chapter 1 The Engineer and the Philosopher Reflections on the Culture and Economy of Mechanics in Court Society Pietro Daniel Omodeo Throughout his life, Simon Stevin was proud of his status as an ‘ingenieur’.1 By contrast, his Italian contemporary, Giovanni Battista Benedetti, would have considered the title ‘ingegnere’ to be a denigration of his status as a ‘patri- cian’ and ‘court philosopher’.2 Yet, the work, interests and methods of these two men were so close that such a divergence of identities presents the social historian of science with a curious puzzle. What accounts for the remarkable difference in the intellectual positioning of these two protagonists of Renais- sance science? An inquiry into the social and epistemological intersections and interrelationships between the activities of the early modern engineer and the philosopher, who worked on similar mathematical, physical and techno- logical problems, promises to be a fruitful means of pinpointing the individual and contextual differences between this Dutch proto- scientist and his Italian counterpart. In addition, it may also help to highlight the processes underlying the hierarchization of knowledge and division of intellectual labor that char- acterized the emergence of modern science. Above all else, the problem in question relates to a practical-theoretical form of polymathy – the technical versatility (or polytechny) typical of so- called ‘scientist- engineers’ – and its relation to higher forms of legitimate scholarship, especially the literary and artistic culture of the Renaissance courts. In the case of practical mathematics, a new class of practitioners, proud of their professional skills, emerged out of the context of competing republics and small states troubled by constant political and economic turmoil, rival- ry and conflict. Against this socio-political background, architecture, the me- chanical arts and the exact sciences became increasingly relevant for military and civil purposes, transportation and commerce, and, to a lesser extent, pro- duction. In their seminal works on the socio- economic history of mechanics, 1 Dijksterhuis, Simon Stevin: Science in the Netherlands, 130. In fact, the most prominent indica- tion attached to his name in publications is the toponymic ‘of Bruge’. 2 Omodeo, ‘Social Position and Intellectual Identity of the Renaissance Mathematician- Physicist Giovanni Battista Benedetti’. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2021 | DOI:10.1163/9789004432918_003 26 Omodeo Boris Hessen and Edgar Zilsel mapped out the social function of ‘higher arti- sans’ and ‘scientist- engineers’.3 The new society showed a new appreciation of once- discredited arts and crafts; professions such as ‘low mechanics’ won repute, whilst practical knowledge acquired unprecedented epistemological value.4 Correspondingly, the reputation of scientist- engineers was enhanced.5 As a ‘mathematically trained engineer’,6 Stevin belonged to the new group of practical mathematicians who addressed theoretical- technological problems linked to navigation, surveying, shipbuilding, fortification, gunnery, and other fields of evident economic or military relevance.7 The spheres of economy and war were irrevocably intertwined at this time of constant external and internal European conflict, on the two fronts of colonial expansion and religious civil wars. For practical mathematicians and experts in technology, warfare was a lucrative field and presented an opportunity for social advancement. Before he became famous for his astounding telescopic discoveries, Galileo Galilei gained a reputation for the invention of a military compass with signif- icant applications, for instance to ballistics. Attention has been recently drawn to such aspects of his scientific activity, as well as his ties to practical mathe- maticians and artisans. This has led to a re- evaluation of Galilei and earned him the appellation ‘engineer’ in a recent book.8 During the Renaissance, an accomplished engineer could hope to exchange his position on the battlefield for a more comfortable position at court. Such a transformation was actual- ly quicker than it might appear at first glance, given that in the Iron Century both warfare and the court were the domain of the aristocracy.9 The social and epistemological implications of such a promotion could be far- reaching, how- ever. Thus, the interpretations of ‘Galilei the courtier’ and ‘Galilei the engineer’ do not necessarily conflict; instead, they are complementary, and the tension between the two identities is worthy of special consideration. A certain prox- imity between the two types could also be observed in the Netherlands: in the 1590s, Stevin’s social ascent was crowned when he entered the service of the stadholder, Prince Maurice of Nassau. 3 Hessen, ‘Social and Economic Roots’, and Zilsel, ‘Sociological Roots of Science’. 4 Smith, Body of the Artisan and Long, Artisan/ Practitioners and the Rise of the New Sciences. 5 Cf. Lefèvre, ‘Galileo Engineer: Art And Modern Science’. 6 Alan F. Chalmers, ‘Beyond Archimedes: Stevin’s Elements of Hydrostatics’, Chap. 3, in One Hundred Years of Pressure: Hydrostatics, 27. 7 Cf. Matthias Schemmel’s definition in English Galileo, 15. 8 Matteo Valleriani has stressed the importance of the military context for Renaissance engi- neering and science. See Galileo Engineer, 197. 9 Kamen, Iron Century..