1. Nelli, who is not a scientist or historian of science, reports only the title and a few linesNovelle letterarieFlorence 1750 11 593 598 In theProblemi(footnote 1) Caverni merely notes that Castelli regards all substances as magnetic and quotes a few of the passages of theDiscorso. In theStoria, however, Caverni comments that Castelli has not satisfied in theDiscorsothe high hopes of Galileo for a resolution of the problem of the nature of magnetism (p. 238). A few pages later on the topic of the loadstone Caverni castigates both Castelli and Descartes. He calls the latter more of a romancer than a philosopher, and the former more of a geometer than a physicist (p. 245). Favaro, while in the introductory article terms theDiscorsoas one of the ‘many treasures’ of the Galilean collection of manuscripts in the National Library of Florence ((footnote 1), 545) he does not seem to know what to make of its contents. He concludes the article by saying that he thinks the publication of the integral text of theDiscorsocould be a ‘useful thing’ for students of the history of science (p. 548).
2. Daujat . 1945.Origines et formation de la théorie des phénomènes électriques et magnétiques297–297. Paris 239. The claim for Léotaud is repeated in Taton (footnote 1), 315.