Two topics, Science and History, have been studied for centuries, if not millennia, often in disjointed ways. The realization that Science is nourished by its History is quite obvious nowadays and is a standpoint shared by all the contributors in this book. Given this fact, the following chapters were written by interdisciplinary scholars who are experts in this field. The admirably written contributions concern History of Science, Epistemology, Philosophy of Science, but are not restricted to these disciplines. They also discuss (...) theoretical perspectives and ingenious results achieved by beautiful and clever minds working together or inspired by one another. Torricelli’s history is a fascinating one, filled with struggles and insights that have been studied and examined in depth by internationally renowned specialists. The gripping stories reconstructed, as well as the epistemological and logical threads drawn from long and painstaking research, are presented in a clear and absorbing fashion, in each instance with a unique style and always with considerably talented analysis. The preceding celebratory historical and historiographical chapter on Opera geometrica (Torricelli in Opera geometrica. Florentiae. Masse & de Landis (1644); Torricelli in Opere di Evangelista Torricelli edite in occasione del III centenario della nascita col concorso del Comune di Faenza da Gino Loria e Giuseppe Vassura. Montanari (1919–1944)) is also a structured introductory essay to the contents of this extensive Springer research project. Below, the reader will find summaries of selected distinguished essays written in order to celebrate the magnificence of Torricelli’s Opera geometrica. The whole volume has to be considered as an homage both to Opera geometrica and to Evangelista, a genial scientist. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A few years ago the esteemed Franciscan scholar David Flood argued that when early Franciscans used the term subditi in early texts to describe their work relationships, they "imagined a new way of working" and "gave work a new definition." To them labor was "a social act;" it was for others as well as self; it offered "the possibility of being a complete person," and "the possibility of a (...) human order marked by abundance and justice." It was refreshing to see a neglected subject receive proper scrutiny, and his conclusion, that the first Franciscans had "a particular idea of labor: a way of extending others recognition, proposing solidarity, and contributing more to production that they took from it," is a most welcome addition to Franciscan history. I agree wholeheartedly with the core of Flood's conclusion but believe it needs to be qualified. My primary intention here is offer the needed correction by placing Franciscan work theology in its larger historical context. Once monastic theology prior to Francis is documented I conclude that while early Franciscans did present society with a varieties of possibilities, these were not, as Flood maintains, either new or unique. Their ideas about work were but a continuation of a theology of work first articulated by Peter Damian and fellow reformers. After this main task is completed I offer some further speculation about the role Franciscan behavior and attitude toward work played in the anti-Franciscan criticism of the Late Middle Ages. I suggest that the Franciscan failure to keep abreast with society's expectations regarding work was in part responsible for that criticism.Christian attitudes toward labor are rooted in the Old Testament. Genesis establishes work as an activity proper to God and prelapsarian humanity. In the presence of sin labor becomes difficult and punitive, but continues to be simultaneously redemptive . Jesus "the Carpenter" says little directly about work, but the canonical authors do. Work has intrinsic value and is necessary for self-survival and the community . It is the basis for social justice and salvation . Early Christian literature deals with work in a similar manner. It is infrequently discussed, but when it is mentioned it is given due respect. Tertullian and Origen hint at a theology of work, but one has to wait for monasticism to see work theology become substantive. The Desert Fathers and Mothers and the rules of Pachomius, Basil, Augustine, Macarius, Four Fathers, Caesarius of Arles, the Master, and Benedict all discuss the spiritual necessity of work and mandate its inclusion in the daily life of monastics. During the first millennium Western society was more concerned with working than with thinking about work, but by the eleventh century conditions were more conducive to reflection. Peter Damian recognized the opportunity and responded creatively. Within his voluminous writings is the first sophisticated Christian reflection on the concept of work. It is, we shall see, the foundation for future theologies, including Francis's.Born in Ravenna in 1007 Peter Damian was educated in the liberal arts at Faenza, Parma, and probably Ravenna. Upon completion of his studies he enjoyed immediate success as a teacher, but he retired soon and entered Romuald of Ravenna's Camoldolesian monastery at Fonte Avellana ca.1034. Instead of ending his intellectual career the move actually propelled him into the limelight. By his death in 1072 Damian was a leading intellectual force throughout the West. He was also revered as a pioneering leader of the religious renewal and reform movement of the High Middle Ages. His influence was vast, a fact fully appreciated by Dante and the reason why he chose Damian as his ideal man. Although today Damian's creativity and originality is often overlooked it is hard to ignore these traits in his work theology. The theology is not, however, systematically.. (shrink)