[audiobook] The Eye of the Lynx: Galileo; His Friends; and the Beginnings of Modern Natural History by David Freedberg in Arts-Photography

Review

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. It was at great risk politically as the Holy See saw things differentlyBy C. M. StahlThis was a marvelous though flawed piece of social history. It connected science and art as well as the history of religious deception. The title is somewhat misleading because it is far less about Galileo than it is about the Academy of Linceans and their founder. Prince Frederico Cesi. The Academy was named for Lynceus the Argonaut of mythology noted for his keen eyesight. This idea became a major subplot of Freedbergrsquo;s book. The goals of the Academy were simple in one sense and that was to "not only to acquire knowledge of things and wisdom. and living together justly and piously. but also peacefully to display them to men. orally and in writing. without any harm." A second goal especially for Cesi was the upending of peripatetic view of the natural world that reigned for nearly two centuries. It was at great risk politically as the Holy See saw things differently. Cesi et al had to be surreptious in their writings or risk censure or possibly the same fate as Giordino Bruno.Galileo became the sixth member of the Academy in 1611. Through Cesirsquo;s financing Galileo was able to write several of his books including the Assayer in 1623. In the entire scheme of this book Galileo and his history take up less than 5% of the over 500 pages. The bookrsquo;s characters are many but certainly Frederico Cesi and his philosophy was the most important part of the story. Essentially The Eye of the Lynx. was about the newish idea of empiricism. Specifically to understand nature according to what you could see. The Lynx is an animal known for its special eyesight and the animal served an iconic purpose for the Linceans.So on the grand scale the naturalist gains much by seeing things. Then what? Cesi used a particular heuristic to assay the visuals that provided scientific fodder. He filtered what was seen into a question that would be considered and studied and ultimately a position could be made on the subject at hand. This was essentially what his compatriot Francis Bacon suggested with the scientific method. Cesirsquo;s methodology was put to good usehellip; mostly. Some of which he wrote was tempered noticeably in order to appease in advance. any papal or inquisitorial negation. In other words he pretty much lied in introductions so as not to be viewed as heretical or anti-Aristotlean. That aside. Cesi did produce much value for the early days of modern science and it is a shame that his name carries so little merit in the history of science.Cesirsquo;s concern for visuals was as philosophical as it was fragile. How does one accurately measure that which they see? The potential for anthropomorphism and similitude are brought up by Freedberg on far too many occasions in the book. While that became tedious it did not become incorrect. The subjectivity of sight and its manifestation in drawings was a significant problem for the empiricist. John Berger made a career of studying and writing of this. There was also the issue of ensuring that religious authority blessed any depiction of various species in the form of art. Never the less ldquo;Oculo testerdquo; was Cesirsquo;s motto. ldquo;According to the testimony of the eyerdquo;To make matters more complicated technology thrived with the new and nebulous inverted telescope dubbed microscope by By Giovanni Faber as the author reminds us routinely throughout the book. Galileo as well as many others across Europe. were very interested in optics and someone discovered that looking through the objective lense through to the optical one allowed one to see that which is miniscule. Galileo was probably the first to create a compound microscope using a convex and concave lens and naming it the occhiolino (little eye). He introduced this tool to the Academy in April of 1624. It was a godsend (heh-heh) and provided the philosophers with a powerful tool as well as a bane. They often learned too much.Another desire of Cesirsquo;s was to know the species. He struggled with his taxonomy which had sound scientific merit even a hundred years prior to Linnaeus. He was particularly worried about borderline species or ones that simply did not fit well into a defined grouping. Much of his short life was spent on this trouble.The book is about much more and is a boatload of information enhancing the history of science especially in its nascence in 17th century Italy. It is not without its textural flaws. A noticeable one is the anachronistic style floating from one event to another seamlessly even if chronologically they were very disparate. The reader must stay sharp and focused continually in the long endeavor. Otherwise they will find themselves lost in time. Freedberg also was painfully redundant. He never failed to mention Cesirsquo;s untimely death in 1630. Had he done so the book could have been fifty pages shorter. Another fifteen pages could have been lopped had he not reminded the reader that it was Faber who coined the term ldquo;microscoperdquo;. Once he had mentioned that about 30 times the reader will never forget. The next twenty times were just frosting.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy F. FullerIf you love old crazy history and the illustrations this book has it all. Fast service too!1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Heavy. meant for serious scholars.By Kevin McCloskeyI am interested in the topic of natural history illustration and a college prof. but I found this writing overly academic. The theoretical underpinnings and deconstruction of the images got in the way of the story. I was enticed by this sentence in the description of the book "Some years ago. David Freedberg opened a dusty cupboard at Windsor Castle and discovered hundreds of vividly colored. masterfully precise drawings of all sorts of plants and animals from the Old and New Worlds." I wanted to know more about that event. It is in the book. but the account is not very vivid.The design of the book has 2-inch wide outside margins. I expect this design statement to make the book resemble a Renaissance-era volume. The paper stock is not ideal for marginal notes. even if I was inclined to add notations. As a result of the wide margins the type is small and the illustrations. the whole point of the book. are reproduced smaller than the page allows. This design also makes for a very heavy book.This volume will likely please a serious scholar. It is my loss. but I found the text hard to follow. I just checked the index; Foucault appears 3 times. Alas. I was looking for something a bit more accessible.