For several decades, historians have realized the limitations of analysing the historical past of science as a mere succession of theories. One of the most stimulating messages that the reinvention of the discipline has launched is that although there are obvious intellectual elements that promote the development and progress of science, there are also social, economic, and institutional aspects to consider. The history of science is no longer just a history of scientific ideas and theories, but also a history of (...) institutions, communities, spaces, objects, and practices as well as a history of the complex interaction among all these dimensions. Accompanying this new panorama is a broad consensus among scholars to accept that major social changes have inexorably some impact on scientific practice and vice versa. This premise, now widespread, is especially relevant to the history of early modern science and the question of its roots because it has allowed the introduction of new agents and spaces previously excluded from the domain of scientific development. In other words, this enriched perspective has multiplied both the processes of knowledge construction and the arenas in which these processes were undertaken. More specifically, historical research is no longer limited to spaces traditionally linked to the construction of science; it now embraces less orthodox ones. Within this broadened field of inquiry, practical knowledge and the objects of material culture have come to occupy a central place. This special issue explores how the new directions in which the history of science has expanded have a direct impact on the study of Iberian science in the Atlantic world. (shrink)

Describing a Mundus Novus was a very singular task in the sixteenth century. It was an effort shaped by a permanent inherent tension between novelty and normality, between the immense variety of new facts and the demand of credibility. How did these inner strains affect the narrative style of the first descriptions of the natural world of ‘the Indies’? How were the first European observers of the nature of America able to simultaneously transmit the idea of immensity and regularity, and (...) that of novelty? How did they attempt to describe new worlds knowing that there was a lot – perhaps too much – to tell? This paper focuses not on the much-discussed epistemological issues related to those questions, but on their narrative and stylistic consequences. We argue that the first Europeans meeting the new realities of the Americas or India had to meet new challenges, and these translated into texts with specific characteristics. Thus, their first descriptions are essentially different from the texts about the natural world that were written before or after the ‘discovery’. We show that they adopted very specific discursive approaches, and were deeply influenced by the credibility strategies of the medical profession in which they had been trained. (shrink)

Scientific instruments are not neutral artefacts; the perception of their value is greatly determined not only by the objects themselves and the function they perform, but also by the context of their use. In the 16th and 17th centuries, scientific instruments – not only nautical ones – acquired a prominent place in European societies that greatly transcended the specific narrow professional circles that used them. This has already been noted as being an important feature in the development of science in (...) early modern Europe. But exactly how did this happen? Following other recent studies, I argue in this paper that in order to understand this phenomenon one has to look carefully at artisanal practices of the period. (shrink)

O Kenkon bensetsu (Tratado e Crítica sobre a Terra e os Céus) é a primeira exposição sistemática sobre os princípios astronómicos e cosmológicos ocidentais que se encontra vertida para japonês. Este texto, composto no Japão por volta de 1650, pelo ex-jesuíta Cristovão Ferreira. consiste na versão japonesa de um Tratado de Esfera ocidental. com abundantes comentários e críticas por um erudito confucionista. No Kenkon bensetsu temos. assim, a circunstância rara de poder analisar, lado a lado, alguns conceitos fundamentais do pensamento (...) ocidental e o modo como foram recebidos pelo pensamento japonês do século XVII. Trata-se portanto de um documento de excepcional valor para se avaliar o intercâmbio cultural e científico entre a Europa e o Extremo Oriente nos séculos XVI-XVII, e é um dos testemunhos mais eloquentes e significativos da influência portuguesa no Japão. /// The Kenhon bensetsu (Treatise and Critic on Earth and Heavens) is the first systematic explanation of the astronomical and cosmological western principles that is translated to japanese. This text was composed in Japan about 1650 by the former Jesuit Cristóvão Ferreira, and is a japanese version of a western Sphere Treatise, including many commentaries and critics by a erudite confucionist. Thus, we have in Kenhon hensetsu the rare possibility to be able to analyse, side by side, both some fundamental concepts of western thought and the way they were received by the XVIIth century japanese thought. This is, therefore, a document of an exceptional relevance in order to evaluate both the scientific and the cultural interchange between Europe and the Far East during the XVIth and the XVIIth centuries. It is also one of the most important and significant testimonies of the portugues influence in Japan. (shrink)