Novello Euclide, o Guidobaldo industre theorico d’ogni arte
che a’ numeri, a’ misure, a leva e a pondo fatt’hai più chiaro il mondo
et più il tuo monte vago, eccelso e illustre. Seben lice or’ di saper gli trionfi i tuoi dimmi del cielo in qual più degna parte con teco stanno i più famosi eroi?
L. Agostini in occasion of Guidobaldo’s death in Rime, BOP, ms 193bis, fol. 185r.
The fall of the dal Monte house
Now Francesco Maria (II) became Count of Monte Baroccio, as Guidobaldo’s first born son. A year later, Francesco Maria II della Rovere made him even Marquis1 of Monte Baroccio.2 Guidobaldo’s son had turned to represent his family at court,3 and was entrusted with diplomatic missions in the Duke’s name,
in particular with Philip III King of Spain, with the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Mantua.4 Possibly, he could have partly restored the damaged influence of his house, if he had not died already in the year 1619.
From his marriage with the Roman aristocrat Isabella Savelli, contracted only in 1609, he had got two children: Ranieri dal Monte (II), born in 1610, and Felice dal Monte (II), cf. figure I.5. As the enfeoffment of Monte Baroccio provided the inheritance of the county (in the meantime marquisate) only in the line of the first born son, and therefore excluded the consideration of Guidobaldo’s other sons, the title of Marquis of Monte Baroccio passed down to Ranieri (II), who had only nine years at the death of his father.
1In the secondary literature, there is sometimes confusion about Guidobaldo’s title, reported with “Marquis of Monte Baroccio”: but, in reality, he was only a member of the (widespread) family “Marchesi del Monte (Santa Maria)”, but not its head, and further Count of Monte Baroccio. Only his first born son Francesco Maria (II) becomes also Marchese of Monte Baroc- cio.
2This is a hint at the fact that not all members of the dal Monte family had fallen in the Duke’s disgrace, despite of the deteriorated relations between Guidobaldo and Francesco Maria II. In effect, for example Carlo dal Monte continued to be in the latter’s service (as soldier) during Guidobaldo’s exilement, cf. BOP, ms 426.
3Cf. the payroll of the Duke’s court in 1608 (ASF, Ducato di Urbino, III, 23): Francesco Maria dal Monte (II) compares as “Signor di Monte Baroccio”, even if his position is far inferior compared to the ones of his father, grandfather and uncle in the 1580s, cf. I.2 and Appendix I, I.4.4.
4Cf. G. Allegretti, Monte Baroccio 1513-1799, Mombaroccio, Comune di Mombaroccio, 2002.
Unfortunately, Guidobaldo’s grandchild turned out to possess a problematic char- acter: highly significant in regard is a letter in which his mother desperately approached the Duke in order to ask help in the education of her son.1 Also
the Cardinal dal Monte seems to have been involved in the efforts to control the situation and to prevent any greater damage from the family,2 but in the end things went out of control: Ranieri (II) dissipated the fortune of the family, piled up debts, picked a fight in which Count Giulio Cesare Mamiani lost his life and was finally incarcerated in the dungeons of the Inquisition (1636).3 He would not have ever turned to Monte Baroccio, and eventually died in 1644.
His unique son Guidobaldo (II), born in the meantime in 1642, was deceased only one year after his birth. So, the line of the first born male descendants of Ranieri dal Monte was interrupted and consequently, after almost exactly one century, the seigniory of the dal Monte house at Monte Baroccio had come to an end. The posthumous publication of unedited writings of Guidobaldo Soon after Guidobaldo’s death there were made the first attempts to publish the part of his treatises which had remained unedited. Among the involved persons were Orazio, Uguccione and Giovanni dal Monte – their father had nominated, in his last will of 1607, the three sons as heirs of the scientific part of his patrimony.4
Further also some of Guidobaldo’s old friends and scientific interlocutors were involved in the publication works, namely Pier Matteo Giordani, Bernardino Baldi or Cesare Benedetti.
In spring 1608, the group had approached the Cardinal dal Monte, in search of founds for the planned publications, after having chosen the Problematum astronomicorum Libri septem as first writing to release. The Cardinal, however, was not able or willing to finance the project.5 Consequently, Guidobaldo’s heirs seem to have been constrained to chose cheap and apparently not very competent editors.6
1Cf. Appendix I, I.7.2. 2Cf., again, Appendix I, I.7.2.
3Note that the Mamiani were probably the most influential family of the court at the be- ginning of the seventeenth century. For a more detailed account of these happenings, cf. G. Allegretti, Monte Baroccio 1513-1799, cit.
4The respective passage reads: “Agli Illustrissimi Signori Oratio, Uguccione et Giovanni lasciò per prelegato tutti i suoi libri di mattematica, cassettini, stucci, compassi, ferri, bossole, modelli, instrumenti et disegni stampati e non stampati con ogni altra cosa pertinente alla professione mattematica.” Cf. ASP, fondo Notarile, Vasconi Giovanni, busta 1732/1746, fols. 1v-5r; see Appendix I, I.6.5.
5It is a letter from O. Tortora to Pier Matteo Giordani (BOP, ms 415, fol. 62r/v; May 21st 1608) that documents this fact; see Appendix I, I.7.3.
6The editors of the Problematum astronomicorum Libri septem were Gio. Batt. Ciotto and Bernardino Iunta. For Orazio’s complaints about them, cf. below.
Several conserved letters reveal interesting insights in the proceedings of the publication works: It is particularly Orazio, the eldest of the three heirs, who has to be considered as the spiritus rector of the whole enterprise. Staying in the meantime at Crema as Governatore in the service of the Venetian Republic, he not only controlled the works in regard of their mathematical content, but also organised, from distance, the collaboration between the editors at Venice and his collaborators at Pesaro. There, it was mainly thanks to Pier Matteo Giordani, regarded as the authority concerning Guidobaldo’s scientific heritage, that the works went on: several times, Orazio asked his advice and more then once he stated that Giordani’s mere authorship of comments or figures was suffi- cient to guarantee their quality, given his “close acquaintance <with Guidobaldo’s work> and most erudite talents”.1 So it was he who has chosen, for example,
the figure and the motto of the frontispiece of the Problematum astronomico- rum Libri septem. Besides P.M. Giordani, also Bernardino Baldi had a central role in the enterprise, by controlling the mathematical problems of Guidobaldo’s manuscripts.2 Minor responsibilities were assumed by Uguccione, Giovanni and
Alessandro dal Monte as well as by Cesare Benedetti.3
Interesting is the exclusion of Muzio Oddi from the publication endeavour: the reason of this fact probably were divergences between Guidobaldo’s disciple and Orazio or his brothers.4 Generally, the former was much more sceptical about the publication of Guidobaldo’s manuscripts, evidently in difference to the involved characters, assuming the opinion that Guidobaldo’s “other published things were substantial and treated important subjects and had a higher relevance” than the unedited manuscripts. His proposal, instead, was to add new elements to the existing writings and to make them, thus, more interesting.5 In effect, Oddi in-
1For example, cf. Orazio’s letter to P.M. Giordani of October 29th 1608 (BOP, ms 412, fols. 41r-42v): “A me basta che venghi da Lei che per la domestica intrinsichezza e per le dottissime qualità con che trattava con mio Padre [le figure] come così fatte da esso Signore.” See Appendix I, I.7.3. This fact emphasises once more P.M. Giordani’s familiarity with Guidobaldo’s work.
2For example, cf. Orazio’s letter to P.M. Giordani of June 16th 1610 (BOP, ms 412 fol. 52r/v): “Poiché Monsig. Abb. Baldi vedrà gl’opuscoli et il parere di esso Signore ne darà la vera scorta, il quale con quello di V.S. farranno che l’opere di mio Padre comparischino come devono.” See Appendix I, I.7.3.
3Cf. BOP, ms 412, fols. 41r-42v: “Non dubito che ciò che venirà dalla mano di V.S. sarà cosa per mettere in testa de’ Problemi Astronomici senza che Lei mi voglia addurre testimonii che il schizzo fatto sin’ora secondo il Suo volere sia piaciuto a Monsignor <Cesare Benedetti> Rev.mo Vescovo et al S.r Alessandro mio fratello (..).” See Appendix I, I.7.3.
4In effect, in the letter to Pier Matteo Giordani of August 8th 1612 (BOP, ms 413, fols. 9r-10r), Oddi complains: “Di me questi SS.ri <figli di Guidobaldo>, o per dir meglio una parte di loro, non hanno oppennione alcuna buona” – and this, as he continues immediately, is the reason why he is not willing to assist them in any way: “e perciò mi conosco in tutto innabile a adarli né aiuto né consiglio, solo li compatisco col’affetto.”
5Cf. BOP, ms 413, fols. 7r-8v (not dated, but prior to August 1612): “M’ha cavato V.S. con la Sua lettera un bel fastidio del capio per il dubbio che aveo che quei Sig.ri del Monte, consigliasi solamente coll’oppessione del proffondo sapere del Sig.r Guidobaldo di felice memoria
tended to publish two works of Guidobaldo on his own, with additions.1 It is plausible that also this intent contributed to the mistrust of the latter’s heirs towards him.
The publication result of the Problematum astronomicorum Libri septem, re- leased in spring-summer 1609, apparently was not satisfying: Orazio complained both to Pier Matteo Giordani and to Galileo about the Venetian editors.2
Despite of the bad experiences, the group approached the issue of the other, re- maining manuscripts: their efforts concentrated on a treatise on a special type of sundials, Orologi a raggi refratti nell’acqua,3 on Guidobaldo’s commentary on
the fifth book of Euclid’s Elements,4 and, above all, on the Cochlea. Orazio was
understandably concerned about the question where to publish them and ap- proached also Galileo in this context.5 At the same time, i.e. in summer 1610,
e col desiderio della gloria paterna, non presistessero in voler publicare i suoi opusculi; perché invero, sebene ci sono delle cose belle e buone, che forse il mondo l’aggradirebbe, non credo però che publicarle ex professo se li aggiongesse né onore né credito, essendo l’altre cose publicate da lui grave e di sogetti importanti, e di meglior peso di questi. Non dirò già che alcune cose si dovessero lasciar sepolte, ma le porei publicar con qualche inventione.” Another negative judgement on the publication of Guidobaldo’s heritage is contained in Oddi’s letter to Pier Matteo Giordani of August 8th 1612 (BOP, ms 413, fols. 9r-10r): “Non posso già negare che non mi rincresca molto il sentire certe cose sì fatte di questi SS.r d’intorno alle fatiche del lor Padre; che se non fosse V.S. che pure con la Sua autorità li tiene un poco a freno, Dio sa come starieno le cose.” The complete transcriptions of both letter are exposed in Appendix I, I.7.3.
1The question is about his treatise on a sundial which worked with refracted rays and about a paraphrase on a passage of Hygenius on the meridians. Oddi, in a letter to Pier Matteo Giordani (BOP, ms 413 fols. 7r-8v; not dated, but prior to August 1612), claims, in regard, to have received Guidobaldo’s authorisation to publish the latter’s invention of the sundial with refracted rays: “Del publicar col mio libro, questo opuscolo <di Guidobaldo sull’orologio a raggi rifratti> n’ebbi pensiero sino da [Loreto] e ne scrissi al Sig.r Guidobaldo e fra le mie scritture vi sarà la risposta dove mi dava licenza.” Yet, as its letter of August 8th 1612 (BOP, ms 413, fols. 9r-10r) reveals, he was not able to document this authorisation and, meeting the resistance of Guidobaldo’s heirs, he refrained from this plan: “Mio fratello un pezzo fa mi scrisse, che per molta diligenza usata in cercar la lettera che il S.r Guidobaldo di felice memoria mi scrisse in Loreto intorno allo stampare il suo opusculo Degl’Oroglogio coi raggi rinfranti nel l’aqua non l’avea potuta trovare; né io volendo cosa fuori del gusto di quei SS.ri suoi figli, aveo in tutto dismesso il pensiero che mi avea preso d’esso, non sapendomi imaginare qual cagione li potesse aver mossi a questa resistenza, e qual pregiuditio stimino che possa recare alla fama di quel Sig.re il stampare e ristampare in diverse lingue l’opre sue.” For the complete transcription of the letters in question cf. Appendix I, I.7.3.
2Cf. Orazio’s letters to Pier Matteo Giordani of July 25th and August 26th 1609 (BOP, ms 412, fols. 47r/v and 49r/v), and to Galileo of June 16th 1610 (BNCF, ms Gal. 88, fol. 136r); see Appendix I, I.7.3.
3Cf. BOP, ms 413, fol. 15r/v. This treatise seems to be lost.
4The work is called In quintum Euclidis Elementorum Librum Commentarius Opusculum and conserved at the Biblioteca Oliveriana Pesaro, as ms 630.
5Cf. his letter of June 16th 1610 (BNCF, ms Gal. 88, fol. 136r), published in G. Galilei, Opere, vol. X. It is very interesting, as it contains a list of the manuscripts to be published; see Appendix I, I.7.3.
the correction works seem to have been already begun.1 Yet, for the successive four years, the extant documentation does not reveal any decisive progresses. Only at the beginning of 1614, Orazio dal Monte concretised the efforts to pub- lish the Cochlea: he seems to have concluded a contract with the editor.
Yet, in August of that year, Orazio, who had been in the meantime appointed Governatore dell’Armi del Regno di Candia in Crete,2 deceased – evidently a
grievous blow for the publication enterprise. Fortune in misfortune, the works on the Cochlea were in an advanced state, so that the work could appear only one year afterwards, together with the re-editions of the Mechanicorum Liber and Le Mecaniche.3 The plan of releasing also the opuscula, however, were abandoned, probably for the lack of the driving force of Orazio. With them, also Baldi’s Vita di Guidobaldo remained unpublished – and seems lost, now – which was, according to I. Affò, destined to introduce their edition.4
1Cf. Orazio’s letter to Pier Matteo Giordani, again of June 16th 1610 (BOP, ms 412 fol. 52r/v): “Poiché Monsig. Abb. Baldi vedrà gl’opuscoli et il parere di esso S.re ne darà la vera scorta, il quale con quello di V.S. farranno che l’opere di mio Padre comparischino come devono.” See Appendix I, I.7.3.
2Cf. BOP, ms 1063, tomo I, fol. 296r.
3Cf. P. Riccardi, Biblioteca matematica Italiana. Dalla origine della stampa ai primi anni del secolo XIX, Milano, Görlich, 1952.
4In fact, the status of the unedited manuscripts is unclear. There are hints that not ev- erything has got lost. We are momentarily conducting researches in this regard intending to publish, in the near future, information that could be useful for the search of the remainders of Guidobaldo’s scientific patrimony.
Chapter II
General hints at Guidobaldo’s
intellectual milieu
It is known who were the “great” scholars with whom Guidobaldo maintained sci- entific contacts, exponents of sixteenth century mathematics like Commandino, Clavius, Galileo, Barozzi, Magini etc. It is similarly evident to whose works he referred to in his own writings, namely authorities like Archimedes, Aristotle, Pappus and (in his eyes) opponents like Jordanus, Tartaglia, Cardano, Benedetti. In contrast, it is more difficult to answer the question who his every-day inter- locutors were (or if he had any), with whom he could discuss about the topics he was working on, and by whom he, possibly, got stimuli for his studies.
The present chapter intends to delineate an overview on the general characteris- tics of the cultural-scientific climate in the Duchy of Urbino in which Guidobaldo’s work has to be contextualised and, thereby, to lay the ground for the possibility to approach the problem of a better understanding of his environment. Against the background of his biography (cf. chapter I), two milieus of the Duchy seem to have been particularly decisive for his formation and scientific activity: the court on the one side, and the world of the technicians and engineers on the other;1 they are dealt with in the sections II.1 and II.2. The third and last section II.3 of the present chapter exposes documents, testifying that a circle of scholars both with philosophical-mathematical and technical-practical interests had gathered around Guidobaldo. Then, the subsections IV.1.2 and V.1.2 dwell in a more detailed way on Guidobaldo’s technical collaborators and scientific interlocutors.
1Important and interesting information about the scientific dimension of the Duchy of Urbino is exposed in P.L. Rose, The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics, cit., and in E. Gamba, V. Montebelli, Le Scienze a Urbino nel tardo Rinascimento, cit. The present chapter concentrates to Guidobaldo’s environment, and intends to enlarge upon the analysis of this part of Rose’s and Gamba&Montebelli’s study.
II.1
The courtly environment
As far as the courtly ambiance is concerned, essentially two characteristics are reported by the extant sources that turn out to be relevant for our purposes: a great attention towards philosophy, in particular to Aristotle’s work. And, on the other hand, a profound interest towards mathematics in a larger sense, including mechanics and fortification.
The interest in mathematics, mechanics and fortification
The Dukes of Urbino traditionally were military captains, in changing services of the Venetian Republic, the Pontifical State and the Spanish King.1 One of the tasks connected with this appointment was fortifying their seigneurs’ lands – a task important also for their homelands. Famous is the role assumed by Duke Francesco Maria della Rovere (1490-1538) in the fortification of the Venetian territory.2
The planing of fortifications, but also the organisation of military campaigns obviously required an occupation with technics and mechanics: the movement of heavy loads (e.g. cannons), the construction of stable walls etc. evidently are mechanical problems. Further, in the course of the sixteenth century, mechanics had lost its “image” as occupation exclusively for the lower social class.3
Even if the political landscape was changed in the second half of sixteenth-century Italy in comparison to the precedent century, and consequently also the role of the Duchy in it, these historical roots still were sensible in the Urbinate ambiance: so the Venetian ambassador Federico Badoer, in 1547, comments on the counts and intimates of Duke Guidobaldo II that “all of them live on warfare”.4
This is the context in which Prince Francesco Maria and Guidobaldo dal Monte grew up. Both of them prepared themselves to become military men; whence, also the study of mechanics (and, more generally, of mathematics) was necessary. In effect, several Venetian ambassadors testify this form of the Prince’s education. Badoer writes:
1Cf. Part A, I.1 and J. Dennistoun, The Dukes of Urbino, cit. 2Cf. E. Concina, La macchina territoriale, cit.
3An important factor in this process was played by the discovery of the Aristotelian Quaes- tiones Mechanicae, which argues that mechanics is a science. Further, the interest of Aristotle himself for the topic (leaving apart the question if the text really is written by the Philosopher or by one of his disciples) contributed to a higher reputation of the discipline. For example, the Quaestiones Mechanicae were discussed by cardinals during the Council of Trent, cf. P.L. Rose, S. Drake, The Pseudo-Aristotelian Questions in Mechanics in Renaissance Culture, “Studies in the Renaissance”, XVIII (1971), pp. 65-104.
4Passages of this and the other Venetian diplomatic reports are transcribed in Ap- pendix II, I.1.
[Prince Francesco Maria II] thoroughly dedicates himself to physical exercises, as playing with the ball, chasing, walking and other similar exercises, in order to accustom himself to the inconveniences of war, as His Excellence plans that he, too, undertakes the profession of arms