Brackets: ( ) page numbers for Dover Edition (Crew and de Salvio) ; [ ] paging in National Edition.

Two New Sciences, pp. 61-108

SIMP.   So far as I remember, Aristotle inveighs against the ancient view that a vacuum is a necessary prerequisite for motion and that the latter could not occur without the former.  In opposition to this view Aristotle shows that it is precisely the phenomenon of motion, as we shall see, which renders untenable the idea of a vacuum.  His method is to divide the argument into two parts.  He first supposes bodies of different weights to move in the same medium; then supposes, one and the same body to move in different media.  In the first case, he [106] supposes bodies of different weight to move in one and the same medium with different speeds which stand to one another in the same ratio as the weights; so that, for example, a body which is ten times as heavy as another will move ten times as rapidly as the other.  In the second case he assumes that the speeds of one and the same body moving in different media are in inverse ratio to the densities of these media; thus, for instance, if the density of water were ten times that of air, the speed in air would be ten times greater than in water.  From this second supposition, (62) he shows that, since the tenuity of a vacuum differs infinitely from that of any medium filled with matter however rare, any body which moves in a plenum through a certain space in a certain time ought to move through a vacuum instantaneously; but instantaneous motion is an impossibility; it is therefore impossible that a vacuum should be produced by motion. 

SALV.   The argument is, as you see, ad hominem, that is, it is directed against those who thought the vacuum a prerequisite for motion.  Now if I admit the argument to be conclusive and concede also that motion cannot take place in a vacuum, the assumption of a vacuum considered absolutely and not with reference to motion, is not thereby invalidated.  But to tell you what the ancients might possibly have replied and in order to better understand just how conclusive Aristotle's demonstration is, we may, in my opinion, deny both of his assumptions.  And as to the first, I greatly doubt that Aristotle ever tested by experiment whether it be true that two stones, one weighing ten times as much as the other, if allowed to fall, at the same instant, from a height of, say, 100 cubits, would so differ in speed that when the heavier had reached the ground, the other would not have fallen more than 10 cubits. 

SIMP.   His language would seem to indicate that he had tried the experiment, because he says: We see the heavier; now the word see shows that he had made the experiment. 

SAGR.   But I, Simplicio, who have made the test can assure [107] you that a cannon ball weighing one or two hundred pounds, or even more, will not reach the ground by as much as a span ahead of a musket ball weighing only half a pound, provided both are dropped from a height of 200 cubits. 

SALV.   But, even without further experiment, it is possible to prove clearly, by means of a short and conclusive argument, that a heavier body does not move more rapidly than a lighter one provided both bodies are of the same material and in short such as those mentioned by Aristotle.  But tell me, Simplicio, whether you admit that each falling body acquires a definite (63) speed fixed by nature, a velocity which cannot be increased or diminished except by the use of force [violenza] or resistance. 

SIMP.   There can be no doubt but that one and the same body moving in a single medium has a fixed velocity which is determined by nature and which cannot be increased except by the addition of momentum [impeto] or diminished except by some resistance which retards it. 

SALV.   If then we take two bodies whose natural speeds are different, it is clear that on uniting the two, the more rapid one will be partly retarded by the slower, and the slower will be somewhat hastened by the swifter.  Do you not agree with me in this opinion? 

SIMP.   You are unquestionably right. 

SALV.   But if this is true, and if a large stone moves with a speed of, say, eight while a smaller moves with a speed of four, then when they are united, the system will move with a speed less than eight; but the two stones when tied together make a stone larger than that which before moved with a speed of eight.  Hence the heavier body moves with less speed than the lighter; an effect which is contrary to your supposition.  Thus you see [108] how, from your assumption that the heavier body moves more rapidly than the lighter one, I infer that the heavier body moves more slowly. 

SIMP.   I am all at sea because it appears to me that the smaller stone when added to the larger increases its weight and by adding weight I do not see how it can fail to increase its speed or, at least, not to diminish it. 

SALV.   Here again you are in error, Simplicio, because it is not true that the smaller stone adds weight to the larger. 

SIMP.   This is, indeed, quite beyond my comprehension. 

SALV.   It will not be beyond you when I have once shown you the mistake under which you are laboring.  Note that it is necessary to distinguish between heavy bodies in motion and the same bodies at rest.  A large stone placed in a balance not only acquires additional weight by having another stone placed upon it, but even by the addition of a handful of hemp its weight is (64) augmented six to ten ounces according to the quantity of hemp.  But if you tie the hemp to the stone and allow them to fall freely from some height, do you believe that the hemp will press down upon the stone and thus accelerate its motion or do you think the motion will be retarded by a partial upward pressure?  One always feels the pressure upon his shoulders when he prevents the motion of a load resting upon him; but if one descends just as rapidly as the load would fall how can it gravitate or press upon him?  Do you not see that this would be the same as trying to strike a man with a lance when he is running away from you with a speed which is equal to, or even greater, than that with which you are following him?  You must therefore conclude that, during free and natural fall, the small stone does not press upon the larger and consequently does not increase its weight as it does when at rest. 

SIMP.   But what if we should place the larger stone upon the smaller?  [109]

SALV.   Its weight would be increased if the larger stone moved more rapidly; but we have already concluded that when the small stone moves more slowly it retards to some extent the speed of the larger, so that the combination of the two, which is a heavier body than the larger of the two stones, would move less rapidly, a conclusion which is contrary to your hypothesis.  We infer therefore that large and small bodies move with the same speed provided they are of the same specific gravity. 

SIMP.   Your discussion is really admirable; yet I do not find it easy to believe that a bird-shot falls as swiftly as a cannon ball. 

SALV.   Why not say a grain of sand as rapidly as a grindstone?  But, Simplicio, I trust you will not follow the example of many others who divert the discussion from its main intent and fasten upon some statement of mine which lacks a hairsbreadth of the truth and, under this hair, hide the fault of another which is as big as a ship's cable.  Aristotle says that "an iron ball of one hundred pounds falling from a height of one hundred cubits reaches the ground before a one-pound ball has fallen a single cubit. " I say that they arrive at the same time.  You find, on (65) making the experiment, that the larger outstrips the smaller by two finger-breadths, that is, when the larger has reached the ground, the other is short of it by two finger-breadths; now you would not hide behind these two fingers the ninety-nine cubits of Aristotle, nor would you mention my small error and at the same time pass over in silence his very large one.  Aristotle declares that bodies of different weights, in the same medium, travel (in so far as their motion depends upon gravity) with speeds which are proportional to their weights; this he illustrates by use of bodies in which it is possible to perceive the pure and unadulterated effect of gravity, eliminating other considerations, for example, figure as being of small importance [minimi momenti], influences which are greatly dependent upon the medium which modifies the single effect of gravity alone.  Thus we observe that gold, the densest of all substances, when beaten out into a very thin leaf, goes floating through the air; the same thing happens with stone when ground into a very fine powder.  But if you wish to maintain the general proposition you will have to show that the same ratio of speeds is preserved in the [110] case of all heavy bodies, and that a stone of twenty pounds moves ten times as rapidly as one of two; but I claim that this is false and that, if they fall from a height of fifty or a hundred cubits, they will reach the earth at the same moment. 

SIMP.   Perhaps the result would be different if the fall took place not from a few cubits but from some thousands of cubits. 

SALV.   If this were what Aristotle meant you would burden him with another error which would amount to a falsehood; because, since there is no such sheer height available on earth, it is clear that Aristotle could not have made the experiment; yet he wishes to give us the impression of his having performed it when he speaks of such an effect as one which we see. 

SIMP.   In fact, Aristotle does not employ this principle, but uses the other one which is not, I believe, subject to these same difficulties. 

SALV.   But the one is as false as the other; and I am surprised that you yourself do not see the fallacy and that you do not (66) perceive that if it were true that, in media of different densities and different resistances, such as water and air, one and the same body moved in air more rapidly than in water, in proportion as the density of water is greater than that of air, then it would follow that any body which falls through air ought also to fall through water.  But this conclusion is false inasmuch as many bodies which descend in air not only do not descend in water, but actually rise. 

SIMP.   I do not understand the necessity of your inference; and in addition I will say that Aristotle discusses only those bodies which fall in both media, not those which fall in air but rise in water. 

SALV.   The arguments which you advance for the Philosopher are such as he himself would have certainly avoided so as not to aggravate his first mistake.  But tell me now whether the density [corpulenza] of the water, or whatever it may be that [111] retards the motion, bears a definite ratio to the density of air which is less retardative; and if so fix a value for it at your pleasure. 

SIMP.   Such a ratio does exist; let us assume it to be ten; then, for a body which falls in both these media, the speed in water will be ten times slower than in air. 

SALV.   I shall now take one of those bodies which fall in air but not in water, say a wooden ball, and I shall ask you to assign to it any speed you please for its descent through air. 

SIMP.   Let us suppose it moves with a speed of twenty. 

SALV.   Very well.  Then it is clear that this speed bears to some smaller speed the same ratio as the density of water bears to that of air; and the value of this smaller speed is two.  So that really if we follow exactly the assumption of Aristotle we ought to infer that the wooden ball which falls in air, a substance ten times less-resisting than water, with a speed of twenty would fall in water with a speed of two, instead of coming to the surface from the bottom as it does; unless perhaps you wish to reply, which I do not believe you will, that the rising of the wood through the water is the same as its falling with a speed of two.  (67) But since the wooden ball does not go to the bottom, I think you will agree with me that we can find a ball of another material, not wood, which does fall in water with a speed of two. 

SIMP.   Undoubtedly we can; but it must be of a substance considerably heavier than wood. 

SALV.   That is it exactly.  But if this second ball falls in water with a speed of two, what will be its speed of descent in air?  If you hold to the rule of Aristotle you must reply that it will move at the rate of twenty; but twenty is the speed which you yourself have already assigned to the wooden ball; hence this and the other heavier ball will each move through air with the same speed.  But now how does the Philosopher harmonize this result with his other, namely, that bodies of different weight move through the same medium with different speed -- speeds which are proportional to their weights?  But without going into the matter more deeply, how have these common and [112] obvious properties escaped your notice?  Have you not observed that two bodies which fall in water, one with a speed a hundred times as great as that of the other, will fall in air with speeds so nearly equal that one will not surpass the other by as much as one hundredth part?  Thus, for example, an egg made of marble will descend in water one hundred times more rapidly than a hen's egg, while in air falling from a height of twenty cubits the one will fall short of the other by less than four finger-breadths.  In short, a heavy body which sinks through ten cubits of water in three hours will traverse ten cubits of air in one or two pulsebeats; and if the heavy body be a ball of lead it will easily traverse the ten cubits of water in less than double the time required for ten cubits of air.  And here, I am sure, Simplicio, you find no ground for difference or objection.  We conclude, therefore, that the argument does not bear against the existence of a vacuum; but if it did, it would only do away with vacua of considerable size which neither I nor, in my opinion, the ancients ever believed to exist in nature, although they might possibly be produced by force [violenza] as may be gathered from various experiments whose description would here occupy too much time.  (68)

SAGR.   Seeing that Simplicio is silent, I will take the opportunity of saying something.  Since you have clearly demonstrated that bodies of different weights do not move in one and the same medium with velocities proportional to their weights, but that they all move with the same speed, understanding of course that they are of the same substance or at least of the same specific gravity; certainly not of different specific gravities, for I hardly think you would have us believe a ball of cork moves [113] with the same speed as one of lead; and again since you have clearly demonstrated that one and the same body moving through differently resisting media does not acquire speeds which are inversely proportional to the resistances, I am curious to learn what are the ratios actually observed in these cases. 

SALV.   These are interesting questions and I have thought much concerning them.  I will give you the method of approach and the result which I finally reached.  Having once established the falsity of the proposition that one and the same body moving through differently resisting media acquires speeds which are inversely proportional to the resistances of these media, and having also disproved the statement that in the same medium bodies of different weight acquire velocities proportional to their weights (understanding that this applies also to bodies which differ merely in specific gravity), I then began to combine these two facts and to consider what would happen if bodies of different weight were placed in media of different resistances; and I found that the differences in speed were greater in those media which were more resistant, that is, less yielding.  This difference was such that two bodies which differed scarcely at all in their speed through air would, in water, fall the one with a speed ten times as great as that of the other.  Further, there are bodies which will fall rapidly in air, whereas if placed in water not only will not sink but will remain at rest or will even rise to the top: for it is possible to find some kinds of wood, such as knots and roots, which remain at rest in water but fall rapidly in air. 

SAGR.   I have often tried with the utmost patience to add grains of sand to a ball of wax until it should acquire the same (69) specific gravity as water and would therefore remain at rest, in this medium.  But with all my care I was never able to accomplish this.  Indeed, I do not know whether there is any solid substance whose specific gravity is, by nature, so nearly equal to that of water that if placed anywhere in water it will remain at rest. 

SALV.   In this, as in a thousand other operations, men are surpassed by animals.  In this problem of yours one may learn much from the fish which are very skillful in maintaining their equilibrium not only in one kind of water, but also in waters which are notably different either by their own nature or by [114] some accidental muddiness or through salinity, each of which produces a marked change.  So perfectly indeed can fish keep their equilibrium that they are able to remain motionless in any position.  This they accomplish, I believe, by means of an apparatus especially provided by nature, namely, a bladder located in the body and communicating with the mouth by means of a narrow tube through which they are able, at will, to expel a portion of the air contained in the bladder: by rising to the surface they can take in more air; thus they make themselves heavier or lighter than water at will and maintain equilibrium. 

SAGR.   By means of another device I was able to deceive some friends to whom I had boasted that I could make up a ball of wax that would be in equilibrium in water.  In the bottom of a vessel I placed some salt water and upon this some fresh water; then I showed them that the ball stopped in the middle of the water, and that, when pushed to the bottom or lifted to the top, would not remain in either of these places but would return to the middle. 

SALV.   This experiment is not without usefulness.  For when physicians are testing the various qualities of waters, especially their specific gravities, they employ a ball of this kind so adjusted that, in certain water, it will neither rise nor fall.  Then in testing another water, differing ever so slightly in specific gravity [peso], the ball will sink if this water be lighter and rise if it be heavier.  And so exact is this experiment that the addition (70) of two grains of salt to six pounds of water is sufficient to make the ball rise to the surface from the bottom to which it had fallen.  To illustrate the precision of this experiment and also to clearly demonstrate the non-resistance of the water to division, I wish to add that this notable difference in specific gravity can be produced not only by solution of some heavier substance, but also by merely heating or cooling; and so sensitive is water to this process that by simply adding four drops of another water which is slightly warmer or cooler than the six pounds one can cause the ball to sink or rise; it will sink when the warm water is poured in and will rise upon the addition of cold water.  Now you [115] can see how mistaken are those philosophers who ascribe to water viscosity or some other coherence of parts which offers resistance to separation of parts and to penetration. 

SAGR.   With regard to this question I have found many convincing arguments in a treatise by our Academician; but there is one great difficulty of which I have not been able to rid myself, namely, if there be no tenacity or coherence between the particles of water how is it possible for those large drops of water to stand out in relief upon cabbage leaves without scattering or spreading out? 

SALV.   Although those who are in possession of the truth are able to solve all objections raised, I would not arrogate to myself such power; nevertheless my inability should not be allowed to becloud the truth.  To begin with let me confess that I do not understand how these large globules of water stand out and hold themselves up, although I know for a certainty, that it is not owing to any internal tenacity acting between the particles of water; whence it must follow that the cause of this effect is external.  Beside the experiments already shown to prove that the cause is not internal, I can offer another which is very convincing.  If the particles of water which sustain themselves in a heap, while surrounded by air, did so in virtue of an internal cause then they would sustain themselves much more easily when surrounded by a medium in which they exhibit less tendency to fall than they do in air; such a medium would be any fluid (71) heavier than air, as, for instance, wine; and therefore if some wine be poured about such a drop of water, the wine might rise until the drop was entirely covered, without particles of water, held together by this internal coherence, ever parting company.  But this is not the fact; for as soon as the wine touches the water, the latter without waiting to be covered scatters and spreads out underneath the wine if it be red.  The cause of this effect is therefore external and is possibly to be found in the surrounding air.  Indeed there appears to be a considerable antagonism between air and water as I have observed in the following experiment.  Having taken a glass globe which had a mouth of about the same diameter as a straw, I filled it with water and turned it mouth downwards; nevertheless [116] the water, although quite heavy and prone to descend, and the air, which is very light and disposed to rise through the water, refused, the one to descend and the other to ascend through the opening, but both remained stubborn and defiant.  On the other hand, as soon as I apply to this opening a glass of red wine, which is almost inappreciably lighter than water, red streaks are immediately observed to ascend slowly through the water without mixing, until finally the globe is completely filled with wine and the water has all gone down in to the vesssel below.  What then can we say except that there exists, between water and air, a certain incompatibility which I do not understand, but perhaps.  .  . 

SIMP.   I feel almost like laughing at the great antipathy which Salviati exhibits against the use of the word antipathy; and yet it is excellently adapted to explain the difficulty. 

SALV.   Alright, if it please Simplicio, let this word antipathy be the solution of our difficulty.  Returning from this digression, let us again take up our problem.  We have already seen that the difference of speed between bodies of different specific gravities is most marked in those media which are the most resistant: thus, in a medium of quicksilver, gold not merely sinks to the bottom more rapidly than lead but it is the only (72) substance that will descend at all; all other metals and stones rise to the surface and float.  On the other hand the variation of speed in air between balls of gold, lead, copper, porphyry, and other heavy materials is so slight that in a fall of 100 cubits a ball of gold would surely not outstrip one of copper by as much as four fingers.  Having observed this I came to the conclusion that in a medium totally devoid of resistance all bodies would fall with the same speed. 

SIMP.   This is a remarkable statement, Salviati.  But I shall never believe that even in a vacuum, if motion in such a place were possible, a lock of wool and a bit of lead can fall with the same velocity. 

SALV.   A little more slowly, Simplicio.  Your difficulty is not so recondite nor am I so imprudent as to warrant you in believing that I have not already considered this matter and found the proper solution.  Hence for my justification and [117] for your enlightenment hear what I have to say.  Our problem is to find out what happens to bodies of different weight moving in a medium devoid of resistance, so that the only difference in speed is that which arises from inequality of weight.  Since no medium except one entirely free from air and other bodies, be it ever so tenuous and yielding, can furnish our senses with the evidence we are looking for, and since such a medium is not available, we shall observe what happens in the rarest and least resistant media as compared with what happens in denser and more resistant media.  Because if we find as a fact that the variation of speed among bodies of different specific gravities is less and less according as the medium becomes more and more yielding, and if finally in a medium of extreme tenuity, though not a perfect vacuum, we find that, in spite of great diversity of specific gravity [peso], the difference in speed is very small and almost inappreciable, then we are justified in believing it highly probable that in a vacuum all bodies would fall with the same speed.  Let us, in view of this, consider what takes place in air, where for the sake of a definite figure and light material imagine an inflated bladder.  The air in this bladder when surrounded by (73) air will weigh little or nothing, since it can be only slightly compressed; its weight then is small being merely that of the skin which does not amount to the thousandth part of a mass of lead having the same size as the inflated bladder.  Now, Simplicio, if we allow these two bodies to fall from a height of four or six cubits, by what distance do you imagine the lead will anticipate the bladder?  You may be sure that the lead will not travel three times, or even twice, as swiftly as the bladder, although you would have made it move a thousand times as rapidly. 

SIMP.   It may be as you say during the first four or six cubits of the fall; but after the motion has continued a long while, I believe that the lead will have left the bladder behind not only six out of twelve parts of the distance but even eight or ten. 

SALV.   I quite agree with you and doubt not that, in very long distances, the lead might cover one hundred miles while the [118] bladder was traversing one; but, my dear Simplicio, this phenomenon which you adduce against my proposition is precisely the one which confirms it.  Let me once more explain that the variation of speed observed in bodies of different specific gravities is not caused by the difference of specific gravity but depends upon external circumstances and, in particular, upon the resistance of the medium, so that if this is removed all bodies would fall with the same velocity; and this result I deduce mainly from the fact which you have just admitted and which is very true, namely, that, in the case of bodies which differ widely in weight, their velocities differ more and more as the spaces traversed increase, something which would not occur if the effect depended upon differences of specific gravity.  For since these specific gravities remain constant, the ratio between the distances traversed ought to remain constant whereas the fact is that this ratio keeps on increasing as the motion continues.  Thus a very heavy body in a fall of one cubit will not anticipate a very light one by so much as the tenth part of this space; but in a fall of twelve cubits the heavy body would outstrip (74) the other by one-third, and in a fall of one hundred cubits by 90/100, etc. 

SIMP.   Very well: but, following your own line of argument, if differences of weight in bodies of different specific gravities cannot produce a change in the ratio of their speeds, on the ground that their specific gravities do not change, how is it possible for the medium, which also we suppose to remain constant, to bring about any change in the ratio of these velocities? 

SALV.   This objection with which you oppose my statement is clever; and I must meet it.  I begin by saying that a heavy body has an inherent tendency to move with a constantly and uniformly accelerated motion toward the common center of gravity, that is, toward the center of our earth, so that during equal intervals of time it receives equal increments of momentum and velocity.  This, you must understand, holds whenever all external and accidental hindrances have been removed; but of these there is one which we can never remove, namely, the medium which must be penetrated and thrust aside by the falling body.  This quiet, yielding, fluid medium opposes motion [119] through it with a resistance which is proportional to the rapidity with which the medium must give way to the passage of the body; which body, as I have said, is by nature continuously accelerated so that it meets with more and more resistance in the medium and hence a diminution in its rate of gain of speed until finally the speed reaches such a point and the resistance of the medium becomes so great that, balancing each other, they prevent any further acceleration and reduce the motion of the body to one which is uniform and which will thereafter maintain a constant value.  There is, therefore, an increase in the resistance of the medium, not on account of any change in its essential properties, but on account of the change in rapidity with which it must yield and give way laterally to the passage of the falling body which is being constantly accelerated. 

Now seeing how great is the resistance which the air offers to the slight momentum [momento] of the bladder and how small that which it offers to the large weight [peso] of the lead, I (75) am convinced that, if the medium were entirely removed, the advantage received by the bladder would be so great and that coming to the lead so small that their speeds would be equalized.  Assuming this principle, that all falling bodies acquire equal speeds in a medium which, on account of a vacuum or something else, offers no resistance to the speed of the motion, we shall be able accordingly to determine the ratios of the speeds of both similar and dissimilar bodies moving either through one and the same medium or through different space-filling, and therefore resistant, media.  This result we may obtain by observing how much the weight of the medium detracts from the weight of the moving body, which weight is the means employed by the falling body to open a path for itself and to push aside the parts of the medium, something which does not happen in a vacuum where, therefore, no difference [of speed] is to be expected from a difference of specific gravity.  And since it is known that the effect of the medium is to diminish the weight of the body by the weight of the medium displaced, we may accomplish our purpose by diminishing in just this proportion the speeds of the falling bodies, which in a non-resisting medium we have assumed to be equal. 

Thus, for example, imagine lead to be ten thousand times as heavy as air while ebony is only one thousand times as heavy.  [120] Here we have two substances whose speeds of fall in a medium devoid of resistance are equal: but, when air is the medium, it will subtract from the speed of the lead one part in ten thousand, and from the speed of the ebony one part in one thousand, i.e. ten parts in ten thousand.  While therefore lead and ebony would fall from any given height in the same interval of time, provided the retarding effect of the air were removed, the lead will, in air, lose in speed one part in ten thousand; and the ebony, ten parts in one thousand.  In other words, if the elevation from which the bodies start be divided into ten thousand parts, the lead will reach the ground leaving the ebony behind by as much as ten, or at least nine, of these parts.  Is it not clear then that a leaden ball allowed to fall from a tower two hundred cubits (76) high will outstrip an ebony ball by less than four inches?  Now ebony weighs a thousand times as much as air but this inflated bladder only four times as much; therefore air diminishes the inherent and natural speed of ebony by one part in a thousand; while that of the bladder which, if free from hindrance, would be the same, experiences a diminution in air amounting to one part in four.  So that when the ebony ball, falling from the tower, has reached the earth, the bladder will have traversed only three-quarters of this distance.  Lead is twelve times as heavy as water; but ivory is only twice as heavy.  The speeds of these two substances which, when entirely unhindered, are equal will be diminished in water, that of lead by one part in twelve, that of ivory by half.  Accordingly when the lead has fallen through eleven cubits of water the ivory will have fallen through only six.  Employing this principle we shall, I believe, find a much closer agreement of experiment with our computation than with that of Aristotle. 

In a similar manner we may find the ratio of the speeds of one and the same body in different fluid media, not by comparing the different resistances of the media, but by considering the excess of the specific gravity of the body above those of the media.  Thus, for example, tin is one thousand times heavier than air and ten times heavier than water; hence, if we divide its unhindered speed into 1000 parts, air will rob it of one of these parts so that it will fall with a speed of 999, while in water its speed will be 900, seeing that water diminishes its weight by one part in ten while air by only one part in a thousand. 

Again take a solid a little heavier than water, such as oak, a ball of which will weigh let us say 1000 drachms; suppose an [121] equal volume of water to weigh 950, and an equal volume of air, 2; then it is clear that if the unhindered speed of the ball is 1000, its speed in air will be 998, but in water only 50, seeing that the water removes 950 of the 1000 parts which the body weighs, leaving only 50. 

Such a solid would therefore move almost twenty times as fast in air as in water, since its specific gravity exceeds that of (77) water by one part in twenty.  And here we must consider the fact that only those substances which have a specific gravity greater than water can fall through it-substances which must, therefore, be hundreds of times heavier than air; hence when we try to obtain the ratio of the speed in air to that in water, we may, without appreciable error, assume that air does not, to any considerable extent, diminish the free weight [assoluta gravità], and consequently the unhindered speed [assoluta velocità] of such substances.  Having thus easily found the excess of the weight of these substances over that of water, we can say that their speed in air is to their speed in water as their free weight [totale gravità] is to the excess of this weight over that of water.  For example, a ball of ivory weighs 20 ounces; an equal volume of water weighs 17 ounces; hence the speed of ivory in air bears to its speed in water the approximate ratio of 20:3. 

SAGR.   I have made a great step forward in this truly interesting subject upon which I have long labored in vain.  In order to put these theories into practice we need only discover a method of determining the specific gravity of air with reference to water and hence with reference to other heavy substances. 

SIMP.   But if we find that air has levity instead of gravity what then shall we say of the foregoing discussion which, in other respects, is very clever? 

SALV.   I should say that it was empty, vain, and trifling.  But can you doubt that air has weight when you have the clear testimony of Aristotle affirming that all the elements have weight including air, and excepting only fire?  As evidence of this he cites the fact that a leather bottle weighs more when inflated than when collapsed.  [122]

SIMP.   I am inclined to believe that the increase of weight observed in the inflated leather bottle or bladder arises, not from the gravity of the air, but from the many thick vapors mingled with it in these lower regions.  To this I would attribute the increase of weight in the leather bottle. 

SALV.   I would not have you say this, and much less attribute it to Aristotle; because, if speaking of the elements, he wished to (78) persuade me by experiment that air has weight and were to say to me: "Take a leather bottle, fill it with heavy vapors and observe how its weight increases," I would reply that the bottle would weigh stiff more if filled with bran; and would then add that this merely proves that bran and thick vapors are heavy, but in regard to air I should still remain in the same doubt as before.  However, the experiment of Aristotle is good and the proposition is true.  But I cannot say as much of a certain other consideration, taken at face value; this consideration was offered by a philosopher whose name slips me; but I know I have read his argument which is that air exhibits greater gravity than levity, because it carries heavy bodies downward more easily than it does light ones upward. 

SAGR.   Fine indeed! So according to this theory air is much heavier than water, since all heavy bodies are carried downward more easily through air than through water, and all light bodies buoyed up more easily through water than through air; further there is an infinite number of heavy bodies which fall through air but ascend in water and there is an infinite number of substances which rise in water and fall in air.  But, Simplicio, the question as to whether the weight of the leather bottle is owing to thick vapors or to pure air does not affect our problem which is to discover how bodies move through this vapor-laden atmosphere of ours.  Returning now to the question which interests me more, I should like, for the sake of more complete and thorough knowledge of this matter, not only to be strengthened in my belief that air has weight but also to learn, if possible, how great its specific gravity is.  Therefore, Salviati, if you can satisfy my curiosity on this point pray do so. 

SALV.   The experiment with the inflated leather bottle of Aristotle proves conclusively that air possesses positive gravity and not, as some have believed, levity, a property possessed possibly by no substance whatever; for if air did possess this quality of absolute and positive levity, it should on compression [123] exhibit greater levity and, hence, a greater tendency to rise; but experiment shows precisely the opposite.  (79) As to the other question, namely, how to determine the specific gravity of air, I have employed the following method.  I took a rather large glass bottle with a narrow neck and attached to it a leather cover, binding it tightly about the neck of the bottle: in the top of this cover I inserted and firmly fastened the valve of a leather bottle, through which I forced into the glass bottle, by means of a syringe, a large quantity of air.  And since air is easily condensed one can pump into the bottle two or three times its own volume of air.  After this I took an accurate balance and weighed this bottle of compressed air with the utmost precision, adjusting the weight with fine sand.  I next opened the valve and allowed the compressed air to escape; then replaced the flask upon the balance and found it perceptibly lighter: from the sand which had been used as a counterweight I now removed and laid aside as much as was necessary to again secure balance.  Under these conditions there can be no doubt but that the weight of the sand thus laid aside represents the weight of the air which had been forced into the flask and had afterwards escaped.  But after all this experiment tells me merely that the weight of the compressed air is the same as that of the sand removed from the balance; when however it comes to knowing certainly and definitely the weight of air as compared with that of water or any other heavy substance this I cannot hope to do without first measuring the volume [quantità] of compressed air; for this measurement I have devised the two following methods. 

According to the first method one takes a bottle with a narrow neck similar to the previous one; over the mouth of this bottle is slipped a leather tube which is bound tightly about the neck of the flask; the other end of this tube embraces the valve attached to the first flask and is tightly bound about it.  This second flask is provided with a hole in the bottom through which an iron rod can be placed so as to open, at will, the valve above mentioned and thus permit the surplus air of the first to escape after it has once been weighed: but his second bottle must be filled with water.  Having prepared everything in the manner [124] (80) above described, open the valve with the rod; the air will rush into the flask containing the water and will drive it through the hole at the bottom, it being clear that the volume [quantità] of water thus displaced is equal to the volume [mole e quantità] of air escaped from the other vessel.  Having set aside this displaced water, weigh the vessel from which the air has escaped (which is supposed to have been weighed previously while containing the compressed air), and remove the surplus of sand as described above; it is then manifest that the weight of this sand is precisely the weight of a volume [mole] of air equal to the volume of water displaced and set aside; this water we can weigh and find how many times its weight contains the weight of the removed sand, thus determining definitely how many times heavier water is than air; and we shall find, contrary to the opinion of Aristotle, that this is not 10 times, but, as our experiment shows, more nearly 400 times. 

The second method is more expeditious and can be carried out with a single vessel fitted up as the first was.  Here no air is added to that which the vessel naturally contains but water is forced into it without allowing any air to escape; the water thus introduced necessarily compresses the air.  Having forced into the vessel as much water as possible, filling it, say, three-fourths full, which does not require any extraordinary effort, place it upon the balance and weigh it accurately; next hold the vessel mouth up, open the valve, and allow the air to escape; the volume of the air thus escaping is precisely equal to the volume of water contained in the flask.  Again weigh the vessel which will have diminished in weight on account of the escaped air; this loss in weight represents the weight of a volume of air equal to the volume of water contained in the vessel. 

SIMP.   No one can deny the cleverness and ingenuity of your devices; but while they appear to give complete intellectual satisfaction they confuse me in another direction.  For since it is undoubtedly true that the elements when in their proper places have neither weight nor levity, I cannot understand how it is possible for that portion of air, which appeared to weigh, say, 4 drachms of sand, should really have such a weight in air as the (81) sand which counterbalances it.  It seems to me, therefore, that the experiment should be carried out, not in air, but in a medium [125] in which the air could exhibit its property of weight if such it really has. 

SALV.   The objection of Simplicio is certainly to the point and must therefore either be unanswerable or demand an equally clear solution.  It is perfectly evident that that air which, under compression, weighed as much as the sand, loses this weight when once allowed to escape into its own element, while, indeed, the sand retains its weight.  Hence for this experiment it becomes necessary to select a place where air as well as sand can gravitate; because, as has been often remarked, the medium diminishes the weight of any substance immersed in it by an amount equal to the weight of the displaced medium; so that air in air loses all its weight.  If therefore this experiment is to be made with accuracy it should be performed in a vacuum where every heavy body exhibits its momentum without the slightest diminution.  If then, Simplicio, we were to weigh a portion of air in a vacuum would you then be satisfied and assured of the fact? 

SIMP.   Yes truly: but this is to wish or ask the impossible. 

SALV.   Your obligation will then be very great if, for your sake, I accomplish the impossible.  But I do not want to sell you something which I have already given you; for in the previous experiment we weighed the air in vacuum and not in air or other medium.  The fact that any fluid medium diminishes the weight of a mass immersed in it, is due, Simplicio, to the resistance which this medium offers to its being opened up, driven aside, and finally lifted up.  The evidence for this is seen in the readiness with which the fluid rushes to fill up any space formerly occupied by the mass; if the medium were not affected by such an immersion then it would not react against the immersed body.  Tell me now, when you have a flask, in air, filled with its natural amount of air and then proceed to pump into the vessel more air, does this extra charge in any way separate or divide or change the circumambient air?  Does the vessel perhaps expand (82) so that the surrounding medium is displaced in order to give more room?  Certainly not.  Therefore one is able to say that [126] this extra charge of air is not immersed in the surrounding medium for it occupies no space in it, but is, as it were, in a vacuum.  Indeed, it is really in a vacuum; for it diffuses into the vacuities which are not completely filled by the original and uncondensed air.  In fact I do not see any difference between the enclosed and the surrounding media: for the surrounding medium does not press upon the enclosed medium and, vice versa, the enclosed medium exerts no pressure against the surrounding one; this same relationship exists in the case of any matter in a vacuum, as well as in the case of the extra charge of air compressed into the flask.  The weight of this condensed air is therefore the same as that which it would have if set free in a vacuum.  It is true of course that the weight of the sand used as a counterpoise would be a little greater in vacuo than in free air.  We must, then, say that the air is slightly lighter than the sand required to counterbalance it, that is to say, by an amount equal to the weight in vacuo of a volume of air equal to the volume of the sand. 

At this point in an annotated copy of the original edition the following note by Galileo is found. 

[SAGR.   A very clever discussion, solving a wonderful problem, because it demonstrates briefly and concisely the manner in which one may find the weight of a body in vacuo by simply weighing it in air.  The explanation is as follows: when a heavy body is immersed in air it loses in weight an amount equal to the weight of a volume [mole] of air equivalent to the volume [mole] of the body itself.  Hence if one adds to a body, without expanding it, a quantity of air equal to that which it displaces and weighs it, he will obtain its absolute weight in vacuo, since, without increasing it in size, he has increased its weight by just the amount which it lost through immersion in air. 

When therefore we force a quantity of water into a vessel which already contains its normal amount of air, without allowing any of this air to escape it is clear that this normal quantity of air will be compressed and condensed into a smaller space in order to make room for the water which is forced in: it is also clear that the volume of air thus compressed is equal to the volume of water added.  If now the vessel be (83) weighed in air in this condition, it is manifest that the weight of the water will be increased by that of an equal volume of air; the total weight of water and air thus obtained is equal to the weight of the water alone in vacuo. 

Now record the weight of the entire vessel and then allow the compressed air to escape; weigh the remainder; the difference of these two weights will be the weight of the compressed air which, in volume, is equal to that of the water.  Next find the weight of the water alone and add to it that of the compressed air; we shall then have the water alone in vacuo.  To find the weight of the water we shall have to remove it from the vessel and weigh the vessel alone; subtract this weight from that of the vessel and water together.  It is clear that the remainder will be the weight of the water alone in air. ] [127]

SIMP.   The previous experiments, in my opinion, left something to be desired: but now I am fully satisfied. 

SALV.   The facts set forth by me up to this point and, in particular, the one which shows that difference of weight, even when very great, is without effect in changing the speed of falling bodies, so that as far as weight is concerned they all fall with equal speed: this idea is, I say, so new, and at first glance so remote from fact, that if we do not have the means of making it just as clear as sunlight, it had better not be mentioned; but having once allowed it to pass my lips I must neglect no experiment or argument to establish it. 

SAGR.   Not only this but also many other of your views are so far removed from the commonly accepted opinions and doctrines that if you were to publish them you would stir up a large number of antagonists; for human nature is such that men do not look with favor upon discoveries-either of truth or fallacy-in their own field, when made by others than themselves.  They call him an innovator of doctrine, an unpleasant title, by which they hope to cut those knots which they cannot untie, and by subterranean mines they seek to destroy structures which patient artisans have built with customary tools.  [128] But as for ourselves who have no such thoughts, the experiments and arguments which you have thus far adduced are fully satisfactory; however if you have any experiments which (84) are more direct or any arguments which are more convincing we will hear them with pleasure. 

SALV.   The experiment made to ascertain whether two bodies, differing greatly in weight will fall from a given height with the same speed offers some difficulty; because, if the height is considerable, the retarding effect of the medium, which must be penetrated and thrust aside by the falling body, will be greater in the case of the small momentum of the very light body than in the case of the great force [violenza] of the heavy body; so that, in a long distance, the light body will be left behind; if the height be small, one may well doubt whether there is any difference; and if there be a difference it will be inappreciable. 

It occurred to me therefore to repeat many times the fall through a small height in such a way that I might accumulate all those small intervals of time that elapse between the arrival of the heavy and light bodies respectively at their common terminus, so that this sum makes an interval of time which is not only observable, but easily observable.  In order to employ the slowest speeds possible and thus reduce the change which the resisting medium produces upon the simple effect of gravity it occurred to me to allow the bodies to fall along a plane slightly inclined to the horizontal.  For in such a plane, just as well as in a vertical plane, one may discover how bodies of different weight behave: and besides this, I also wished to rid myself of the resistance which might arise from contact of the moving body with the aforesaid inclined plane.  Accordingly I took two balls, one of lead and one of cork, the former more than a hundred times heavier than the latter, and suspended them by means of two equal fine threads, each four or five cubits long.  Pulling each ball aside from the perpendicular, I let them go at the same instant, and they, falling along the circumferences of circles having these equal strings for semi-diameters, passed beyond the perpendicular and returned along the same path.  This free vibration [per lor medesime le andate e le tornate] repeated a hundred times showed clearly that the heavy body maintains so [129] nearly the period of the light body that neither in a hundred swings (85) nor even in a thousand will the former anticipate the latter by as much as a single moment [minimo momento], so perfectly do they keep step.  We can also observe the effect of the medium which, by the resistance which it offers to motion, diminishes the vibration of the cork more than that of the lead, but without altering the frequency of either; even when the arc traversed by the cork did not exceed five or six degrees while that of the lead was fifty or sixty, the swings were performed in equal times. 

SIMP.   If this be so, why is not the speed of the lead greater than that of the cork, seeing that the former traverses sixty degrees in the same interval in which the latter covers scarcely six? 

SALV.   But what would you say, Simplicio, if both covered their paths in the same time when the cork, drawn aside through thirty degrees, traverses an arc of sixty, while the lead pulled aside only two degrees traverses an arc of four?  Would not then the cork be proportionately swifter?  And yet such is the experimental fact.  But observe this: having pulled aside the pendulum of lead, say through an arc of fifty degrees, and set it free, it swings beyond the perpendicular almost fifty degrees, thus describing an arc of nearly one hundred degrees; on the return swing it describes a little smaller arc; and after a large number of such vibrations it finally comes to rest.  Each vibration, whether of ninety, fifty, twenty, ten, or four degrees occupies the same time: accordingly the speed of the moving body keeps on diminishing since in equal intervals of time, it traverses arcs which grow smaller and smaller. 

Precisely the same things happen with the pendulum of cork, suspended by a string of equal length, except that a smaller number of vibrations is required to bring it to rest, since on account of its lightness it is less able to overcome the resistance of the air; nevertheless the vibrations, whether large or small, are all performed in time-intervals which are not only equal among themselves, but also equal to the period of the lead pendulum.  Hence it is true that, if while the lead is traversing an arc of fifty degrees the cork covers one of only ten, the cork moves more slowly than the lead; but on the other hand it is also true (86) [130] that the cork may cover an arc of fifty while the lead passes over one of only ten or six; thus, at different times, we have now the cork, now the lead, moving more rapidly.  But if these same bodies traverse equal arcs in equal times we may rest assured that their speeds are equal. 

SIMP.   I hesitate to admit the conclusiveness of this argument because of the confusion which arises from your making both bodies move now rapidly, now slowly and now very slowly, which leaves me in doubt as to whether their velocities are always equal. 

SAGR.   Allow me, if you please, Salviati, to say just a few words.  Now tell me, Simplicio, whether you admit that one can say with certainty that the speeds of the cork and the lead are equal whenever both, starting from rest at the same moment and descending the same slopes, always traverse equal spaces in equal times? 

SIMP.   This can neither be doubted nor gainsaid. 

SAGR.   Now it happens, in the case of the pendulums, that each of them traverses now an arc of sixty degrees, now one of fifty, or thirty or ten or eight or four or two, etc. ; and when they both swing through an arc of sixty degrees they do so in equal intervals of time; the same thing happens when the arc is fifty degrees or thirty or ten or any other number; and therefore we conclude that the speed of the lead in an arc of sixty degrees is equal to the speed of the cork when the latter also swings through an arc of sixty degrees; in the case of a fifty-degree arc these speeds are also equal to each other; so also in the case of other arcs.  But this is not saying that the speed which occurs in an arc of sixty is the same as that which occurs in an arc of fifty; nor is the speed in an arc of fifty equal to that in one of thirty, etc. ; but the smaller the arcs, the smaller the speeds; the fact observed is that one and the same moving body requires the same time for traversing a large arc of sixty degrees as for a small arc of fifty or even a very small arc of ten; all these arcs, indeed, are covered in the same interval of time.  It is true therefore that the lead and [131] (87) the cork each diminish their speed [moto] in proportion as their arcs diminish; but this does not contradict the fact that they maintain equal speeds in equal arcs. 

My reason for saying these things has been rather because I wanted to learn whether I had correctly understood Salviati, than because I thought Simplicio had any need of a clearer explanation than that given by Salviati which like everything else of his is extremely lucid, so lucid, indeed, that when he solves questions which are difficult not merely in appearance, but in reality and in fact, he does so with reasons, observations and experiments which are common and familiar to everyone. 

In this manner he has, as I have learned from various sources, given occasion to a highly esteemed professor for undervaluing his discoveries on the ground that they are commonplace, and established upon a mean and vulgar basis; as if it were not a most admirable and praiseworthy feature of demonstrative science that it springs from and grows out of principles well known, understood and conceded by all. 

But let us continue with this light diet; and if Simplicio is satisfied to understand and admit that the gravity inherent [interna gravità] in various falling bodies has nothing to do with the difference of speed observed among them, and that all bodies, in so far as their speeds depend upon it, would move with the same velocity, pray tell us, Salviati, how you explain the appreciable and evident inequality of motion; please reply also to the objection urged by Simplicio -- an objection in which I concur -- namely, that a cannon ball falls more rapidly than a bird-shot.  From my point of view, one might expect the difference of speed to be small in the case of bodies of the same substance moving through any single medium, whereas the larger ones will descend, during a single pulse-beat, a distance which the smaller ones will not traverse in an hour, or in four, or even in twenty hours; as for instance in the case of stones and fine sand and especially that very fine sand which produces muddy water and which in many hours will not fall through as much as two cubits, a distance which stones not much larger will traverse in a single pulse-beat.  (88)

SALV.   The action of the medium in producing a greater retardation upon those bodies which have a less specific gravity has already been explained by showing that they experience a diminution of weight.  But to explain how one and the same [132] medium produces such different retardations in bodies which are made of the same material and have the same shape, but differ only in size, requires a discussion more clever than that by which one explains how a more expanded shape or an opposing motion of the medium retards the speed of the moving body.  The solution of the present problem lies, I think, in the roughness and porosity which are generally and almost necessarily found in the surfaces of solid bodies.  When the body is in motion these rough places strike the air or other ambient medium.  The evidence for this is found in the humming which accompanies the rapid motion of a body through air, even when that body is as round as possible.  One hears not only humming, but also hissing and whistling, whenever there is any appreciable cavity or elevation upon the body.  We observe also that a round solid body rotating in a lathe produces a current of air.  But what more do we need?  When a top spins on the ground at its greatest speed do we not hear a distinct buzzing of high pitch?  This sibilant note diminishes in pitch as the speed of rotation slackens, which is evidence that these small rugosities on the surface meet resistance in the air.  There can be no doubt, therefore, that in the motion of falling bodies these rugosities strike the surrounding fluid and retard the speed; and this they do so much the more in proportion as the surface is larger, which is the case of small bodies as compared with greater. 

SIMP.   Stop a moment please, I am getting confused.  For although I understand and admit that friction of the medium upon the surface of the body retards its motion and that, if other things are the same, the larger surface suffers greater retardation, I do not see on what ground you say that the surface of the smaller body is larger.  Besides if, as you say, the larger surface suffers greater retardation the larger solid should move more slowly, which is not the fact.  But this objection can (89) be easily met by saying that, although the larger body has a larger surface, it has also a greater weight, in comparison with which the resistance of the larger surface is no more than the resistance of the small surface in comparison with its smaller weight; so that the speed of the larger solid does not become less.  I therefore see no reason for expecting any difference of speed so long as the driving weight [gravità movente] diminishes in the same proportion [133] as the retarding power [facoltà ritardante] of the surface. 

SALV.   I shall answer all your objections at once.  You will admit, of course, Simplicio, that if one takes two equal bodies, of the same material and same figure, bodies which would therefore fall with equal speeds, and if he diminishes the weight of one of them in the same proportion as its surface (maintaining the similarity of shape) he would not thereby diminish the speed of this body. 

SIMP.   This inference seems to be in harmony with your theory which states that the weight of a body has no effect in either accelerating or retarding its motion. 

SALV.   I quite agree with you in this opinion from which it appears to follow that, if the weight of a body is diminished in greater proportion than its surface, the motion is retarded to a certain extent; and this retardation is greater and greater in proportion as the diminution of weight exceeds that of the surface. 

SIMP.   This I admit without hesitation. 

SALV.   Now you must know, Simplicio, that it is not possible to diminish the surface of a solid body in the same ratio as the weight, and at the same time maintain similarity of figure.  For since it is clear that in the case of a diminishing solid the weight grows less in proportion to the volume, and since the volume always diminishes more rapidly than the surface, when the same shape is maintained, the weight must therefore diminish more rapidly than the surface.  But geometry teaches us that, in the case of similar solids, the ratio of two volumes is greater than the ratio of their surfaces; which, for the sake of better understanding, I shall illustrate by a particular case.  (90) Take, for example, a cube two inches on a side so that each face has an area of four square inches and the total area, i. e. , the sum of the six faces, amounts to twenty-four square inches; now imagine this cube to be sawed through three times so as to divide it into eight smaller cubes, each one inch on the side, each face one inch square, and the total surface of each cube six square inches instead of twenty-four as in the case of the [134] larger cube.  It is evident therefore that the surface of the little cube is only one-fourth that of the larger, namely, the ratio of six to twenty-four; but the volume of the solid cube itself is only one-eighth; the volume, and hence also the weight, diminishes therefore much more rapidly than the surface.  If we again divide the little cube into eight others we shall have, for the total surface of one of these, one and one-half square inches, which is one-sixteenth of the surface of the original cube; but its volume is only one-sixty-fourth part.  Thus, by two divisions, you see that the volume is diminished four times as much as the surface.  And, if the subdivision be continued until the original solid be reduced to a fine powder, we shall find that the weight of one of these smallest particles has diminished hundreds and hundreds of times as much as its surface.  And this which I have illustrated in the case of cubes holds also in the case of all similar solids, where the volumes stand in sesquialteral ratio to their surfaces.  Observe then how much greater the resistance, arising from contact of the surface of the moving body with the medium, in the case of small bodies than in the case of large; and when one considers that the rugosities on the very small surfaces of fine dust particles are perhaps no smaller than those on the surfaces of larger solids which have been carefully polished, he will see how important it is that the medium should be very fluid and offer no resistance to being thrust aside, easily yielding to a small force.  You see, therefore, Simplicio, that I was not mistaken when, not long ago, I said that the surface of a small solid is comparatively greater than that of a large one. 

SIMP.   I am quite convinced; and, believe me, if I were again beginning my studies, I should follow the advice of Plato and (91) start with mathematics, a science which proceeds very cautiously and admits nothing as established until it has been rigidly demonstrated. 

SAGR.   This discussion has afforded me great pleasure; but before proceeding further I should like to hear the explanation of a phrase of yours which is new to me, namely, that similar solids are to each other in the sesquialteral ratio of their surfaces; for although I have seen and understood the proposition in which it is demonstrated that the surfaces of similar solids are in the [135] duplicate ratio of their sides and also the proposition which proves that the volumes are in the triplicate ratio of their sides, yet I have not so much as heard mentioned the ratio of the volume of a solid to its surface. 

SALV.   You yourself have suggested the answer to your question and have removed every doubt.  For if one quantity is the cube of something of which another quantity is the square does it not follow that the cube is the sesquialteral of the square?  Surely.  Now if the surface varies as the square of its linear dimensions while the volume varies as the cube of these dimensions may we not say that the volume stands in sesquialteral ratio to the surface? 

SAGR.   Quite so.  And now although there are still some details, in connection with the subject under discussion, concerning which I might ask questions yet, if we keep making one digression after another, it will be long before we reach the main topic which has to do with the variety of properties found in the resistance which solid bodies offer to fracture; and, therefore, if you please, let us return to the subject which we originally proposed to discuss. 

SALV.   Very well; but the questions which we have already considered are so numerous and so varied, and have taken up so much time that there is not much of this day left to spend upon our main topic which abounds in geometrical demonstrations calling for careful consideration.  May I, therefore, suggest that we postpone the meeting until tomorrow, not only for the reason just mentioned but also in order that I may bring with (92) me some papers in which I have set down in an orderly way the theorems and propositions dealing with the various phases of this subject, matters which, from memory alone, I could not present in the proper order. 

SAGR.   I fully concur in your opinion and all the more willingly because this will leave time to-day to take up some of my difficulties with the subject which we have just been discussing.  One question is whether we are to consider the resistance of the medium as sufficient to destroy the acceleration of a body of very heavy material, very large volume, and [136] spherical figure.  I say spherical in order to select a volume which is contained within a minimum surface and therefore less subject to retardation. 

Another question deals with the vibrations of pendulums which may be regarded from several viewpoints; the first is whether all vibrations, large, medium, and small, are performed in exactly and precisely equal times: another is to find the ratio of the times of vibration of pendulums supported by threads of unequal length. 

SALV.   These are interesting questions: but I fear that here, as in the case of all other facts, if we take up for discussion any one of them, it will carry in its wake so many other facts and curious consequences that time will not remain to-day for the discussion of all. 

SAGR.   If these are as full of interest as the foregoing, I would gladly spend as many days as there remain hours between now and nightfall; and I dare say that Simplicio would not be wearied by these discussions. 

SIMP.   Certainly not; especially when the questions pertain to natural science and have not been treated by other philosophers. 

SALV.   Now taking up the first question, I can assert without hesitation that there is no sphere so large, or composed of material so dense but that the resistance of the medium, although very slight, would check its acceleration and would, in time reduce its motion to uniformity; a statement which is (93) strongly supported by experiment.  For if a falling body, as time goes on, were to acquire a speed as great as you please, no such speed, impressed by external forces [motore esterno], can be so great but that the body will first acquire it and then, owing to the resisting medium, lose it, Thus, for instance, if a cannon ball, having fallen a distance of four cubits through the air and having acquired a speed of, say, ten units [gradi] were to strike the surface of the water, and if the resistance of the water were not able to check the momentum [impeto] of the shot, it would either increase in speed or maintain a uniform motion until the bottom were reached: but such is not the observed fact; on the contrary, the water when only a few cubits deep hinders and diminishes the motion in such a way that the shot delivers to the bed of the river or lake a very slight impulse.  Clearly [137] then if a short fall through the water is sufficient to deprive a cannon ball of its speed, this speed cannot be regained by a fall of even a thousand cubits.  How could a body acquire, in a fall of a thousand cubits, that which it loses in a fall of four?  But what more is needed?  Do we not observe that the enormous momentum, delivered to a shot by a cannon, is so deadened by passing through a few cubits of water that the ball, so far from injuring the ship, barely strikes it?  Even the air, although a very yielding medium, can also diminish the speed of a falling body, as may be easily understood from similar experiments.  For if a gun be fired downwards from the top of a very high tower the shot will make a smaller impression upon the ground than if the gun had been fired from an elevation of only four or six cubits; this is clear evidence that the momentum of the ball, fired from the top of the tower, diminishes continually from the instant it leaves the barrel until it reaches the ground.  Therefore a fall from ever so great an altitude will not suffice to give to a body that momentum which it has once lost through the resistance of the air, no matter how it was originally acquired.  In like manner, the destructive effect produced upon a wall by a shot fired from a gun at a distance of twenty cubits cannot be duplicated by the fall of the same shot from any altitude (94) however great.  My opinion is, therefore, that under the circumstances which occur in nature, the acceleration of any body falling from rest reaches an end and that the resistance of the medium finally reduces its speed to a constant value which is thereafter maintained. 

SAGR.   These experiments are in my opinion much to the purpose; the only question is whether an opponent might not make bold to deny the fact in the case of bodies [moli] which are very large and heavy or to assert that a cannon ball, falling from the distance of the moon or from the upper regions of the atmosphere, would deliver a heavier blow than if just leaving the muzzle of the gun. 

SALV.   No doubt many objections may be raised not all of which can be refuted by experiment: however in this particular [138] case the following consideration must be taken into account, namely, that it is very likely that a heavy body falling from a height will, on reaching the ground, have acquired just as much momentum as was necessary to carry it to that height; as may be clearly seen in the case of a rather heavy pendulum which, when pulled aside fifty or sixty degrees from the vertical, will acquire precisely that speed and force which are sufficient to carry it to an equal elevation save only that small portion which it loses through friction on the air.  In order to place a cannon ball at such a height as might suffice to give it just that momentum which the powder imparted to it on leaving the gun we need only fire it vertically upwards from the same gun; and we can then observe whether on falling back it delivers a blow equal to that of the gun fired at close range; in my opinion it would be much weaker.  The resistance of the air would, therefore, I think, prevent the muzzle velocity from being equalled by a natural fall from rest at any height whatsoever. 

We come now to the other questions, relating to pendulums, a subject which may appear to many exceedingly arid, especially to those philosophers who are continually occupied with the more profound questions of nature.  Nevertheless, the problem is one which I do not scorn.  I am encouraged by the (95) example of Aristotle whom I admire especially because he did not fail to discuss every subject which he thought in any degree worthy of consideration. 

Impelled by your queries I may give you some of my ideas concerning certain problems in music, a splendid subject, upon which so many eminent men have written: among these is Aristotle himself who has discussed numerous interesting acoustical questions.  Accordingly, if on the basis of some easy and tangible experiments, I shall explain some striking phenomena in the domain of sound, I trust my explanations will meet your approval. 

SAGR.   I shall receive them not only gratefully but eagerly.  For, although I take pleasure in every kind of musical instrument [139] and have paid considerable attention to harmony, I have never been able to fully understand why some combinations of tones are more pleasing than others, or why certain combinations not only fail to please but are even highly offensive.  Then there is the old problem of two stretched strings in unison; when one of them is sounded, the other begins to vibrate and to emit its note; nor do I understand the different ratios of harmony [forme delle consonanze] and some other details. 

SALV.   Let us see whether we cannot derive from the pendulum a satisfactory solution of all these difficulties.  And first, as to the question whether one and the same pendulum really performs its vibrations, large, medium, and small, all in exactly the same time, I shall rely upon what I have already heard from our Academician.  He has clearly shown that the time of descent is the same along all chords, whatever the arcs which subtend them, as well along an arc of 180° (i.e., the whole diameter) as along one of 100°, 60°, 10°, 2°, 1/2° or 4'.  It is understood, of course, that these arcs all terminate at the lowest point of the circle, where it touches the horizontal plane. 

If now we consider descent along arcs instead of their chords then, provided these do not exceed 90°, experiment shows that they are all traversed in equal times; but these times are greater for the chord than for the arc, an effect which is all the more (96) remarkable because at first glance one would think just the opposite to be true.  For since the terminal points of the two motions are the same and since the straight line included between these two points is the shortest distance between them, it would seem reasonable that motion along this line should be executed in the shortest time; but this is not the case, for the shortest time -- and therefore the most rapid motion -- is that employed along the arc of which this straight line is the chord. 

As to the times of vibration of bodies suspended by threads of different lengths, they bear to each other the same proportion as the square roots of the lengths of the thread; or one might say the lengths are to each other as the squares of the times; so that if one wishes to make the vibration-time of one pendulum twice that of another, he must make its suspension four times as long.  In like manner, if one pendulum has a suspension nine times as [140] long as another, this second pendulum will execute three vibrations during each one of the first; from which it follows that the lengths of the suspending cords bear to each other the [inverse] ratio of the squares of the number of vibrations performed in the same time. 

SAGR.   Then, if I understand you correctly, I can easily measure the length of a string whose upper end is attached at any height whatever even if this end were invisible and I could see only the lower extremity.  For if I attach to the lower end of this string a rather heavy weight and give it a to-and-fro motion, and if I ask a friend to count a number of its vibrations, while I, during the same time-interval, count the number of vibrations of a pendulum which is exactly one cubit in length, then knowing the number of vibrations which each pendulum makes in the given interval of time one can determine the length of the string.  Suppose, for example, that my friend counts 20 vibrations of the long cord during the same time in which I count 240 of my string which is one cubit in length; taking the squares of the two numbers, 20 and 240, namely 400 and 57600, then, I say, the long string contains 57600 units of such length that my pendulum will contain 400 of them; and since the length of (97) my string is one cubit, I shall divide 57600 by 400 and thus obtain 144.  Accordingly I shall call the length of the string 144 cubits. 

SALV.   Nor will you miss it by as much as a hand's breadth, especially if you observe a large number of vibrations. 

SAGR.   You give me frequent occasion to admire the wealth and profusion of nature when, from such common and even trivial phenomena, you derive facts which are not only striking and new but which are often far removed from what we would have imagined.  Thousands of times I have observed vibrations especially in churches where lamps, suspended by long cords, had been inadvertently set into motion; but the most which I could infer from these observations was that the view of those who think that such vibrations are maintained by the medium is highly improbable: for, in that case, the air must needs have considerable judgment and little else to do but kill time by pushing to and fro a pendent weight with perfect regularity.  But I never dreamed of learning that one and the same body, when [141] suspended from a string a hundred cubits long and pulled aside through an arc of 90° or even 1° or 1/2° would employ the same time in passing through the least as through the largest of these arcs; and, indeed, it still strikes me as somewhat unlikely.  Now I am waiting to hear how these same simple phenomena can furnish solutions for those acoustical problems -- solutions which will be at least partly satisfactory. 

SALV.   First of all one must observe that each pendulum has its own time of vibration so definite and determinate that it is not possible to make it move with any other period [altro periodo] than that which nature has given it.  For let any one take in his hand the cord to which the weight is attached and try, as much as he pleases, to increase or diminish the frequency [frequenza] of its vibrations; it will be time wasted.  On the other hand, one can confer motion upon even a heavy pendulum which is at rest by simply blowing against it; by repeating these blasts with a frequency which is the same as that of the pendulum one can impart considerable motion.  Suppose that by the (98) first puff we have displaced the pendulum from the vertical by, say, half an inch; then if, after the pendulum has returned and is about to begin the second vibration, we add a second puff, we shall impart additional motion; and so on with other blasts provided they are applied at the right instant, and not when the pendulum is coming toward us since in this case the blast would impede rather than aid the motion.  Continuing thus with many impulses [impulsi] we impart to the pendulum such momentum [impeto] that a greater impulse [forza] than that of a single blast will be needed to stop it. 

SAGR.   Even as a boy, I observed that one man alone by giving these impulses at the right instant was able to ring a bell so large that when four, or even six, men seized the rope and tried to stop it they were lifted from the ground, all of them together being unable to counterbalance the momentum which a single man, by properly-timed pulls, had given it. 

SALV.   Your illustration makes my meaning clear and is quite as well fitted, as what I have just said, to explain the wonderful phenomenon of the strings of the cittern [cetera] or of the spinet [142] [cimbalo], namely, the fact that a vibrating string will set another string in motion and cause it to sound not only when the latter is in unison but even when it differs from the former by an octave or a fifth.  A string which has been struck begins to vibrate and continues the motion as long as one hears the sound [risonanza]; these vibrations cause the immediately surrounding air to vibrate and quiver; then these ripples in the air expand far into space and strike not only all the strings of the same instrument but even those of neighboring instruments.  Since that string which is tuned to unison with the one plucked is capable of vibrating with the same frequency, it acquires, at the first impulse, a slight oscillation; after receiving two, three, twenty, or more impulses, delivered at proper intervals, it finally accumulates a vibratory motion equal to that of the plucked string, as is clearly shown by equality of amplitude in their vibrations.  This undulation expands through the air and sets into vibration not only strings, but also any other body (99) which happens to have the same period as that of the plucked string.  Accordingly if we attach to the side of an instrument small pieces of bristle or other flexible bodies, we shall observe that, when a spinet is sounded, only those pieces respond that have the same period as the string which has been struck; the remaining pieces do not vibrate in response to this string, nor do the former pieces respond to any other tone. 

If one bows the base string on a viola rather smartly and brings near it a goblet of fine, thin glass having the same tone [tuono] as that of the string, this goblet will vibrate and audibly resound.  That the undulations of the medium are widely dispersed about the sounding body is evinced by the fact that a glass of water may be made to emit a tone merely by the friction of the finger-tip upon the rim of the glass; for in this water is produced a series of regular waves.  The same phenomenon is observed to better advantage by fixing the base of the goblet upon the bottom of a rather large vessel of water filled nearly to the edge of the goblet; for if, as before, we sound the glass by friction of the finger, we shall see ripples spreading with the utmost regularity and with high speed to large distances about the glass.  I have often remarked, in thus sounding a rather [143] large glass nearly full of water, that at first the waves are spaced with great uniformity, and when, as sometimes happens, the tone of the glass jumps an octave higher I have noted that at this moment each of the aforesaid waves divides into two; a phenomenon which shows clearly that the ratio involved in the octave [forma dell' ottava] is two. 

SAGR.   More than once have I observed this same thing, much to my delight and also to my profit.  For a long time I have been perplexed about these different harmonies since the explanations hitherto given by those learned in music impress me as not sufficiently conclusive.  They tell us that the diapason, i.e. the octave, involves the ratio of two, that the diapente which we call the fifth involves a ratio of 3:2, etc. ; because if the open string of a monochord be sounded and afterwards a bridge be placed in the middle and the half length be sounded (100) one hears the octave; and if the bridge be placed at 1/3 the length of the string, then on plucking first the open string and afterwards 2/3 of its length the fifth is given; for this reason they say that the octave depends upon the ratio of two to one [contenuta tra'l due e l'uno] and the fifth upon the ratio of three to two.  This explanation does not impress me as sufficient to establish 2 and 3/2 as the natural ratios of the octave and the fifth; and my reason for thinking so is as follows.  There are three different ways in which the tone of a string may be sharpened, namely, by shortening it, by stretching it and by making it thinner.  If the tension and size of the string remain constant one obtains the octave by shortening it to one-half, i.e., by sounding first the open string and then one-half of it; but if length and size remain constant and one attempts to produce the octave by stretching he will find that it does not suffice to double the stretching weight; it must be quadrupled; so that, if the fundamental note is produced by a weight of one pound, four will be required to bring out the octave. 

And finally if the length and tension remain constant, while one changes the size* of the string he will find that in order to produce the octave the size must be reduced to 1/4 that which gave the fundamental.  And what I have said concerning the octave, namely, that its ratio as derived from the tension and size of the string is the square of that derived from the length, applies equally well to all other musical intervals [intervalli [144] musici].  Thus if one wishes to produce a fifth by changing the length he finds that the ratio of the lengths must be sesquialteral, in other words he sounds first the open string, then two-thirds of it; but if he wishes to produce this same result by stretching or thinning the string then it becomes necessary to square the ratio 3/2 that is by taking 9/4 [dupla sesquiquarta]; accordingly, if the fundamental requires a weight of 4 pounds, the higher note will be produced not by 6, but by 9 pounds; the same is true in regard to size, the string which gives the fundamental is larger than that which yields the fifth in the ratio of 9 to 4. 

In view of these facts, I see no reason why those wise (101) philosophers should adopt 2 rather than 4 as the ratio of the octave, or why in the case of the fifth they should employ the sesquialteral ratio, 3/2, rather than that of 9/4.  Since it is impossible to count the vibrations of a sounding string on account of its high frequency, I should still have been in doubt as to whether a string, emitting the upper octave, made twice as many vibrations in the same time as one giving the fundamental, had it not been for the following fact, namely, that at the instant when the tone jumps to the octave, the waves which constantly accompany the vibrating glass divide up into smaller ones which are precisely half as long as the former. 

SALV.   This is a beautiful experiment enabling us to distinguish individually the waves which are produced by the vibrations of a sonorous body, which spread through the air, bringing to the tympanum of the ear a stimulus which the mind translates into sound.  But since these waves in the water last only so long as the friction of the finger continues and are, even then, not constant but are always forming and disappearing, would it not be a fine thing if one had the ability to produce waves which would persist for a long while, even months and years, so as to easily measure and count them? 

SAGR.   Such an invention would, I assure you, command my admiration. 

SALV.   The device is one which I hit upon by accident; my part consists merely in the observation of it and in the appreciation of its value as a confirmation of something to which I had given profound consideration; and yet the device is, in itself, rather common.  As I was scraping a brass plate with a sharp iron [145] chisel in order to remove some spots from it and was running the chisel rather rapidly over it, I once or twice, during many strokes, heard the plate emit a rather strong and clear whistling sound; on looking at the plate more carefully, I noticed a long row of fine streaks parallel and equidistant from one another.  Scraping with the chisel over and over again, I noticed that it was only when the plate emitted this hissing noise that any marks were left upon it; when the scraping was not accompanied (102) by this sibilant note there was not the least trace of such marks.  Repeating the trick several times and making the stroke, now with greater now with less speed, the whistling followed with a pitch which was correspondingly higher and lower.  I noted also that the marks made when the tones were higher were closer together; but when the tones were deeper, they were farther apart.  I also observed that when, during a single stroke, the speed increased toward the end the sound became sharper and the streaks grew closer together, but always in such a way as to remain sharply defined and equidistant.  Besides whenever the stroke was accompanied by hissing I felt the chisel tremble in my grasp and a sort of shiver run through my hand.  In short we see and hear in the case of the chisel precisely that which is seen and heard in the case of a whisper followed by a loud voice; for, when the breath is emitted without the production of a tone, one does not feel either in the throat or mouth any motion to speak of in comparison with that which is felt in the larynx and upper part of the throat when the voice is used, especially when the tones employed are low and strong. 

At times I have also observed among the strings of the spinet two which were in unison with two of the tones produced by the aforesaid scraping; and among those which differed most in pitch I found two which were separated by an interval of a perfect fifth.  Upon measuring the distance between the markings produced by the two scrapings it was found that the space which contained 45 of one contained 30 of the other, which is precisely the ratio assigned to the fifth. 

But now before proceeding any farther I want to call your attention to the fact that, of the three methods for sharpening a tone, the one which you refer to as the fineness of the string should be attributed to its weight.  So long as the material of [146] the string is unchanged the size and weight vary in the same ratio.  Thus in the case of gut-strings, we obtain the octave by making one string 4 times as large as the other; so also in the case of brass one wire must have 4 times the size of the other; but if now we wish to obtain the octave of a gut-string, by use of (103) brass wire, we must make it, not four times as large, but four times as heavy as the gut-string: as regards size therefore the metal string is not four times as big but four times as heavy.  The wire may therefore be even thinner than the gut notwithstanding the fact that the latter gives the higher note.  Hence if two spinets are strung, one with gold wire the other with brass, and if the corresponding strings each have the same length, diameter, and tension it follows that the instrument strung with gold will have a pitch about one-fifth lower than the other because gold has a density almost twice that of brass.  And here it is to be noted that it is the weight rather than the size of a moving body which offers resistance to change of motion [velocità del moto] contrary to what one might at first glance think.  For it seems reasonable to believe that a body which is large and light should suffer greater retardation of motion in thrusting aside the medium than would one which is thin and heavy; yet here exactly the opposite is true. 

Returning now to the original subject of discussion, I assert that the ratio of a musical interval is not immediately determined either by the length, size, or tension of the strings but rather by the ratio of their frequencies, that is, by the number of pulses of air waves which strike the tympanum of the ear, causing it also to vibrate with the same frequency.  This fact established, we may possibly explain why certain pairs of notes, differing in pitch produce a pleasing sensation, others a less pleasant effect, and still others a disageeable sensation.  Such an explanation would be tantamount to an explanation of the more or less perfect consonances and of dissonances.  The unpleasant sensation produced by the latter arises, I think, from the discordant vibrations of two different tones which strike the ear out of time [sproporzionatamente].  Especially harsh is the dissonance between notes whose frequencies are incommensurable; such a case occurs when one has two strings in unison and sounds one of them open, together with a part of the other [147] which bears the same ratio to its whole length as the side of a square bears to the diagonal; this yields a dissonance similar (104) to the augmented fourth or diminished fifth [tritono o semidiapente]. 

Agreeable consonances are pairs of tones which strike the ear with a certain regularity; this regularity consists in the fact that the pulses delivered by the two tones, in the same interval of time, shall be commensurable in number, so as not to keep the ear drum in perpetual torment, bending in two different directions in order to yield to the ever-discordant impulses. 

The first and most pleasing consonance is, therefore, the octave since, for every pulse given to the tympanum by the lower string, the sharp string delivers two; accordingly at every other vibration of the upper string both pulses are delivered simultaneously so that one-half the entire number of pulses are delivered in unison.  But when two strings are in unison their vibrations always coincide and the effect is that of a single string; hence we do not refer to it as consonance.  The fifth is also a pleasing interval since for every two vibrations of the lower string the upper one gives three, so that considering the entire number of pulses from the upper string one-third of them will strike in unison, i.e., between each pair of concordant vibrations there intervene two single vibrations; and when the interval is a fourth, three single vibrations intervene.  In case the interval is a second where the ratio is 9/8 it is only every ninth vibration of the upper string which reaches the ear simultaneously with one of the lower; all the others are discordant and produce a harsh effect upon the recipient ear which interprets them as dissonances. 

SIMP.   Won't you be good enough to explain this argument a little more clearly? 

SALV.   Let AB denote the length of a wave [lo spazio e la dilatazione d'una vibrazione] emitted by the lower string and CD that of a higher string which is emitting the octave of AB; divide AB in the middle at E.  If the two strings begin their motions at A and C, it is clear that when the sharp vibration has reached the end D, the other vibration will have travelled only as far as E, which, not being a terminal point, will emit no pulse; but there is a blow delivered at D.  Accordingly when the one (105) wave comes back from D to C, the other passes on from E to B; hence the two pulses from B and C strike the drum of the ear simultaneously.  Seeing that these vibrations are repeated again and again in the same manner, we conclude that each alternate pulse from CD falls in unison with one from AB.  But each of the [148] pulsations at the terminal points, A and B, is constantly accompanied by one which leaves always from C or always from D.  This is clear because if we suppose the waves to reach A and C at the same instant, then, while one wave travels from A to B, the other will proceed from C to D and back to C, so that waves strike at C and B simultaneously; during the passage of the wave from B back to A the disturbance at C goes to D and again returns to C, so that once more the pulses at A and C are simultaneous. 

Fig 13

Next let the vibrations AB and CD be separated by an interval of a fifth, that is, by a ratio of 3/2; choose the points E and O such that they will divide the wave length of the lower string into three equal parts and imagine the vibrations to start at the same instant from each of the terminals A and C.  It is evident that when the pulse has been delivered at the terminal D, the wave in AB has travelled only as far as O; the drum of the ear receives, therefore, only the pulse from D.  Then during the return of the one vibration from D to C, the other will pass from O to B and then back to O, producing an isolated pulse at B -- a pulse which is out of time but one which must be taken into consideration. 

Now since we have assumed that the first pulsations started from the terminals A and C at the same instant, it follows that the second pulsation, isolated at D, occurred after an interval of time equal to that required for passage from C to D or, what is the same thing, from A to O; but the next pulsation, the one at B, is separated from the preceding by only half this interval, namely, the time required for passage from O to B.  Next while the one vibration travels from O to A, the other travels from C to D, (106) the result of which is that two pulsations occur simultaneously at A and D.  Cycles of this kind follow one after another, i.e., one solitary pulse of the lower string interposed between two solitary pulses of the upper string.  Let us now imagine time to be divided into very small equal intervals; then if we assume that, during the first two of these intervals, the disturbances which occurred simultaneously at A and C have travelled as far as O and D and have produced a pulse at D; and if we assume that during the third and fourth intervals one disturbance returns from D to C, producing a pulse at C, while the other, passing on from O to B and back to O, produces a pulse at B; and if finally, during the fifth and sixth intervals, the disturbances travel from O and C to A and D, producing a pulse at each of the latter two, then the sequence in which the pulses strike the ear will be such that, if we begin to count time from any instant where two pulses are simultaneous, the ear drum will, after the lapse of two of the said intervals, receive a solitary pulse; at the end of the third interval, another solitary [149] pulse; so also at the end of the fourth interval; and two intervals later, i.e., at the end of the sixth interval, will be heard two pulses in unison.  Here ends the cycle -- the anomaly, so to speak -- which repeats itself over and over again. 

SAGR.   I can no longer remain silent; for I must express to you the great pleasure I have in hearing such a complete explanation of phenomena with regard to which I have so long been in darkness.  Now I understand why unison does not differ from a single tone; I understand why the octave is the principal harmony, but so like unison as often to be mistaken for it and also why it occurs with the other harmonies.  It resembles unison because the pulsations of strings in unison always occur simultaneously, and those of the lower string of the octave are always accompanied by those of the upper string; and among the latter is interposed a solitary pulse at equal intervals and in such a manner as to produce no disturbance; the result is that such a harmony is rather too much softened and lacks fire.  But the fifth is characterized by its displaced beats and by the interposition (107) of two solitary beats of the upper string and one solitary beat of the lower string between each pair of simultaneous pulses; these three solitary pulses are separated by intervals of time equal to half the interval which separates each pair of simultaneous beats from the solitary beats of the upper string.  Thus the effect of the fifth is to produce a tickling of the ear drum such that its softness is modified with sprightliness, giving at the same moment the impression of a gentle kiss and of a bite. 

SALV.   Seeing that you have derived so much pleasure from these novelties, I must show you a method by which the eye may enjoy the same game as the ear.  Suspend three balls of lead, or other heavy material, by means of strings of different length such that while the longest makes two vibrations the shortest will make four and the medium three; this will take place when the longest string measures 16, either in hand breadths or in any other unit, the medium 9 and the shortest 4, all measured in the same unit. 

Now pull all these pendulums aside from the perpendicular and release them at the same instant; you will see a curious interplay of the threads passing each other in various manners but such that at the completion of every fourth vibration of the longest pendulum, all three will arrive simultaneously at the same terminus, whence they start over again to repeat the same cycle.  This combination of vibrations, when produced on strings is precisely that which yields the interval of the octave and the intermediate fifth.  If we employ the same disposition [150] of apparatus but change the lengths of the threads, always however in such a way that their vibrations correspond to those of agreeable musical intervals, we shall see a different crossing of these threads but always such that, after a definite interval of time and after a definite number of vibrations, all the threads, whether three or four, will reach the same terminus at the same instant, and then begin a repetition of the cycle. 

If however the vibrations of two or more strings are incommensurable so that they never complete a definite number of vibrations at the same instant, or if commensurable they return (108) only after a long interval of time and after a large number of vibrations, then the eye is confused by the disorderly succession of crossed threads.  In like manner the ear is pained by an irregular sequence of air waves which strike the tympanum without any fixed order. 

But, gentlemen, whither have we drifted during these many hours lured on by various problems and unexpected digressions?  The day is already ended and we have scarcely touched the subject proposed for discussion.  Indeed we have deviated so far that I remember only with difficulty our early introduction and the little progress made in the way of hypotheses and principles for use in later demonstrations. 

SAGR.   Let us then adjourn for to-day in order that our minds may find refreshment in sleep and that we may return to-morrow, if so please you, and resume the discussion of the main question. 

SALV.   I shall not fail to be here to-morrow at the same hour, hoping not only to render you service but also to enjoy your company.