The Unhelpful Notion of ‘Renaissance man’

The current journalistic use of the term ‘Renaissance man’ to describe someone whose work straddles boundaries between today's specialisms is a hindrance to understanding almost any aspect of the culture of the Renaissance — a culture within which both ‘art’ and ‘science’ had meanings different from those they have now, the most significant intellectual division being between the learned and the practical traditions. We look first at the learned tradition of the universities (where teaching was in Latin). The people considered include William Harvey, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Regiomontanus and (very briefly) Isaac Newton. Within the practical tradition, centred on workshops, we consider the state shipyards in Venice (where Galileo claimed to have learned much), workshop practices in general and the emergence of the notion of ‘Fine Arts’. The individuals considered include Piero della Francesca, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarroti and Raphael, as well as the famous clockmaker Jost Bürgi (who taught Kepler about algebra). We conclude by considering the transfer of skills between these two traditions. There are several areas of overlap, but here we concentrate attention on the story of algebra. Algebra was invented by al-Khwarizmi (whose name gives us the term ‘algorithm’) in the ninth century, within learned mathematics, in Baghdad. In the West, elementary algebra, derived from al-Khwarizmi's work but in the simplified form of problems, became part of ‘practical mathematics’. Slowly, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, developed forms of algebra crossed over into the learned tradition. This is as much a matter of crossing social barriers as of crossing intellectual ones. Eventually, the practical tradition as a whole became absorbed as an elementary part of the learned one.     

Cultivating the cosmos: spaceflight thought in Imperial Germany

Space historians have predominantly identified Weimar Germany (1919–1933) as the starting period of German debates over the possibility of spaceflight. However, spaceflight and the utopian potential of outer space were already topics of popular discussion in the late nineteenth century, when calls by German astronomers for speculative restraint were challenged in popular science accounts and fantasy literature. Mass-produced fiction in the first decade of the twentieth century increasingly depicted spaceflight as a technological vision, imagining the spaceship as the successor to the airship. While exploring the historical processes behind this ascent of plausibility of futuristic design, the article shows how popular science media gave public voice to both established and new professional elites and fostered interprofessional exchange. In the 1900s spaceflight developed into a popular theme and boundaries between fiction and popular science blurred.     

中华书局校点本《宋书·天文志》正误

《宋书·天文志》是中国古代继《汉书·天文志》之后的又一篇天文学著作,它记叙了魏晋至刘宋的天象变化及当时天文研究的成果。问世之后很少有学者对其进行研究和校勘,本来就有的和多年传抄过程中续加的错误都未能得到清理和纠正。中华书局1972年出版的校点本《宋书·天文志》使用范围最广,但失校、误点之处甚多,甚至有使人不能卒读的感觉。在今日深入研究的基础上,只就学力逮及,将其一一正之,凡158条,并加简要辨析。     

‘With utmost certainty’: two late medieval pioneers of technical chronology

ABSTRACT

This article focuses on the chronological methods developed and deployed by two little known medieval scholars, Giles of Lessines (active in the 1260s) and Heinrich Selder (1370s), both of whom made noteworthy advances in the use of astronomy to establish dates and intervals between events in ancient history. Based on their reading of Ptolemy's Almagest, both authors emphasised the importance of dated astronomical observations, such as eclipses, arguing that the recorded intervals between these observations were endowed with a unique degree of reliability. Several key examples of how they mobilised Ptolemy's astronomical data to rectify parts of the timeline between the creation of the world and the present will be discussed. These show that the technical arguments contained in Giles’ and Selder's writings reached a level of sophistication and accuracy that has previously only been associated with chronologers of the early modern and later periods.     

No Comment

This article compares the solar eclipse records in Fan Ye’s Hou Hanshu “Benji” 本紀to those in the Dongguan Hanji (225 CE), Sima Biao’s Xu Hanshu “Wuxing zhi” 五行志, Yuan Hong’s Hou Hanji, as well as Espenak and Meeus’ Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses to comment upon the source, selection, reliability, and function of the eclipse records included in his imperial annals of the Eastern Han (25–220 CE). It finds that while Fan Ye stuck faithfully to the reliable observational record in the Xu Hanshu he at once replaced its interpretative apparatus of omenology with one of politico-ritual action for simple reasons of genre.