Sure, Ferrari was "il suo creato" his creature, as Tartaglia never forgets
to say in his "General Trattato", when he mentions Ferrari.
Ivo Schneider wrote on May 21:
>
> Heinz Lueneburg wrote concerning the dispute between Tartaglia and Cardano:
>
>> TARTAGLIA says that Cardano had sworn not to publish the result. This is
>> in his Quesiti. But Lodovico Ferrari, apostrophied by Tartaglia as "il suo
>> creato", says in his second Cartello di sfida that he was also present in
>> the house of Cardano in Milan when Cardano and Tartaglia were talking to
>> each other and that Tartaglia were telling lies. So it is not clear
>> whether Cardano ever swore an oath. Ferrari also mentions in this
>> cartello that he and Cardano went to Bologna where they saw a note book
>> of Ferro's with the solution of the equation of the first type. And,
>> after all, the result is one that must be made public, it has to be known
>> by all mathematicians. Cardano has no right to withhold it.
>
> If you divide "all mathematicians" in the 16th century into two groups
> a) the "professional" maestri d'abbaco and the different kinds of
> mathematical practitioners and
> b) the mathematical dilettanti
> Tartaglia belongs to the first and Cardano to the second group.
> Neither group shared the ideal intellectual socialism you pronouce as an
> imperative to communicate every new and important mathematical result to
> everybody. Of course, the second group depending on a reward system
> consisting in personal reputation and if you will honour and by it in
> social prestige was much closer to such an intellectual socialism, whereas
> the members of the second group behaved like capitalist inventors who try
> to exploit the economical possibilities inherent in their inventions as
> much as possible.
> The members of the first group did so because their income depended on the
> possibility to sell their mathematical products to well paying clients who
> ceased to come if these products where already available on the market in
> printed form.
> The members of the second group in general enjoyed a higher social status.
> This holds especially for Cardano who explicitly considered his status so
> much higher than that of Tartaglia that he feared a social disadvantage by
> getting personally in touch with Tartaglia. Therefore he sent his "soldier"
> Ferrari in order to do the job for him.
> Cardano's publication behaviour - oath or not - served his own social needs
> and violated the economical interests of Tartaglia.
>
> Ivo Schneider
>
>
Maybe, I was to hasty in my conclusions drawn from Ferrari's letter. Here is
the original wording:
... Sed prius, ne obstupescas, miratus vnde ego omnia tua mendacia quasi ab
Apolline monitus resciuerim, tibi in memoria reuoco, me in eadem domo, cum
Cardanus te hospitio excepisset, omnibus vestris sermonibus, quibus mirum in
modum tum delectabar, interfuisse. Cardanus ergo ex te accepit
inuentiununculam illam cubi & laterum aequalium numero, quam vt ab interitu,
cui vicina erat reuocaret, in subtilissimo atque eruditissimo suo volumine,
velut languentem & semimortus arbusculam in amplissimo, feracissimo, et
amoenissimo horto inseruit, to inuentorem celebrauit, te exoratum sibi
tradisse commemoravit. Quid vis amplius? nolebam diuulgari. cur? Ne quisquam
alius meis inuentis frueretur. Hic quamvis in re tenui, nulliusque propemodum
vsus ostendis tamen te impium, & nefarium, ab hominumque consuetudine
exturbandum. Cum enim non solum nobis, sed patriae & vniuerso humano generi
nati simus, cur, si quid in te est boni, caeteris non vis impertiri? Volebam,
inquis, in publicum edere, sed in meis libris. Quis vetat? non ne tibi adhuc
integrum est, licetque potuis volumina componere, eamque tuam inuentionem vel
sexcenties (si ita libuerit) ascribere? Ad haec, videtur ne tibi haec satis
iusta caussa, qua in virum praestanti ingenio, atque eximia doctrina, qui te
apud doctissimum illum Caesaris legatum, & apud excellentissimum Alfonsum
Aualum mirifice laudauerat, tu tantopere tamquam impudeter inuehereris? Quid?
si probauero, quod tibi luce clarius est, nos quoque non ignorare illud non
esse tuum inuentum. Si Cardano non concedes, ut tua, num saltem permittes, vt
alioru inuenta nos doceat? Anno ab hinc quinto, cum Cardanus Florentiam
proficisceretur, eqoque ei comes essem, Bononiae Annibalem de Naue virum
ingeniosum, et humanum vismus, qui nobis ostendit libellum manu Scipionis
Ferrei soceri sui iam diu conscriptum, in quo istud inuentum, eleganter et
docte explicatum, tradebatur. ...
It was from this text that I drew the conclusion that Ferrari was partisan
of the "intellectual socialism" that we practice today.
Since I am not the target, the text aims at, I like it very much indeed.
Concerning Cardano, he had financial problems till the age of thirty eight.
Then he was, at last, allowed to practice as a physician by the authorities
of Milan. He got international fame as a physician. Before that he taught
mathematics for money (which he quite often didn't get, as the cities didn't
have money. It was war-time.) and he gambled without success. The only positive
thing that came out of it was a book on gambling.
Cardano considered himself as a physician in the first place, but he was, as
P. L. Rose puts it, a voracious polymath.
Heinz Lueneburg