed, and force is no longer mentioned. GALILEO considers only the motion which is imparted to the moving body. Motion imparted to a body under ideal conditions is permanently maintained, whatever its direction. Instead of his original principle that a force impressed upon a body must decay gradually, GALILEO now holds, i.n effect, that such force is conserved without change, and can be altered only by a force acting in the opposite direction. Or, putting this in terms of the motion imparted to.a body, such motion is permanently preserved unless a motion in the opposite direction is also imparted to the body. Thus, if a body acquires a given velocity through natural fall, after which it is diverted upward along an inclined plane, it will ascend the plane with uniform motion at the acquired speed. However, since it has a natural tendency to accelerate downward in the opposite direction, the net upward motion will be one of deceleration. GALILEO'S so-called principle of superposition of motions is, in fact, the principle that all motion is conserved, whatever its direction, and that motions interact only if directly opposed. Using this principle, GALILEOwill derive some propositions on bodies deflected upward which are analogous to those he has already derived for bodies descending along inclined planes. But before proceeding to the propositions to be established, GALILEO devotes two more pages to clarification of his method. Obscurities in this material suggest that it may be from an earlier analysis which has been worked over to fit into the scholium. GALILEO considers two planes AB and BC which are of equal length and make equal angles with the horizontal GH. If a body descends along AB and is deflected upward along BC, it is supposed that the body will continue to move as though along a horizontal path on which it would traverse a distance equal to twice AB in the time t (AB). But, at the same time, as the body rises along BC, it is subjected to a natural inclination downward, and begins to descend in such manner as to traverse a distance equal to AB in t (AB).
C F A

C---

--H

Therefore, in t (AB) it will traverse 2AB - - A B ----AB = BC, and will arrive at the point C. By this analysis, then, a body which descends along a plane AB, and is deflected upward along an identical plane, will ascend the second plane in the same time that it took to descend along the first. Although the correct law of fall is explicitly assumed in this discussion, it is not essential to the argument so far; nor is the Postulate. Only the double-

238

W . L . V~IsAIq:

distance rule is required at first. There follows a somewhat garbled passage which seems intended to prove that the velocities acquired at equal vertical distances from the horizontal (points D and E) are equal. I t ends with the statement that a body will ascend to the same height from which it descended. This looks like an a t t e m p t to establish for inclined planes the conclusion drawn from the interrupted pendulum experiment. However, the argument given holds only for planes having the same inclination and in the end GALILEO invokes the Postulate to derive a more general result. He also remarks that in the case of planes of different lengths the times will be proportional to the lengths of the planes (which is, of course, a reference to Theorem III). The procedure having been thus elaborated, we proceed to discover what ratio exists between the distances traversed in equal times along planes of different slope, but of the same elevation, that is, along planes which are included between the same parallel horizontal lines. (Opere v i i i , p. 245; CREW, p. 218) This remark introduces us to Theorem XV, which is analogous to Theorem XIV. If a body descends through a vertical AE and is reflected upward along inclined B A

plane EB, it will, in t (AE), ascend along EB through a distance greater than AE but less than twice AE. The proof is found b y the method discussed at the end of the scholium to Problem IX, which permits use of Theorem XI. Let t (AE) ---= AE. Then (t) m a r k off on BE the distance D E = A E . (2) Choose F so that BD = m (BE, BF). (3) Then E F will be the distance of ascent along BE in t (AE), and AE < E F < 2AE. (4) For, B E = t ( B E ) = t ( E B ) , to Prob. IX. by Thin.

III, and remarks in the scholinm

(5) Also, BD -~t (BF), since ]3D - - r e ( B E , BF). (6) Therefore, t (FE, B) ----DE, b y Thm. XI. (7) But t ( F E , B ) = t ( E F , A), and D E - ~ A E , so the body ascends to F in t (AE) = AE. (8) Now, B F < BD since BD < BE and BD ~- m (BE, BF). (9) Therefore, E F > DE, since BE - - BF = E F and BE - - BD = DE. (t 0) Then, since B E / B D = B D / B F = (BE -- BD)/(BD -- BF) = DE/FD, (tl) it follows that D E > F D , and E F = ( D E + F D ) < 2 D E . (t 2) Therefore, since DE = AE, it follows that AE < E F < 2AE.

Galileo's Science of Motion

239

GALILEO has completed his investigation of motion along inclined planes. The law of odd numbers shows how bodies accelerate along a vertical; Theorem X I V establishes the rule governing descent along inclined planes after a vertical fall; the double-distance rule, of course, gives the case for horizontal motion following an initial fall; and now Theorem XV gives the rule for ascending motion. After Theorem XV, Problem X shows how to construct a plane such that it satisfies the conditions established in the theorem. I t is perhaps this series of propositions, together with various related results, that leads GALILEO to characterize his second book on motion as an investigation of the "property of acceleration and the manner in which it varies with slope" (Opere v i i i , p. 267; CREW, p. 243). Theorems X I V and XV both establish a relation governing spaces traversed in a given time, and both consequently use terms normally associated with problems. The first uses both peragere and con/icere, while the second uses only con/icere. Both use casus for vertical fall, but the former uses motus for oblique descent, while the latter uses descensus for oblique descent and sometimes for vertical fall as well. Both use tempore aequali throughout. As already noted, Theorem X I V m a y originate in stage II, while Theorem XV shows the linguistic pattern associated with stage I I I . Problem X follows the usage of Theorem XV, but uses pertransire once to express the case of motion upward (where none of the more usual terms, such as casus, descensus, or conficere, would serve). The terms used in Theorem XV and Problem X also appear in Problem V I I I . This problem is a revised version of one suggested in De motu antiquiora: given two unequal times and a vertical distance through which a body descends in the lesser time, construct the plane with the same height such that a body would descend in the greater time. There is no apparent reason for placing this proposition between Theorem X I V and Problem I X (which are, of course, closely related to each other); however, a statement of Problem V I I I is on the reverse of the manuscript version of Theorem X I V (Opere V I I I , p. 240n). Theorem XV and Problem X are similarly separated b y a quite unrelated proposition, Theorem XVI, an elementary result of the double-distance rule, derived in the last paragraph on folio t63t (see section 5.t). In Theorem X V I the expression tempus motus is especially frequent. Rare in the published text, this occurs in Proposition I on uniform motion (used in the proof of Theorem XVI) and in Theorem X I V on accelerated motion (associated with the double-distance rule). These occurrences of tern#us rno~us illustrate the persistence of the same terminology in related propositions. Problem X is followed b y Theorem X V I I which is another elementary proposition. I t uses the language of Problem X and Theorem XV but is associated with tile solution of GALILEO'S puzzle over accelerated and uniform motion. Theorem X V I I shows how to find the distance along the lower part of a plane which is traversed in the same time as the shorter plane. There is a draft of the published version of this theorem on folio 87r (Opere v i i i , p. 248n), where there is also a somewhat different version stating that motion (rnotum) is swifter (velociorern) along the lower part of the inclined plane than along the vertical (Opere VIII, pp. 396-97). This second version is referred to in a letter to STACCOLI

240

W . L . WISAN: A

EF ,I
C B D

on the Bizensio, 2 and also in the Dialogo where GALILEOunravels the "paradox" (Opere VII, p. 49; SANTILLANA,p. 3t). Folio 87r is further linked to the letter of 1630, through Problem XV. The solution of this problem shows how to find a section along AC (in the diagram above) which is equal to AD and traversed in the same time. On folio 87r (Opere v i i i , p. 401), GALILEOstates this problem in terms of the diagram used for Theorem XVlI. This problem is also referred to in the letter on the Bizensio and in the Dialogo (Opere VI, p. 632; v i i , p. 50). The language of Problem XV is generally similar to that of Problem X. Proposition XXVlII, 3 another quite elementary proposition, follows Theorem XVlI. It determines the ratio of the times of descent along the vertical diameter of a circle and along a path consisting of any two chords which, with the diameter, A G

form a triangle. The proof is simple: the chord BE is extended to G, the angle BAE is bisected, and by elementary geometry, Theorem III, and Theorem XI, it follows that t (AB)/Et (AE) + t (EB)] = A E / ( A E + EF). Unlike the rest of the propositions on accelerated motion, Proposition X X V l I I lacks an initial general statement. Quite possibly it was included at the last minute as an afterthought, In t63o, GALILEOWaS asked to give an opinion on measures for preventing frequent flooding of the Bizensio River, and he addressed a long letter on this subject to I~.AFFAELLOSTACCOLI,official of the Grand Duke of Tuscany (OpereVI, pp. 627-47). In it there is a discussion of the "paradox" as in the Dialogo (see section 5.t) and references to various propositions in the treatise on motion. In passing, GALILEO gives an example which seems to follow from an analysis in a fragment on Theorem X l I I (see section 6.3). 8 In all previous editions of tile Discorsi, Proposition X X V l I I is designated Theorem XVlII, and proposition X X I X is designated Problem XI. FAVAROswitches the nomenclature of these propositions without any apparent reason. Nor does GALILEO'S annotated copy of the published text (GALILEOManuscript 79) indicate that the propositions have been miscalled. In fact, Proposition X X V l I I is dealt with in the usual manner for theorems and uses the characteristic terms for stating and proving theorems ill stage III. Proposition XXIX, on the other hand, is stated and proved in the usual way for problems (also stage III).

Galileo's Science of Motion

241

for it has no e v i d e n t relation to a n y o t h e r proposition. I t s m o t i v a t i o n , however, m a y e v e n t u a l l y be e s t a b l i s h e d t h r o u g h f u r t h e r s t u d y of several notes in t h e m a n u s c r i p t which relate to it. I t is followed b y a p r o b l e m on p a t h s of least time which m a y h a v e g u i d e d some of GALILEO'S l a t e r research into p a t h s of least time. W e t u r n to these next.

6.3. Paths o/Least Time

A c c o r d i n g to the law of o d d numbers, a b o d y falling t h r o u g h a given v e r t i c a l D, in t i m e T, will t h e n fall t h r o u g h the d i s t a n c e 3 D in a second i n t e r v a l of t i m e equal to T. T h e double-distance rule, assuming t h e c o n t i n u i t y of speed a t corners, s t a t e s t h a t if, a f t e r falling t h r o u g h D in t i m e T, t h e b o d y is deflected along t h e h o r i z o n t a l p a t h , it will t r a v e r s e a d i s t a n c e 2 D in an equal p e r i o d of time. A consequence of this t h e o r e m a n d the m e a n p r o p o r t i o n a l corollary is t h a t for a n y given h o r i z o n t a l p a t h D, which a b o d y is to t r a v e r s e a f t e r falling t h r o u g h a v e r t i c a l P, t h e p a t h D + P will be the p a t h of least t i m e when D = 2 P . This result is established in P r o p o s i t i o n X X I X (Opere viii, pp. 249-50). 4 On folio 62r we find an earlier version of t h e proof for P r o p o s i t i o n X X I X . On this page are some calculations showing how GALILEO a t t e m p t e d to v e r i f y an analogous rule for descent along inclined planes. I n t h e d i a g r a m below, A B = 20, BC----40, B D = 50. T h e n (t) if t ( A B ) = A B (2) t ( D C ) = m ( B D , =20, t(BD)=BD =50, and

DC)=m(50, 90)=67.

(3) T h e n t (BC, A) = t (DC) - - t (BD) ----67 - - 50 ----17, a n d (4) t (ABC) ----t (AB) + t (BC, A) ~- 20 + t 7 = 37. * The proof in the t e x t is as follows: let BC = 2At3, and let EB > AB. Let AB = t (AB) = t (BC, A), and choose O so t h a t BO = m (EB, AB). Then t (EB) = BO. Let BD = 2EB, and select N so t h a t E B / A B = BO/BN. Then BN = t (BC, E) b y Prop. I on uniform motion. Therefore, OB + BN = t(EBC). GALILEO shows t h a t AB = m (BO, E

[3
I

C
I

BN), and remarks t h a t BO + BN is > 2AB. As usual, he does not show how he gets his inequality, b u t it m a y be verified by algebraic methods. GALILEO indicates b y a second diagram t h a t it does not m a t t e r whether OB is chosen greater or less t h a n AB. I n this proposition and its related fragments, the p a t h of least time is usually expressed in terms of the space traversed, or completed, in brevissimo tempore, using the verb con/icere. In a single instance, on folio 78t (Opere V I I I , p. 404), GALILEO uses the expression con/iciuntur citius. This fragment is on the reverse of a letter to GALILEO dated J a n u a r y 10, 1630. I t gives a numerical example. On the recto is a draft of the published proof.

242

W.L. WISAN: D

c/
GALILEO then marks off I B ~ - 1 2 and RB----30, and finds t(IBC) by the same method, which gives him slightly more than 35 (he rounds off his result to this figure). This, of course, shows that t (ABC), where BC = 2AB, is not the path of least time. Discovering this, GALILEO may have begun working on Problem II which is analogous to Proposition X X I X in a different way. Problem II shows how to find the vertical AB such that, for a given plane BC, t (BC, A) = t (AB). A long fragment relating to Problem II indicates that it was suggested by the problem on paths of least time. Given any plane non ascendente, adjoin to it a perpendicular such that it will be traversed (con/iciatur) in the same time as the given plane, after a fall along the perpendicular. Now, it is established that if the plane were horizontal, the adjoined perpendicular would be half the plane. If the plane were perpendicular, the adjoined perpendicular would be the third part of it. Concerning the horizontal plane, it has already been demonstrated that the time taken to traverse the two spaces is the least of all. Let there be given, first, the perpendicular AB, to which is adjoined any tract such that it will be traversed (conficiatur), starting from rest, in the same time as the perpendicular AB, after the adjoined tract. If the time along CA must be equal to the time along AB, then the entire time along CB will be double the time along CA, But the time along BC is to the time along CA as the mean between BC and CA. Therefore, the mean between BC and CA must be double AC. Suppose, then, that DC is the mean proportional between BC and CA; since as BC is to CD, so is DC to CA, so is, also, BD to DA. Therefore, BD must be double DA. Suppose, then, BD double DA, and DC double CA, that is AC equal to AD, [actum erit, etc. Now let AB be inclined, not perpendicular; it results similarly that the time along CAB will be double the time along CA, or along AB, after CA. (Opere VIII, p. 405) GALILEO does not say that what he is looking for is a path of minimum time, but this is implied in the last sentence of the first paragraph, which refers to Proposition X X I X . The preliminary analysis is made on motion along a vertical. Considering the vertical AB, extended upward to C, it is clear that (t) if t(AB, C ) = t ( C A ) , then t(CB)----2t(CA). (2) But, t (CB)/t (CA) = m (CB, CA)/CA. (3) Therefore, m (CB, CA) = 2 CA.

Galileo's Science of Motion (4) Let CD -= m (CB, CA), and since CB/CD = CD/CA, (5) then (CB - - CD)/CD ----(CD - - CA)/CA, (6) or, DB/CD ----AD/CA, and DB/AD ~--CD/CA ~ t (CB)/t (CA), (7) from which it follows that DB----2AD.

243

In other words, to get the result desired, AC must be set equal to AD where the given vertical AB is three times AD. GALILEO adds that if AB is inclined to the vertical AC, it will similarly result that t (CAB) = 2t (CA) ----- (AB, C). Now 2t the essential point in the analysis along the vertical is not that DB must be double AD, but that the mean proportional between the entire distance CB and the initial segment CA, minus t h a t segment, must equal CA. T h a t is, CD = m (CB, CA) must be such that C D - CA ----CA, and a similar condition must hold in order that a " s i m i l a r " result would follow for the case in which AB is made an inclined plane. GALILEO does not explain this, but if, in a second diagram on folio 75r, we extend AD to D', the entire oblique distance is D'B. If the initial segment D'A is such that m (D'A, D ' B ) - - D ' A = C A , then the result follows. (t) Mark off
D'D"

= m ( D ' B , D'A), and

(2) let t (CA) = CA. (3) Then t(D'A) = D ' A , b y Thm. I I I . (4) Also, t (D'B) = m (D'A, D'B), b y Cor. 2. (5) Now, t(AB, C) = t ( A B , D'), b y the Postulate, since mv(CA) ----mv(D'A). (6) Therefore, t (AB, C) = t (AB, D') = t (D'B) - - t (D'A) = m (D'A, D'B) -- D'A = D'D" - - D'A ---- " A . D (7) Then if
D"A =

CA, it follows that t (CA) = t (AB, C).

C~___7 D I

'

D"

244

W.L. WISAN:

This reconstruction assumes the Postulate and Theorem III which are both used in the final proof of Problem II. On folio 75r, however, GALILEOseems to be proceeding by analogy. His diagram does not indicate use of Theorem III (the dotted lines and the point D' have been added). At least it cannot be applied as above since CA and DA do not have the same vertical height. At the end of the fragment are some cancelled lines which derive the desired result from Theorem VI. That is, it is assumed that the angle CDA is a right angle. Then, t (CA) t (DA). From this, and the usual assumption of continuity of the speed at corners, it follows that [ (CAB)= t (DAB). This cancelled solution is a very simple one, whereas the published proof is quite difficult and was found only after much labor, as can be seen from the way in which different parts of the proof are worked out on folia 7tt, 72r, 64r, and 69r. The final solution which emerges from these fragments may be paraphrased as follows: (t) (2) (3) (4) Let the plane AC be given with height AB. Let AE be such that (AB + 2AC)/AC =AC/AE, and let RA be such that AB/AC = A E / R A . Construct RX perpendicular to AB, and X will be the point such that t (XA) -----t (AC, X). For, (5) (AB-t-AC)/AC =EC/AE, from (2), D

/
C (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (t t) (t2) (t3) (t4) (15) 8 (AB + AC)/AC = RE/RA, from (3), and EC/AE = RE/RA = (EC + RE)/(AE + RA) = RC/RE. Then RE = m ( R C , RA), by (7). Also, AB/AC = XA/RA, by similar triangles, and AE/RA ~ X A / R A , from (3). Therefore, AE = XA. But if t ( X A ) = X A , then t(RA) = R A , by Thin. III, and t(RC) = R E , by Cor. 2. Also, t(AC, X ) = t ( A C , R), by the Postulate. But t(AC, R ) = t ( R C ) - - t ( R A ) = R E - - R A = A E = X A , be shown. which was to The analysis by which GALILEOfinds his proof is that used to solve Problem IV. To get the result sought, AE must be equal to XA, and RE-----m (RA, RC).

Galileo's Science of Motion

245

Then, since AE = X A , it follows that A E / R A = A B / A C and R E / R A = R C / R E . Also, R E = A E + RA, and (t) (2) (3) (4) (RE - - RA)/RA = A B / A C , or R E / R A = (AB +AC)/AC. Also, R E / R A = EC/AE, since R E = m (RA, RC). Then EC/AE = (AB +AC)/AC, or AC/AE = (AB + 2AC)/AC.

(5) Consequently, AE can be constructed from AC and AB, which are given. On folio 72r, which contains part of the solution of Problem II, there is a brief scrap that clearly relates this problem to the search for a path of minimum time. GALILEO suggests that To find the minimum time to traverse (tempore minimo con/iciantur) QAB, consider if, putting AD equal to AB, one must perhaps proceed in such a way that AD with DC is to CD as BA is to AQ. (Opere VIII, p. 399) o

D One wonders if, as is suggested on folio 75r in reference to Proposition X X I X , GALILEO set out initially to find QA, such that t (QA)-----t (AB, Q), after which he intended to show that this construction yields the path of least time. If so, we never get a proof of this, but only Problem II, shorn of all such interesting speculations. I t is difficult to tell just when Problem I I was first undertaken and when it was finally solved. The analysis on folio 75r seems quite primitive. I t does not use a detached line to represent times as in Theorem X X I I , but neither does it use a line in the diagram for this purpose. The argument is made entirely in terms of proportions, and Theorem I I I is not employed. Yet it seems unlikely that folio 75r is early. There is no watermark, but the writing and ink are typical of the Florentine period, and on the other half of the sheet is a complete formal statement of Problem xIII, which in all probability was written after 1631 (see section 6.4). Furthermore, all manuscript evidence relating to Proposition X X I X , clearly referred to on folio 75r, appears to be around t630. All evidence, then, except that from the form of argument used, point to a late date. Possibly, it was composed as an elementary explanation for inclusion in the Dialogo or the letter to STACCOLI,both of which include some elementary discussion of problems on motion. 5 Among these is Theorem XlII, which develops out of Problem I I I 5 I r i s also possible that GALILEOcomposed the draft on folio 75r at a time when he did not remember how he first solved Problem II.

246

W.L. WISAN:

and which rests on an argument similar to that used in the cancelled passage at the end of folio 75r. Theorem X l I I and Problem III exhibit some of GALILEO'Smost interesting researches into questions concerning paths of least time, and both were probably under investigation around 1630. Problem III is a simple variant on Problem IV. In the diagram below, Problem III shows how to find the distance BG below the point of intersection B, such that t (BG, A) = t (BC, A). The strategy of Problem IV is assumed in all of the extant fragments relating to Problem III, the final proof of which can be paraphrased as follows: (1) Let t(AB) = A B , from which t(DB) = D B , by Thin. III. (2) Let DE = m (DC, DB) = t (DC).

A/D
G (3) Take BF----BE =DE--DB-----t(DC)--t(DB) = t ( B C , D) = t ( B C , A), by the Postulate. (4) Find G, such that AF = m ( A B , AG). (5) Then BF = m ( A B , AG) --AB = t (BG, A). (6) But BF-----BE = t (BC, A), and therefore tCBG, A) = t ( B C , A), which was to be shown. This result is used in Theorem X l I I to establish a more interesting proposition. If t(EC)-----t(EB), then t(EC, A ) < t(EB, A), for any choice of AE > O. The
A --y D

E F G

method of proof is suggested by that for Problem III. If we refer to the diagram for that problem, it is evident that if t (ABC) < t (ABG), then

Galileo's Science of Motion (t) since t(BC, A) ----BE, and t ( B g , A) = B F ,

247

(2) then B E must be less t h a n BF, or, in the diagram for Theorem XlII, E F m u s t be less t h a n E G , where D F = m ( D E , DC), AG-----m(AB, AE), and t (AE) = AE. The proof follows from Theorem VI (the law of chords). If t ( E C ) = t (EB), then EC and E B must be a chord and diameter of a semicircle and the angle at C is a right angle. Once one observes these relations which stem from Theorem VI for the case of descent from rest at E, the proof is straightforward and follows from Greek geometrical algebra2 The interesting question is, just w h a t led GALILEO to formulate this theorem ? The answer is buried in a long fragment relating to the corollary to Theorem XlII, which shows how the idea of a preliminary fall from a point at infinity m a y have generated these propositions. The published version of the corollary to Theorem X l I I is obscurely stated and bears no trace of the interesting speculations behind it. I t merely states t h a t in the case of a preliminary fall, the distance traversed along a vertical is greater than the inclined plane which would be traversed in the same time, but less than t h a t distance along the vertical which would be traversed in the same time as the inclined plane in the case of no preliminary fall. ~ To show how the corollary is proved, the diagram for Problem I I I is repeated here, with the vertical extended d o w n w a r d to a point L, such t h a t t (BC) ----t (BL). The corollary to Theorem X l I I states t h a t B G > BC, but B G < BL. The second part is easy. Since, b y Theorem XlII, t (BC, A) < t (BL, A), the distance traversed

AI
8
I

G L

6 Triangles AED and CEB are similar, since angle C is a right angle. Then BE/EC = DE/AE, and BE. AE = EC. DE. Since DE 2 = DE (DC -- EC), then DC" DE -- EC. DE = D E a, and similarly, A B . A E - - B E . A E -----AE Since AG = m ( A B , AE) and DF----s. m (DC, DE), then D C . D E -- A B . A E = DE s -- AE s ~ D F ~ -- AG s = AD s. Therefore, D F s = A G * + A D s = D G s. Thus, D F ~ D G , and angle D G F = a n g l e DFG, angle E G F < a n g l e EFG, and so E F < E G , and t(EC, A ) < t ( E B , A) (Opere viii, pp. 233-34). 7 CREW 6: SALVIO mistranslate the second case, saying that the vertical distance traversed after the preliminary fall is "less than the distance traversed on the inclined plane during an equal time, without any preliminary fall" (CREw, p. 205). This should read: "less than the distance along the vertical which is traversed in the same time as the inclined plane without any preliminary fall." The statement in the text lacks clarity (Opere viii, pp. 234-35); a better statement can be found in the manuscript on folio 76r (Opere viii, p. 402).
t7 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci.,Vol. t3

248

W.L. WISAI~:

along the vertical in t (BC, A), which is BG (see Problem III, above), must be less than BL. The first part follows from Problem 111.8 On folio 6tr (Opere v i i i , pp. 4t0-11), we find some illuminating discussion of the problem behind these proofsP Folio 6 t r begins somewhere in the middle of rambling analyses and proofs of various points relating to the corollary to Theorem XlII.lO GALILEO is trying to find the point A such that t (EC, A) t (EL, A), where E L has been chosen to be greater than EC but less than EB, while EC----ES and t(EC)----t(EB). After pointing out various relations that must hold, he makes an interesting remark:

AyD

C -I -5 L
B

Nora. The nearer L is to S, the more distant one finds the point A, and the
nearer L is to B, the nearer A will be to E. If one supposes L at S, the distance AE is infinite, while supposing L at B, A falls at E. Moreover, when L is at S, the points F and I are found at the midpoints of the lines EC and ES. When, on the other hand, L is at B, the points F and I are found at E. (Opere VIII,

p.411)

GALILEO is examining the result of fall along E L where E L varies from EB, the distance such that t ( E C ) = t (EB), and E S = EC. He finds that if E L = EB, and t (EL, A) =- t (EC, A), then the point A coincides with the point E, whereas if E L = E S , and t (ES, A) = t (EC, A), the point A is said to be at infinity. This problem is suggested in his letter to STACCOLIon hydraulics (see n. 2, above). GALILEO refers to his theorem that the times of descent are proportional to the distances for inclined planes of the same height and he remarks that if there is a preliminary fall the differences in time will be less the greater the fall. s That BG > BC is shown as follows : from Problem III, we have DE = m (BD, DC), AT = m (AB, AG), BE = BF, and AB < BD. Therefore, BF/AB > BE/BD. From this, (BF + AB)/AB > (BE + BD)/BD, or AF/AB > DE/BD. Also, DE/BD = DC/DE, and DE/BD = CE/BE. Then, since AF/AB > DE/BD, and AF/AB = AG/AF, FG/BF > CE/BE. Finally, (FG + BF)/BF > (CE + BE)/BE, or BG/BF > BC/BE, and since
B F ----BE, then B G > BC. 9 F A V A R O identifiesthis fragment with Problem XIII. 10 A m o n g GALILEO'S working notes in the manuscript there are numerous such indications that some of the notes are missing.

Galileo's Science of M o t i o n

249

Could Theorem X I I I and its corollary be by-products of GALILEO'S research into the problem of the Bizensio ? We find no indication that the propositions are earlier. As in the case of Theorem X V I I I , con/icere is used throughout in the fragments and in the corollary relating to Theorem X I I I . Although this verb occurs a couple of times with citius, quicker descent is otherwise expressed in terms of briefer times and never in terms of motions completed. Con/icere does not appear in tile published version of Theorem X I I I , but the form and language follow that of Theorems I I I through X I I . T h a t is, times of motions are compared, using tempus lationis, casus, or descensus, and the standard usage of stage I I I is followed. The form and language of problems are generally different from those of theorems, since what is to be constructed is usually a space traversed in some given time. The difference between the fragmentary versions of Theorem X I I I and the published version shows GALILEO deliberately reshaping a proposition originally treated as a problem in order to present it as a theorem. The corollary, on the other hand, is presented, so to speak, as a solved problem. The relation to be established is stated as in a theorem, but the language used is that of a problem. As in the case of problems generally, the editing is not as consistent as that of theorems, and eodem tempore, for example, is not always replaced b y temporibus

aequalibus, n Theorem XIII, itself, is not entirely consistent with stage I I I editing. Absolvere occurs with mobile as its subject in one case and planum in another. Thus, absolvere is used to express the completion of a space in the least time. Why
GALILEO chose this construction is hard to guess, but it suggests a connection with the old brachistochrone (see section 4.3). In fact, the brachistochrone is discussed in the letter to STACCOLIwhere the result of Theorem X l I I is mentioned. Is it possible that this theorem and its corollary represent a late effort on GALILEO'S part to find a way to prove that Theorem X X l I would hold for the case of an arbitrary initial fall ? If so, it seems to have led to new speculations which GALILEO could not handle with his limited mathematical tools. To m y knowledge, the problems which make up the superstructure of GALILEO'S treatise on motion are not found in or suggested b y previous literature. GALILEO is using mathematics as an instrument for the discovery of new truths. In the next section we will see how he used the Greek method of analysis to solve his most complicated problems.

6.4. Galileo's Method o/Analysis

Folio 144, mentioned at the beginning of section 6, shows GALILEO beginning work on a new kind of problem while still at Padua. W h a t is sought is an inclined plane BE, joined to a vertical AB, such that t (ABE) = t (BE). This investigation m a y have emerged naturally from folio 126, which shows, in effect, how to find t (ABE). The draft on folio t 44 shows that GALILEO began work on this problem in one of his typical Paduan hands and continued later in the somewhat unusual n The handwriting in the fragments relating to these propositions is typical of the Florentine period, and so is the single watermark that occurs.
t7"

250

W.L. WISAN:

hand which was discussed in section 6.1. We find further progress towards a solution on folio 99, which bears a watermark found so far only in letters originated in Florence and which is in a hand typical of the Florentine period. A fairly complete analysis is written out on folio 97t, and the final step in the analysis is worked out on folio 54t. Both of these are in the typical Florentine hand. Then, on folio 142, we find the synthesis, that is, the solution in deductive form. But folio 142 bears a watermark typical of the Paduan period, as does folio 144, and is in the unusual hand on folio 144. Thus, evidence from watermarks, and perhaps that from writing as well, suggests that GALILEO actually finished the proof of Problem X I V before writing out the drafts where we find the essential pieces of analysis leading to that proof. Until further investigation into watermarks and handwriting enables us to resolve the apparent inconsistency in the order of these fragments, Problem X I V cannot be used as an example of GALILEO'Smethod of analysis. 1~ However, in Problem X I I I , a variant on Problem XIV, we have another proposition for which there is an even more complete set of fragments, all of which are in GALILEO'Smost typical hand of the Florentine period and for which the only watermarks are to be found only in Florentine correspondence. 13 These fragments document in fine detail the way in which GALILEO used the Greek method of analysis to find his solution. To use the method of analysis one begins by assuming what is to be proved, or constructed, and works, back from this until finding known propositions or given conditions from which the construction can be made, or the theorem proved (see section t.3). In Problem X I I I this is precisely GALILEO'S technique. In the course of his search for the key relations which must hold, he makes use of a subsidiary diagram which he subsequently eliminates, thereby obscuring the way in which he found the solution. He does not tell how he discovered his proof or mention the Greek method of analysis. Nor does he join those of his contemporaries who criticized the Greeks for concealing their true method (HEATH 1897, p. vii). We begin with GALILEO'S own statement of the problem and a paraphrase of the published proof, after which it will be easier to follow a detailed analysis of the fragments leading to the solution. Given a limited inclined plane and a vertical line having their highest point in common, it is required to find a point in the vertical line extended such that a body will fall from it and then traverse the inclined plane in the same time which is required to traverse the inclined plane alone starting from rest at the top of said plane. (Opere VIII, p. 255; CREW,p. 230 ) 12 There are few language clues in these fragments and they are not decisive. Folio t44 uses tempus per and aequale throughout; folio t42 uses in]lexus for planum, ex quiete, tempus per, aequare, eodem tempore, motus with ]acere; 97t uses ex quiete, aequare, aequale and tempus per; the other fragments are too abbreviated to provide clues. 13 There are even fewer language clues among these fragments; ex quiete appears occasionally and con[icere is always used for traverse. We find eodem tempore and casus, and the latter is used for oblique as well as vertical descent. A draft of the solution to problem X I I I is on the verso of folio 93, which is a letter to GALILEO written in t631 (Opere VIII, pp. 412, 255n).

Galileo's Science of Motion

251

In other words, if a plane AB and its vertical height AC are given, and t (AB) = AB, then what is wanted is the point X on AC extended upward, such that t ( X A B ) ~ A B . The solution calls for the following construction: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) On AB lay off AN = AC. On AC, choose L so that AB/BN = AL/LC. On AB, mark off AI = A L . Extend AC downward to E, choosing E so that BI = m ( A C , CE). Construct XA = CE, and t (XAB) = t (AB).
X

D The proof requires some further construction: (vi) Draw BC, and extend AB in both directions. (vii) Construct X R perpendicular to XA, intersecting the extension of AB in R. (viii) Construct DE parallel to BC and intersecting the extension of AB at D. (ix) Describe a semicircle with AD as diameter. (x) Construct BF perpendicular to AD, meeting the semicircle at F. (xi) Draw AF, and lay off F H - - F B ; and on FB lay off BS = B I .
NOW we are ready for the proof:

(1)
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

FB = m ( A B , BD); FA = m ( A D , AB); B I = m ( A C , CE), and AB/BD = AC/CE, by construction and elementary geometry. Then AB/AC = A B / A N = F B / B S = F B / B I from (i), (xi), and (t). And AB/(AB -- AN) = FB/(FB -- BS) = AB/BN = FB/FS = AL/LC, from (ii) and (2). Now, FB. LC ----FB (AC -- AL) = FB. AC -- FB. AL = FB. AC -- FB. AI, from (iii), and F S . A L = F S . A I = F B . A I - - B I . A I , from (iii) and (xi). Also, AC.FB = A B - B I , from (2). Add A I . B I to both sides of (6). Then 2AI. FB = A B . B I + A I . B I = (AI + BI) BI + A I . B I = 2 A I . B I + BI ~, from (3) and (xi). Then AB ~ = 2 M . FB + AI ~, by adding A P to each side of (7).

2 52

W.L. WISAN:

(t 0) Also, FB ~+ AB 2 = F H 2 + 2AI. F H + AI ~ = AF 2, if we add BF 2 = F H 2 to both sides of (8). (t t) From this, F H 2 + 2AI. F H + AI~ = F H 2 + 2AH. FFI + A H ~. From (10), GALILEO argues, by reductio, that A H = A I , and he can now get his conclusion b y application of the corollary to Problem VI (see section 4.1), which says that if t (AB) = AB, then (t2) t(AB, X) = m ( B R , AB) - - m ( A R , AB)----m(AD, A B ) - - m ( B D , AB) = F A - - F B = A H = A I , from (v), (t), and (xi). (t3) But t (XA) = t (CE) = m (CE, AC) = BI, and (t 4) t (X_A) + t (AB, X) = B I + AI = AB = t (AB), which was to be shown. Problem X I I I is not a simple one b y any method. GALILEO uses Greek geometrical algebra to manipulate the proportions which must hold in order to derive a relation involving only o n e unknown, XA. Lacking modern methods of analysis, he can only find such a solution b y the Greek method of assuming the construction of XA and proceeding step by step until he finds the key relation, AL]LC -----AB/BN, where AB and AC are given, AN = A C , A B - - A N = B N , and AL + L C = A C . We can follow GALILEO'S search for a solution t h r o u g h s i x fragments in the manuscript, all in his hand. The earliest identifiable steps are on folio 96t, where GALILEO supposes the necessary construction and begins to explore the consequences.

Sit [actum. And the time along EAC, beginning from E, would be the same as the time along AC from rest (ex quiete) from A. Let EA be the time along EA; the time along FA will be FA. The time along the whole of FC will be FH, or
. D F

oH

FI, and along the remainder AC, beginning from F, will be AI. Therefore, the time along the two, EAC, will be EAI, which should be equal to the time along AC from rest at A. Since FA is the time along FA, the time along AC from rest at A, will be AH, which, however, is tile mean between FA and AC. Therefore, one must set AH to be equal to the sum of EA and AI, t h a t is, BA and CA must be prolonged in such fashion t h a t (constructing the horizontal FE) EA, together with the excess of the mean between CF and FA over FA

Galileo's Science of Motion

253

(which would be AI) would be equal to the mean between AC and CF, that is to FH. (Opere viii, p. 398) 14 So far, the analysis is a familiar one. W h a t is wanted is t (EAC)----t (AC). Setting t(EA)----EA, and assuming Theorem III, t ( F A ) = F A . Then t(FC) m (FA, FC) ~- FI, and by Theorem X I it follows that t (AC, E) = t (FC) - - t (FA) = F I -- FA = AI. Then the problem is solved if t (AC) = EA + AI -= m (FA, AC) AH. From the properties of triangles inscribed in a semicircle one can find the mean proportional between FA and AC. But, of course, EA will not be given (only AC and AB are given). After this preliminary exploration of the relations which must hold, GALILEO drops the assumption t h a t t ( E A ) = E A , and tries letting t (AC) = AC. He begins a new paragraph on folio 96t with this assumption. If then, one supposes that CA would be the time along CA, the time along AB would be BA and that along EA would be AG. Suppose, then, F I equal to AC; F I will be the time along F I and FO the time along the whole of FC. Then OI, mean between I F and FA (in fact, FA is equal to IC), will be the time along FA, and P F (the excess of the mean OF over the mean OI) will be the time along AC, from F. Therefore, one must proceed so t h a t the sum of P F with AG would be equal to AC. (Opere v i i i , p. 398) There is not room for all of this at the bottom of folio 96t, and the last few lines are written at the top. GALILEO lets F I = CA = t (FI). Then (a) F A = I C and FO = m ( F I , F C ) = t ( F C ) . (b) Then t (FA) = t (IC) = m (FI, IC) = OI, and (c) t (CA, F) = t (FC) -- t (FA) = m (FI, FC) -- m (FI, IC), b y the corollary to Problem VI. (d) Therefore, t (CA, F) ----FO - - IO = P F (PF is not shown). To finish the solution one needs t(CA, F ) + t ( E A ) - - t ( A C ) = A C . I t is required then that AC = P F + AG, where AG = m (EA, AB) -- t (EA). Again, GALILEO is stopped, for EA is not given. Thus neither approach tried on folio 96t yields a solution. Signs of a fresh attack appear on folio 61t, where a quite different diagram is used, and two different methods outlined. The second procedure proves to be fruitless, but the first eventually leads to a solution. I t is as follows.

I N

14 FAVAROassociates this fragment with Theorem XI. It uses the result established in Theorem XI but is clearly directed towards a solution of Problem X I I I , as will be seen.

254

W.L. WISAN: If AC is the time along AC, then BI is the time along XA, AB is the time along AB, and BS the time along RB. The time along AB, after RA, will be the excess of BS over SA; one must show that AI is equal to this excess, which is true. (Opere v i i i , p. 41t)

I t is assumed that B I = m ( A C , AX) and B S = m ( A B , BR). Then since t (AB) = AB, it follows from Problem VI that t (AB, X) = m (AB, BR) -- m (AB, A R ) = B S - - S A . Since B I = m ( A C , X A ) = t ( X A ) , the solution will follow if B I + AI = t (XA) + t (AB, X) = t (AB) = AB. This line of attack is further developed on folio 94t. Some preliminary remarks are missing and tile fragment begins in the middle of a sentence. since the time along EAG would be equal to the time along AG, given that the time along AG is AG, the time along AL will be AL, and FG will be the time along DG, and the excess of GF over FA Ewhich is] NG, will be the
E

/
B

time along AG after DA. Then, IA, the mean between LA and AE, will be the time along EA. One must, then, proceed so that AI with NG would be equal to AG. One will have this when the excess of the mean FA over the mean AI is equal to the excess of GF over AG, letting GO equal GA. (Opere V I I I , p. 398) 15 Folio 94t again applies the corollary to Problem VI: (a) t (AG, D) = m (DG, AG) -- m (DA, AG) ----FG -- FA ----FG -- FN = GN. Then letting IA-----t (AE) = m (AE, AL), one wishes to have IA + GN = A G , since AG = t (AG). This would follow if (b) FA - - A I = GF - - A G = GF -- GO = OF, or

(c) AI -- FA -- OF.
This result leads nowhere, but the conditions for a solution are beginning to emerge. A new draft begins on folio 99t with a fresh diagram. If HA is equal to AI, H F to FB, and the square of FA to the sum of the squares of FB and BA, then subtracting the squares of FH, HA, FB, IA, 15 Again, FAVAROmisses the connection with Problem X l I I and associates this fragment with Theorem XI.

Galileo's Science of Motion

255

twice the rectangle between F H and HA will be equal to the sum of twice the rectangle between AI and IB, with the square of IB. Twice the rectangle A H F is equal to the sum of the rectangles AIB and FB, AC; in fact, the rectangle ABI is equal to the rectangle FB,AC, since as AC is to CG, or BI, so is AB to BF. One needs, then, that the excess of the rectangle A H F over tile rectangle AIB, or AH,IB, would be equal to the excess of the rectangle FB,AC, over rectangle FHA. But the excess of the rectangle A H F over the rectangle AIB, or AH,CG, is a rectangle composed of GC and the excess of FH, or FB, over CG. The excess, then, of the rectangle AC,BF, over the rectangle A H F is equal to the rectangle composed of the excess of AC over AH, or AI, and the same FH. Therefore, if one supposes AL equal to AI, the latter excess will be the rectangle FH,LC, which would be equal to the other excess of the rectangle A H F over the rectangle AIB, that is, (setting BO equal to FB) the rectangle AIO. (Opere viii, p. 413) Folio 99t starts with assumptions which follow from the analysis on folio 94t. T h a t is, extending AE to X, and AD to R (not indicated in the figure on folio 99t), assume that t ( A B ) = A B , t (AC)=AC, and CE = XA, the vertical sought, and

further, that t (CE) ----t (XA) ----- (AC, CE) ----BI. Then if AI = t (AB, X), solution m of the problem requires that t (AB) ----- (XA) + t (AB, X) ----- + AI, or, that t BI AB = B I + AI. Since AC and AB are the only distances given, AI must be found in terms of these. Applying tile corollary to Problem VI gives (a) t (AB, R) ----m (BR, AB) -- m (AR, AB) ----m (DA, AB) -- m (DB, AB) = FA - - FB ----AH. This result shows that what is needed is to set AI = A H indicated in the first paragraph of folio 99t. Then (b) FA 2 = FB ~+ AB 2 = F H 2 + A H ~+ 2 F H . AH, while (c) AB ~ = A P + 2AI .BI + B I 2, so that (d) 2 A I - B I + B I 2 = 2 F H . A H . (e) Then ( A I + B I ) B I + A I - B I =2FH.AH, (f) A B . B I + A I - B I ----2FH.HA = 2 F B . A I . or and FB = F H , as

We have thus worked backwards from step (13) to step (7) in our paraphrase of the published proof. Further progress follows from construction of the semi-

256

W.L. WISAN:

circle AGE. Since BI----m(AC, CE), then BI----CG, and BI must then satisfy the same conditions as CG. Since (g) AB/DB----AC/CE, and AB/AC----DB/CE, then (h) (AB2/AC~) -----(AB. DB/AC-CE)*- = AB/AC. (i) But (AB. DB) = m (AB, DB) ----FB, and (j) (AC.CE)----m(AC, CE) ----CG. (k) Therefore, A B / A C = FB/CG, or A B . C G ---AC.FB. (I) Now, CG----m(AC, CE) = B I , A B - B I = A B . C G = A C . F B ; (m) AC. F B + AI. BI = 2 FB.AI, by substituting into (f).

hence

This n o w shows the essential relationship needed for the solution, and from which the initialconstruction is derived. For, (n) F B - A I -- AI- BI ---- B . A C -- F B . AI ---- B (AC --AI). F F (o) So, let AL----AI, let A C - AL----CL, and F B --~ O ; then, B (p) F B . A I - - A I - B I = A I (FB - - B I ) ----AI (BO - - B I ) = A I . IO = F B . CL. This result is equivalent to step (3) in the paraphrase of the proof, and the solution is now almost complete. Folio 54r uses substantially the same diagram as folio 99t, but on AB GALILEO marks off AN----AC, and takes F B - - B I = F B - - B S = F S , so that FS occurs in place of IO. He then outlines the solution as follows : The demonstration, on the whole, seems to be seen thus. One intersects AN equal to AC, and as AB is to BN, so let AL to LC. Suppose, then, AI equal to AL, and as AC is to IB, so let IB to CE. CE will be the line to be found, that is, the higher tract of the perpendicular, from which the body will traverse (con/icier) the same tract, together with AB in the same time that it would traverse AB alone. (Opere viii, pp. 412-13) The key relation is AB/BN = A L / C L , where AN = A C , and AB - - A N = BN. This is found from folio 54r, which also indicates the following steps: (q) Substitute FS for IO, and AL for AI, in (p) ; it then follows that AL. FS = FB. CL, or AL/CL ----FB/FS. (r) Use the relation FB/CG----AB/AC from (1), and let AN = A C = B S; then FB/CG -- AB/AN, and (s) FB/(FB -- BS) = AB/(AB - - AN), or F B / F S = AB/BN = A L / L C . We have now proceeded from step (13) in the paraphrase of the published proof, and worked back to the initial conditions which must be set in order to make the required construction. Since AB and AC are given, AL----AI = AH can be found and the proof follows. On folio 55t, GALILEO begins his synthesis, which is fully worked out on folio 93t (Opere viii, pp. 412, 255n). To summarize: the analysis begins on folio 96t, using the strategy of Problem IV. This does not work, and GALILEO tries a different method, using the result formalized in the pnblished text as the corollary to Problem VI. The new approach is worked out on folia 6 t t and 94t. But this does not yet suffice to complete the and CG

Galileo's Science of Motion

257

solution of the problem. Folio 99t starts with assumptions that follow from the analysis on folio 94t, and makes use of an auxiliary diagram (also used on folio 96t, but then discarded) to make further progress in discovering what relations must hold. Folio 54r begins with the results of folio 99t and goes on to derive the key relation from which the construction in the text will take its start. T h e auxiliary diagram, no longer needed, is not shown, and the published proof provides no clue to the way in which it was discovered. GALILEO does not follow his Greek models in exhibiting the course of the analysis, nor does he ever mention using this method to derive the propositions of De motu locali. None of the fragments we have looked at reveals any motive behind the interest in Problem X I I I . On folio 77t, however, we find the diagram below a n d the following remark: One finds the altitude N, from which NAB is completed (conficiuntur) in the same time as AB alone; it is clear that, beginning from all the points between N and A, the time along both the lines is quicker; one should see if the least time would be, perhaps, from the point in the middle of the line NA. Videtur respondere. (Opere V I I I , p. 409) N

T h a t is, suppose t (NAB) equal to t (AB); the question is, will the time along the plane AB, together with the time along an initial vertical fall, be a m i n i m u m when the fall begins at the midpoint of NA ? This question, of course, is similar to that on folio 72r (see section 8.t). There, GALILEO suggested that t(NAB) would be a minimum when NA is chosen so t h a t t (NA) ----t (AB, N). Did failure to establish this result lead GALILEO to t r y the conjecture on folio 77t and thus lead to Problem X l I I ? Exactly what GALILEO had in mind we cannot know. Was he ultimately motivated by practical questions, or was he simply seeking out the "secrets of nature," operating on the assumption that nature acts in the least time ? Whatever the motive, GALILEO'Spropositions purport to reveal truths about nature. But he is not simply providing mathematical explanations for known phenomena or trying to derive experimentally confirmable consequences. He could no more confirm these propositions b y experiments on inclined planes than he could give such a demonstration of his Postulate. In GALILEO'S more complex propositions he is searching for mathematical conditions which will lead to the discovery of an unknown quantity. He is using mathematics as an instrument for discovering new consequences of his basic assumptions and these consequences are valid whether or not confirmed in

258

W.L. WISAN,

experience. In this case, however, the fundamental principles must be taken as absolute truths. How GALILEO finally completed a foundation of such "truths" will be seen in section 8. We must now trace the development of the book on the motion of projectiles; much of it was begun at Padua, but the remainder was completed only a short time before the Discorsi.
7. The Motion of Projectiles

7.1. The Parabolic Path

It has been argued that GALILEO discovered the parabolic path of projectiles quite early (see section 5.t), and that he had some of his other propositions on the motion of projectiles by t610 (section 5.5). Then, there is no further evidence of activity along this line until around t636. At this time GALILEO wrote to DIODATI that he had not yet finished the third part of his book on motion: I am busy with the treatise on projectiles, material truly marvelous, and in which the more I speculate, the more new things I find, which have never been observed, much less demonstrated, by anyone. And as well in this part, I open the way to ingenious speculations di diNondersi in immenso, and wish to amplify them a little more. But I am finding that old age stems away the life and quickness of the spirit, and in the meantime I have hard work (duro ]atica) understanding not a few of the things found and demonstrated by me in a fresher age. (Opere v i i i , p. t6; my translation from the Italian) On March 7, 1637, GALILEO wrote again to DIODATI, telling him that he would soon send the treatise on projectiles (Opere XVlI, pp. 4t-42). In revising and reordering this material, GALILEOwrites, he has continued to discover propositioni bellissime and will now close with a table giving the range of projectiles for each angle of fire. Two additional tables which appear in the published text are not mentioned in this letter. Apparently GALILEO discovered the parabolic path quite early, derived some further results from it, put it aside, and returned to it in 1636, after which he derived the propositions from which his tables were constructed. If I am correct in supposing that GALILEO first derived the parabolic path in the manner suggested by folio t 52, then his final proof may have been constructed just before the book on the motion of projectiles was completed. The book begins with a short Latin introduction in which GALILEOsays that a body projected along a perfectly smooth, unlimited horizontal plane will continue to move with a perpetual, uniform motion. If the plane is limited so that the body goes over its edge, the body will retain its perpetual uniform motion, while at the same time it will acquire an accelerated motion downward. Theorem I states that the resulting path will be a semi-parabola. Before proving Theorem I, GALILEO inserts a passage in which SALVIATI explains in Italian the basic properties of the parabola (Opere v i i i , pp. 269-71). Referring to APOLLONIUS, he defines the parabola as a conic section and proves that if one takes AD as the axis of the parabola and constructs the lines E F and DB perpendicular to the axis, cutting the parabola at points F and B, respectively, then FEZ/BD ~ = A E / A D . He also explains a second proposition which is used

Galileo's Science of Motion

259

t B

frequently. Let the axis of a given parabola be extended upward so that the extension DA is equM to the altitude AC of the parabola, and let CB be the base of the semi-parabola. Then DB will be tangent to the parabola at ]3. A third proposition, to which GALILEOwill appeM occasionally, is EUCLID II, 5: If a straight line be cut into equal and unequal segments, the rectangle contained by the unequal segments of the whole together with the square on the straight line between the points of section is equal to the square on the half. (HEATI~1926, Vol. I, p. 382) Proof of Theorem I depends only on the first of these propositions, together with the inertial principle, the principle of superposition of motions, and the law of odd numbers. We suppose a body to move with uniform speed along the horizontal plane AB. When the plane ends, the body begins to fall, while continuing its uniform horizontal motion at the same time. Extend AB to the point E, and let the line BE represent the time during which the projectile falls. Divide BE into an equal number of segments, representing equal intervals of time. If a body moving from B to C falls through the distance CI, it will fall through three times that distance during the second equal time interval, and through five times that distance during the third. Drop perpendiculars from points ]3, C, D, and E, and from C lay off any distance CI, to represent the distance of fall during the first interval of time. From D, lay off DF equal to four times CI, and from E, lay off EH equal to nine times CI. The points I, F, and H, will be points on the path of the projectile. But the vertical distances between these points and the horizontal are in proportion to the squares of the corresponding horizontal distances. That is, EH/DF =EB~/DB ~, or, EH/DF =HL2/FG 2, from which it follows that the path is a semi-parabola, a result confirmed by an additional argument from reductio ad adsurdum.

260
E

W . L . WISAN :
D C B A

"~I~'~ 0

After this proof, given in Latin, the dialogue in Italian resumes. SAC.REDO remarks that the a r g u m e n t is conclusive on the assumption that the horizontal motion is uniform and that the velocities "combine without altering, disturbing, or hindering each other" (Opere viii, p. 273; CREW, p. 250). However, he points out that since the natural motion of a falling body is towards the center of the earth, its path cannot be parabolic, since a parabola deviates more and more from its axis. SI~PLIClO adds two more objections. First, he says, motion along a straight line cannot continue uniformly since as a body moves along such a line it recedes further from the center of the earth; secondly, the body must be affected b y the resistance of the medium. SALVIATI immediately grants all of these objections, and says: I grant that these conclusions proved in the abstract will be different when applied in the concrete and will be fallacious to this extent, that neither will the horizontal motion be uniform nor the natural acceleration be in the ratio assumed, nor the path of the projectile a parabola, etc. (Opere viii, p. 274; CREW, p. 251) SALVIATI answers SAGREDO by an appeal to the authority of ARCHIMEDES who assumes that every point on a horizontal balance is equidistant from the common center. Then he passes on to SIMPLICIO'S objection concerning air resistance. SALVIATI says that since one can give no exact description of the effects of air resistance, it is necessary to cut loose from these difficulties; and having discovered and demonstrated the theorems, in the case of no resistance, to use them and apply them with such limitations as experience will teach. (Opere viii, p. 276; CREW, p. 253) He argues from two experiments that, under natural conditions, air resistance is negligible. This is shown by the small difference in time of fall for bodies of different densities, even though one weighs m a n y times the other, provided that the bodies are of such shape and material as normally used in projectiles. Then, since two pendulums of the same length and with equal leaden bobs will keep time, even though one describes very large arcs, and the other much smaller ones, it can be seen that there is no appreciable difference in air resistance for identical bodies moving at different speeds. 0 Firearms are excepted from this on the ground that projectiles launched by gun powder acquire supernatural speeds. (See section 7.5.)

Galileo's Science of Motion

261

SALVIATI does not reply to SIMPLIClO'S first objection that motion along a horizontal plane would not be uniform since, as the projectile moves along its path, it recedes from the center of the earth. The objection is granted, and SALVlATI goes on to justify his assumption that plumb lines m a y be considered parallel. This discussion, however, is directed rather to SAGREDO'S objection than to SIMPLIClO's since the point made by the former was that since the direction of fall of the body towards the earth is always along a line through the center, the body does not follow an exact parabolic path. At no point does SALVIATI suggest that the true inertial path would be along a circle and that the rectilinear path is merely an approximation to this; rather he concedes only that the rectilinear motion would not be uniform. For this to be the case, the rectilinear motion must be opposed by another rectilinear motion in the opposite direction, and this implies acceptance of SIMPLICIO'S analysis which assumes that the horizontal motion is as though it were along a physically real plane inclined with respect to the earth's surface. There would then be an opposing motion of descent along the plane which would decrease the initial uniform motion (see section 6.2). This, of course, is impossible. Where there is no actual plane, the motion of the body due to its gravity would be directed towards the center of the earth. GALILEO seems to be accounting twice for gravity, without realizing it. But since this argument is put into the mouth of SIMPLICIOit m a y be a mistake to take it too seriously. GALILEO'S views on inertial motion have long been a subject of debate. 1 He was once supposed to have been the author of the principle of rectilinear inertia, but it is now generally believed that he never liberated himself from the ancient doctrine that only circular motion can be uniform and eternal. This might be true, but as has been pointed out in some recent studies (DRAKE t968b; COrFA t968), those who propose this interpretation lean heavily on the cosmological speculations in the first giornata of GALILEO'S Dialogo where GALILEO makes remarks which are inconsistent with what he says elsewhere. The arguments 1 The most comprehensive treatment of this subject is still that of WOHLWILL (1883), who seems to have been the first to question the assumption that GALILEO was author of the principle of rectilinear inertial motion. WOHLWILL'Sstudy focuses on the problem of circular motion and analyzes the history of this problem in terms of the mechanical concepts brought to bear on it from the time of PLATO and ARISTOTLE. His article, however, was written before DUHEM'Sdiscovery of fourteenth century kinematics and dynamics and the consequent debate over the role of the impetus theory of the medievals in the shaping of the modern concept of inertia, and WOHLWILL'S analysis is generally neglected today. KoYRg'S examination of the principle of inertia in his Etudes Galildenes (t 939) incorporates results from DUHEM'S studies, but, of course, does not take into consideration ANNALIESEI~AIER'S later criticism of DUHEM'S account (i949, t955). The best recent discussion of GALILEO'S concept of impetus and its relation to that of the various medieval writers is in MooDY (1967), and an excellent examination of GALILEO'Sconcept of an inertial system is in CLAVELIN (t968). CLAVELIN, however, gives little attention to the history of the problem of circular motion. WESTFALLprovides a very useful survey of this problem from GALILEOtO NEWTON (~971, 1972), but he does not examine its earlier history and his treatment of GALILEOsuffers from this lack and possibly from too much emphasis upon metaphysical considerations. There is not, to nay knowledge, a definitive treatment of GALILEOand the inertial principle.

262

W.L. WISAN:

from GALILEO'Scosmology are weak, as DRAKE and COFFA claim. But even if we
discount this type of evidence, it is still true that GALILEOnowhere lays down a general principle of rectilinear inertial motion. That is, he neither raises nor correctly answers the general question, how would a body move if no forces acted on it ? It may not be necessary to suppose that GALILEO was blocked by mystical or metaphysical presuppositions, for there were at least two fundamental theoretical difficulties which he never overcame. First, he did not have a workable concept of force which he could bring to bear in his analysis of motion. For GALILEO, gravity is the tendency to move towards a common center. Although he first considered gravity as something purely internal or intrinsic to heavy bodies, he may ultimately have believed it to be an external force of some sort3 But nowhere is there evidence that GALILEOvisualized anything resembling the NEWTONIAN gravitational field or that he had a clear idea what motion in the force-free condition would be. If gravity were abolished, this would mean, for GALILEO, that there would be no center towards which bodies tend to move. ~ No matter how a body moved, it would neither rise nor fall. Thus, the motion of a single body in an otherwise empty universe would simply become indeterminate. One might argue that ff we could ask GALILEOhow a body would move inthe void, he would apply the principle of sufficient reason and respond that it would simply continue to move " i n the same way," since there would be no reason for it to do otherwise. This is how he argues for uniform and permanent rectilinear motion on a horizontal plane if the center of the earth is considered to be at an infinite distance, as in the Discorsi, and for uniform circular motion on the surface of the spherical earth, as in the Dialogo. But here we encounter a second major difficulty: for GALILEO, to " m o v e in the same w a y " is not clearly defined. In the case of a projectile which is launched with a "violent" motion, and therefore with an initial rectilinear component, to move in the same way means to move along a rectilinear path. But the case of a stone resting on a tower might be quite different. If the stone were left undisturbed and the rest of the universe removed, the stone would, by GALILEO'Sreasoning, continue to move along its " s a m e " path. But what would the same path be in this case ? It would surely have to be circular. GALILEO never indicates that there is a physically significant change of direction in circular motion. For him to assume, as has been suggested by COF~A (t968, p. 277), that the stone would follow a circular path only under the action of gravity, he would have to be thinking of circular motion as the resultant of rectilinear motions along the tangent and towards the center. There is a vague suggestion of such an analysis in GALILEO'Sdiscussion of what would happen to objects extruded from a rotating earth. In this case, however, GALILEO is assuming, counterfactually in his own eyes, that the rotation of the earth would See my Introduction, n. 3. See also GALILEO'Sdiscussion of his theory of the tides (SA~TILLANA,pp. 456--63). In this remark and my subsequent analysis, I am drawing on extensive discussions of this topic with R. N. WISAN.

Galileo's Science of Motion

263

be a violent motion, not a natural one. 4 Objects are projected along a rectilinear p a t h only b y violence, whereas t h e y are m o v e d along a circular p a t h b y the "natural" motion of the rotating earth. 5 I n his most complete discussions of the motion of projectiles, we find b o t h a "violent" rectilinear a n d a " n a t u r a l " circular component impressed upon the projectile when launched on a moving earth (Opere VII, pp. 200-202; S A N T I L L A N A , pp. t88-90). I n sum, GALILEO cannot be credited with a clear conception of a rectilinear inertial motion in the NEWTONIAN sense. However, in his analysis of the behavior of objects in the cabin of a moving ship we can see t h a t he did have a grasp of the essential features of an inertial system. 6 As long as the earth is conceived to rotate uniformly and all objects on or near it to share in this motion, the earth's system is "inertial. ''7 This concept, however, provided no means b y which GALILEO could account for the motion of the planets and, as we shall see next, whatever he m a y have t h o u g h t about planetary motion, GALILEO was forced to fall back on the ancient doctrine t h a t the planets move in circles because circular motion is the only motion t h a t is eternal and unchanging.

7.2. Some Digressions

Propositions I I and I I I on projectile motion provide some additional machinery for deriving the remaining propositions. B y the second proposition, if a b o d y moves with two uniform motions, one horizontal and the other vertical, the impetus of the resultant motion (impetus seu momentum lationis) is the square root of the sum of the squares of the impetus of the two components. I n the proof GALILEO assumes t h a t for uniform motions taking place in the same time interval the impeti are as the distances and t h a t these impeti m a y be added vectorially. Thus, assuming t h a t a vertical displacement AB takes place in the same time as a horizontal displacement I3C, the resultant displacement (or impetus) is AC. H a v i n g established this, SALVIATI remarks t h a t " o u r A u t h o r " will show how to determine the speed (impeto) of a parabola at each point in its path. First, however, he introduces Proposition I I I to show how speed (impeto) is to be measured. Proposition I I I was originally a theorem t h a t velocities acquired in fM1 are proportional to the times of fall (see section 5.4). Here it is substantially revised as a proposition on how to measure speed. The terms descensus, impetus, and delatum are introduced in the rewriting, and, of course, the term mensura is new. The entire second giornata of the Dialogo must be read carefully in order to understand the suppositions on which the argument against extrusion is based, but the main argument can be followed in SANTILLANA'Stranslation, pp. 200-214. 5 GALILEO could not explain why loose objects on or near the surface of the earth should participate in the motion of the earth. He therefore argued in his Dialogo that the earth's motion was a " n a t u r a l " one and therefore shared in by all its parts. This concept of " n a t u r a l " motion differs from the one GALILEO expounded in his earliest essay on motion, and the term may have been chosen for its persuasive value. GALILEO seems to be approaching the notion of a closed mechanical system. See CLAVELIN'Sdiscussion of this (1968, Chapter V). 7 Since rectilinearity is not a logically necessary feature of an inertial concept it seems legitimate to call GALILEO'S concept inertial, whether or not it entailed rectilinearity.
t8 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. ~3

264

W.L. WISAN:

Also, the first sentence of the version in the manuscript which states the original theorem is dropped, and there is no initial statement that indicates what the revised proposition actually purports to prove. The published proof begins: Fiat motus per lineam AB ex quiete in A, et accipiatur in ea quodlibet puncture C; et ponatur ipsamet AC esse tempus, seu temporis mensura, casus ipsius per spatium AC, nec non mensura quoque impetus seu momenti in puncto C ex descensu AC acquisiti. Modo sumatur in eadem linea AB quodcunque aliud punctum, utputa B, in quo determinandum est de impetu acquisito a mobili per descensum AB, in ratione ad impetum quem obtinuit in C, cuius mensura posita est AC. Ponatur AS media proportionalis inter BA, AC: demonstrabimus, impetum in B a d impetum in C esse ut lineam SA ad AC. Sumantur horizontales CD, dupla ipsius AC, BE vero dupla BA: constat, ex demonstratis, cadens per AC, conversum in horizonte CD, atque iuxta impetum in C acquisitum motu aequabili delatum, conficere spatium CD aequali tempore, atque ipsum AC motu accelerato confecit; similiterque, BE confici eodem tempore atque AB: sed tempus ipsius descensus AB est AS: (Opere viii, pp. 28t-82; emphasis added) s The remainder of the proof duplicates that i n t h e manuscript almost verbatim, and it ends by stating that the momenta celeritatis at C is to that at B as CA to AS, or as the time along CA to the time along AB. Some additional material, 9 added to emphasize the result that has been found, begins with the remark: Patet itaque ratio mensurandi impetum seu celeritatis momentum super linea in qua /it motus descensus; qui quidem impetus ponitur augeri pro ratione temporis. (Opere viii, p. 282; emphasis added) That is, the method of measuring the impetus, or celeritatis momentum along the line of descent is clear; indeed, this impetus is supposed to increase in the same ratio as the time. Here GALILEO refers to the fact that this proportionality has already been assumed and a rare reference to it as a postulate appears in discussion following Proposition IV. The next paragraph discusses the problem of finding a common standard by which to measure velocities. GALILEOpoints out that equal velocities are always acquired in fall through equal heights. Hence, for a given semi-parabola AB with axis AC, one may consider the axis extended to some point D, such that the speed acquired in fall through DA is just that with which a body, diverted along a horizontal path at A, would describe the parabola AB. The axis AC is said to be the altitude of the parabola, BC is the amplitude, and the line DA which determines the horizontal speed, that is, the initial speed of projection, is the "sublimity" of the parabola. The concept of sublimity leads to a digression. SAGREDOpoints out the beautiful agreement between this thought of the Author and the views of PLATO concerning the origin of the various uniform speeds with which the s The italicized terms are those which do not appear in the manuscript version. 9 This additional material uses all of the terms italicized above except delatum.

Galileo's Science of Motion

265

heavenly bodies revolve. The latter chanced upon the idea that a body could not pass from rest to any given speed and maintain it uniformly except by passing through all the degrees of speed intermediate between the given speed and rest. PLATO thought that God, after having created the heavenly bodies, assigned them the proper and uniform speeds with which they were forever to revolve; and that He made them start from rest and move over definite distances under a natural and rectilinear acceleration such as governs the motion of terrestrial bodies. He added that once these bodies had gained their proper and permanent speed, their rectilinear motion was converted into a circular one, the only motion capable of maintaining uniformity, a motion in which the body revolves without either receding from or approaching its desired goal. (Opere v i i i , pp. 283-84; CREw, p. 26t) This, of course, is a reference to the "PLATO problem," introduced in the first giornata of the Dialogo (OpereVII, p. 53). There GALILEOsuggested a cosmogony, supposedly based o n PLATO, as an alternative to that of the ARISTOTELIANS. Only rest and circular motion are natural in an orderly universe, while rectilinear motion is that motion by which bodies move when outside their natural places. In the beginning, God (or PLATO's Demiurgos ?) dropped all the planets from the same point. Each planet, falling from rest, reached its preassigned orbit at just the moment when its acquired velocity could be transformed into its proper orbital speed through conversion of the rectilinear motion into uniform circular motion. GALILEO claims to find agreement between some calculations and the result he has supposed. But no calculations are provided, nor is it indicated how they were made. SALVIATI tells SAGREDO that the Author (that is, GALILEO) made the computation and found a "satisfactory" correspondence with observation, but did not want to stir up his opponents by writing about it. Anyone who wishes may work it out, he says, from the theory that has been set forth. Various historians have examined this claim and found it unjustified (KoYR~ 1965; SAMBURSKY 1962; CORE~,' 1967). No one has been able to get satisfactory results from any plausible set of assumptions GALILEO may have made. Interestingly enough, Problem XVI, the last proposition in the book on accelerated motion, shows one of GALILEO'S own attempts to devise a method for the solution of the problem. The problem states that Given two horizontal planes cut by a vertical line, it is required to find a point on the upper part of the vertical line from which bodies may fall to the horizontal planes and there, having their motion deflected into a horizontal direction, will, during an interval equal to the time of fall, traverse distances which bear to each other any assigned ratio of a smaller quantity to a larger. (op~re VIII, p. 265; CREW, p. 24t) One is to find the point L, from which bodies failing to the horizontal planes CD and BE, and deflected along these planes, will, in the times of their fall, traverse distances which are in the ratio of N to FG. The proof is elementary. (t) On FG, mark off GH--~ N. (2) Select L such that F H / H G - - B C / C L .
18"

266

W . L. WISAN:

A
F O E

(3) Let CM -----2CL, and draw LMO. (4) Then BO = 2BL. (5) CM and BO are, respectively, the distances that will be traversed along CD and BE in t (LC) and t (LB), respectively, b y the double-distance rule. (6) And CM/BO = CL/LB ----CL/(BC + CL) ----- G / ( H G + FH) = N/FG. H The same problem is found in the manuscript in GALILEO'S hand; he adds the following note: If we understand CM and BO to be circular circumferences which heavy bodies (grave) tend to describe about a center, we will have the distance L, from which we can deduce the ratio of the velocity in its circular motion; ex qua et ex ratione conversionum distantia centri elici . . . . 10 (Opere viii, p. 266n; fol. t62r) The fragment breaks off, and it would appear that GALILEO did not finish working this out; however, he is undoubtedly convinced that the problem can be solved, and is here searching for the right method. 7.3. Propositions I V and V on Projectile Motion Following the cosmogonical digression are two problems and some further discussion of method. The problems establish the foundation for the remaining propositions on the motion of projectiles. Proposition IV shows how to determine the velocity (impetus) at each point in the path of a projectile. This proposition is an early one, for it is outlined on folio 9 t t (see section 5.4). The proof as it appears in the published text can be paraphrased as follows: (1) Let the semi-parabola BEC be given, with amplitude CD and altitude BD; construct the tangent AC, and draw B I perpendicular to AD. (2) Then AB ~ B D and CD -~ 2BD ----2AB ----2BI. (3) Let AB ----- (AB) = m y (AB), and then t (4) BD ----t (BD) = m y (BD). (5) Now, if a projectile falls along AB or BD and is diverted along a horizontal path without loss of energy, it will traverse 2AB ----2BD ----DC in t (AB) ~t (BD), b y the double-distance rule. (6) Therefore, if a projectile falls along AB and is diverted along BI while continuing to fall through the vertical BD, it will in t (BD) reach the point C on the horizontal. 10 Problem XVI and its related fragment show, of course, that GALILEOdid try to apply his new science of motion to celestial mechanics, and that to do this he assumed circular planetary motion. By this, however, one should understand that it is the primary or "natural" motion that would be circular, not that found in empirical reality which, affected by "accidental" causes, would be irregular.

Galileo's Science of Motion A

267

F G C By the second proposition on projectile motion, the impetus at C is the resultant of the horizontal and vertical components. If AB represents the velocity or impetus acquired in fall through AB, and BI = AB = BD represents that acquired in the subsequent fall through BD, then the resultant is the line AI, and the problem is solved for the particular case in which the impetus at C is sought. But Proposition I I was proved for two uniform motions, and much of the discussion immediately following is devoted to explaining why this result m a y legitimately be applied to the present case involving one component of accelerated and one of uniform motion. SALVIATI argues, i n effect, that since any body moving with uniform speed has, in acquiring that speed, passed through all intermediate degrees of speed, its final speed m a y be treated as though it were a component of instantaneous velocity. In fact, uniform motion is here treated as though it were an accelerated motion where the acceleration is zero. Hence, it is legitimate to combine components of accelerated and uniform motion. The procedure for establishing Proposition IV combines elements from the method I have supposed for the initial proof of the parabolic path and that used on folio 9 t t for Proposition 111.11 From the double-distance rule and the correct law of fall, the acquired velocity can be found and the horizontal distance traversed during the time of descent can be determined. For the case in which the amplitude of the trajectory is twice the altitude, the solution is quite simple. GALILEO then extends his method so as to find the impetus at any point on a parabola. The general case is solved as follows: (t) Let E be an arbitrary point on the parabola, and find the impetus at E. (2) Draw the paralM EF, and find G, such that BG = m (BD, BF). (3) Then B G = t (BF) = m y (BF), while (4) AB = t (AB) = m y (AB), as before. (5) Then let B O = B G , AO = m v (BE). and AO will be the resultant of AB and BG, or

The second fundamental proposition on projectile motion is the fifth, which establishes the procedure for finding the point from which a body must fall in order to describe a given semi-parabola. The given semi-parabola being AB, its tangent at B is constructed, intersecting the axis at F. Then 11 The published proof of Theorem I uses a different method, one that will not appear elsewhere in the book on projectile motion. It is considerably more elegant than the one I reconstructed as the earlier proof and is very close to that given by CAVALIERIin Lo specchioustorio (1632).

268 (t) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

W.L. WISAI~: FA-----AH, and FB is tangent at B. Choose E such that AG = m (AF, AE), and let t (EA) = EA ----- v (EA). m Then, t(FA)----AG = m v ( F A ) , and AG = t ( A H ) = m v ( A H ) , by (1). Let a body fall from E, and have its motion diverted along the horizontal at A. E

IF

B"

(7) Then, in t(EA), the body will traverse 2EA moving at mv(EA), by the double-distance rule. (8) But moving with mv(EA), the body will traverse 2AG-----BH in t(AH) -~ AG, by Prop. I of Bk. I. (9) Therefore, B H and AH are traversed in the same time b y a body that falls from E and is diverted along a horizontal at A, and the point B lies on the given semi-parabola AB. The method, then, is to construct the third proportional to the altitude and one half the amplitude. From this one can find the sublimity and hence the point from which the body must fall to describe the given semi-parabola3 ~ A corollary to Proposition V proves that one half the amplitude is the mean proportional between the altitude and the sublimity of a given semi-parabola. This is equivalent to the analytic formula x ~ = 2 p y , taking the Y-axis as the axis of the parabola and p equal to twice the sublimity. GALILEO'S sublimity then is the distance between the vertex of the parabola and the directfix, There are two fragments relating to Proposition V, one on folio t 15r and the other on folio 87t. Folio 1t5r is reproduced in facsimile; according to FAVARO, this fragment exhibits GALILEO'Shand from different periods in his lifetime, one of which is the period before 1610 (Opere VIII, pp. 34n, 428n). This, presumably, would be the first part, which indicates the procedure to be followed, but does not complete the proof. The proof on folio 87t is more complete and uses a more elaborate diagram than the final version. Folio 87t uses etevatione for sublimit~ and the relatively rare expression momenta celeritatis which otherwise occurs on folio 9tt, in the scholium to Problem IX, and in the definition of uniformly accelerated motion. All of the fragments and published versions of Propositions IV and V on proiectile motion use only the verb conficere to render "traverse" or "complete." 13 This method is developed separately in Proposition VI, which finds the amplitude from the sublimity and altitude.

Galileo's Science of Motion

269

7.4. The Maximum Range o[ a Proiectile

In t 537 TARTAGLIApublished his Nova scientia, in which he argues that for a given projectile launched by a given charge, the maximum range is obtained when the angle of elevation is 45 (Book II, Proposition viii). TARTAGLIA'S reason was that since the range varied from a minimum at 0 elevation and reached a minimum again at 90 , there must be a maximum midway between, or at 45 . When GALILEOproved this result as a corollary to the seventh proposition of his own book on the motion of projectiles, he did not mention TARTAGLIA. However, he did concede through the mouth of SAGREDO that he had heard of this proposition. But SAGREDO goes on to remark that "to understand why this happens far outweighs the mere information obtained by the testimony of others or even by repeated experiment," and SALVIATI adds to this: The knowledge of a single fact acquired through a discovery of its causes prepares the mind to understand and ascertain other facts without need of recourse to experiment, precisely as in the present case, where b y argumentation alone the Author proves with certainty that the maximum range occurs when the elevation is 45 . (Opere viii, p. 296; CREW, p. 276) To illustrate the way in which his method of research leads to results beyond those of his predecessors, GALILEO goes on to derive the somewhat trivial Proposition VIII in order to demonstrate what has perhaps never been observed in experience, namely, that of other shots those which exceed or fall short of 45 by equal amounts have equal ranges. (ibid.) GALILEOthus dismisses all previous research on the maximum range of projectiles. The laborious search for a mathematical proof of Proposition VII is revealed in three pages of the manuscript. On folio 90ar a long rambling discussion shows b y numerical examples that, given a fixed initial speed of projection, the maximum range is obtained by a projectile fired at an elevation of 45 . A partial proof of this is worked out on folio t t l r , and a complete proof, much as appears in the text, is on folio 86r. FAVARO,who reproduces the last of these in facsimile, claims that it shows handwriting from different periods, the earliest being that before t 6 i 0 (Opere viii, pp. 34n, 43tn). Therefore, Proposition vii, from which the proposition on maximum range follows as a corollary, may have originated in the period before t 6 1 0 , or not long afterwards. The language used on folia 90~r, t l t r , and 86r, offers few obvious clues. The first uses the verb permeare once (its sole occurrence in the material on projectile motion); otherwise only conficere is to be found for the verb "to traverse." On folio 86r, altitudo is used where sublimit~ is customary; and this usage carries over into the published version. Proposition VII states that if projectiles describe semi-parabolas of equal amplitudes, less impetus is required for the case in which the altitude is half the amplitude (which is, of course, when the angle of fire is 45). The proof is as follows:

270

W.L.

WISAN"

H B

(t) Let BD be a semi-parabola with vertex B, whose amplitude is twice its altitude. (2) Lay off BA = BC, draw AD, and construct BE parallel to the horizontal. (3) AD will be tangent to the parabola at D, and BE = B C = } C D = A B . (4) AB will be the sublimity of the semi-parabola BD. (5) Let AB ----t (AB) = m y (AB). (6) Then, AE will be the momentum at the terminal point D, by Prop. IV. (7) Now, consider the semi-parabola GD, such that the amplitude is not equal to twice the altitude. (8) Let HD be the tangent to parabola GD, at D, and let it cut the horizontal, drawn from G, at K. (9) Then GH = GC and GK = DC = BC = AB. (10) Let GL be marked off so that GL is third proportional to GK and HG, or, GK = m (HG, GL). (tl) Then, GL is the sublimity (altitudo here) for semi-parabola GD, by Prop. V. (12) Mark off GM = m ( A B , GL), and GM = m v ( L G ) = t ( L G ) , by (5), and the velocity-time proportionality. (13) Let Gig----m(BC, CG) = t ( G C ) = m v ( G C ) . (t4) Then, MN = m y (GD), or momentum at terminal point D of semi-parabola GD, by Prop. IV. (15) Now, CG/GN = GN/GK, by (7) and (8). (16) Consequently, CG/GK = NG~/GK 2. (17) Also, HG/GK = GK/GL, from (t0), so that (18) NG~/GK * = G K / G L , from (9), (t6), and (t7). (t9) But GK]GL-----GK2/GM~, by (9) and (12). (20) Therefore, NG~]GK2 = GK2/GM*, and (2t) NG z + GM2 > 2 GK 2, while NG e + GM2 = MN 2 and AE * = 2 GK *. (22) Therefore, MN is greater than AE, and the impetus for any elevation other than 45 is greater than that acquired at 45 elevation.

Galileo's Science of Motion

271

Having proved that the least impetus is acquired at the terminal point of a semi-parabola having altitude equal to one half its amplitude, GALILEO adds a corollary in which he remarks without argument that it is "evident" that for the same range less impetus is required to launch a projectile from the terminal point D, if the projectile is fired from that point at an angle of 45 . In other words, since the terminal speed of a projectile is the same as its initial speed and the trajectory is symmetrical, we may infer from Proposition VII that the projectile fired at a 45 angle will have the maximum range. 13 Proposition VIII then establishes that projectiles fired at angles greater or less than 45 by the same amount will have the same range. There are three fragments relating to this proposition. Those on folia t t t t and 80 show preliminary steps, while on folio 82r the proof is only slightly different from the published version. In the last two fragments, sublimit~ is distinguished throughout from altitudo and elevatione, the latter being used only to refer to the angle of elevation at which projectiles are fired. Folio 80, which FAVARO reproduces in facsimile, presumably shows writing from different periods (Opere VIII, pp. 34n, 433n), although, again, FAVARO does not tell us where the differences are to be found, and, except for a marginal note, these differences are not immediately obvious. Folio 80 bears a Paduan watermark and the handwriting is like that on folio 9tt. GALILEO may well have begun work on Proposition VII before t6t0, but, if so, the final version evidently dates from a period when GALILEO'S terminology in regard to projectile motion has stabilized. One more proposition which may turn out to have originated before t610 is Proposition IX, a corollary to Proposition V. It says that the amplitudes of semiparabolas are equal when their altitudes and sublimities are inversely proportional. A draft of this rather simple result of Proposition V is on folio 114r, which FAVARO finds to be in mano giovanile. It may be then that, with the possible exception of Proposition viii, the set of propositions from I to IX were all in preliminary drafts before GALILEO'Smove to Florence. Of the remaining five propositions, at least three (Propositions XlI, XlII, and XIV) date from about 1636, when GALILEO worked out the method for constructing his ballistic tables.

7.5. The Ballistic Tables

In his letter of December 6, 1636, to DIODATI (see section 7.t), GALILEO spoke of demonstrating new things never before observed (which suggests Proposition VIII), but did not mention his ballistic tables until March 1637. This suggests that in the last months of t636, GALILEO was working over Proposition viii, and perhaps X and XI, which provide the machinery for constructing the tables. There is no evidence indicating when propositions X and XI were constructed. However, Proposition X is surely one of the propositioni bellissime to which GALILEO referred in his letter of March 7, t637. It tells us that the impetus acquired at the terminal point of a projectile is equal to that acquired in a fall through the sublimity and altitude (that is, a fall from the directrix). This follows immediately from Proposition IV. On folia 83 t, 86t, and t t 0t, we can see GALILEO 1~ An argument for symmetry is attempted in the tVrammenti (Opere VIII, p. 433).

272

W.L. WISAN:

searching for such a relation. Therefore, these early drafts may have suggested Proposition X at a later time, and this may account for GALILEO'Sremark about his difficulty understanding some of his earlier work. Proposition X is relatively simple, and the proof is as follows: (t) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Let AB be a semi-parabola with sublimity DA and altitude AC, Let DC ~ t (DC) = m v ( D C ) . Mark off CF = m ( C D , DA), and CE = m ( C D , CA). Then CF = t (DA) ----mv (DA) and CE = t (AC) = m y (AC). Then, E F = m v ( A B ) , by Prop. IV. Now, CE 2 + CF 2 ~- E F ~ = DC ~, and

(7) therefore, DC = EF, and m y (DC) = m v (AB). D E

FB

A corollary follows immediately: when the sum of the altitude and sublimity is constant, the momentum at the terminal point is constant. Proposition XI makes use of these results to find the altitude of a projectile, given its amplitude and its speed at its terminal point (or, in other words, the initial velocity). The construction is as follows: (1) Let semi-parabola GC have amplitude BC, and let AB represent the speed at the terminal point C. (2) Let BD-----{BC, and divide AB so that the product of the parts is equal to BD z. (3) Then BD is less than or equal to AB.
A G
E

Galileo's Science of Motion

273

(4) Let E be the midpoint of AB. (5) If BD = B E , then BE is the altitude and EA the sublimity of the given parabola, by Prop. V. (6) For the case in which BD is less than AB, describe a semicircle on AE with center at G and draw AF = B D , EG----FE. (7) Then, EA ~ ----AF ~+ F E ~ ----BD 2 + E G ~ = B G . GA + E G ~. (8) Therefore, B G . GA----BD 2, and BG is the altitude and GA the sublimity. A variation on the method of Proposition XI leads to the preparation of the ballistic tables. Proposition XII shows how to compute the range of a projectile for any angle of fire, if launched with the same initial speed. A fragment in the manuscript shows the solution of the problem. The angle ADC is assumed to be 45 o; B is the midpoint of AC; angle EDC is greater than 45 o; and F is the midpoint of EC, while S is the midpoint of CD. The line AC is taken to be the sum of the given sublimity and altitude. The fragment is a rough note which may be somewhat freely translated as follows.
E

N C

Let the angle ADC be 45: it is manifest that from the sublimity AB will be produced (nascera) the parabola whose altitude is BC. Suppose the angle EDC to be 55 , and find the parabola with elevation 55 , but whose sublimity and altitude would be equal to AC. With false position find whether the axis of such a parabola would be EC, with the tangent ED. Divide EC in half at F, where the altitude of such a parabola would be FC and the sublimity FA; in which case half the amplitude CD would be the mean proportional between CF and FA. But between E F (that is, FC) and FA, the mean [would be] less than half of CD, since half of CD is the mean between CB and BA. Find then the sublimity such that half the amplitude CD (or, CS) would be the mean between this sublimity and FC. Suppose the sublimity equal to FO, and this is the sublimity from which will be described the parabola whose altitude would be FC and amplitude CD. It is, therefore, such a greater parabola, which is sought according to whether OC is greater than AC; but it is similar, being touched by ED. One wants, therefore, to describe another similar [parabola], diminishing its sublimity

274

W.L. WISAN: and amplitude according to the proportion of CA to CO. Therefore, make CD to DN as OC to CA. One hunts the amplitude DN. Given the tangent CE for the given angle EDC, divide it in half at F, and let FO be third proportional to FC and CS, and this will be the sublimity of the parabola FD. Connect CF with FO, making OC; then make CD to DN as OC to CA, and we will have the amplitude sought, that is, of the parabola whose sublimity and altitude are equal to AC, and by consequence is produced (nascono) from impetus equal to that of the projectile launched from the point D. (Opere viii, p. 432; fol. 122t, my translation from the Italian)

The proof in the text formalizes the procedure outlined in the last paragraph, but without the explanatory remarks, and the calculations are made by setting the line AC = 10,000, and using a table of tangents. It is pointed out that the amplitudes for angles less than 45 will be the same as those greater than 45 b y equal amounts. We are now ready to construct the first table. However, there is first an argument to show why FO > FA. Then there follows a short paragraph, which is out of place, and two tables, the second of which is also out of place. Table I, which gives the results from Proposition XlI, should follow immediately after discussion of the inequality. Then, after Table I, the remark placed before the two tables should follow: Now let us proceed. It will be worth while, by the use of this table, to compute another giving the altitudes of these semiparabolas described by projectiles having the same initial speed. The construction is as follows: (Opere viii, P. 303; CREW, p. 284) The construction referred to is that for Proposition XlII; given a fixed initial speed, it shows how to compute the altitudes of the trajectories corresponding to the amplitudes established by Proposition XII and Table I. It is easy to show how to find these altitudes: from the square of half the sum of the altitude and the sublimity, subtract the square of half the amplitude; then the square root of the remainder plus half the sum of the altitude and the sublimity gives the altitude. Let BC be the given amplitude, and let OB be the altitude plus the sublimity, or the initial speed. (t) Let BI = BC, and BD = BO. (2) Divide OB at F, such that BI = m (OF, FB); (3) then OF is the sublimity, and FB the altitude for a semi-parabola having amplitude CB. -0 F

I......... 0

I I

Galileo's Science of Motion (4) Now, DB 2 = DO 2 = O F . FB + FD ~, and (5) DB 2 -- BV = DB 2 -- OF- FB = FD ~.

275

(6) Since DB and BI are given, FD can be found from the square root of the difference of the squares of DB and BI, and the altitude B F is then found by adding to this the distance DB. The proof of Proposition X l I I is followed by a numerical example, after which should follow the second table, which gives the altitudes corresponding to the amplitudes given in Table I. Table I I should be followed by the remark which precedes it in the Opere: It will be worth while to add a third table giving the altitudes and sublimities for parabolas in which the amplitude is a constant. (Opere v i i i , p. 306; CREW, p. 286) After some further discussion, SALVIATIsays: "We pass now to consideration of the table." This remark should be followed by Proposition XIV, showing how to construct Table III, and the table should follow immediately. Proposition X I V shows how to find the altitudes and sublimities for semiparabolas of constant amplitude. Assuming a constant amplitude of 10,000 units, one half the tangent at any given angle gives the altitude, and the sublimity m a y be derived from the corollary to Proposition V: it will be the square of one half the amplitude, divided by the altitude. If this proof were followed immediately by the table constructed in accordance with it, then SALVIATI'S remark would logically follow: 14 Here we see, first of all, how very true is the statement made above, that, for different angles of elevation, the greater the deviation from the mean, whether above or below, the greater the initial speed Eimpeto e violenza] required to carry the projectile over the same range . . . . it is seen from the preceding table that this sum is a minimum for an elevation of 45 . (Opere v i i i , p. 308; CR~w, p. 288-89) GALILEO, in his letter to DIODATI on March 7, t 637, said that his table applied to both artillery (artigliere) and mortars (mortari), and this is the way in which many contemporaries interpreted GALILEO'Sballistic tables (HALL1952, pp. 909t; ROSE t968) In the beginning of the fourth giornata, however, GALILEO carefully exempts firearms and artillery from his argument that air resistance would not in general give rise to sensible error in his results. The last page or so of dialogue concerning Theorem I discusses this point. SALVIATIexplains that the speed of a ball fired 1~ In the first edition, all three tables were inserted together just before Proposition XIV. FAVARO,noticing reference to a preceding table in Proposition XIII, placed Tables I and II just before Proposition XIII, and left Table I I I in place just before Proposition XIV. FAVARO'S arrangement, however, is even less logical than the original, for it places two tables before the proposition showing how the table is to be constructed. GALILEO'Seditors seem to have paid insufficient attention to the relation between the tables and the propositions from which the tables follow. One need only insert the tables into the discussion as indicated above for the entire discussion to follow in coherent order.

276

W . L . WISAI~:

from a musket or from artillery is " s u p e r n a t u r a l " (Opere V I I I , p. 278; CREW, p. 255), and he expresses the opinion that the great impeto of such shots might cause some deformation in the trajectory. But this, he says, is of little consequence so far as his tables are concerned, for they will give the distance attained b y the ball as a function of the angle of elevation; and since shots of this kind are fired from mortars [mortari] using small charges and imparting no supernatural m o m e n t u m [impeto sopranaturale] they follow their prescribed paths very exactly. (Opere v i i i , p. 279; CREW, pp. 256-57) The tables, then, apply only to mortars and other " s l o w " projectiles and not to artillery in general. If GALILEOfirst intended his tables to apply more generally, but then changed his mind, as ROSE quite plausibly argues (t968), such limitation on the applicability of his results m a y have been a disappointment to GALILEO, despite SALVIATI'S disclaimer. But GALILEO,who always sought to cut through extraneous considerations in order to get to inherent, necessary principles, could still take pride (as he no doubt did) in having laid foundations from which further developments and refinements might be made. Indeed, as HALL points out, GALILEO'S contribution to theoretical ballistics was considerable: The theorems of motion propounded b y Galileo themselves helped to clear the path for the study of internal ballistics by defining the scope of each branch of the science, for only when velocity and angle of projection were recognized as the two single factors affecting the range of a gun was it feasible to distinguish between the changes brought about in alterations in the one or the other. (HALLt952, p. 59) By the time GALILEO had completed his propositions on the motion of projectiles, the third giornata had been sent to the publisher. As we have seen, most of the propositions of that giornata were finished by around 163t. However, there remained the problem of deciding what to use as the foundation for the treatise. We turn again to this problem. 8. Completing the Treatise

8.1. The Foundation o/1630

There is little evidence to show what, if anything, GALILEO did during the years between 1609 and 1630 about the problem of establishing a foundation for his theorems on motion. We found clues to the foundation of 1609 in the letter to GALILEO from VALERIO. In section 6 we saw GALILEO trying to derive his double-distance rule from Theorem I I I and the corollary on mean proportionals. Clues from language indicate that this project began at Padua and was finished some time during the years at Florence. The next document relating to foundations m a y be a draft entitled "Liber secundus: in quo agitur de motu accelerato" (Opere II, pp. 26t-66).1 About one third of the draft is published with little change 1 From GALILEO Manuscript 7t, folia 39-42. It is bound with the De motu antiquiora. This is odd; one would expect it to be with the rest of the later notes on motion. FREDETTE suggests that GALILEO himself placed this draft with the older essay on motion, thereby indicating the fundamental importance of the latter (1969). I am not altogether convinced by FREDETTE'S argument, but have no alternative explanation to offer.

Galileo's Science of Motion

277

as t h e L a t i n p a r t of tile i n t r o d u c t i o n to B o o k I I of De motu locali. Some of t h e rest is i n c o r p o r a t e d into t h e s u b s e q u e n t dialogue in I t a l i a n . T h e i n t r o d u c t o r y m a t e r i a l in t h e m a n u s c r i p t gives t h e definition of u n i f o r m l y a c c e l e r a t e d m o t i o n as this a p p e a r s in t h e p u b l i s h e d version. B u t it omits discussion of t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n t h a t GALILEO s u p p o s e d to be i n h e r e n t in his incorrect law of fall. ~ I n s t e a d , it t r e a t s at g r e a t e r length GALILEO'S d o c t r i n e of c o n t i n u i t y of m o t i o n from rest (latio ex quiete). T h a t is, a b o d y begins to accelerate from t h e first i n s t a n t of t i m e (a primo instanti) a n d it passes t h r o u g h all i n t e r m e d i a t e degrees of speed (per omnes tarditatis gradus/acere transitum) to a t t a i n a n y given degree of speed. GALILEO uses g e o m e t r i c a l a r g u m e n t s to show t h a t no discont i n u i t y occurs a t the beginning of t h e motion. These g e o m e t r i c a l a r g u m e n t s are o m i t t e d from the p u b l i s h e d version, b u t in t h a t version GALILEO i n t r o d u c e s t h e definition of rest as infinite slowness. This definition is also given in the Dialogo where GALILEO uses t h e PLATO m y t h (see section 7.2) to i l l u s t r a t e his point. T h e emphasis on c o n t i n u i t y also a p p e a r s in t h e proof of t h e d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rule given in t h e Dialogo. Absence of a n y reference to rest as infinite slowness in t h e f r a g m e n t on accelerated m o t i o n suggests t h a t it was composed before the Dialogo was completed. I n fact, GALILEO a p p e a r s to h a v e been w o r k i n g over his t r e a t i s e on m o t i o n as he was finishing t h e dialogue on a s t r o n o m y . This is suggested b y r e m a r k s in his correspondence (Opere X I V , pp. 64-66, t 6 0 - 6 t ) a n d b y references t h r o u g h o u t t h e dialogue. ~ Some of these references recall passages in t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n to accelerated m o t i o n a n d tile proof of t h e d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rule in t h e Dialogo d e p e n d s essentially on the concept of continuity, which is p a r t i c u l a r l y e m p h a s i z e d in t h e earlier version of t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n . T h e r e is no h i n t of T h e o r e m I on a c c e l e r a t e d m o t i o n a n d some last m i n u t e changes in this t h e o r e m suggest t h a t it was revised a n d a d d e d to t h e t r e a t i s e i m m e d i a t e l y before publication. I t m a y be, then, t h a t a b o u t 1630 GALILEO h a d a f o u n d a t i o n for his t r e a t i s e on m o t i o n which was b a s e d on t h e d o u b l e - d i s t a n c e rule a n d d e p e n d e d on t h e concept of c o n t i n u i t y from rest as t h e basic principle. If so, t h e f r a g m e n t on accelerated m o t i o n was no d o u b t c o m p o s e d b y this t i m e a n d p r o b a b l y n o t long before. ~ 2 This seems to be a late addition. GALILEO argues t h a t if the acquired velocities are proportional to the distance of fall, then all fall must occur in the same time. There is a vast amount of literature on GALILEO'S argument. See, for example, KOYR]~ (1939, pp. 98-99), COHEN (1956, pp. 231--35), HALL (1958, pp. 342--46), GEYMOXAT & CARUOO (1958, pp. 772--73), SETTLE (t966, p. 240), DRAKE (1970, pp. 29--42). DRAKE surveys some of the earlier literature and offers what seems to be the most plausible account of GALILEO'S reasoning. The work on motion is mentioned early in the first giornata of the Dialogo; in the second giornata SALVlATI promises to take half a d a y some time to talk about local motion; b y the fourth giornata he is planning several sessions on material t h a t later appears in the Discorsi (Opere VII, pp. 51, 249, 477; SANTILLANA, pp. 33, 238, 459). 4 FAVARO thought t h a t the introductory fragment was written about 1604, b u t his reasoning is based on the belief t h a t it should be associated with GALILEO'S letter to SARPI, in t604, on the times-squared theorem (see section 5.2). KOYRt~ pointed out t h a t since the letter to SARPI assumes the erroneous law of fall, whereas the introduction discusses the correct law, the introduction must be later, and he suggested t 609. An early date is not impossible. The introductory pages are bound with the old De

278

W.L. WISA~:

It will be useful to examine the proof of the double-distance rule which is given in the Dialogo, beginning with some preliminary remarks which will help us later in following the transition to Theorem I on accelerated motion, which replaces the distance rule as the fundamental theorem. The double-distance rule is introduced in the second giornata of the Dialogo in connection with arguments concerning the earth's daily motion. When SAGREDOexpresses doubt about the theorem on conversion of vertical to horizontal motion, SALVIATIattempts to make the proposition plausible by means of a thought experiment. He reminds SAGREDO that the descending bob of a pendulum acquires just as much impeto as will drive it back up to the same height. Further, the degrees of velocity are equal at any two points of the downward and upward paths, where these points are equidistant from the lowest point. 5 SALVIATIthen imagines a tunnel through the center of the earth and a cannon ball which falls through the tunnel from a point on the circumference of the earth. The ball is supposed to reach its maximum speed at the center, by which time it will have acquired just as much impeto as will drive it through the earth to an equal distance away from the center. SALVIATI asserts that it will take exactly as much time for the ball to descend from the circumference to the center as to ascend again from the center to the opposite point on the circumference. During the time of ascent, the velocity will gradually diminish so that when the ball has travelled the same distance through which it descended it will reach the state of rest. It is, then, reasonable to believe that if the ball had continued with the maximum speed, acquired when it reached the center, it would have travelled twice the distance in the same time. For suppose that after beginning from zero velocity the increasing degrees of velocity acquired in descent correspond to the numbers from one to ten, ten being the degrees of velocity reached at the center of the earth. Then the velocity will gradually decrease in the same manner until the ball reaches the state of rest at the opposite side of the earth. Adding together the two sums of degrees of velocity, one gets a total of t10. But this is the same as if, after reaching the center, the ball continued during an equal interval of time at the maximum degree of velocity acquired, for the total in this case would also be t 10. Therefore, twice the distance must be traversed3 The conclusion rests on the assumption that in equal times the distances traversed are proportional to the total velocities. There is no trace here of

motu, as remarked in n. 1, above, and the writing is much the same. However, as I
have pointed out (section 1.6), GALILEO'SFlorentine writing is much like the slow, careful hand of the Pisan manuscript. Also, the ink and paper look more like that of the Florentine period. Some of the terms and expressions used (latio, descensus, e][luxum, intensionem, e,tensionem, ex quiete, tempore brevissimo) suggest the later period, whereas others (citius, pertransire, pervenire, gradus celeritatis, velocior, a primo instanti lationis) suggest an earlier time. There may, then, have been an early draft which was later revised. It is unlikely, however, that GALILEOwould have composed these pages before he finally decided to use the correct law of fall as his fundamental principle and this would place even the earliest draft well after the move to Florence. My own judgement is that the draft was composed some time not long before t630. 5 This remark recalls a similar discussion in the scholium to l~roblem IX (see section 6.2). GThis argument is rather like one which may be found in the writings of the MERTONIANS. See CLAGETT(t959, p. 294).

Galileo's Science of Motion

279

GALILEO'S earlier belief that the total velocities are proportional to the squares of the distances. A more formal proof shows how GALILEO uses the concept of continuity. This proof m a y be paraphrased as follows. Since, in free fall, velocity increases continuously (l'agumento continuo), it cannot be divided into discrete increments as in the illustration given. Therefore, we consider the triangle ABC, dividing the side AC into equal parts which will represent (rappresentarci) equal time intervals. Parallels drawn from these points represent the increasing degrees of velocity, while the point A represents the state of rest from which the descending body acquires the degree of velocity D H in tile time AD. The acceleration is
M m A

E F G B C

continuous from moment to moment (si la continuamente di momento in momento), beginning from A, the minimum moment of velocity (momento minimo de velocitY) or state of rest (stato di quiete), while AD is tile first instant of time (primo instante del tempo). Before tile acquisition of degree of velocity D H in time AD, an infinite number of degrees of velocity, corresponding to the infinite number of points along AD, will be successively acquired. Therefore, the infinite number of parallels to DH, from A to D, which are in ultimo represented b y tile surface of ADH, will themselves represent the infinite degrees of velocity acquired to the point D. In this manner, the argument continues, we can consider that any space whatever, which is traversed b y a body uniformly accelerating from rest, will have used (comumato ed esservi servito) the infinite degrees of velocity represented b y the areas made up of the infinite numbers of parallel lines (note the odd conception that the traversing of a space "uses" degrees of velocity). Here we have tile heart of GALILEO'S a t t e m p t to justify the medieval assumption that distance traversed is proportional to area. As increments of velocity are added, a greater distance is passed. GALILEO assumes without question that the total velocities can be represented by areas which are, in ultimo, the aggregate of an infinite number of lines. W h a t he is trying to justify is tile assumption that the distances traversed are proportional to these total velocities. GALILEO does not succeed in justifying this assumption, but the stress on continuity of motion suggests that this is the key to his conclusion. ~ SALVIATIgoes on to construct the parallelogram AMBC and concludes OR~SM~ uses somewhat similar arguments in order to establish his mean speed theorem, and it is interesting to note that he, too, stresses continuity. CLAGETT summarizes ORESME'S reasoning: "Since natural things are continuous, we can appropriately apply the continuous quantities of geometry to represent the relationships of extension and intension that exist between such natural things" (1959, p. 361). It is interesting that this type of proof, together with its most basic concept and some
t 9 Arch. Hist. Exact Sci., Vol. t 3

280

W.L. WISAN:

that a body moving uniformly at the degree of velocity represented will, in an equal interval of time, traverse twice as much space as the body moving with uniformly accelerated motion, beginning from rest and reaching the speed BC. A short version of this proof is given in the De motu locali, in the scholinm to Problem IX. It is prefaced by reference to Theorem I and a remark that the reasoning is similar. In fact, the double-distance rule could now follow from Theorem I. However, an independent argument is made which is similar to that in the Dialogo, but which omits many details. GALILEOconcludes that the space traversed with the total velocity represented by the rectangle ADBC is double that traversed with the total velocity represented by the triangle ABC. Then he adds But on a horizontal plane the motion is uniform, since there does not intervene any cause of either acceleration or retardation; therefore, we conclude that the space CT traversed in the same time as AC, is the double of AC. In fact,
D .... A

//

/ //.

c the latter is traversed with accelerated motion beginning from rest, according to the parallels of the triangle, and the former with motion according to the parallels of the parallelogram, which, taken in their infinitude, are double the infinite parallels of the triangle. (Opere p. 243) 8

viii,

The scholium goes on to elaborate on the inertial principle (see section 7.1) and some consequences inferred from it (see section 6.2). With the doubledistance rule established independently of the times-squared theorem, the way was open for use of that rule as the fundamental theorem relating accelerated and uniform motion. I will argue that, in fact, the published proof of the times~ squared theorem was first based on the double-distance rule and only later altered slightly so as to follow from Theorem I instead. The argument depends on linguistic clues, most of which we have already observed. Further evidence characteristic terms (especially, intensio and extensio) all appear in GALILEO'Swriting at about the same time. As we shall see, fluxus is another term which GALILEObegins using in this late period. See CLAGETT (1959, pp. 252, 414) on GALILEO'Suse of significant terms and concepts which are part of the vocabulary of the fourteenth century "kinematicists." 8 In the quotation above, fourth line down, the National Edition reads "spatium CD" instead of "spatium CT," as in the first edition (t638, p. 207). The reference should be to the line CT in the preceding diagram used in GALILEO'Sattempt to prove the double-distance rule from the corollary on mean proportionals (see section 6.t). The correct reading was noticed by Mr. KENNETH MANNINGof Harvard University and communicated to me by Professor STILLMANDRAKE.

Galileo's Science of Motion

281

for the reliability of these clues will come from examination of GALILEO'S book on uniform motion. This will also prepare us to understand why there was a last minute change in the foundations for the book on accelerated motion.

8.2. Uni/orm Motion

Book I of De motu locaH begins with a definition of uniform motion. Aequalem, seu uniformem, motum intelligo eum, cuius partes quibuscunque temporibus aequalibus a mobili peractae, sunt inter se aequales. (Opere viii, p. 191; emphasis added) That is, By steady or uniform motion, I mean one in which the distances traversed by the moving particle during any equal intervals of time, are themselves equal. (CREw, p. t 54) GALILEO emphasizes that in defining uniform motion it must be specified that equal distances are traversed in any equal intervals of time. 9 This eliminates the possibility of using these propositions legitimately for the average velocity of an accelerated motion. Now come four axioms: Axioma I. Spatinm transactum tempore longiori in eodem motu aequabili maius esse spatio transacto tempore breviori. Axioma II. Tempus quo maius spatinm con/icitur in eodem motu aequabili, longius est tempore quo con/icitur spatium minus. Axioma III. Spatium a maiori velocitate con/ectum tempore eodem, maius est spatio con/ecto a minori velocitate. Axioma IV. Velocitas qua tempore eodem con/icitur mains spatium, major est velocitate qua con/icitur spatium minus. (Opere viii, pp. t 9 t - 9 2 ; emphasis added) If the velocities are the same, the distances increase or decrease as the times increase or decrease; if the times are the same, the distances traversed increase or decrease as the velocities increase or decrease. 1 GALILEO remarks that the axioms follow from his definition; however, he must make the additional assumption that the times and distances or velocities and distances increase or decrease in the same direction. In his earliest writings, GALILEO used velocitas to mean swiftness as defined by ARISTOTLE. In the fragments on motion that used methods and concepts which can be found in medieval kinematics, velocitas meant instantaneous velocity. The speed with which a line was traversed, or the speed to which rules for "local" motion applied, was the "velocities at every point along the line," or the medieval 9 CLAGETTobserves that GALILEO'Sadmonition was anticipated by SWINESHEAD (t95% p- 237). 10 These axioms recall the ARISTOTELIANdefinitions of swifter (see section 2.1).
19"

282

W . L . WISAN:

total velocity. In GALILEO'S axioms, however, this speed becomes velocitas, unmodified. This new use of velocitas suggests that the axioms are relatively late and the frequent use of con/icere supports this conclusion. Tile expression eodem tempore sometimes seems to be early and sometimes the residue of late and careless editing. In this case, it is probably the latter. Tile definition, on the other hand, which uses peragere and temporibus aequalibus probably belongs to a middle stage. Six propositions follow tile four axioms. The first is to be found in ARCHIMEDES' On Spirals (ARcHI~EDES t544, p. t00; HEATH t897, p. t55). GALILEO'S proof follows that of ARCHIMEDES,but is given in greater detail showing, in particular, the application of EUCLID'S definition of equal ratios (Book V, Definition V).11 If a moving particle, carried uniformly at a constant speed, traverses two distances the time intervals required are to each other in the ratio of these distances.
I t~--I
G
i I !--~ t I

I ',--~--!

DE I I A B
4-- I

F I C
I

K I

H
I --] I

Let a particle move uniformly with constant speed through two distances AB, BC, and let the time required to traverse AB be represented b y D E ; the time required to traverse BC, b y E F ; then I say that the distance AB is to the distance BC as the time D E is to the time EF. Let the distances and times be extended on both sides towards G, H and I, K ; let AG be divided into any number whatever of spaces each equal to AB, and in like manner lay off in D I exactly the same number of time-intervals each equal to DE. Again lay off in CH any number whatever of distances each equal to BC; and in F K exactly the same number of time-intervals each equal to RF; then will the distance BG and the time E1 be equal and arbitrary multiples of the distance BA and the time ED; and likewise the distance H B and the time K E are equal and arbitrary multiples of the distance CB and the time FE. And since D E is the time required to traverse AB, the whole time E1 will be required for the whole distance BG, and when tile motion is uniform there will be in E1 as m a n y timeintervals each equal to D E as there are distances in BG each equal to BA; and likewise it follows that K E represents the time required to traverse HB. Since, however, the motion is uniform, it follows that if the distance GB is equal to the distance BH, then must also the time I E be equal to the time E K ;

n ,,Magnitudes are said to be in the same ratio, the first to the second and the third to the fourth, when, if any equimultiples whatever be taken of the first and third, and any equimultiples whatever of the second and fourth, the former equimultiples alike exceed, are alike equal to, or alike fall short of, the latter equimultiples respectively taken in corresponding order" (HEATH 1926, Vol. II, p. 114).

Galileo's Science of Motion

283

and if GB is greater than BH, then also I E will be greater than E K ; and if less, less. There are then four quantities, the first AB, the second BC, the third DE, and the fourth E F ; the time I E and the distance GB are arbitrary multiples of the first and the third, namely of the distance AB and the time DE. But it has been proved that both of these latter quantities are either equal to, greater than, or less than the time E K and the space BH, which are arbitrary multiples of the second and the fourth. Therefore, the first is to the second, namely the distance AB is to the distance BC, as the third is to the fourth, namely the time D E is to the time EF. (Opere v i i i , pp. t92-93; CREw, pp. t55-56) The application of EUCLID'S definition is straight-forward and needs no explanation. Axiom I I is assumed in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph. A significant change in terminology occurs between the writing of an early draft of this theorem, and the published version. In section 5.4 we saw the first few lines of the version on folio 138r. I t will be quoted again in order to make the comparison. Si mobile aequabiliter latum duo pertranseat spacia, erunt tempora la~ionum inter se ut spacia iberacta.

Pertranseat enim mobile aequabiliter latum duo spacia AB, BC, et sit tempus moans ex A in B, DE; tempus veto laliouis BC esto E F : dico, ut spacium AB ad spacium BC, ita esse tempus DE ad tempus EF. (Opere V I I I , pp. t92, 192n; emphasis added)
These lines have been altered in the published version to read as follows: Si mobile aequabiliter laEum eademque cum velocitate duo pertranseat spatia, tem25ora lationum erunt inter s e u t spatia peracta.

Pertranseat enim mobile aequabiliter latum eadem cure velocitate duo spatia AB, BC, et sit tempus motus per AB, DE; tempus vero moths per BC esto E F : dico, ut spatium AB ad spatium BC, ita esse tempus D E ad tempus EF. (O#ere VIII, p. 192; emphasis added)
The most significant change is the introduction of the term velocitate in two places. Velocity is now distinguished from motion and, as in the axioms, means the speed with which a space is traversed. If, as seems the case, folio t38r is in GALILEO'S mano giovanile, this proof m a y have been constructed as part of a first book on motion referred to in GALILEO'S letter to BELISARIO VINTA in 1610 (Opere X, pp. 349-53). The alteration in the published version m a y have accompanied the introduction of the axioms, possibly just before publication, and is certainly after stage II. It is interesting to note that Proposition I uses the expressions tempora lationum and tempus laEionis.12 These forms are also conspicuous in proofs of 12 This is the proposition in ARCHnVlEDES'treatise on spirals which uses the terms latio and permeare ill the edition of 1544. (See section t.6.)

284

W . L . WISAN:

Theorem I I I on accelerated motion which depend on this proposition in the first book (see section 5.4). GALILEO indicates that Proposition I I on uniform motion is proved by a method similar to that used in Proposition I. The second proposition states that if spaces are traversed in equal times, the velocities are proportional to the distances, and conversely. It is brief: Si mobile temporibus aequalibus duo pertranseat spatia, erunt ipsa spatia inter se ut velocites. Et si spatia sint ut velocitates, tempora erunt aequalia. (Opere v i i i , p. t93; emphasis added) There is no manuscript version of this proposition, and it is difficult to tell when it originated or when it might have been revised. Again, velocitas means speed with which spaces are traversed, which suggests a late date, at least for the final editing. That the proposition itself is relatively early is suggested by the lack of any stipulation that the motions be uniform. GALILEOprobably inherited the proposition in this form from some tradition, or possibly from BRADWAltDINE (see section 2.2, n. 5), and only later, following the example of ARCHIMEDES, set out to prove it as a theorem on uniform motion. 13 Pertransire, used by GALILEOin his first two propositions on uniform motion, I4 occurs in the mechanical proof of GALILEO'Slaw of chords, which depends on the first proposition on uniform motion. The same verb also occurs in an unpublished version of Theorem V I I which follows immediately from the law of chords. Pertransire occurs in only one other proposition on accelerated motion, Problem X, where a term was needed in place of descensus in order to speak of motion upward. Leaving this case aside, pertransire seems to link the first two propositions on uniform motion with Theorem VI and the mechanical foundation of 1609. Proposition I I I on uniform motion states that if the spaces traversed are equal, the velocities are inversely proportional to the times. 15 Again, we find no restriction to uniform motion. Instead of the verb pertramire it uses permeate, which is rare in GALILEO'S writings but does occur in two fragments where he uses the methods of medieval kinematics. These two fragments are associated with the early draft on the times-squared theorem where GALILEO misuses the rule that velocities are in " c o n t r a r y proportion" to time (see section 5.2). So 15 Although GALILEOdoes not stipulate uniform motion in his statement of Proposition II, it is easily seen from the proof that he does make this assumption. For in the proof of Proposition I, which is explicitly restricted to uniform motion, GALILEO argues in the penultimate paragraph that since, however, the motion is uniform, it follows that if the distance GB is equal to the distance BH, then must also the time IE be equal to the time EK (CREw,
p. 156). That is, he invokes the definition of uniform motion at this point in the proof. The proof of the second proposition is not given in detail but is said to follow in the same way. Thus, in an analogous step, the distances G B and B H are supposed equal and

equal intervals of time are assumed; from this it is concluded that the corresponding velocities must be equal. This step follows from the definition of uniform motion as in Proposition I. 1~ This verb also appears in BRADWARDINE'Spropositions on local motion. 15 Also in BRADWARDINE(see section 4.4, n. 14).

Galileo's Science of Motion

285

again we see a linguistic link between a proposition on uniform motion and its earliest use (or, in this case, misuse). This suggests that there should have been an early draft, but the language used, especially in the proof, is generally that of the later period. A very unusual construction suggests a period of transition before the last three propositions on uniform motion were proved. Proposition III will be quoted in full: Inaequalibus velocitatibus per idem spatium latorum tempora, velocitatibus e

contrario respondent.
Sint velocitates inaequMes A maior, B minor, et secundum utramque fiat motus per idem spatium CD: dico, tempus quo A veloeitas permeat spatium CD, ad tempus quo velocitas B idem spatinm permeat, esse ut velocitas B a d velocitatem A. Fiat enim ut A ad B, ita CD ad CE; erit igitur, ex praecedenti, tempus, quo

A velocitas confieit CD, idem cure tempore quo B confieit CE: sed tempus quo velocitas B confieit CE, ad tempus quo eadem con[icit CD, est ut CE ad CD; ergo tempus quo velocitas A conficit CD, ad tempus quo velocitas B idem CD con/icit, est ut CE ad CD, hoc est ut velocitas B a d velocitatem A: quod erat intentum. (Opere viii, pp. t93-94; emphasis added) 1. Velocitas, which has the same meaning as in the two previous propositions, is the subject of the verb eonficere. This construction occurs nowhere else. In the three later theorems, which use a similar method of proof, symbols are used to refer to the moving bodies and it is no longer necessary to speak of the velocities themselves completing spaces. Notice that the verb permeare enters only in the statements of Proposition III, while the proof uses conficere exclusively. This clustering of conficere in the proofs is quite noticeable in the remaining propositions on uniform motion, all three of which are stated and proved in similar mannerY Propositions V and VI use only con]icere in the proofs; otherwise the language used is closely similar to that of Proposition IV, which is as follows:
Si duo mobilia ferantur motu aequabili, inaequali tamen veloeitate, spatia temporibus inaequalibus ab ipsis peracta habebunt rationem compositam ex ratione velocitatum et ex ratione temporum. Mota sint duo mobilia E, F motu aequabili, et ratio velocitatis mobilis E ad velocitatem mobilis F sit ut A ad B; temporis veto quo movetur E, ad tempus quo movetur F, ratio sit ut C a d D : dico, spatium peractum ab E cum veloeitate 16 Here (and elsewhere, as indicated) the paragraphing has been revised in order
to set off the proof from the statement of the proposition. Note that Proposition I is assumed in the last paragraph where it reads: "the time needed to traverse the distance C E at speed B is to the time required to traverse the distance C D at the same speed as C E is to C D " (CREw, p. 156). Thus, although lacking the restriction to uniform motion in its statement, Prop. III is, in fact, proved for uniform motion. Prop. II is also assumed in this proof. 17 Prop. IV is proved from I and II ; V from I and llI; VI from II and III. Actually, Props. V and VI are trivial corollaries of IV, simply by compounding ratios, as GALILEO often does.

286

W.L. WISAN : A ill tempore C, ad spatium peractum ab F cure velocitate 13 in tempore D, habere rationem compositam ex ratione velocitatis A ad velocitatem B e t ex ratione temporis C a d tempus D.

Sit spatium ab E cure velocitate A in tempore C peractum G, et ut velocitas A ad velocitatem B, ita fiat G a d I; ut autem tempus C ad tempus D, ita sit I ad L: constat, I esse spatium quo movetur F in tempore eodem in quo E motum est per G, cure spatia G, I sint ut velocitates A, B. E t cum sit ut tempus C ad tempus D, ita I a d L; sit autem I spatium quod con[icitur a mobili F in tempore C; erit L spatium quod con[icitur ab F in tempore D cum velocitate B. Ratio autem G ad L componitur ex rationibus G a d I et I a d L, nempe ex rationibus velocitatis A ad velocitatem 13 et temporis C a d tempus D: ergo patet propositum. (Opere viii, p. t94; emphasis and paragraphing added) Proposition IV may be paraphrased as follows: D1/D 2 = (S1/S,)(T1/T~), where D i stands for distance, S i for speed and T i for time. This proposition is used in the published proof of the times-squared theorem (see section 8.3), and it is not surprising to find peragere in frequent use. As in the previous cases, Proposition IV shares a peculiar linguistic feature with the later proposition in which it is used. The fifth and sixth propositions on uniform motion m a y be paraphrased, respectively, as: TI/T2 = (DI/D~)($2/$I) and SI/S2 ~- (DI/D~) (T2/TI).These m a y be found on a draft in the manuscript which seems to be in GALILEO'S laterhand and with a watermark which is typical of those appearing on correspondence during the period when GALILEO was in Florence. The language is quite unlike that of the early draft of Proposition I. Velocitas is used in the w a y in which it occurs in the axioms and in the published version of the firstproposition, and there is no hint of GALILEO'S earlier tendency to use motus or latio when speaking of speed. Ferre and peragere, but not con]icere, occur in the general statements, whereas con[icere occurs frequently and exclusively in the proofs. This suggests that there may have been earlier drafts, with the final proofs completed somewhat later. The completeness and general tidiness of the drafts supports this inference. Again, we see a tendency towards exclusive use of con[icere in what must be GALILEO'S later writing. If, now, we examine the published proofs of the times-squared theorem and Theorem I on accelerated motion, we may be able to see when these proofs were begun and when they were finally completed.

8.3. The Times-Squared Theorem

The published proof of the times-squared theorem follows from the doubledistance rule as well as from Theorem I, if certain small changes are made. Since there are some linguistic peculiarities in the passage that must be changed, and since these peculiarities appear in Theorem I, both theorems will be quoted in full and the proofs paraphrased for further examination. First, the times-squared theorem: Si aliquod mobile motu uniformiter accelerato descendat ex quiete, spatia quibuscunque temporibus ab ipso peracta, sunt inter se in duplicata ratione eorundem temporum, nempe ut eorundem temporum quadrata.

GMileo's Science of Motion

287

Intelligatur, ]luxus temporis ex aliquo primo instanti A repraesentari per extensionem AB, in qua sumantur duo quaelibet tempora AD, AE; sitque HI linea, in qua mobile ex puncto H, tanquam primo motus principio, descendat uniformiter acceleratum; sitque spatium HL peractum primo tempore AD, HM vero sit spatium per quod descenderit in tempore AE: dico, spatium MH ad spatium HL esse in duplicata ratione eius quam habet tempus EA ad tempus AD; seu dicamus, spatia MH, HL eandem habere rationem quam habent quadrata EA, AD. Ponatur linea AC, quemcunque angulum cure ipsa AB continens; ex punctis vero D, E ductae sint parallelae DO, EP: quarum DO repraesentabit maximum gradum velocitatis acquisitae in inst~nti D temporis AD; PE veto, maximum gradum velocitatis acquisitae in instanti E temporis AE. Quia vero supra demonstratum est, quod attinet ad spatia peracta, aequalia esse inter se illa, quorum alterum conjicitur a mobili ex quiete motu uniformiter accelerato, alterum vero quod tempore eodem conjicitur a mobili motu aequabili delalo, cuius velocitas subdupla sit maximae in motu accelerato acquisitae; constat, spatia MH, LH esse eadem quae motibus aequalibus, quorum velocitates essent ut dimidiae PE, OD, conficerentur in temporibus EA, DA. Si igitur ostensum fuerit, haec spatia MH, LH esse in duplicata ratione temporum EA, DA, intentum probatum erit. Verum in quarta propositione primi libri demonstratum est, mobilium aequabili motu latorum spatia peracta habere inter se rationem compositam ex ratione velocitatum et ex ratione temporum: hic autem ratio velocitatum est eadem cure ratione temporum (quam enim rationem habet dimidia PE ad dimidiam OD, seu tota PE ad totam OC, hanc habet AE ad AD) : ergo ratio spatiorum peractorum dupla est rationis temporum: quod erat demonstrandum. (Opere viii, pp. 209-t0; emphasis and paragraphing added) To paraphrase the proof, let t (HL) ----AD, and t (HM) ----AE. (t) Then, show that HL/HM----AD~/AE ~. (2) Let DO ~ dv (AD), and PE ~- dv (AE), where dv (AB) indicates the degrees of velocity acquired in t (AB).

A D

M
E F G

288

W . L . WISA~: (3) Then, 1OD and ~PE represent, respectively, the uniform velocities with which the spaces H L and HM are traversed in the times AD and AE, by Theorem I (section 8.4). (4) But D1/D ~ = (S~/S~) (T1/T~), by Prop. IV on uniform motion. (5) Also, AD/AE = OD/PE = OD/PE. (6) Therefore, H L / H M = (AD/AE) (AD/AE) = AD~/AE z.

If this proof had been first constructed to follow from the double-distance rule, steps (3) and (6) would be slightly different, and the last equality in (5) would be omitted. The spaces traversed at the uniform velocities represented by DO and PE would be twice H L and HM. Therefore, step (6) would be: 2 H L / 2 H M = (AD/AE)(AD/AE), and the result would follow as before. The only change required to make the times-squared theorem follow from Theorem I would be in the third paragraph. The lines P E and OD, instead of halves of these lines, would be traversed in the times AD and AE. The linguistic peculiarities of this paragraph will be discussed further after we look at Theorem I. For the present, it will suffice to observe that although ex quiete occurs in the initial statement of the proposition, the only other occurrence is in the sentence which must be changed. Also, it is in this sentence that we find con/icere and the unusual term delato. This last term occurs elsewhere only in Theorem I on accelerated motion and in the introduction to the book on the motion of projectiles. Some other unusual terms occur in the first paragraph of the proof of the times-squared theorem. These are [luxus, extensio, and repraesentare. The first of these occurs in the form e//luxus in the early version of the introduction to accelerated motion and in Proposition I on the motion of projectiles. The second occurs in Theorem I on accelerated motion and in the introduction, but not elsewhere in De motu locali. The third appears in the same places as the second and is also found in the proofs of the double-distance rule b y medievalmethods, is Additional links between the double-distance rule in the Dialogo and the published proof of the times-squared theorem can be seen in the second paragraph of the latter. There we find the expressions primo motus principio, primo instanti A, and primo tempore AD. I have argued that the first of these is seldom used after t609, and it m a y have simply been inherited from folio t28. The other two expressions, rendered into Italian, occur in the proof of the double-distance rule in the Dialogo. I will argue that the mixture of terms associated with the doubledistance rule and with Theorem I, together with the clustering of con/icere in the third paragraph, results from a late redrafting of the final proof of this key theorem. This conclusion follows from a number of peculiarities in the statement and proof of Theorem I.

8.4. Theorem I on Accelerated Motion

GALILEO'S Theorem I on accelerated motion has been studied m a n y times. Nevertheless some inconsistencies and irregularities which provide clues to the 18 Although GALILEOWaS using terms and methods of fourteenth century kinematics by t 604, there seems to be a fresh influx of these with the proof of the double-distance rule in the Dialogo, the introduction to accelerated motion, the times-squared theorem ill its final form, and Theorem I.

Galileo's Science of Motion

289

history of its development have gone unnoticed; and the significance of certain changes in the argument has been overlooked. Once more it must be examined in detail. First it will be quoted in full and then a paraphrase will be given. Tempus in quo aliquod spatium a mobili con/icitur latione ex quiete uniformiter accelerata, est aequale tempori in quo idem spatinm con/iceretur ab eodem mobili motu aequabili delato, cuius velocitatis gradus subduplus sit ad summum et ultimum gradum velocitatis prioris motus uniformiter accelerati. Repraesentetur per extensionem AB tempus in quo a mobili latione uniformiter accelerata ex quiete in C con/iciatur spatium CD; graduum autem velocitatis adauctae in instantibus temporis AB maximus et ultimus repraesentetur per EB, utcunque super AB constitutam; iunctaque AE, lineae omnes ex singulis punctis lineae AB ipsi BE aequidistanter actae, crescentes velocitatis gradus post instans A repraesentabunt. Divisa deinde BE bifariam in F, ductisque parallelis FG, AG ipsis BA, BF, parallelogrammum AGFB erit contitutum, triangulo AEB aequale, dividens suo latere GF bifarium AE in I: quodsi parallelae trianguli AEB usque ad IG extendantur, habebimus aggregatum paralletarum omnium in quadrilatero contentarum aequalem aggregatui comprehensarum in triangulo AEB; quae enim sunt in triangulo IEF, pares sunt cum contentis in triangulo GIA; eae vero quae habentur in trapezio AIFB, communes sunt. Cumque singulis et omnibus instantibus temporis AB respondeant singula et omnia puncta lineae AB, ex quibus actae parallelae in triangulo AEB comprehensae crescentes gradus velocitatis adauctae repraesentant, parailelae vero intra parallelogrammum contentae totidem gradus velocitatis non adauctae, sed aequabilis, itidem repraesentent; apparet, totidem velocitatis momenta absumpta esse in motu accelerato iuxta crescentes parallelas trianguli AEB, ac in motu aequabili iuxta parallelas parallelogrammi GB: quod enim momentorum deficit in prima motus accelerati medietate (deficiunt enim momenta per parallelas trianguli AGI repraesentata), reficitur a momentis per parallelas trianguli I E F repraesentatis. Patet igitur, aequalia futura esse spatia tempore eodem a duobus mobilibus peracta, quorum unum motu ex quiete uniformiter accelerato moveatur, alterum vero motu aequabili iuxta momentum subduplum momenti maximi velocitatis accelerati motus: quod erat intentum. (Opere viii, pp. 208-9; emphasis and paragraphing added) This is the only theorem on accelerated motion in which the usual statement in terms of the diagram is missing. Moreover, GALILEO'Sgeneral statement of the proposition to be proved is not the same as the statement of what has been proved. The initial statement says that the time in which a given space is traversed by a body uniformly accelerating from rest is equal to the time in which an equal space is traversed by the same body moving with a uniform speed equal to half the maximum speed attained in acceleration. At the end GALILEO indicates correctly that he has proved that equal spaces will be traversed in equal times by

290

W.L. WISAN:

/
IX

[3

two bodies, where one is accelerated from rest and the other moves with umtorm

motion as specified. Before commenting further on this, let us paraphrase the entire proof. (t) Given the space CD, let the line AB represent the time to traverse CD by a body uniformly accelerating from C. (2) Erect the line BE perpendicular to AB and let it represent the maximum degree of velocity acquired in descending from C to D. (3) Join A and E; then all the parallels to AE, drawn from the points of AB, represent all the degrees of velocity increasing from the instant A. (4) From the midpoint F of BE, erect GF parallel to AB, and construct the parallelogram AGFB; this will be equal in area to the triangle ABE, and GF will divide AE at its midpoint I. (5) If, then, the parallels of AEB are prolonged to GI, the aggregate of all the parallels in AGBF will be equal to those in AEB. For, those in triangle I E F are equal to those in triangle GIA, while those in AIFB are common. (6) Now, since all the instants of time along AB correspond to all the points of AB, it follows that the parallels from these points, which are contained in AEB, represent the increasing degrees of velocity acquired in acceleration from rest, while the parallels in AGFB represent just as many degrees of velocity which are uniform. (7) It is clear, then, that just as many moments of velocity are consumed (absumpta) in the accelerated motion, increasing according to the triangle AEB as in the uniform motion according to the parallelogram AGFB. (8) In fact, the deficit of the momenta in the first half of the accelerated motion, represented by the triangle AGE, is compensated by the momenta represented by the parallels of the triangle IEF. (9) It is clear, therefore, that there will be equal spaces traversed in the same time by two bodies, one of which moves with uniform acceleration from rest, while the other moves with uniform velocity which is one half the maximum momentum of the accelerated motion. What is given is the space CD, the time AB in which CD is traversed by a body accelerating from rest at C, and a uniform motion which is one half the maximum speed acquired in accelerating to point D during an equal interval of

Galileo's Science of Motion

29t

time. The total momenta of the velocities are said to be equal in both cases and, from equal momenta in equal times, it is concluded that the spaces traversed must be equal. I t is the conclusion then and not the initial statement of the theorem which correctly states what was proved. The difference in the statements is not very noticeable because the proof lacks the usual second formulation of the proposition in terms of the diagram. Also, if one thinks of this theorem simply as an equivalent speed theorem which shows that for two specified types of motion the same space is traversed in the same time, it matters little whether the spaces are supposed equal and the times proved equal, or conversely. The approach taken very much affects the method of proof. The first, assuming equal spaces, must begin with a relation between velocity and space from which equal times can be derived, whereas the second must begin with a relation between velocity and time from which the spaces traversed can be shown equal. GALILEO'S initial approach suggests that he m a y have begun with consideration of his double-velocity rule on folio t63 t (see section 5.1), where the vertical line represents the space passed over, the areas represent total velocities, and the space is said to be traversed "twice as quickly" with the uniform motion at the m a x i m u m degree of velocity acquired with the accelerated motion. If the uniform velocity were assumed to be at half the final degree of speed acquired in accelerating through the same space, the times would be equal. The first attempt at Theorem I m a y be as early as that of Theorem n I on folio 179r (see section 5.4), which assumes the incorrect law of fall and which, like the initial statement of Theorem I, specifies that the theorem is to hold for " t h e same body," a restriction otherwise to be found only in the mechanical proof of Theorem VI and in a posthumous scholium, where it is needed in order to apply the dynamic principle. An initial effort to establish Theorem I m a y have been abandoned out of hesitancy over whatever difficulties led GALILEO to give up the theorem that total velocity is proportional to the square of the distance, which he set out to prove on folio t 79t. Later, after adopting the correct law of fall and using it to derive the double-distance rule in the Dialogo, GALILEO m a y have then returned to an earlier draft where he had tried to prove Theorem I. 19 But if, as I have conjectured, the times-squared theorem was derived from the double-distance rule, why should GALILEO have wished to use Theorem I instead ? Analysis of his final proof will suggest a reason. Down through step (6), the proof looks like a simple variant on the one for the double-distance rule in the Dialogo. However, the emphasis on continuity, which is so conspicuous in that proof is missing, and there is no reference to the proportionality between area, total velocity, and distance, developed with such care in the Dialogo. Tile focus is rather on a one-to-one correspondence between the instants of time represented b y the line AB and the parallels drawn from each point of the line. GALILEO argues that all the parallels in the triangle AEB are equal to all those in the parallelogram AGFB. Also, these aggregates of 19 I have conjectured that GALILEO'Sfirst attempt at Theorem I may have been made on a page from which the draft on folio 85t was copied. This would help to explain the line S which appears on folio 85t since it could have been related to a cancelled note on Theorem I.

292

W . L . WISAN:

parallels are taken to represent the total momenta of velocity. But after this, GALILEO shifts to an argument based on comparison of the deficit in total momenta acquired in the first half of the time with the excess acquired in the second half, and it is from this argument in step (8) that GALILEO draws his conclusion in step (9) that equal spaces will be traversed in equal times. The proof seems to depend on showing not that the spaces, the traversal of which somehow " c o n s u m e s " degrees of velocity, are proportional to the total amounts consumed but that the same total momenta of velocity are acquired in the same time, as argued in steps (7) and (8). If GALILEO thought he could then reach his conclusion without assumption of the rule for local motion implicitly applied in the proof of the double-distance rule, this would explain why he replaced the double-distance rule with Theorem I. Application of the rule proved only for uniform motion to both uniform and accelerated motion alike involved an unwarranted assumption, and GALILEO could hardly have been unaware of this in light of his early questions about the relation between uniform and accelerated motion and the trouble he took to establish the rules for local motion as propositions on uniform motion. Now, in step (7) there is an unexplained switch from gradus to momenta vdocitatis. Equality of momenta is then established through a one-to-one correspondence between the number of parallel lines in the two figures and some assumption whereby the lengths of the lines are also taken into account. GALILEO does not explain this key step in his proof. I t probably follows from the equality of the areas as in earlier proofs of this kind and thus depends on the medieval doctrine that the areas are proportional to total velocity. However, as SETTLE has shown (t966, pp. 17t-83), GALILEO m a y have arrived at a new justification for this assumption which depends on an ARCHIMEDEAN lemma for summing n lines in an arithmetical progression. But this still leaves the problem of showing why equal spaces are then traversed in equal times. SETTLE argues that, for GALILEO, a "momentum is an infinitesimal constituent of a plane," and thus it would represent the infinitesimal distance passed over in the length of time represented b y a point (ibid., p. 171). From this, GALILEO'S conclusion follows once tile equality of momenta is established, and this would explain GALILEO'S shift from gradus to momenta. As SETTLE puts it, GALILEO m a y have wanted momenta for work that gradus could not do. This reconstruction is a plausible one. ~ GALILEO m a y well have considered some such argument, either in the early days when he was trying to prove Theorem n I from the unpublished proposition on uniform motion, or just before publication of his treatise when he was once more searching for a better way to establish his fundamental proposition on accelerated motion. However, in the early draft of Theorem In, GALILEO 20 SETTLE'S reconstruction is based on arguments from the second giornata of the Discors$ and it links the discussion of infinitesimals in the first giornata wittl the proof appearing in the third. DRAKE has offered another reconstruction of GALILEO'S reasoning, in which he claims that the areas of the figures do not enter the argument but that the conclusion follows by determining the momenta simply by matching "paired lines by defect and excess, using an implied recurrence formula for the individual and collective lines in the smaller triangles" (t 972, p. 31). Unlike SETTLE, however, DRAKE does not tell us the exact procedure he supposes GALILEOtO have in mind and does not show any instance of it in GALILEO'Swritings.

Galileo's Science of Motion

293

indicated t h a t gradus and momenta were equivalent terms, at least in this context, and I find no clear indication t h a t GALILEO developed the distinction suggested b y SETTLE or followed this line of reasoning anywhere in his writings on motion. There is another w a y of explaining the change in terminology and the reasoning behind the final proof of Theorem I. To see this, let us briefly review GALILEO'S ideas on the dynamics of fall. Nearly fifty years before publication of the Discorsi, GALILEO held t h a t a b o d y ' s true speed of fall in a v a c u u m would be proportional to its density and would be uniform. B u t about this same time he developed his principle of g r a v i t y on the assumption t h a t the force with which a b o d y tends to go d o w n w a r d is equal to t h a t with which it resists motion upward, or its effective weight. The complex of ideas which constitute GALILEO'S principle of g r a v i t y does not include an account of the supposed variation of speed with density. After GALILEO realized t h a t " n a t u r a l " motion must be accelerated, he was required to rethink the dynamics of fall, and the fragment on folio t47r is evidence t h a t he began to question the role of density in the speed of fall at a relatively early time, certainly before t 6 t 2 (see section 3.2, n. 5). In the first giornata of the Discorsi, GALILEO has an experimental proof t h a t bodies fall with the same speed whatever their densities. B u t w h a t was the rationale behind this result ? GALILEO never explains this; however, in a famous discussion of g r a v i t y in the Dialogo, SALVIATI implies t h a t motion downward is caused b y an external force (Opere vii, p. 26t ; SANTILLANA,pp. 250-52). If this is the case, then GALILEO'S principle of conservation must apply (see section 2.6). T h a t is, once it is recognized t h a t downward motion is caused b y an external force, it must follow t h a t the same force moves the same resistance over the same distance in the same time. Moreover, if force F moves resistance R distance D in time T, kF moves kR the same distance D in the same time T. The resistance of the falling body, of course, is its total weight, and t h a t bodies of different weights fall the same distance in the same time would then be explained b y the assumption t h a t the resistance of a b o d y and the force required to move it d o w n w a r d are in the same proportion to the weight of the body. ~1 Therefore, differences in force and resistance cancel out, and all bodies fall at the same speed. F r o m this, of course, it follows t h a t the total velocity, or the sum of the degrees (or momenta) of velocity will be the same for a n y two bodies falling t h r o u g h the same distance. GALILEO'S concept of total velocity is a difficult one to grasp. I t harkens back to a period in which the notions of force, motion, and 21 WESTFALL suggests that GALILEO, by the time he wrote the Dialogo, has come to the conclusion that "Every body can be imagined as a collection, more or less large, of atoms, each of which has a natural tendency as a heavy body to move toward the center of the earth with the common acceleration. The weight of a body can only be increased by adding more atoms and thus increasing at the same rate the quantity of matter to be moved by the weight" (1966, p. 77). WESTFALL remarks that this concept may already be embodied in the definition of gravSt~ given in Le mechaniche, but the main thrust of his argument depends on analysis of material from the Dialogo and the Discorsi, in which he sees the development of a "rudimentary distinction between weight and mass" in the analysis of fall. WESTFALL further remarks that " T h e analysis of the dynamics of fall is never far from GALILEO'S mind. The frequent assertion that his physics is basically a kinematics appears mistaken to me. At all its critical points it returns explicitly to its foundation in dynamics" (ibid., p. 79). WESTFALL'S analysis illuminates one of the most elusive aspects of GALILEO'Sthought.

294

W.L. WISAN:

velocity were not entirely distinguished, much less clearly defined, and motion was conceived as quasi-corporeal, something "consumed" in the traversal of distance. Total velocity measures that motion by which a given distance is traversed. 22 One may expect, then, that where the proportion of force to resistance remains constant, motion itself, or the total velocity which measures it, must obey the conservation principle. That is, bodies moved with the same total velocity or momenta (not to be confused with momentum in the modern sense) must traverse the same distance in the same time. Here, then, is a rationale for the final step in GALILEO'Sproof of Theorem I. He no longer needs to assume a proportionality between distances, times and velocities, as in the rule for uniform motion. The basic assumption can be a physical one, arising from the principle of conservation and the principle of uniformity of nature from which this stems. If GALILEO returned to the proof of Theorem I after having composed the first two days of the Discorsi in which he discussed the equal speed of fall, the necessary line of reasoning would still be fresh in his mind. He may then have reworked the last part of his proof, and instead of specifying the "same body," referred instead to "two bodies." At the same time, he shifted from gradus velocitatis to momenta velocitatis, reflecting the terms in which he was then thinking. Prodded by his publisher, bothered by failing eyesight, and distracted by the desire to include more new material on projectile motion and percussion, GALILEO hastily copied his last work on accelerated motion and sent out the manuscript without noticing the discrepancies in the statements of his fundamental theorem or the irregularity in its format. ~ Other characteristics noted a b o v e - - t h e mismatch between the statement of the theorem and the proved proposition, the change in specification from the same one to two bodies, the lack of a second statement of the proposition in terms of its diagram--all testify to carelessness and haste and support the view that Theorem I was drafted at the very last. Another clue that the text of the published theorem may be relatively late lies in the use of conficere throughout. An exception is one occurrence of peragere; however, this appears where the mechanical reasoning has been supposed to enter, hence the choice of peragere might flow from association with the earlier mechanical treatise. Peragere is characteristic of almost all propositions and fragments pertaining to the times-squared theorem and the double-distance rule, so that one would naturally expect to find it more frequently in the fundamental theorem from which the times-squared theorem is finally derived. Instead, conficere occurs three times and peragere once. Moreover, conficere seems to appear with increasing frequency in GALILEO'S later propositions. All of this confirms the supposition that Theorem I is late. 22 By modern analysis, of course, the total velocity, or the area under a curve, using velocity and time as coordinates, would be the distance traversed. 33 For an account of GALILEO'Sfinal activities in the preparation of his manuscript for publication, see FAVARO (Opere VIII, pp. t6-t7, 26-27). On January 2, t638, GALILEOreports to DIODATIthat he has been totally blind for a month (Opere XVII, p. 247) ; that GALILEOwas doing all or part of the recopying himself can be seen in a letter of August t 5, t636, to DIODATI(Opere XVII, pp. 473-74).

Galileo's Science of Motion

295

This suggested dating of Theorem I serves to explain otherwise puzzling linguistic usages. For example, the published version of the times-squared theorem where peragere occurs frequently includes a cluster of three uses of conficere in the middle of the proof. But this cluster is in the very sentence that has to be changed if the proof is to follow from Theorem I instead of the double-distance rule. The occurrence of delato in Theorems I and I I provides another example. 24 There is another significant aspect to m y conjecture about the date of Theorem I. If GALILEO had had Theorem I by the time he wrote the passage on the cannon ball in the Dialogo, where he appears to be hunting for a connection between his fundamental mechanical principles and the double-distance rule, surely he would have used at least one example in which his cannon ball traversed the same distance in the same time with the same amount of motion. But there is no hint of this. In the Dialogo, GALILEO must depend on the medieval assumption that area, total velocity, and distance are proportional or he must suppose that it is legitimate to use theorems on uniform motion for cases involving acceleration. If the above analysis is correct, GALILEO'S final proof of his fundamental theorem no longer depends on illegitimate assumption of what is to be proved. Nor is it a purely mathematical proof based only on a mathematical definition. I t rests implicitly on a mechanical foundation.
Conclusion

This study has set forth an account of the way in which GALILEO'S science of motion developed. From examination of the propositions of De motu locali and related manuscript material, it has been possible to reconstruct their development in more or less distinct stages. The chart on pages 296-297 summarizes these stages and briefly indicates some of the methodological and terminological characteristics associated with each stage and substage. The order supposed here should not be taken as a rigid timetable, but only as a working hypothesis or heuristic device which permits us to visualize a relatively simple and orderly development where the reality is sure to be more complex. My reconstruction of the development of De motu locali into chronological stages is, of course, subject to further refinements and revisions. However, it sets forth in broad outline a sequence of developments which should stand up under further scrutiny. It brings into sharper focus the fact that GALILEO'S initial approach to a science of motion was through study of motion along inclined planes, and it exhibits a gradual development of the later treatise out of GALILEO'S earliest work in mechanics. Furthermore, it exhibits continuity between this work and the medieval science of weights. In particular, it emphasizes the importance of the first postulates of JO~DANUS in the origins of the new science, and the role of fourteenth century kinematics is seen in a new perspective. GALILEO did not take his start from this tradition; however, it seems likely that he turned to it after he realized that natural motion was necessarily accelerated. With concepts 24 This term occurs nowhere else except in the introduction to the third book and in the revised version of the third proposition of the same book. Further linguistic study of these and other relatively long Latin passages in De motu locali may provide additional evidence concerning the relative chronology of the whole.
20 a Arch. H i s t . E x a c t Sci., Vol. t 3

296

W.L.

WISAI',I :

~..~

~'~

~
~ ' ~ - ~
0 ~ ~

~~

- ~

~> ~ . ~

~> ~

0 ~

~ ~ ~ m e o ~ o m

.~ ~

~'~

~~
~

~.fi

"B

~o~
0 .

~o

"~.~ o

~o
~n

.~

~.~
~~

o~ ~

o~ ~,c/

.~o~
0 .~ ~ r~ 02

~
o)

~'~

' ~ ~.. ~-~

~~
o 0~

0 xo

~o~g

i~

~~

0.~ o

I> 0

o.~
0

~Ne

0 =

+a i 0

~l 0

~.~ ~oo ~ . ~o ~
"0

,.~

"~

.o~

Galileo's Science of M o t i o n

297

~
t

~ .I~~
t

~g

~o ~
"~ ~ ' ~

~ ~

~ o o~.~

,Ro'~
4o

m'~

~.~

~ ~U~

~o ~o o~
"~ ~ o .~.. 0 ~.-: ~-~ ,..~' "~ .r~

~~o~
~.~ ~

~o
r~o.~

Oo ~
~o
.~ 0 4:~ .
m ~

,._, EJ,'O o

i>

.~om~

<~

.~

~'~.~

~~

o~
~

o~o

r~ 0

~g...~ 0

"~

'~ o o ~
~'~ o o

o ~ z

~a~

o ; ~

~O~o~

~~

~ ~ o~ o

~o~

298

W.L. WISAN:

and methods which can be found in writings from that tradition GALILEO'S science acquired a new foundation and new techniques for deriving further consequences. If, as I have argued, GALILEO did use m a n y elements from past traditions, he nonetheless transformed these pieces into something wholly different--a new science of motion. GALILEO'S De motu locali is a work of extraordinary originality if judged on the basis of his conception and execution of the treatise as a whole rather than upon its individual parts. COPERNICUSmodeled his treatise on ancient astronomy. GALILEO had no comparable model. The closest is perhaps the ancient treatise on spirals b y ARCHIMEDES. Like ARCHIMEDES,GALILEO begins with a section on uniform motion and he even takes Archimedes' first theorem as his own starting point. Moreover, his mathematics is quite consciously and admittedly ARCHIMEDEAN. But whereas ARCHIMEDES used kinematic propositions and elegant mathematical methods to explore the properties of geometrical curves GALILEO used similar methods to explore the properties of motion. ARCHIMEDES' hydrostatics includes propositions on the motion of solid bodies in a fluid medium. However, these propositions establish the positions in which the solids will come to rest; they do not describe the motion that takes place. There are also propositions on motion in ancient astronomy. Most of these are about particular bodies that have certain motions which are determined by observation. Others can be found in geometrical treatises which trace the paths of points on a rotating sphere. But there is no general mathematical treatment of motion as such. In medieval mechanics we find attempts in this direction but these do not go beyond a few basic theorems. GALILEO'S attempt to give a comprehensive, mathematical treatment of local motion is unprecedented in its scope and method. Moreover, the propositions in his second book are, for the most part, entirely new and they are based on a new combination of principles chosen for the construction of a book on motion differing radically from any existing work on this subject. The extent of GALILEO'S originality in his second book is relatively rare in the history of science since it is not preceded, as is tile first book, b y earlier treatments of uniform motion, or, as the third book, b y even so primitive an attempt as that of TARTAGLIA to create a " n e w science" of the motion of projectiles. This m a y be the key to understanding the importance so often attributed to GALILEO'S work on motion. Most of his propositions were of little subsequent interest and only a very few contributed to an advance in scientific knowledge. His mathematics was unoriginal and seems clumsy and obsolete for a work published the year after DESCARTES' new analytic geometry, and it is difficult to see precisely how the De motu locali influenced later treatments of motion. GALILEO'S laws of motion are, of course, an obvious contribution, and the resolution of projectile motion into its components was an important innovation. But the treatise as a whole seems hopelessly medieval in its separation of " n a t u r a l " and " v i o l e n t " motions and the failure to give an analysis of circular motion. There is relatively little here that suggests later studies of the motion of rigid bodies. Yet GALILEO did do pioneering work in adapting methods of Greek geometry to the study of motion along inclined planes and the motion of projectiles. If

Galileo's Science of Motion

299

b o t h his m a t h e m a t i c s a n d his physics were soon superseded, nonetheless these s t u d i e s m a y h a v e influenced l a t e r d e v e l o p m e n t s m u c h as I h a v e s u p p o s e d t h e earlier, b u t g e n e r a l l y dissimilar, w o r k of JORDANUS a n d others to h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d essential elements to GALILEO'S mechanics. A m o n g o t h e r things, t h e De motu locali showed t h a t m o t i o n could be t r e a t e d in an ARCHIMEDEAN fashion, a n d at t h e v e r y least one can s a y t h a t it p r o v i d e s us w i t h an e x a m p l e of t h e w a y in w h i c h ARCHIMEDEAN m a t h e m a t i c a l m e t h o d s were a s s i m i l a t e d into e a r l y m o d e r n science. GALILEO'S work, covering some fifty years, shows a s t e a d y progression f r o m v e r y p r i m i t i v e use of EUCLIDEAN g e o m e t r y to derive e l e m e n t a r y proposit i o n s suggested b y m e d i e v a l s t a t i c s to a r e l a t i v e l y s o p h i s t i c a t e d use of Greek m a t h e m a t i c s in e x p l o r a t i o n of e n t i r e l y new problems. His last t r e a t i s e s u r e l y a p p r o a c h e s t h e style, a n d to some e x t e n t t h e content, of m o d e r n mechanics.

Bibliography
ARCHIMEDES, 1544. Archimedis operum. Basel: Iohannes Hervagius. ARCHIMEDES. See HEATH, T. L., trans, t 897. ARIOTTI, P., 1968. "Galileo on the Isochrony of the Pendulum." Isis 59, 414-26. ARISTOTLE. See McKEoN, R., ed. 1941, and HETT, W. S., trans. 1963. BANFI, A., t 962. Vita di Galileo Galilei. 2d ed. Milan: Feltrinelli editore. BEDINI, S.A., t967a. " T h e Makers of Galileo's Scientific Instruments." I n Galileo nella storia e nella filosofia della scienza, Symposium Internazionale di Storia, Metodologia, Logica e Filosofia della Scienza. Vinci (Florence): Gruppo italiano di storia della scienze. BEDINI, S. A., t 967 b. "Galileo Galilei and the Measure of Time." Offprint from Saggi su Galileo Galilei (forthcoming publication b y Comitato Nazionale per le Manifestazioni Celebrative del IV Centenario della Nascita di Galileo Galilei). Florence: G. Barb@ra. BEDI~I, S. A., 1967c. " T h e Instruments of Galileo Galilei." I n Galileo M a n o] Science, edited b y ERNAN McMuLLIN. New York: Basic Books. BENEDETTI, G . B . , t585. Diversarum speculationum mathematicarum, et physicarum liber. Turin: apud haeredem Nicolai Bevilaquae. BIAaI, M. L . A . , t965. Galileo e la terminologia tecnico-scienti]ica. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, Editore. BLAKI~, R. M., DUCASSE, C. J., & MADDEN, E. H., 1960. Theories o/Scientific Method: The Renaissance Through the Nineteenth Century. Seattle: University of Washington Press. BOFFITO, G., t 943. BibliograJia galileiana (1668-189@ raccolta ed illustrata da A, Carli ed A. Favaro: Supplemento ... (1896-1940). Rome: Liberia dello stato. BoYE~, C. B., 1959. The History o/ the Calculus and Its Conceptual Development (The Concepts o/the Calculus). 2d ed. New York: Dover Publications. BOYER, C. B., 1967. "Galileo's Place in the History of Mathematics." I n Galileo M a n o] Science, edited b y ERNAN McMuLLIN. New York: Basic Books. BROWN, J. E., 1967. " T h e Scientia de Ponderibus in the L a t e r Middle Ages." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin. BUONAMICO, F., 1591. De motu libri X . Florence: apud Bartholomeum Sermartellium. t3URTT, ]~. A., t 925. The Metaphysical Foundations o/ Modern Physical Science: A Historical and Critical Essay. New York: Harcourt. 20b Arch.Hist.Exact Sci.,Voh 13

300

W . L . WISAN :

CARDANO, G., t 570- Opus novum de proportionibus numerorum, motuum, ponderum, sonorum, aliarumque rerum. Basel. CARDANO, G., 1663. Opera omnia. Lyon: Caroli Sponii. Reprinted 1966. StuttgartBad Cannstatt: Frommalln. CARUSl, E., & FAVARO, A., eds. 1923. Leonardo
libri hove ordinati da f. Luigi Maria Arconati da Vinci: Del moto e misura dell'acqua, ... Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli.

CAVALIERI, B., t632. Lo specchio ustorio. Bologna: Ferroni. CAVERNI, R., t895. Storia del metodo sperimentale in Italia. Vol. 4. Florence: Stabilimento G. Civelli. Vols. t - 6 (1891-1900) reprinted 1972. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation. CLAGETT, M., 1941. Giovanni Marliani and Late Medieval Physics. New York: Columbia University Press. CLAGETT, M., t955. Greek Science in Antiquity. New York: Collier Books. CLAGETT, M., 1959. The Science of ~,lechanics in the Middle Ages. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. CLAGETT, 1V~., 1964. Archimedes in the Middle Ages, vol. 1, The Arabo-Latin Tradition. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. CLAGETT, M., t 969. "Leonardo da Vinci and the Medieval Archimedes." Physic 11, 100-151. CLAVELIN, M., t968. La philosophie naturelle de Galilde: Essai sur les origines et la formation de la mdcanique elassique. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin. CLAVELIN, M., trans. 1970. Galilde : Discours et ddmonstrations mathdmatiques concernant deux sciences nouvelles. Paris: Librairie Armand Colin. COEEA, J . A . , 1968. "Galileo's Concept of Inertia." Physis 10, 261-81. COHEN, I . B . , t956. "Galileo's Rejection of the Possibility of Velocity Changing Uniformly with Respect to Time." Isis 47, 231-35. COHEN, I. B., i 960. The Birth of a New Physics. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. COHEN, I . B . , t967. "Galileo, Newton, and the Divine Order of the Solar System." I n Galileo M a n of Science, edited by ERNAN McMuLLIN. New York: Basic Books. COHEN, M., & DRABKIN, I . E . , 1948. A Source Book in Greek Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. COMMANDINO, F., trans, and comm. t589. Pappi Alexandrini Mathematicae Collectiones... Pesaro. CozzI, G., t 965. "Galileo e la societk veneziana." Offprint from Saggi su Galileo GaliIei (forthcoming publication by Comitato Nazionale per le Manifestazioni Celebrative del IV Centenario della Nascita di Galileo Galilei). Florence: G. Barbara. CREW, H., & SALVIO, A. DE, trans, t914. Galileo Gahlei: Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Unabr. and unalt, repub, of 1st ed., New York: Dover, n.d. CRO~BIE, A. C., t953. Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science, 11001700. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DlffKSTERHUIS, E. J., t956. Archimedes. Translated by C. DIKSI~OOR51. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard. DIJKSTERtlUIS, E. J., 1959. " T h e Origins of Classical Mechanics from Aristotle to Newton." I n Critical Problems in the History of Science, edited by MARSHALl. Cl.AGETT. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. DRABKIN, I. E., & DRAKE, S., trans. 1960. Galileo Galilei: On Motion and On Mechanics. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press. DRACHMANN, A. G., t 963. The Mechanical Technology of Greek and Roman Antiquity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. DRAKE, S., trans. 1953. Galileo Galilei: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems--Ptolemaic and Copernican. Berkeley: University of California Press. DRAKE, S., ed. and trans, t957. Discoveries and opinions of Galileo. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Galileo's Science of Motion

301

DRAKE S., 1958. " Galileo Gleanings V: The Earliest Version of Galileo's Mechanics."
Osiris 13, 262-90. DRAKE, S., t959- "Galileo Gleanings VI: Galileo's First Telescopes at Padua and Venice." I s i s 50, 245-54. DRAKE, S., t 968 a. "Galileo Gleanings XVI: Semicircular Fall in the Dialogue." P h y s i s 10, 89-t00. DRAKE, S., t968b. "Galileo Gleanings X V I I : The Question of Circular Inertia." P h y s i s 10, 282-98. DRAKE S., 1969a. "Galileo Gleanings X V I I I : Galileo's t604 Fragment on Falling Bodies." B r i t i s h J o u r n a l / o r the H i s t o r y o~ Science 4, 340-58. DRAKE, S., 1969b. "Galileo and the Merton Rule." Paper read at History of Science Society Annual Meeting, December t 969, Washington, D.C. Xeroxed. DRAKE, S., 1970. "Galileo Gleanings X I X : Uniform Acceleration, Space, and Time." B r i t i s h J o u r n a l / o r the H i s t o r y o[ Science 8, 21-43. DRAKE S., 1972. "The Uniform Motion Equivalent to a Uniformly Accelerated Motion from Rest." I s i s 63, 28-38. DRAKE S., t972a. " A New View of Newton: An Essay Review of \estfall's Force in N e w t o n ' s P h y s i c s . " I s i s 63, 242-44. DRAKE, S., t 972b. "' Galileo Gleanings X X I : On the Probable Order of Galileo's Notes on Motion." P h y s i s 14, 55-68. DRAKE, S., 1973. " G a l i l e o ' s Discovery of the Law of Free Fall." Scienti/ic A m e r i c a n 228, 84-92. DRAKE, S., & DRABKIN, I. E., eds. and trans. 1969. ZVfechanics i n Sixteenth Century Italy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. DRAKE, S., & O'MALLEY,C. D., eds. and trans, t960. The Controversy on the Comets o / 1 6 1 8 . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DUtIEs1, P., 1905. Les origines de la statique. 2 vols. Paris: Librairie scientifique A. Hermann. DI:HEM, P., 1906. Etudes sur Ldonard de Vinci. 1st ser. Ceux qu'il a lus et ceux qui l'ont lu. Paris: Librairie scientifique A. Hermann. DUt~ESI, P., 1909. t~tudes sur Ldonard de Vinci. 2d ser. Ceux qu'il a lus el ceuz qui l'ont lu. Paris: Librairie scientifique A. I-Iermann. DIJnEM, P., 1913. t~tudes sur Ldonard de Vinci. 3d ser. Prdcurseurs P a r i s i e n s de Galilde. Paris: Librairie scientifiqne A. Hermann. EDWARDS, W . F . , I960. "The Logic of Iacopo Zabarella." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. EUCLID. See HEATH, T. L., trans. 1956. FAVARO, A., 1887..Miscellanea galileiana inedita: studi e ricerehe. Venice : Tipografia di G. Antonelli. FAVARO, A., 1889. P e r la edizione nazionale delle @ere di Galileo Galilei .... Florence: Tipografia di G. Barb6ra. FAVARO, A., 1891. N u o v i studi galileiani. Venice: Tipografia di G. Antonelli. FAVARO, A., t916a. A m i c i e corrispondenti di Galileo Galilei, vol. 37, M a r i o Guiducci. Venice: Officine grafiche di C. Ferrari. FAVARO, A., 19t6b. "Se e quale influenza abbia Leonardo da Vinci." Scientia 20, 417-34. FAVARO, A., 1923. " G a l i l e o Galilei." I n Gli scienziati italiani dall'inizio del medio evo ai nostri giorni, vol. 1, pt. 2. Edited by ALDO MIELI. Rome: Nardecchia. FAVARO, A., 1966. Galileo Gahlei e lo studio di Padova. 2 vols. Contributi per la storia dell'universit~ di Padova, nos. 3 and 4. Reprint. Padua: Editrice Antenore, t883. FAVARO, A., & CARLI, A., t896. Bibliogra[ia galileiana ( 1 5 6 8 - 1 8 9 @ .... Florence: Tipografia dei Fratelli Bencini.

302

W . L . WISAN:

Florence. Biblioteca Nazionale. "Manosclitti Galileiani," div. 2, pt. 2, vol. 5 (Ms. Gal. 72). FRAJES~, A,, 1964- Galileo matematico. Rome: Editrice studium. FREDETTE, R., 1969. "Les De motu 'plus aneiens' de Galileo Galilei: prol6gom~nes." Ph.D. dissertation, Universit6 de Montr6al. GALILEI, G., 1638. Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche, intorno ~ due nuove scienze attenenti alla mecanica & i movimenti locali . . . . Leyden: Elsevirii. GALILEI, G., 1655-56. Opere di Galileo Galilei .... 2 vols. Bologna. GALILEI, G., 1718. Opere di Galileo Galilei .... 3 vols. Edited by TOMMASO BOONAVENTURI. Florence: G. Tartini & S. Franehi. GALILEI, G., t842-56. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei . . . . 15 vols. Edited b y EVG~NIO ALBERI. Florence: Societ~ editrice fiorentina. GALILEI, G., t 890-1909. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei . . . . 20 vols. Edited b y ANTONIO FAVARO. Florence: Tipografia di G. Barbara. Reprinted 1929, t 964. GALILEI, G., On Motion and On Mechanics. See DRABKIN, I. E., & :DRAKE, S., trans. 1960. GALILEI G., Discourse on Bodies in Water. See SALUSBURY,T., trans. 1960. GALILEI G., Dialogue Concerning the Two Chie[ World Systems--Ptolemaic and Copernican. See DRAKE, S., trans, t953. GALILEI G., Dialogue on the Great World Systems: I n the Salusbury Translation. See SANTILLANA, G. DE, trans. 1953. GALILEI G., Dialogues Concerning Two N e w Sciences. See CR~w, H., & SALVlO, A. DE, trans. 1914. GALILEI, G., D i s c o u r s e t ddmonstrations mathdmatiques concernant deux sciences nouvelles. See CLAVELIN,M., trans, t970. GALILEI G., Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno h due nuove scienze. See GEYMONAT, L., & CARUGO, A., eds. and trans. 1958. GALILEI G., Frammenti attenenti ai Discorsi e dimostrazione matematiche intorno ~ due nuove scienze. I n Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, vol. v i i i , edited by A. FAVARO. Florence: Tipografia di Barbara, 1898. GARIN, E., t965. Scienza e vita civile nel rinascimento italiano. Bari: Casa editrice Gius. Laterza e Figli. GEYMONAT, L., 1965. Galileo Galilei: A Biography and Inquiry into H i s Philosophy of Science. Translated by STILLMAN DRAKE. New York: McGraw-Hill Paperbacks. GEYMONAT, L., BRUNETTI, V., eds. 1966. Sensate esperienze e certe dimostrazioni: antologia. 3d ed. Bari: Editore Laterza. GEYMONAT, L., ~: CARUGO, ~-., eds. and trans. 1958. Galileo Galilei: Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche intorno ~ due nuove scienze. Turin: Boringhieri. GIACOMELLI, R., t 949. Galileo Galilei giovane e il suo " D e motu." Piss: Domus Galileiana. GILBERT, N., 1960. Renaissance Concepts o/Method. New York: Columbia University Press. GILBERT, N., t963. "Galileo and tile School of Padua." Journal o[ the History of Philosophy 1, 223-31. GoLI~O, C., ed. t966. Galileo Reappraised. Berkeley: University of California Press. GovI, G., ed. t885. L'Ottica di Claudio Tolomeo: da Eugenio Ammiraglio di Sicilia, scrittore del secolo X I I . Ridotta in latino sovra la traduzione arabs di un testo greco imperfetto. Turin: Stamperia reale della dirts G. B. Paravia. GUIDOBALDO[DELMONTE], I 577. Mechanicorum liber. Pesaro : spud Hieronymum Con~ cordiam. HALL, A. 1R., ! 952. Ballistics in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: at the University Press. HALL, A. R., t954. The Scienti/ic Revolution, 1500-1800: The Formation of the Modern Scientific Attitude. London: Longmans.

Galileo's Science of Motion

303

HALL, A. R., 1958. "Galileo's Fallacy." Isis 49, 342-46. HALL, A. R., 1959. "Another Galilean Error." Isis 50, 26t-62. HALL, A. R., 1965. "Galileo and the Science of Motion." The British Journal/or the History o/Science 2, 185-99. HEATH, T. L., trans. 1897. The Works o/ Archimedes: ... with a Supplement, " T h e Method o/ Archimedes" .... Unabr. reissue. New York: Dover Publications, ll.d. HEATH, T. L., trans. 1926. The Thirteen Books o/Euclid's Elements, Translated/Tom the Text of Heiberg .... 3 vols. 2d ed. reprinted 1956. New York: Dover Publications. HETT, W. S., trans. 1963. Aristotle : Minor Works. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. HIJMPHREYS, W. C., t967. "Galileo, Falling ]3odies, and Inclined Planes." British Journal [or the History o/Science 3, 225-44. KOESTLER, A., 1959. The Sleepwalkers: A History o/ 2VIan's Changing Vision of the Universe. London: Hutchinson. KoI~g, A., 1939. l~tudes Galildennes. I. "A l'aube de la science classique." I1. " L a loi de la chute des corps: Descartes et Galilee." 111. "GalilCe et la loi d'inertie." Histoire de la PensCe, Nos. 852-54. Paris: Hermann. Reprinted 1966. KoYRg, A., 1943. "Galileo and Plato." Journal o/ the History o/ Ideas 4, 400-428. KoYRg, A., 1953. "An Experiment in l~easurement." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 97, 222-37. KOYRg, A., 1956. "The Origins of Modern Science: A New Interpretation." Diogenes 16, 1-22. KoYR~, A., 1965. Newtonian Studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. KIJI~N, T. S., 1957. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. KuHx, T. S., 1962. The Structure o/Scienti/ic Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, vol. 2, no. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2d ed. rev. t970. K~'I~N, T. S., 1963. "A Function for Thought Experiments." I n Mdlanges A lexandre Koyrd, edited by R. TATON & I. B. COI~EN. Paris: Hermann. LEONARDO IDA VINCI], 1881-t 90t. Les manuscrits de Ldonard de Vinci: Les manuscrits A-yVI de la Biblioth~que de l'Institut de France. Edited by CHARLES RAVAISSONMOLLIEN. Paris: A. Quantin. LEONARDO ~DA VINClJ, 1894-1904. I1 codice atlantico. Edition of Regia Accad~mia dei Lincei. Milan. LEONAlaDO ~DA VINCI], t923. I manoscritti e i disegni di Leonardo da Vinci. Vol. 1 [Arundel]. Edition of Reale Commissione Vinciana. Rome: Danesi. LEONAIaDO IDA VtNCI~, t 926. I /ogli maneanti al codice di Leonardo da Vinci su'l volo degli uccelli nella biblioteca reale di Torino [Sabachnikoff t, 2, 11, t 8]. Edited by E. CARUSI. Rome: Danesi. LIBRI, G., 1867. Histoire des sciences mathdmatiques en Italie, vol. 4. 2d ed. Paris: J. Renouard. MAcCuRDY, E., ed. and trans, t955. The Notebooks o/Leonardo da Vinci. New York: George ]3raziller. MATH, E., t893. The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account o/ its Development. tst Eng. ed. Translated from 2d German ed. (t888) by THOMAS J. 2IcCoRMACt~. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co. 6th American ed. t 960 (La Salle), based on revisions through 9th German ed. (1933). MAHONEY, M. S., t968. "Another Look at Greek Geometrical Analysis." Archive /or History of Exact Sciences 5, 318-48. MAIER, A., 1949. Die Vorldufer Galileis im 14. Jahrhundert. Rome : Edizioni di storia e letteratura. MAIER, A., t955. "Die naturphilosophische ]3edeutnng der scholastischen Impetustheorie." Scholastik 30, 321-43.

304

W . L . WISAX-:

!VIARCOLONGO,R., t932. La meccanica di Leonardo da Vinci. Naples: Stabilimento

industriale editoriale meridionali. MCKEON, R., ed. 1941. The Basic Works of Aristotle, New York: Random House. MCMULLIN,E., ed. 1967. Galileo Man of Science. New York: Basic Books. MIELI, A., t938. "I1 tricentenario dei 'Discorsi e dimostrazioni matematiche' di Galileo Galilei." Archeion 21, t93-297. MOODY, E. A., 1951. "Galileo and Avempace: The Dynamics of the Leaning Tower Experiment." Journal of the History o/Ideas 12, 163-93, 375-422. MOODY, E. A., 1966. " Galileo and His Precursors." I n Galileo Reappraised, edited by CARLO GOLINO. Berkeley: University of California Press. MOODY, E. A., CLAGETT,M., eds. and trans. 1952. The Medieval Science o/ Weights (" Scientia de Ponderibus") : Treatises Ascribed to Euclid, Archimedes, Thabit ibn Qurra, Jordanus de Nemore and Blasius o/Parma. Madison : University of Wisconsin Press. Reprinted t 960. Moscovlci, S., t967. L'expdrience du mouvement: Jean-Baptiste Baliani disciple et critique de Galilde. Paris: Hermann. NEWTON, I., 1934. Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System ol the World. Translated by A. MOTTE (t 789), revised by F. CAJORI. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reprinted 1952, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. OLSCHKI, L., t927. Geschichte der Neusprachlichen Wissenschaftlichen Literatur, vol. 3, Gallilei und Seine Zeit. Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer Verlag. OLSCHKI, L., t 942. " T h e Scientific Personality of Galileo." Bulletin ol the History of Medicine 12, 248-73. OLSCI~KI, L., 1943. "Galileo's Philosophy of Science." Philosophical Review 52, 349-65. OSBORlV, A., 19t4. "Errors in Identification of Handwriting." American Law Review 48, 849-58. PA~PIJs. See COMMANDINO,F., trans. 1589. PROClSSI, A., t959. La collezione galileiana della biblioteca nazionale, vol. 1, Rome: Instituto poligrafico dello stato. PSEUDO-ARISTOTLI;. See HETT, W. C., trans, ~963. PTOLEMY, C. See GovI, G., ed, t885. RANDALL, J . H . , Jr., t 940. "The Development of Scientific Method in tile School of Padua." Journal o1 the History of Ideas 1, 177-206. RANDALL, J . H . , Jr., 1957. "Leonardo da Vinci and Modern Science." I n Roots o/ Scientific Thought: A Cultural Perspective. Edited by P. WIENER & A. OLAND. New York: Basic Books. RANDALL, J.H., Jr., 1961. The School of Padua and the Emergence of Modern Science. Padua : Editore Antenore. RAVETZ, J., 1971- "Galileo and the Mathematisation of ' S p e e d ' . " Paper presented to the X l I I International Congress of the History of Science. Moscow/Leningrad. RETI, L., t 97t. "Leonardo on Bearings and Gears." Scientific American 224, t 01-110. RosE, P. L., 1968. "Galileo's Theory of Ballistics." British Journal of the History of Science 4, t 56-59. RosE, P. L., ~ DRAKE, S., 1971. " T h e Pseudo-Aristotelian Questions in Mechanics in Renaissance Culture." Studies in the Renaissance 18, 65-104. SALUSBURY, T., t665. Mathematical Collections and Translations. Vol. 2, Pt. I. London : William Leybourn. Reprinted in facsimilewith introduction b y S. DRAKE. LOS Angeles: Zeitlin & Ver Brugge, 1967. SAM13URSKY, S., t 962. "Galileo's Attempt at a Cosmology." Isis 53, 460-64. SANTILLAXA, G. DE, ed. 1953. Galileo Galilei: Dialogue on the Great World Systems: I n the Salusbury Translation. Chicago: University o~ Chicago Press. SANTILLANA, G. DE, 1955. The Crime of Galileo. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Galileo's Science of Motion

305

SARTON, G., 1957. Six Wings: Men o/ Science in the Renaissance. Bloomington: I n d i a n a University Press. SCtlMITT, C.B., t969. "Experience and Experiment: A Comparison of Zabarella's View with Galileo's in De motu." Studies in the Renaissance 16, 80-138. SETTLE, T.B., 1961. "An Experiment in the History of Science." Science 133, t 9-23. SETTLE, T. B., 1966. "Galilean Science : Essays ill tile Mechanics and Dynamics of the Discorsi." Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. SETTLE, T. B., t967. "Galileo's Use of Experiment as a Tool of Investigation." I n Galileo Man o/ Science, edited b y ERNAN McMULLIN. New York: Basic Books. SItEA, W. R., t9701. "'The World in Motion." Revue de l'UniversiM d'Ottawa 40, 341-85. SHEA, W. R., 1970b. " Galileo's Atomic Hypothesis." A m b i x 17, t3-27. SHEA, W. R., 1972. Galileo's Intellectual Revolution: Middle Period, 1610-1632. New York: Science History Publications. TABARRONI, G., 1969. "Raffaello Caverni: Prete contestatore. A 70 anni dalla morte." Physis 11, 564-70. TANNERY, P., 1926. "GalilCe et les principes de la dynamique." I n Mdmoires scienti/iques, vol. 6, Sciences modernes, 1883-1904, edited b y GINO LORIA. Paris: GauthierVillars. TARTAGLIA, 2{, 1537. Nova scientia .... Venice. TARTAGLIA,., 1959. Quesiti et inventioni diverse. Facsimile of the 2d ed. of 1554. Brescia : Ateneo. TEOMPSON, W., & TAIT, P. G., t879. Treatise on Natural Philosophy, vol. 1, pt. t. Cambridge: at the University Press. Reprinted as Principles o/ Mechanics and Dynamics. New York: Dover 1962. TRUESDELL, C., 1960. " T h e Rational Mechanics of Flexible or Elastic Bodies: t6381788." I n Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, Ser. 2, Vol. 11, Sec. 2. TRUESDELL, C., t 968. Essays in the History of Mechanics. New York: Springer. UCCELLI, A., ed. t940. Leonardo da Vinci: I libri di meccanica. Milan: Ulrico I-Ioepli. VAILATI, G., 1897. "11 principio dei lavori virtuali da Aristotele a Erone d'Alessandria." Accademia reale delle scienze di Torino 32, 940-62, WALLACE, W. A., 1968. " T h e Enigma of Domingo de Soto." Isis 59, 384-401. WALLACE, W . A . , t969. " T h e 'Calculatores' in Early Sixteenth-Century Physics." British Journal/or the History of Science 4, 22t-32. WALLACE, W . A . , 1971. "Mechanics from Bradwardine to Galileo." Journal o/ the History of Ideas 32, 16-28. }VESTFALL, R. S., 1966- " T h e Problem of Force in Galileo's Physics." I n Galileo Reappraised, edited by CARLO GOLINO. Berkeley: University of California Press. WESTEALL, R. S., 1971. Force in Newton's Physics: The Science of Dynamics in the Seventeenth Century. NewYork: American Elsevier. WESTFALL, R. S., 1972. "Circular Motion in Seventeenth Century Mechanics." Isis 63, 184-89. WHITE, L., Jr., 1966. " P u m p s and Pendula: Galileo and Technology." I n Galileo Reappraised, edited by CARLO GOLINO. Berkeley: University of California Press. WISAN, W., t 972. "Galileo's De motu locali." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida. WOHLWlLL, E., t 883/t 884. "Die Entdeckung des Beharrungsgesetzes." Zeitschrift fiir VOlkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 14, 365-4t0; 15, 70-t35, 337-87. WOHLWILL, E., 1909. Galilei, und sein K a m p f fi& die Copernicanische Lehre, vol. t. Hamburg: Verlag yon Leopold Voss. YATES, F., 1964. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

306

~vV. L. WISAN:

YATES, F., t968. " T h e Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science." In Art, Science and History in the Renaissance, edited by C. S. SINGLETON. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Reprinted in Bobbs-Merrill Reprint Series in History of Science, H S - 84. 37 Clinton St. Oneonta, New York

(Received October 26, 1973)