The Sleepwalkers (207 page)

In
fact,
the
sunspots
had
been
discovered
independently
and
nearly
at
the
same
time
by
Johannes
Fabricius
in
Wittenberg,
Thomas
Harriot
in
Oxford,
Scheiner-Cysat,
and
Galileo
himself.
Harriot
seems
to
have
been
the
first
to
observe
them,
but
Fabricius
was
the
first
to
publish,
and
Scheiner
the
second.
Harriott,
Fabricius
and
Scheiner
neither
knew
of
the
others'
parallel
discovery,
nor
did
they
raise
any
particular
claim
to
priority.
Thus
Galileo's
claim
was
untenable,
firstly
because
Fabricius
and
Scheiner
had
been
first
to
publish
the
discovery,
and
secondly
because
he
could
name
no
witnesses,
or
correspondents,
to
prove
it
–
yet
we
remember
how
careful
he
was
to
protect
his
priority
claims
on
previous
occasions,
by
immediately
sending
out
messages
in
anagram
form.
But
Galileo
had
come
to
regard
telescopic
discoveries
as
his
exclusive
monopoly
–
as
he
himself
stated
on
a
later
occasion:

"You
cannot
help
it,
Mr.
Sarsi,
that
it
was
granted
to
me
alone
to
discover
all
the
new
phenomena
in
the
sky
and
nothing
to
anybody
else.
This
is
the
truth
which
neither
malice
nor
envy
can
suppress."
⁷

By
his
specious
priority
claim
over
the
sunspots,
followed
by
disguised
attacks
on
Father
Scheiner,
Galileo
had
made
the
first
enemy
among
the
Jesuit
astronomers,
and
started
the
fatal
process
which
in
the
end
would
turn
the
order
against
him.

The
whole
affair
was
the
more
unfortunate,
as
Galileo's
answer
to
Marcus
Welser
was
otherwise
a
model
of
clarity
and
scientific
method.
He
followed
it
up
with
two
more
Letters
on
Sunspots
,
which,
the
next
year,
were
published
under
that
title.
He
showed
convincingly
that
the
spots
were
not
small
planets
circling
the
sun,
as
Scheiner
had
originally
assumed,
but
located
on,
or
close
to,
the
surface
of
the
sun
itself;
that
they
were
rotating
with
the
sun,
constantly
changing
their
shapes,
and
of
the
nature
of
"vapours,
or
exhalations,
or
clouds
or
fames."
⁸
Thus
it
was
proven
that
not
only
the
moon,
but
the
sun
too
was
subject
to
generation
and
decay.

The
booklet
also
contained
Galileo's
first,
tentative
formulation
of
the
principle
of
inertia,
^8a
and
his
first
printed
statement
in
favour
of
the
Copernican
system.
Up
to
this
date
–
we
are
now
in
1613,
and
he
is
nearly
fifty
–
he
had
defended
Copernicus
in
conversations
at
dinner
tables,
but
never
in
print.
The
passage
in
question
is
on
the
last
page
of
the
Letters
on
Sunspots
;
it
starts
with
a
reference
to
the
alleged
moons
of
Saturn
and
continues:

"And
perhaps
this
planet
also,
no
less
than
horned
Venus,
harmonises
admirably
with
the
great
Copernican
system,
to
the
universal
revelation
of
which
doctrine
propitious
breezes
are
now
seen
to
be
directed
toward
us,
leaving
little
fear
of
clouds
or
crosswinds."
⁹

Here
it
was
at
last,
the
first
public
commitment,
though
somewhat
vague
in
form,
a
full
quarter-century
after
Kepler
had
first
sounded
the
Copernican
trumpet
in
the
Mysterium.

The
book
won
immediate
and
great
popular
acclaim.
Insofar
as
the
Church
is
concerned,
not
only
was
no
voice
raised
in
opposition,
but
Cardinals
Boromeo
and
Barberini
–
the
future
Urban
VIII
–
wrote
letters
to
Galileo
expressing
their
sincere
admiration.

Not
so
the
backwoodsmen.
When
Galileo's
favourite
pupil,
the
Benedictine
Father
Castelli
(the
founder
of
modern
hydrodynamics)
was
called
to
the
chair
of
the
University
of
Pisa,
he
was
expressly
forbidden
by
the
head
of
the
University
to
teach
the
motion
of
the
earth.
The
head
was
Arturo
d'Elci,
a
fanatical
Aristotelian
and
member
of
the
"Pigeon
League",
who
had
published
one
of
the
pamphlets
against
the
Things
that
Float
on
Water
.

The
first
serious
attack
against
Copernicanism
on
religious
grounds
came
also
not
from
clerical
quarters
but
from
a
layman
–
none
other
than
delle
Colombe,
the
leader
of
the
league.
His
treatise
Against
the
Motion
of
the
Earth
contained
a
number
of
quotations
from
Holy
Scripture
to
prove
that
the
earth
was
in
the
centre
of
the
world.
It
was
circulated
in
manuscript
in
1610
or
'11,
before
Galileo's
public
committal,
and
did
not
mention
Galileo's
name.
Galileo
himself
was
as
yet
so
little
worried
about
a
possible
theological
conflict,
that
he
had
let
almost
a
year
pass
before
he
asked
the
opinion
of
his
friend,
Cardinal
Conti,
on
the
matter.
The
Cardinal
answered
that,
concerning
the
"immutability"
of
the
skies,
Holy
Scripture
seemed
to
favour
Galileo's
view
rather
than
Aristotle's.
As
for
Copernicus,
the
"progressive"
(i.e.
annual)
motion
was
admissible,
but
the
daily
rotation
did
not
seem
to
agree
with
Scripture,
unless
it
was
assumed
that
certain
passages
must
not
be
taken
literally;
but
such
an
interpretation
was
permissible
"only
in
the
case
of
the
greatest
necessity".
¹⁰