Monsieur Joseph Jérôme Lefrançois de Lalande et Les Dames

The cliché concept of a Frenchman is of the prime example of a chauvinist and the eighteenth century is not renowned as a period of equality for women, so it might come as somewhat of a surprise that an eighteenth century Frenchman very much championed the positive role of women in astronomy; that man was Joseph Jérôme Lefrançois de Lalande (1732–1807).

Jérôme_Lalande

Jérôme Lalande after Joseph Ducreux Source: Wikimedia Commons

Jérôme Lalande illustrates rather well something that is fundamentally wrong with the way that much history of science is conceived and presented. I have a moderately large collection of general reference works on the history of science and the history of astronomy, encyclopaedia, dictionaries, and lexica. In this works Jérôme Lalande almost never appears and if at all usually just as a minor footnote to somebody or something else. However, although he never made a major astronomical discovery, and thus his absence from the reference works, he was in the second half of the eighteenth century a leading figure in the astronomical community, not just in France but throughout the whole of Europe, as a organiser, coordinator, communicator, educator and populariser, all activities very necessary to the evolution of any scientific discipline.

He was born 11 July 1832 in Bourge-en-Bresse and was educated at a Jesuit academy. He went to Paris to study law but having got to know Joseph-Nicolas Delisle (1644­–1720) he became an ardent astronomer and a pupil of both Delisle and Charles Le Monnier (1715–1799).

Joseph_Nicolas_Delisle_AGE_V11_1803

Joseph Nicolas Delisle by Konrad Westermayr Source: Wikipedia Commons

Despite this passion, he completed his law degree and was about to return to Bourge-en-Bresse to become a lawyer when Lemonnier sent him to Berlin to measure lunar parallax together with Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille (1732–1762) in South Africa. The success of this operation led to his election to the Academy of Berlin, as well as the French Academy of Science. He now devoted his life to astronomy. Over the years he was successively elected to the Royal Swedish Academy of Science and The American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In 1762 he was appointed Delisle’s successor as professor of astronomy at the Collège de France. Amongst his most famous students were Jean-Baptiste Joseph Delambre (1749–1822), Giuseppe Piazzi (1746–1826), Pierre Méchain (1744–1804) and his nephew Michel Lefrançois de Lalande (1766–1839). In 1773 he edited more that 250 articles on astronomy for the supplement to Diderot’s and d’Alembert’s legendary encyclopaedia. From 1760 to 1776 he was editor of the Connaissance des tempsthe official French astronomical year book. From 1795 he also became the director of the Paris observatory in which role he issued a star catalogue of 30,000 stars later expanded to 41,000. As an astronomer his principle activity of the years consisted of carrying out the mathematical calculation of orbits, the paths of comets, solar eclipses and the astronomical unit based on the observations of the Transit of Venus in 1761 and 69, as well as the orbit of Venus.  It was here that the lady astronomers entered his life and his work.

As a young man he assisted Alexis-Claude Clairaut in the recalculation of the orbit of Comet Halley. Lalande was ably assisted in this tedious but complex mathematical work by Nicole-Reine Lepaute (1723–1788). In his publication Clairaut did not acknowledge Lepaute’s contribution, which angered Lalande, who honoured her work so:

We calculated from morning to night for six months…Mme. Lépaute’s help was such that I would not have been able to tackle the enormous task without her.

lepaute001

Taken from Winterburn The Quite Revolution of Caroline Herschel see footnote 1

Nicole-Reine Étable de la Briere was born 5 January 1723 in Paris began to take an interest in mathematics and astronomy in around the time she married her husband Jean-André Lepaute the royal clock maker. Together with her husband she designed and constructed an astronomical clock, which was presented to the French Academy of Science in 1753. She, her husband and Lalande worked on a book entitled Traite d’horologerie(Treatise on Clockmaking) that was published under her husbands name in 1755. Although she was not mentioned as author Lalande honoured her contribution as follows:

“Madame Lepaute computed for this book a table of numbers of oscillations for pendulums of different lengths, or the lengths for each given number of vibrations, from that of 18 lignes, that does 18000 vibrations per hour, up to that of 3000 leagues.”

Following her work with Lalande on Comet Halley, she again collaborated with him on the ephemeris for the 1761 Transit of Venus.  She also collaborated with Lalande for fifteen years on the calculations for the Connaissance des temps. In 1762 she calculated the exact time for a solar eclipse that occurred on 1 April 1764. She also wrote an article on the eclipse with an eclipse map. She produced star catalogues and calculated an ephemeris of the sun, moon and the planets from 1774 to 1784. Although childless she adopted and trained he husband nephew, Joseph Lepaute Dagelet (175116788) in astronomy and mathematics. He went on to become professor of mathematics at the French Military School and later deputy astronomer at the French Academy of Science, where he had a distinguished career. A comet and a crater on the moon are named in her honour.

Lalande’s second lady ‘computer’ (the term used for the people, usually women, employed to do the often complex but tedious and repetitious astronomical calculations was Elisabeth Louise Félicité du Pierry, née Pourra de la Madeleine, who was born 1746 but who’s date of death is unknown/disputed, possibly 1807. She met Lalande in 1779 and began to study astronomy under him after the death of her husband. Her main work was on eclipses of the sun and moon based on historical data that she collected. Lalande based his own lunar orbit work on her research. She is said to have been the first woman to have offered lecture courses at a French university when she lectured at the Sorbonne on astronomy for women­–Cours d´astronomie ouvert pour les dames et mis à leur portée. Lalande dedicated his book, Astronomie des Dames(of which more later) to her stating: “She represents a model for all women through her high intellectual qualities.” She later dropped out of astronomy and took up chemistry instead.

Lalande’s third lady computer was his own illegitimate daughter Marie-Jeanne-Amélie Harley (1768–1832), who married his nephew Michel Lefrançois de Lalande. The young couple studied astronomy together under Lalande and were his assistants at the Paris Observatory helping to calculate and complete the star catalogues. Marie-Jeanne-Amélie work very closely with her father contributing to many of his publications. Gauss is reputed to have said that he knew only one French women working in science, Madame Lefrançois de Lalande. She had two children, a daughter named Caroline after Caroline Herschel and a son named Isaac after Newton. The De Lalande crater on the moon is named after her.

In the naming of his grand daughter we get a strong clue that Lalande’s respect for female astronomers was not restricted to his own assistants and family. In fact Lalande was one of the strongest male supporters of Caroline Herschel, who he respected immensely, which is reflected by her writing directly to him rather than communicating through her brother William, although William was a close colleague and friend of Lalande’s.

herschel_caroline_1829

Caroline Herschel Source: Wikimedia Commons

Without a doubt Lalande’s greatest contribution to the support of women in astronomy was his Astronomie des Dames published in 1785 with two further updated and expanded editions in 1795 and 1806,which explains various aspects of astronomy for the female reader and praises the work of famous female astronomers beginning with Hypatia, including his own co-workers and going up to Caroline Herschel, who was added in the second edition. Lalande was a renowned and successful author of popular books on astronomy so his decision to write about female astronomers in a laudatory manner had quite a lot of impact. The second editions from 1795 covers the following women:

Hypatia (the ancient Greek philosopher)

Maria Cunitz

Maria-Claire Eimart Muller

Jeanne Dumée

Hevelius’s wife (this is how he describes her, not by name but by association)

Manfredi’s sisters (as above)

Kirch’s thre sisters and his wife, née Winkelmann

La Marquise de Châtelet

Madame Lapute

Mrs Edwards (from the Nautical Almanacin England)

Madam du Piery

His niece Lefrançois de Lalande

Miss Caroline Herschel[1]

 (you can read about Maria Cunitz, Maria Kirch née Winkelmann, Elisabeth Koopman Hevelius and Maria Clara Eimart here)

As Emily Winterburn explains (see footnote 1) Lalande’s book follows in a tradition of popular science books written specifically for ladies. This starts with Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle’s Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes(Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds) (1686) and includes John Harris’ Astronomical Dialogues Between a Gentleman and a Lady(1719), Benjamin Martin’s Gentlemen and Ladies Philosophy(1759) and Francesco Algarotti’s Il newtonianismo per le dame(1737) (Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy Explained for the use of Ladies, in six dialogues on Light and Colour(1739)). Lalande acknowledges Fontenelle’s influence on his own work.

Although with Lalande we still have a man employing women in a subservient position and then writing about them rather than women working for and writing about themselves, we have in the way that he supported, acknowledged and praised women in his work a major advance on nearly everything that had gone before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1]This list is taken from Emily Winterburn’s excellent The Quite Revolution of Caroline Herschel:The Lost Heroine of Astronomy, The History Press, Stroud, 2017 pp. 221-222, which I reviewed here. Winterburn’s book together with a tweet from RAS Women in STEM @RAS_Women about Marie-Jeanne-AmélieLefrançois de Lalande inspired this blog post.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under History of Astronomy, Ladies of Science

Science, War and Pestilence

In my recent blog post about the Renaissance polymath Wilhelm Schickard I wrote the following paragraph about the demise of him and his family, killed by plague brought into his home by invading soldiers in the Thirty Years War.

1200px-C_Melperger_-_Wilhelm_Schickard_1632

Wilhelm Schickard, artist unknown Source: Wikimedia Commons

The last years of Schickard’s life were filled with tragedy. Following the death of Gustav Adolf in the Thirty Years War in 1632, the Protestant land of Württemberg was invaded by Catholic troops. Along with chaos and destruction, the invading army also brought the plague. Schickard’s wife had born nine children of which four, three girls and a boy, were still living in 1634. Within a sort time the plague claimed his wife and his three daughters leaving just Schickard and his son alive. The invading troops treated Schickard with respect because they wished to exploit his cartographical knowledge and abilities. In 1635 his sister became homeless and she and her three daughters moved into his home. Shortly thereafter they too became ill and one after another died. Initially Schickard fled with his son to escape the plague but unable to abandon his work he soon returned home and he also died on 23 October 1635, just 43 years old, followed one day later by his son.

The fate of Schickard and his family made me, as a historian of science, once again brutally aware that the people that I, and other STEM historians, research and write about are not just producers of theories, theorems, hypotheses and discoveries living in some sort of Platonic space of Ideals but real people living working and often suffering in in a very real and frequently hostile world. Many of the scholars that form the subject of my own main interests in the history of science and mathematics suffered disruption, displacement and even death during the turmoil that engulfed Europe during the religious wars of the seventeenth century. In the following I’ll sketch some of those life-disturbing incidents suffered by those scholars, without any pretention to being exhaustive.

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) spent large parts of his life coping with the disruptions caused by the reformation and counter-reformation.

JKepler

Portrait of Johannes Kepler. Source: Wikimedia Commons

In his youth he came to Graz as a Lutheran Protestant teacher in a prominently Catholic district. During the counter-reformation this couldn’t last and it didn’t; the Protestants were ordered to convert or to leave. Initially Kepler, the district mathematicus, was granted an exception due to his successful astrological prognostica but in the end he too was forced to leave losing much of his wealth in the process. In Prague he was in a similar situation as Protestant Imperial Mathematicus to a Catholic Emperor. This time it was civil strive, as Rudolf II was deposed by his brother Matthias, which caused Kepler to leave Prague to become district mathematicus in Linz. Here once again he was a Lutheran in a predominantly Catholic district, which caused Kepler much stress. In 1625 Linz was besieged for two months by a peasants uprising. The printing press that Kepler had founded to print and published his own works was burnt to the ground with much of his work. The last years of Kepler’s life were spent wandering from town to town in Southern Germany and Austria never again finding a truly safe haven. Ironically he spent much of this time serving as court astronomer to Wallenstein the deposed Catholic commander in chief.

Even Galileo (1564–1642) can be considered to have suffered under the religious conflicts, although in Northern Italy he was outside of the immediate war zone. His problems in 1616 were certainly exacerbated by the fact that the conflicts between the Protestants and Catholics were reaching a highpoint just two years before the start of the Thirty Years War. In the 1630s Galileo’s situation was certainly worsened by the fact that he was perceived, as a Medici courtier, to be on the wrong side in the political struggle between the two great Catholic powers, France and Spain, to control the Papacy.

Galileo_Galilei_2

Galileo Galilei portrait by Domenico Tintoretto Source: Wikimedia Commons

Perhaps the most obvious victim of the religious conflicts of the times was Pierre de la Ramée (Petrus Ramus) (1515–1572), who had a much bigger influence of the evolution of modern science than is usually acknowledged.

Petrus_Ramus

Source: Wikimedia Commons

A convert to Calvinism in 1562 he was initially forced to flee Paris, where he was Regius Professor at the Collège de France, and his house was pillaged and his library burnt in his absence. He spent two years wandering around Europe before returning to Paris. In 1572 he was murdered, one of the most famous victims, during the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, when a Catholic mob rose up against the Huguenots. It is not known how many Huguenots died during this slaughter but estimates range between five and thirty thousand.

The Calvinists in Geneva were responsible in 1553 for the immolation of the Spanish mathematicus and physicus Michael Servetus (1509 or 1511–1553)  (Span. Miguel Serveto) for his heterodox religious views. Although the Catholics and Lutherans would probably all have done the job if the Calvinists hadn’t.

michael_servetus

Miguel Servet, (Villanueva de Sigena 1511- Genevra 1553) Spanish theologian & physicus Source: Wikimedia Commons

In England, the Keplerian astronomer William Gascoigne (1612–1642) died fighting on the royalist side at the Battle of Marston Moor during the English Civil War, which can also be viewed to a large extent as one of the European religious wars.

battle_of_marston_moor_1644

The Battle of Marston Moor 1644, by J. Barker Source: Wikimedia Commons

On the royalist side, which lost the battle, William and Charles Cavendish, both actively engaged supporters of the new sciences evolving at the time, were forced to flee to France, where they met up with natural philosopher Kenelm Digby (1603–1685) and Margaret Lucas (1623–1673), the future Lady William Cavendish and notorious female natural philosopher, two further Civil War refugees. In this later case these English refugees, although displaced by war, became part of an exhilarating philosophical scene in Paris, which featured Descartes, Mersenne, Gassendi and another English exile, Thomas Hobbes.

margaretcavendish

Margaret Cavendish: Segment from Frontispiece for several of her books in the 1650s and 1660s. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Do not misinterpret the above as in anyway supporting the unsubstantiated hypothesis of a conflict between religion and science. In each case, those I have listed suffered because of their religious affiliations or political views not because of their science. In fact it is interesting that during these times of intense religious strife, scientific scholars very often reached across religious and political boundaries to cooperate with each other, to share data, discuss discoveries and generally aid each other in their work.

Following the death of the Italian astronomer, Giovanni Antonio Magini (1555–1617) the Jesuits offered his chair for mathematics in Bologna to the Lutheran Johannes Kepler, with the assurance that he would not have to convert. When the Lutheran Protestant Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514–1574), professor for mathematics in Wittenberg, centre of the Reformation, visited the Catholic cathedral cannon Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) in Warmia, Dantiscus (1485–1548), the Bishop of Warmia and a counter-reformation hardliner, greeted him with warmth and honour as a scholar. Christoph Clavius (1538–1612), Jesuit professor of mathematics at the Collegio Romano, corresponded with scientific scholars from all religious persuasions exchanging scientific news. One of his successors, Athanasius Kircher (1602–1680), collected astronomical data from other Jesuits from all over the world and then redistributed it to astronomers throughout Europe, both Catholic and Protestant.

In all of our #histSTM studies we should never lose sight of the fact that those we are researching are first and foremost human beings, who, to quote Shakespeare, suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, whilst trying to complete their own scientific investigations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

11 Comments

Filed under History of science

The Renaissance Mathematicus – A users guide

It occurred to me that over the recent months and years I have acquired a whole new crop of readers, who I have not welcomed or explained the house rules and so to rectify this omission, I have written this post.

AH-DN-WarmWelcome-0

First off, if you are new around here then welcome and I hope you enjoy yourself reading my humble scribblings. If you want to know more about me then go here. There is really only one house rule: I am the god of this blog and what I say goes! Although open to the public, this is not a public forum but my private, personal space for expressing my thoughts on the histories of science, mathematics, technology and medicine. I write those thoughts down, in the first instance, for myself and for nobody else and do not consider a potential audience when writing. However, anybody who wishes to do so is welcome to read those thoughts but remember this is my place so don’t piss on the carpet. As the name of my blog would suggest I write mostly about the mathematical sciences during the European Renaissance but I reserve the right to write about any other topic that might interest me. A more detailed account can be read here.

Trigger warnings:

1) Bad language!

I am an Englishman and whilst I don’t use swear words as punctuation like some of my fellow Brits or indeed swear like the proverbial drunken sailor, I do on occasions, when I feel like it, use so called strong or bad language. I have even used the f-word in a blog post title because I thought it was appropriate. I still do. If you strongly object to such language don’t complain, nobody is forcing you to read my blog.

2) Bad grammar and terrible orthography

If you are one of those who gets their nickers in a twist about split infinitives and misspelt words then be warned I suffer from dysgraphia, which means that on a bad day a blog post can be liberally sprinkled with typos and grammatical horrors.Or to put it another way I’m an orthographic anarchist. In fact, as I once wrote in a post, one of the reasons I started blogging was to overcome my fear of writing caused by my dysgraphia and the English school system. I have over the years made quite a lot of progress but I sure as hell ain’t perfect. If you severely criticise my orthographic failings out of some sort of feelings of moral superiority (and yes it happens!) I will simply delete your comments and block you. Remember, I am the god of this blog! However, I regard my readers as my unpaid copy editors or proofreaders and if you point out any errors that you spot, either in the comments or per email, in a friendly manner, I will be grateful and thank you.

The comments:

Mentions

I actually welcome comments. I even welcome being told that I am wrong by somebody, who is better informed than I am and many, many people are better informed than I am. Being shown that I am wrong means that I have learnt something and I love learning things. For the same reason I also enjoy further or new information on the topic of my post. However, if your complaint is a matter of opinion, with which I disagree, you can expect me to fight my corner. If you try to use my comments as a pulpit for your own shit, whatever that might be, I will delete your comments and I will block you. Remember, I am the god of this blog!

795px-Thats_all_folks.svg

Welcome aboard and I hope you enjoy the ride.

 

6 Comments

Filed under Autobiographical, Uncategorized

The Galileo Circus is in town

The ‘sensational’ #histSTM news of last week was that a new ‘lost’/‘hidden’ Galileo letter has been discovered in the Royal Society archives. As some people have pointed out, as it was archived and catalogued it wasn’t exactly ‘lost’ or ‘hidden’, but that is not what I am going to write about here. As the Internet’s resident Galileo deflator, I have been asked numerous times in the last few days what I think is the significance of this find and my answer has been, not a lot. I have decided to explain why I think this but before I do so we need a bit of background for those not informed about the intricate details of Galileo’s biography.

Galileo_Galilei_2

Galileo Galilei portrait by Domenico Tintoretto Source: Wikimedia Commons

After the publication of his Sidereus Nuncius, Galileo was not only appointed court philosophicus and mathematicus the Cosimo De’ Medici but became almost over night the most notorious mathematical scholar in Europe. He was feted by the Northern Italian high society both secular and clerical and was definitely a celebrity. His role in the Medici household was not that dissimilar to that of a court jester. He was required to entertain the Grand Duke and his guests after dinner with his erudition and his wit. Oft opponents would be invited to dine and Galileo was expected to dispute with them over philosophical or scientific topics. In this role he acquitted himself extremely well but his growing fame and notoriety meant that he was collecting a solid body of enemies. On the subject of science contra religion his newly won high-powered friends and admirers advised him to tread carefully and to proceed with caution. Amongst those, who thus advised him, was Cardinal Maffeo Barberini an admirer and the future Pope Urban VIII.

Caravaggio_Maffeo_Barberini

C. 1598 painting of Maffeo Barberini at age 30 by Caravaggio Source: Wikimedia Commons

In 1613, in Galileo’s absence, at an evening round at the Medicean table the philosopher Cosimo Boscaglia stated that he thought that the telescopic discoveries were valid, however the Copernican hypothesis contradicted Holy Scripture. Galileo’s former student Benedetto Castelli, now a professor for mathematics and a Benedictine Abbott, defended Galileo’s standpoint under intensive questioning from Grand Duchess Christina, Cosimo’s mother and Galileo’s first patron in the Medici family. Castelli reported all of this to Galileo in a letter and in reply Galileo wrote a long essay, now known as the Letter to Castelli, in which he attacked the Church’s interpretation of the various Bible passages that stood in contradiction to the heliocentric hypothesis and generally pleaded for freedom of expression for science, or rather for Galileo.

Benedetto_Castelli

Benedetto Castelli artist unknown Source: Wikimedia Commons

Before I go on I think it is necessary to restate something that people discussing the situation tend to forget or ignore. In the early seventeenth century the concepts of freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression simply did not exist anywhere in Europe neither under secular or religious jurisdiction, no matter which church was involved. This was something that Galileo was well aware of but apparently in his hubris he thought his newly found fame would protect him from censure, he was wrong. A second point that also tends to get ignored is that when Galileo decided to go into full frontal attack with the Church on scriptural interpretation it was the middle of the Counter Reformation. The Reformation and the Counter Reformation centred on the question, who is allowed to interpret Holy Scripture. The Lutherans said anybody who could read, although they later changed their minds on that, whereas the Catholic Church said only the Church theologian were entitled to. Here was Galileo a mere mathematicus, the lowest of the low in the Renaissance intellectual hierarchy, telling the theologians, the pinnacle of the Renaissance intellectual pyramid, how to interpret the Bible, not a wise move. Not only did Galileo go out on a limb but he did so with his very best polemic and invective and if there was something in which Galileo was unrivalled at it was writing polemic and invective.

As was the custom in those days, and as Galileo certainly intended, copies were made of his letter and passed around for other to read and admire. It was almost inevitable that copies would land in the hands of his enemies and they were not in any way thrilled by Galileo’s attack on the Church.  In 1615 Niccolò Lorini, a Dominican, submitted a copy of Galileo’s letter to the Inquisition in Rome:

All our Fathers of the devout Convent of St. Mark feel that the letter contains many statements which seem presumptuous or suspect, as when it states that the words of Holy Scripture do not mean what they say; that in discussions about natural phenomena the authority of Scripture should rank last… [the followers of Galileo] were taking it upon themselves to expound the Holy Scripture according to their private lights and in a manner different from the common interpretation of the Fathers of the Church…

— Letter from Lorini to Cardinal Sfrondato, Inquisitor in Rome, 1615. Quoted in Jerome Langford, Galileo, Science and the Church1998, pp. 56-57 (Borrowed from Wikipedia)

Galileo, now realising that he might have not made the most intelligent move in his life, began to back peddle and claimed that the submitted document was not the letter that he had written but had been manipulated by his enemies to make it look worse than it really was. He also issued a new version of the letter that was indeed much milder than the version submitted to the Inquisition by Lorini. Things took their inevitable course. Galileo’s letter was lumped together with the Epistle concerning the mobility of the earth by Paolo Antonio Foscarini, which provoked the famous Foscarini Letter from Robert Bellarmino, which was also addressed to Galileo. The Inquisition decided that Copernicus’ theory was both scientifically and theologically unacceptable and Galileo had his famous meeting with Bellarmino, who explained that heliocentricity could not be taught as factual.

In this situation many, in fact the majority, see Galileo, as a champion for free speech and for the ascendency of science over religion, launching a brave attack on the bastions of the Church. I think it would be more honest to regard his actions as foolhardy, driven by hubris. One the one hand he thought that his celebrity was so great that he could successfully challenge the Church; he was severely mistaken. On the other he wanted to be the one feted for having ‘proved’ the heliocentric hypothesis. This is amply shown by the fact that as things started to turn pear-shaped he rushed off to Rome and tried to convince his admirers amongst the Church hierarchy of the validity of his theory of the tides, which would form the fourth and concluding day of his Dialogo. His hubris prevented him recognising just how flawed that infamous theory was. In 1615 he found no takers. It is interesting to note in terms of Galileo’s personality that at best he developed the theory of tides together with Paolo Sarpi and at worst it was actually Sarpi’s theory and he ‘borrowed’ it without in either case giving Sarpi any credit for the theory.

What the historian has to decide is was Galileo telling the truth and had his enemies in the Church manipulated his original letter or was he lying and was the letter submitted by Lorini the original document? Those who have written the numerous Galileo hagiographies believe that their hero was telling the truth. Others who are more sceptical about the Tuscan mathematicus don’t see him as a paragon of virtue but in this instance think that he was telling the truth and his Church enemies were out to get him. I, however, and I know that I am not alone in this opinion, think that he was lying and that the Lorini letter is in fact the original. Up till now there has been no proof either way, so you pays your money and you makes your choice.

The newly ‘discovered’ document is the proverbial smoking gun. It appears that it is the Letter to Castelli in the Lorini version with the ‘corrections’ to the later milder version all written in Galileo’s own hand. If the document is genuine, and I assume it is, then Galileo was without a shadow of a doubt lying. This of course provokes the question as to why I thought, without evidence, that he was indeed lying. The answer is very simple. As the old sergeant says in cheesy English criminal stories, “the lad had form, didn’t he?”

d41586-018-06769-4_16139256

The original letter in which Galileo argued against the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church has been rediscovered in London. Credit: The Royal Society

We start with Galileo’s claim that he constructed a telescope purely having heard of one based on his knowledge of optics. Modern research suggests very strongly that he had in fact both seen and handled a telescope before he constructed his own one. He also sold ‘his telescope’ to the Senate of Venice for a very high price, knowing full well that within a short time the city would be flooded with telescopes from other sources. Galileo had something of the character of the proverbial used car salesman. In his dispute with Christoph Scheiner about the nature of sunspots, Galileo kept changing the date he claimed to have first observed sunspots to guarantee his priority. Of course, both Galileo and Scheiner were unaware that Harriot had observed sunspots before both of them and Johannes Fabricius had already published on them. In 1607, charged Baldessar Capra with having plagiarised the instruction manual for his sector. At the time he exonerated Simon Marius who had been Capra’s mathematics teacher. However in 1623 in his Il Saggiatore he now falsely accused Marius of being responsible for the plagiarism along with accusing him again falsely of having plagiarised the Sidereus Nuncius in his Mundus Iovialis. In Il Saggiatore he also accused Scheiner falsely of having plagiarised his work on sunspots. To make the situation worse he quoted Scheiner’s work on sunspots as his own in the Dialogo. The main text of Il Saggiatore concerns his dispute with Grassi on the nature of comets. Here he brings his famous ‘the book of nature is written in the language of geometry’ quote implying that his point of view is mathematical/scientific whereas that of Grassi, a Jesuit, is not. Exactly the opposite is true. Grassi’s view that comets are supralunar was formed on the basis of empirical observations and mathematical calculations, whereas Galileo’s basically Aristotelian view was nothing but unsubstantiated and false speculation. In the Dialogo, the two world systems that Galileo compares are the geocentric system of Ptolemaeus and the heliocentric system of Copernicus. However when Galileo wrote his book the Ptolemaic system had already been refuted, as Galileo well knew having contributed to that refutation, and the Copernican system had long been superseded by the elliptical system of Kepler, which was regarded as a competing model. The world system being discussed as rivals at the time were a Tychonic model with diurnal rotation and Kepler’s elliptical heliocentric model both of which Galileo simply ignores. These are just some of the crassest examples of Galileo conscious dishonesty in his work. So believing that he lied about the Castelli letter is not an unreasonable assumption.

However, all in all, whether he lied or didn’t lie at this point in time doesn’t actually make that much difference. Whether his attack on Catholic theology was more or less vitriolic doesn’t actually play an important role is what happened. The important point is that he had the gall to launch that attack at all in such an undiplomatic manner. All that Galileo achieved by his ill thought out, impulsive actions was to delay quite substantially the Church’s inevitable acceptance of heliocentricity. Before somebody turns up in the comments saying it took them two hundred years to accept it, that acceptance already existed informally before the end of the seventeenth century and formally in 1758.

 

 

 

 

 

16 Comments

Filed under History of Astronomy, History of science, Renaissance Science, Uncategorized

The telescope – claims and counterclaims

Sometime between the 25thand 29thof September 410 years ago Hans Lipperhey, a spectacle maker from Middelburg in Zeeland, gave the earliest known public demonstration of the telescope to Maurits of Nausau and assembled company at a peace conference in Den Hague.

Lipperhey_portrait

Source: Wikimedia Commons

His demonstration was recorded in a French newsletter, AMBASSADES DV ROY DE SIAM ENVOYE’ A L’ECELence du Prince Maurice, arriué à la Haye le 10. Septemb. 1608., recording the visit of the ambassador of the King of Siam (Thailand), who was also present at the demonstration.

A few days before the departure of Spinola from The Hague a spectacle-maker from Middelburg, a humble man, very religious & pious, offered His Excellency certain glasses as a present, by which one is able to trace & observe clearly objects at a distance of three or four miles, as if there is a distance as little as one hundred footsteps. From the tower of The Hague with the said glasses one can observe clearly the clock on the tower of Delft, & the windows of the Church of Leiden, despite the fact that one of the said towns is at a distance of one & a half hours and the other one at three and a half hours walking distance. The States-General were already well informed about this and sent them to His Excellency to show, adding that with these glasses one could observe the impostures of the enemy. Spinola also saw them with great astonishment & told Prince Hendrik; from this moment on I will not be safe anymore, because you can observe me from afar. Whereupon the said Prince answered: we will prohibit our people to shoot at you. The craftsman who has manufactured the said glasses has received three hundred écu & he will receive more on condition that he will tell nobody about the said proficiency, which he promised with most pleasure as he doesn’t want the enemy will be able to use this, The said glasses are very useful at sieges & in similar affairs, because one can distinguish from a mile’s distance & beyond several objects very well, as if they are very near & even the stars which normally are not visible for us, because of the scanty proportion and feeble sight of our eyes, can be seen with this instrument.[1]

This was not however the first written account of Lipperhey’s new invention. The Councillors of Zeeland had given him a letter of introduction, dated 25 September, to the States-General in Den Hague, it begins:

The bearer of this, who claims to have a certain device, by means of which all things at a great distance can be seen as if they were nearby, by looking through glasses which he claims to be a new invention, would like to communicate the same to His Excellency [Prince Maurits]. Your Honour will please recommend him to His Excellency, and, as the occasion arises, be helpful to him according to what you think of the device…[2]

On 2 October 1608, Lipperhey submitted an application for a patent for his device to the States-General, from here on things, which had looked so promising for our humble spectacle-maker from Middelburg started to turn decidedly pear shaped.

Lipperhey

Hans Lipperhey’s unsuccessfully patent request Source: Wikimedia Commons

On 14 October 1608, an, until now, unidentified young man offered to sell a telescope to the Councillors of Zeeland, who dutifully informed the States-General of this new development. On 15 October the States-General received a letter from Jacob Adriaenszoon (after 1571–1628) called Metius, a spectacle-maker from Alkmaar also requesting a patent for his instrument on which he had been working for two years and which, so he claimed, was a least as good as the instrument from Middelburg. Given these developments, telescopes were apparently available on every street corner, the States-General denied Lipperhey his desired patent but they did commission him to make six pairs of binoculars for a total of 900 guilders, a very large sum. Interestingly they demanded that the lenses be made of rock crystal rather than glass, because of the poor quality of the glass lenses, something that would remain a problem for telescope makers throughout the seventeenth century.

The problem with who actually invented the telescope does not end there. In his Mundus Jovialis, published in 1614, Simon Marius, one of the earliest telescopic astronomers, recounts how his patron Johan Philip Fuchs von Bimbach was offered a telescope at the Autumn Frankfurt Fair in 1608.

1280px-Houghton_GC6_M4552_614m_-_Simon_Marius_-_cropped

Engraved image of Simon Marius (1573-1624), from his book Mundus Iovialis, 1614 Source: Houghton Library via Wikimedia Commons

He didn’t purchase the proffered instrument because one of the lenses was cracked and the asking price was apparently too high. In many accounts of the invention of the telescope, this story is used as an illustration of how fast the new invention spread after Lipperhey’s unveiling in Den Hague. However, there is a major problem here; the Autumn Fair in Frankfurt in 1608 took place before Lipperhey’s demonstration. We have yet another unclear source for the ‘first telescope’.

Fuchs_von_Bimbach

Hans Philipp Fuchs von Bimbach Source: Wikimedia Commons

Up till 2008 it had become common practice to claim that the seller in Frankfurt and the unknown young man in Middelburg were one and the same and identified as Zacharias Janssen (1585-pre. 1632) and that he and not Lipperhey was the true inventor of the telescope and for good measure also the microscope.  How this all came about is almost Byzantine.

Zacharias

Zacharias Janssen Source: Wikimedia Commons

In 1655, the French scholar Pierre Borel (c. 1620–1671) published the first full history of the invention of the telescope, De vero telescopii inventore.

07

De vero telescopii inventore 1665 Title page Source

In his book he followed the account of the Dutch Ambassador to France, Willem Boreel (1591–1668). Born in Middelburg, Boreel had memories of having met the inventor of the telescope in 1610. Not sure of his memory forty-five years later he wrote to a local magistrate in Middelburg to investigate the matter. The magistrate interviewed a then unknown spectacle-maker Johannes Zachariassen, the son of Zacharias Janssen. Johannes claimed that his father and his grandfather had invented the microscope and telescope in 1590. Johannes would also tell a similar story to Isaac Beeckman, when he was teaching him lens grinding, also claiming that he and his father had also invented the long, i.e. astronomical, telescope in 1618. Boreel confirmed Johannes account as agreeing with his memories and Borel’s account that Zacharias Janssen and not Hans Lipperhey was the true inventor of the telescope.

Pierre_Borel_Portrait_par_jPauthe

Portrait of Pierre Borel by Jacques Pauthe Source: Wikimedia Commons

The last of Johannes’ claims is easily disposed of because it was Johannes Kepler, who first described the astronomical telescope in his Dioptrice in 1611. As to the other claim in 1590 Johannes’ grandfather was already dead and his father Zacharias was a mere four or five years old. These objections were simply swept aside over the years and Janssen’s invention simply moved forward to 1604 another date claimed by Johannes. However modern research by Huib Zuidervaart into the life of Zacharias Janssen have shown the first contact that he had with lens grinding or spectacle-making was when he became guardian the children of another spectacle-maker ‘Lowys Lowyssen, geseyt Henricxen brilmakers’. There is no other evidence that Zacharias was ever a spectacle-maker.[3]

The unknown youth in Middelburg and the telescope seller in Frankfurt remain unknown and probably forever unknowable.

News of the wonderful new invention spread really fast throughout Europe with telescopes on sale as novelties in Paris by the early summer 1609. The enthusiasm with which the new invention was greeted and the speed with which it spread throughout Europe rather puts the lie to all the competing theories that the telescope was already invented by (insert your favourite candidate) at some date before Lipperhey’s first demonstration. If it had been, we would certainly have heard about it. As far as we know, the first astronomer to make observations with the new instrument was Thomas Harriot, who drew a sketch of the moon observed with a six-power telescope dated 26 July 1609 os (5 August ns).

harriot_moon1609_726

Harriot’s sketch of the moon 1609

Following on to his encounter with a telescope at the Frankfurt Fair, Fuchs von Bimbach together with Simon Marius obtained, with some difficulty, suitable lenses and the two of them constructed their own telescope. Simon Marius began his own astronomical observations sometime also in 1609. Galileo Galilei heard of the telescope through his friend Paolo Sarpi and it is now thought that his claim that he devised the construction of his telescope purely on the basis of having heard of it is not true and that he had in fact seen and handled a telescope before he began his own efforts at construction.

Galileo_Galilei_by_Ottavio_Leoni_Marucelliana_(cropped)

Galileo Galilei. Portrait by Ottavio Leoni Marucelliana Source: Wikimedia Commons

Galilei/ Fernrohre / Aufnahme

Galileo’s telescopes Source: Wikimedia Commons

Galileo, ever on the look out to make a quick buck and further his career, first marketed ‘his invention’ to the civil authorities, demonstrating a six-power telescope to the aristocrats of Venice 21 August 1609. On the 24thof the month he presented said telescope formally to the Doge and Senate of Venice. The following day the authorities granted him a lifetime contract as professor of mathematics at the university with the extraordinary salary of 1,000 florins p.a. with however the condition that he would never receive another pay rise. The Senate was apparently more than somewhat miffed when they discovered that the telescope was not the invention of their talented mathematics professor but was readily available on every street corner in Europe to knockdown prices. Galileo repaid their generosity by beginning plans to leave Venice and return to Florence.

We don’t know for certain when Galileo began his astronomical observations but we do know that he was an exceptionally talented observer and was soon viewing the skies on clear nights with a twenty-power instrument of his own construction. On 7 January 1610 he knew he had hit the jackpot when he first observed three of the moons of Jupiter. Simon Marius made the same discovery one day later on 8 January. More accurately he realised he had hit the jackpot only a couple of days later when it became clear that what he had discovered were satellites and not fixed stars. Marius waited four years before he published his discovery, Galileo didn’t! He immediately changed from Italian to Latin in his observing blog log and began making plans to publish his telescopic observation before he could be beaten to the gun by some unknown rival.

He decided to dedicate his planned publication to Cosimo II De’ Medici Fourth Grand Duke of Tuscany and started negotiations with the Tuscan Court over which names/names they would prefer for the newly discovered moons. In the end the term Medicean Stars was decided upon and Galileo’s Sidereus Nuncius was published with a preface dated forth day before the Ides of March 1610, that’s 12 March in modern money.

houghton_ic6-g1333-610s_-_sidereus_nuncius

Title page of Sidereus nuncius, 1610, by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). *IC6.G1333.610s, Houghton Library, Harvard University Source: Wikimedia Commons

Seldom has a book hit the streets with such an impact. It truly marks the beginning of a new epoch in the history of astronomy and a new phase in the life of its author. Galileo got what he was angling for, he was appointed court mathematicus and philosophicus to the court in Florence and given a professorship at the university without teaching obligations but with a salary of 1,000 florins p.a.

The very poor quality of the glass available to make lenses and the errors in grinding and polishing made it very difficult for observers to see anything at all through the early telescopes, a problem that would continue to plague telescope users throughout the seventeenth century. There were as many claims made for discoveries that didn’t exist as for real ones.  All of this made it difficult for others to confirm Galileo’s spectacular claims. In the end the Jesuit astronomers of the Collegio Romano in Rome were able with much effort and many setbacks to confirm all of his discoveries. In 1611 he made a triumphant tour of Rome, which included a celebration banquet put on by the Jesuits at the Collegio. At a second banquet put on by Prince Frederico Cesi, founder and President of the Accademia dei Lincae of which Galileo would become a member, the telescope first received its name, in Greek teleskopos.

Another central problem in the first months of telescopic astronomical observation was that there existed no scientific explanation of how or why the telescope functions. This allowed critics to reject the discoveries as imaginary artefacts produced by the instrument itself. The man who came to the rescue was Johannes Kepler. Already in 1604 in his Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena Astronomiae pars optica, Kepler had published the first explanation of how lenses focus light rays and how eyeglasses work to compensate for short and long sightedness so he already had a head start on explaining how the telescope functions.

Francesco Maurolico (1494–1575) had covered much of the same ground in his Theoremata de lumine et umbra earlier than Kepler but this work was only published posthumously in 1611, so the priority goes to Kepler.

MAUROLICO_FRANCESCO2

Source: Wikimedia Common

Theoremata_de_lumine_et_umbra_[...]Maurolico_Francesco_bpt6k83058n

In 1611 Kepler published his very quickly written Diotrice, in which he covered the path of light rays through single lenses and then through lens combinations. In this extraordinary work he covers the Dutch or Galilean telescope, convex objective–concave eyepiece, the astronomical or Keplerian telescope, convex objective–convex eyepiece, the terrestrial telescope, convex objective–convex eyepiece–convex–field–lens to invert image, and finally for good measure the telephoto lens! Galileo’s response to this masterpiece in the history of geometrical optics was that it was unreadable!

431px-Kepler_dioptrice_titul

Source: Wikimedia Commons

One small footnote to the whole who–invented–what story is that Kepler attributed the invention of the telescope to Giambattista della Porta (1535?–1615).

Giambattista_della_Porta

Giambattista della Porta Source: Wikimedia Commons

Della Porta did indeed describe the magnifying effect of the lens combination of the Dutch telescope in his Magiae Naturalis(various editions 1558 to 1589).

With a concave you shall see small things afar off, very clearly; with a convex, things neerer to be greater, but more obscurely: if you know how to fit them both together, you shall see both things afar off, and things neer hand, both greater and clearly.

He provided a primitive sketch in a letter to Prince Cesi in 1609.

Della Porta Telescope Sketch

Kepler assumed that the Dutch spectacle-maker, he didn’t know Lipperhey’s name, had somehow learnt of della Porta’s idea and put it into practice. It is more probable that della Porta was actually describing some sort of compound magnifying glass rather than a telescope and that Lipperhey had no idea of della Porta’s work.

Despite the confusion that surrounds the origins of the telescope, today most historians attribute the honours to Hans Lipperhey, whose demonstration set the ball rolling. We have come a long way since Lipperhey demonstrated his simple invention to Prince Maurits in Den Hague. I don’t suppose the humble spectacle–maker from Middelburg could have conceived the revolution in astronomy he set in motion on that day four hundred and ten years ago.

[1]Embassies of the King of Siam Sent to His Excellency Prince Maurits Arrived in The Hague on 10 September 1608,Transcribed from the French original, translated intoEnglish and Dutch, introduced by Henk Zoomers and edited by Huib Zuidervaart after a copy in the Louwman Collection of Historic Telescopes, Wassenaar, 2008 pp. 48-49 (original pagination: 9-11)

[2]Taken from Fred Watson, Stargazer: the life and times of the Telescope, Da Capo Press, Cambridge MA, 2005

[3]For more details of the Dutch story of the invention of the telescope see Huib J. Zuidervaart, The ‘true inventor’ of the telescope. A survey of 400 years of debate, in The origins of the telescope, ed. Albert van Helden, Sven Dupré, Rob van Gent, Huib Zuidervaart, KNAW Press, Amsterdam, 2010

7 Comments

Filed under History of Astronomy, History of Optics, History of science, History of Technology, Renaissance Science, Uncategorized

The first calculating machine

 

Even in the world of polymath, Renaissance mathematici Wilhelm Schickard (1592–1635) sticks out for the sheer breadth of his activities. Professor of both Hebrew and mathematics at the University of Tübingen he was a multi-lingual philologist, mathematician, astronomer, optician, surveyor, geodesist, cartographer, graphic artist, woodblock cutter, copperplate engraver, printer and inventor. Born 22 April 1592 the son of the carpenter Lucas Schickard and the pastor’s daughter Margarete Gmelin he was probably destined for a life as a craftsman. However, his father died when he was only ten years old and his education was taken over by various pastor and schoolteacher uncles. Following the death of his father he was, like Kepler, from an impoverished background, like Kepler he received a stipend from the Duke of Württemburg from a scheme set up to provided pastors and teachers for the Protestant land. Like Kepler he was a student of the Tübinger Stift (hall of residence for protestant stipendiaries), where he graduated BA in 1609 and MA in 1611. He remained at the university studying theology until a suitable vacancy could be found for him. In 1613 he was considered for a church post together with another student but although he proved intellectually the superior was not chosen on grounds of his youth. In the following period he was appointed to two positions as a trainee priest. However in 1614 he returned to the Tübinger Stift as a tutor for Hebrew.

1200px-C_Melperger_-_Wilhelm_Schickard_1632

Wilhelm Schickard, artist unknown Source: Wikimedia Commons

Here we come across the duality in Schickard’s personality and abilities. Like Kepler he had already found favour, as an undergraduate, with the professor for mathematics, Michael Maestlin, who obviously recognised his mathematical talent. However, another professor recognised his talent for Hebrew and encouraged him to follow this course of studies. On his return to Tübingen he became part of the circle of scholars who would start the whole Rosicrucian movement, most notably Johann Valentin Andreae, the author of the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz, who also shared Schickard’s interest in astronomy and mathematics.

Andportraits2

Johann Valentin Andreae Source: Wikimedia Commons

Although Schickard appear not to have been involved in the Rosicrucian movement, the two stayed friends and correspondents for life. Another member of the group was the lawyer Christian Besold, who would later introduce Schickard to Kepler.

besold001

Christopher Besold etching by Schickard 1618

This group was made up of the brightest scholars in Tübingen and it says a lot that they took up Schickard into their company.

In late 1614 Schickard was appointed as a deacon to the parish of Nürtingen; in the Lutheran Church a deacon is a sort of second or assistant parish pastor. His church duties left him enough time to follow his other interests and he initially produced and printed with woodblocks a manuscript on optics. In the same period he began the study of Syriac. In 1617 Kepler came to Württtemburg to defend his mother against the charge of witchcraft, in which he was ably assisted by Christian Besold, who as already mentioned introduced Schickard to the Imperial Mathematicus. Kepler was much impressed and wrote, “I came again and again to Mästlin and discussed with him all aspects of the [Rudolphine] Tables. I also met an exceptional talent in Nürtingen, a young enthusiast for mathematics, Wilhelm Schickard, an extremely diligent mechanicus and also lover of the oriental languages.” Kepler was impressed with Schickard’s abilities as an artist and printer and employed him to provide illustrations for both the Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae and the Harmonice Mundi. The two would remain friends and correspondents for life.

hm001

3D geometrical figures from Kepler’s Hamonice Mundi by Schickard

In 1608 Schickard was offered the professorship for Hebrew at the University of Tübingen; an offer he initially rejected because it paid less than his position as deacon and a university professor had a lower social status than an on going pastor. The university decided to appoint another candidate but the Duke, whose astronomical advisor Schickard had become, insisted that the university appoint Schickard at a higher salary and also appoint him to a position as student rector, to raise his income. On these conditions Schickard accepted and on 6 August 1619 he became a university professor. Schickard subsidised his income by offering private tuition in Chaldean, Rabbinic, mathematic, mechanic, perspective drawing, architecture, fortification construction, hydraulics and optics.

comet001

Page from a manuscript on the comets of 1618 written and illustrated by Schickard for the Duke of Württemberg

The Chaldean indicates his widening range of languages, which over the years would grow to include Ethiopian, Turkish, Arabic and Persian and he even took a stab at Malay and Chinese later in life. Schickard’s language acquisition was aimed at reading and translating text and not in acquiring the languages to communicate. Over the years Schickard acquired status and offices becoming a member of the university senate in 1628 and a school supervisor for the land of Württemberg a year later.  In 1631 he succeeded his teacher Michael Mästlin as professor of mathematics retaining his chair in Hebrew. He had been offered this succession in 1618 to make the chair of Hebrew chair more attractive but nobody had thought that Mästlin, then almost 70, would live for another 12 years after Schickard’s initial appointment.

Michaelis_Mästlin,_Gemälde_1619

Michael Mästlin portrait 1619 the year Schickard became professor for Hebrew (artist unknown)

In 1624 Schickard set himself the task of producing a new, more accurate map of the land of Württemberg. Well read, he used the latest methods as described by Willebrord Snell in his Eratosthenes Batavus (1617).

Eratosthenes_Batavus

This project took Schickard many more years than he originally conceived. In 1629 he published a pamphlet in German describing how to carry out simple geodetic surveys in the hope that others would assist him in his work. Like Sebastian Münster’s similar appeal his overture fell on deaf ears. Later he used his annual school supervision trips to carry out the necessary work.

map001

Part of Schickard’s map of Württemberg

Schickard established himself as a mathematician-astronomer and linguist with a Europe wide reputation. As well as Kepler and Andreae he stood in regular correspondence with such leading European scholars as Hugo Grotius, Pierre Gassendi, Élie Diodati, Ismaël Boulliau, Nicolas-Claude Fabri de Peiresc, Jean-Baptiste Morin, Willem Janszoon Blaeu and many others.

The last years of Schickard’s life were filled with tragedy. Following the death of Gustav Adolf in the Thirty Years War in 1632, the Protestant land of Württemberg was invaded by Catholic troops. Along with chaos and destruction, the invading army also brought the plague. Schickard’s wife had born nine children of which four, three girls and a boy, were still living in 1634. Within a sort time the plague claimed his wife and his three daughters leaving just Schickard and his son alive. The invading troops treated Schickard with respect because they wished to exploit his cartographical knowledge and abilities. In 1635 his sister became homeless and she and her three daughters moved into his home. Shortly thereafter they too became ill and one after another died. Initially Schickard fled with his son to escape the plague but unable to abandon his work he soon returned home and he also died on 23 October 1635, just 43 years old, followed one day later by his son.

One of the great ironies of history is that although Schickard was well known and successful throughout his life, today if he is known at all, it is for something that never became public in his own lifetime. Schickard is considered to be the inventor of the first mechanical calculator, an honour that for many years was accorded to Blaise Pascal. The supporters of Schickard and Pascal still dispute who should actually be accorded this honour, as Schickard’s calculator never really saw the light of day before the 20thcentury. The story of this invention is a fascinating one.

Inspired by Kepler’s construction of his logarithm tables to simplify his astronomical calculation Schickard conceived and constructed his Rechenuhr (calculating clock) for the same purpose in 1623.

The machine could add or subtract six figure numbers and included a set of Napier’s Bones on revolving cylinders to carry out multiplications and divisions. We know from a letter that a second machine he was constructing for Kepler was destroyed in a workshop fire in 1624 and here the project seems to have died. Knowledge of this fascinating invention disappeared with the deaths of Kepler and Schickard and Pascal became credited with having invented the earliest known mechanical calculator, the Pascaline.

Pascaline-CnAM_823-1-IMG_1506-black

A Pascaline signed by Pascal in 1652 Source: Wikimedia Commons

The first mention of the Rechenuhr was in Michael Gottlieb Hansch’s Kepler biography from 1718, which contained two letters from Schickard in Latin describing his invention. The first was just an announcement that he had made his calculating machine:

Further, I have therefore recently in a mechanical way done what you have done with calculation and constructed a machine out of eleven complete and six truncated wheels, which automatically reckons together given numbers instantly: adds, subtracts, multiplies and divides. You would laugh out loud if you were here and would experience, how the position to the left, if it goes past ten or a hundred, turns entirely by itself or by subtraction takes something away.

The second is a much more detailed description, which however obviously refers to an illustration or diagram and without which is difficult or even impossible to understand.

Schickard’s priority was also noted in the Stuttgarter Zeitschrift für Vermessungswesen in 1899. In the twentieth century Franz Hammer found a sketch amongst Kepler’s papers in the Pulkowo Observatory in St Petersburg that he realised was the missing diagram to the second Schickard letter.

recheuhr001

The Rechenuhr sketch from Pulkowow from a letter to Kepler from 24 February 1624

Returning to Württemberg he found a second sketch with explanatory notes in German amongst Schickard’s papers in the Würtemmberger State Library in Stuttgart.

recheuhr002

Hammer made his discoveries public at a maths conference in 1957 and said that Schickard’s drawings predated Pascal’s work by twenty years. In the following years Hammer and Bruno von Freytag-Löringhoff built a replica of Schickard’s Rechenuhr based on his diagrams and notes, proving that it could have functioned as Schickard had claimed.

Schickards Rechenmaschine

Schickard’s Rechenuhr. Reconstruction by Bruno Baron von Freytag-Löringhoff and Franz Hammer

Bruno von Freytag-Löringhoff travelled around over the years holding lectures on and demonstrations of his reconstructed Schickard Rechenuhr and thus with time Schickard became acknowledged as the first to invent a mechanical calculator, recognition only coming almost 450 years after his tragic plague death.

 

11 Comments

Filed under History of Astronomy, History of Computing, History of Mathematics, History of science, History of Technology, Renaissance Science, Uncategorized

Today in something is wrong on the Internet

When I was growing up one of the most widespread #histSTM myths, along with the claim that people in the Middle Ages believed the world was flat and Stone Age people lived in holes in the ground, was that Galileo Galilei invented the telescope. This myth actually has an interesting history that goes all the way back to the publication of the Sidereus Nuncius. Some of Galileo’s critics misinterpreting what he had written asserted that he was claiming to have invented the telescope, an assertion that Galileo strongly denied in a latter publication. Whatever, as I said when I was growing up it was common knowledge that Galileo had invented the telescope. During the 1960s and 1970s as history of science slowly crept out of its niche and became more public and more popular this myth was at some point put out of its misery and buried discretely, where, I thought, nobody would find it again. I was wrong.

When I wrote my essay on the origins of the reflecting telescope for the online journal AEON, my editor, Corey Powell, who is himself a first class science writer and an excellent editor, asked me to provide a list of reference books to help speed up the process of fact checking my essay. I was more than happy to oblige, as even more embarrassing than a fact checker finding a factual error in what I had written, and yes even I make mistakes, would be a reader finding a real clangour after my essay had been published. As it turned out I hadn’t made any mistakes or if I did nobody has noticed yet. Imagine my surprise when I read an essay published two days ago on AEON that stated Galileo had invented the telescope. Hadn’t it been fact checked? Or if so, didn’t the fact checker know that this was a myth?

The essay in question is titled Forging Islamic Science and was written by Nir Shafir and edited by Sally Davies. The offending claim was at the beginning of the second paragraph:

Besides the colours being a bit too vivid, and the brushstrokes a little too clean, what perturbed me were the telescopes. The telescope was known in the Middle East after Galileo invented it in the 17th century, but almost no illustrations or miniatures ever depicted such an object.

I tweeted the following to both the author’s and AEON’s Twitter accounts:

If the author is complaining about forgers getting historical details wrong he really shouldn’t write, “The telescope was known in the Middle East after Galileo invented it in the 17th century…”

The author obviously didn’t understand my criticism and tweeted back:

There are references to the use of telescopes for terrestrial observations, mainly military, in the Ottoman Empire, such as in evliya çelebi.

I replied:

Galileo did not invent the telescope! He wasn’t even the first astronomer to use one for astronomical observations!

Whereupon Sally Davies chimed in with the following:

Thank you for drawing this to our attention! A bit of ambiguity here; we have tweaked the wording to say he ‘developed’ the telescope.

Sorry but no ambiguity whatsoever, Galileo did not in anyway invent the telescope and as I will explain shortly ‘developed’ is just as bad.

Today the author re-entered the fray with the following:

Thank you for bringing this up. It’s always good to get the minor details right.

The invention of the telescope is one of the most significant moments in the whole history of science and technology, so attributing its invention to the completely false person is hardly a minor detail!

About that ‘developed’. A more recent myth, which has grown up around Galileo and his use of the telescope, is that he did something special in some sort of way to turn this relatively new invention into a scientific instrument usable for astronomical observations. He didn’t. The telescope that Galileo used to discover the Moons of Jupiter differed in no way either scientifically or technologically from the one that Hans Lipperhey demonstrated to the assembled prominence at the peace conference in Den Hague sometime between the 25thand 29thof September 1608. Lipperhey’s invention was even pointed at the night sky, “and even the stars which normally are not visible for us, because of the scanty proportion and feeble sight of our eyes, can be seen with this instrument.”[1]

Both instruments consisted of a tube with a biconvex or plano-convex objective lens at one end and a bi-concave or plano-concave eyepiece lens at the other end. The eyepiece lens also had a mask or stop to cut down the distortion caused around the edges of the lens. The only difference was in the focal lengths of the lenses used producing different magnitudes of magnification. Galileo’s use of other lenses to increase magnification was nothing special; it had been done earlier than Galileo by Thomas Harriot and at least contemporaneous if not earlier by Simon Marius. It was also done by numerous others, who constructed telescopes independently in those first few years of telescopic astronomical observation. The claims that Galileo had developed, improved, specialised, etc., etc., the telescope are merely mythological elements of the more general Galileo hagiography. Modern research has even revealed that contrary to his own claims Galileo probably did not (re)-construct the telescope purely from having heard reports about it but had almost certainly seen and handled one before he attempted to construct one himself.

Going back to the offending AEON essay, Sally Davies could have saved herself and Nir Sharfir if she had simply changed the sentence to:

The telescope was known in the Middle East after it was invented  in the late 16th early 17th century…(even I make mistakes)

What I intended to write before my brain threw a wobbly was:

The telescope was known in the Middle East after it was invented in late 1608…

 She doesn’t even need to mention Lipperhey’s name if she wants to avoid the on going debates about who really did invent the telescope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1]Embassies of the King of Siam Sent to His Excellency Prince Maurits, Arrived in The Hague on 10 September 1608

10 Comments

Filed under History of Astronomy, History of Optics, History of science, History of Technology, Myths of Science, Renaissance Science, Uncategorized