66

seen Porta's book in manuscript, and that it did at that time contain the assertion of Porta's title to the invention. After all it is not improbable that he may have derived his notions of magnifying distant objects from our celebrated countryman Roger Bacon, who died about the year 1300. He has been supposed, not without good grounds, to have been one of the first who recognised the use of single lenses in producing distinct vision, and he has some expressions with respect to their combination which promise effects analogous to those held out by Porta. In The Admirable Force of Art and Nature," he says, "Physical figurations are far more strange, for in such manner may we frame perspects and lookingglasses that one thing shall appear to be many, as one man shall seeme a whole armie; and divers sunnes and moones, yea, as many as we please, shall appeare at one time, &c. And so may the perspects be framed, that things most farre off may seeme most nigh unto us, and clean contrarie, soe that we may reade very small letters an incredible distance from us, and behold things how little soever they be, and make stars to appeare wheresoever we will, &c. And, besides all these, we may so frame perspects that any man entering into a house he shall indeed see gold, and silver, and precious stones, and what eise he will, but when he maketh haste to the place he shall find just nothing." It seems plain, that the author is here speaking solely of mirrors, and we must not too hastily draw the conclusion, because in the first and last of these assertions he is, to a certain extent, borne out by facts, that he therefore was in possession of a method of accomplishing the middle problem also. In the previous chapter, he gives a long list of notable things, (much in the style of the Marquis of Worcester's Century of Inventions) which if we can really persuade ourselves that he was capable of accomplishing, we must allow the present age to be still immeasurably inferior to him

scription thereof, cast by some of his freends of purpose, upon downes in open fields; but also, seuen miles off, declared what hath beene doone at that instant in priuate places. He hath also sundrie times, by the sunne beames, fired powder and dischargde ordnance halfe a mile and more distante; which things I am the boulder to report, for that there are yet living diverse (of these his dooings) occulati testes, (eye witnesses) and many other matters farre more strange and rare, which I omit as impertinent to this place."

We find another pretender to the honour of the discovery of the telescope in the celebrated Antonio de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, famous in the annals of optics for being one of the first to explain the theory of the rainbow. Montucla, following P. Boscovich, has scarcely done justice to De Dominis, whom he treats as a mere pretender and ignorant person. The indisposition of Boscovich towards him is sufficiently accounted for by the circumstance of his being a Catholic prelate who had embraced the cause of Protestantism. His nominal reconciliation with the Church of Rome would probably not have saved him from the stake, had not a natural death released him when imprisoned on that account at Rome. Judgment was pronounced upon him notwithstanding, and his body and books were publicly burnt in the Campo de' Fiori, in 1624. His treatise, De Radiis, (which is very rarely to be met with) was published by Bartolo after the acknowledged invention of the telescope by Galileo; but Bartolo tells us, in the preface, that the manuscript was communicated to him from a collection of papers written 20 years before, on his inquiring the Archbishop's opinion with respect to the newly discovered instrument, and that he got leave to publish it," with the addition of one or two chapters." The treatise contains a complete description of a telescope, which, however, is professed merely to be an improvement on spectacles, and if the author's intention had been to interpolate an afterwritten account, in order to secure to himself the undeserved honour of the invention, it seems improbable that he would have suffered an acknowledgment of additions, previous to publication, to be inserted in the preface. Besides, the whole tone of the work is that of a candid and truth-seeking philosopher, very far indeed removed from being, as Mon

tucla calls him, conspicuous for ignorance even among the ignorant men of his age. He gives a drawing of a convex and concave lens, and traces the passage of the rays through them; to which he subjoins, that he has not satisfied himself with any determination of the precise distance to which the glasses should be separated, according to their convexity and concavity, but recommends the proper distance to be found by actual experiment, and tells us, that the effect of the instrument will be to prevent the confusion arising from the interference of the direct and refracted rays, and to magnify the object by increasing the visible angle under which it is viewed. These, among the many claimants, are certainly the authors who approached the most nearly to the discovery: and the reader may judge, from the passages cited, whether the knowledge of the telescope can with probability be referred to a period earlier than the commencement of the 17th century. At all events, we can find no earlier trace of its being applied to any practical use; the knowlege, if it existed, remained speculative and barren.

In 1609, Galileo, then being on a visit to a friend at Venice, heard a rumour of the recent invention, by a Dutch spectacle-maker, of an instrument which was said to represent distant objects nearer than they usually appeared. According to his own account, this general rumour, which was confirmed to him by letters from Paris, was all that he learned on the subject; and returning to Padua, he immediately applied himself to consider the means by which such an effect could be produced. Fuccarius, in an abusive letter which he wrote on the subject, asserts that one of the Dutch telescopes had been at that time actually brought to Venice, and that he (Fuccarius) had seen it; which, even if true, is perfectly consistent with Galileo's statement; and in fact the question, whether or not Galileo saw the original instrument, becomes important only from his expressly asserting the contrary, and professing to give the train of reasoning by which he discovered its principle; so that any insinuation that he had actually seen the Dutch glass, becomes a direct impeachment of his veracity. It is certain, from the following extract of a letter from Lorenzo Pignoria to Paolo Gualdo, that one at least of the Dutch glasses had been sent to Italy. It is

dated Padua, 31st August, 1609.* "We have no news, except the return of His Serene Highness, and the reelection of the lecturers, among whom Sign. Galileo has contrived to get 1000 florins for life; and it is said to be on account of an eyeglass, like the one which was sent from Flanders to Cardinal Borghese. We have seen some here, and truly they succeed well."

It is allowed by every one that the Dutchman, or rather Zealander, made his discovery by mere accident, which greatly derogates from any honour attached to it; but even this diminished degree of credit has been fiercely disputed. According to one account, which appears consistent and probable, it had been made for sometime before its importance was in the slightest degree understood or appreciated, but was set up in the optician's shop as a curious philosophical toy, showing a large and inverted image of a weathercock, towards which it was directed. The Marquis Spinola, chancing to see it, was struck with the phenomenon, purchased the instrument, and presented it either to the Archduke Albert of Austria, or to Prince Maurice of Nassau, whose name appears in every version of the story, and who first entertained the idea of employing it in military reconnoissances.

Zacharias Jansen, and Henry Lipperhey, two spectacle-makers, living close to each other, near the church of Middleburg, have both had strenuous supporters of their title to the invention. A third pretender appeared afterwards in the person of James Metius of Alkmaer, who is mentioned by Huyghens and Des Cartes, but his claims rest upon no authority whatever comparable to that which supports the other two. About half a century afterwards, Borelli was at the pains to collect and publish a number of letters and depositions which he procured, as well on one side as on the other. It seems that the truth lies between them, and that one, probably Jansen, was the inventor of the microscope, which application of the principle was unquestionably of an earlier date, perhaps as far back as 1590. Jansen gave one of his microscopes to the Archduke, who gave it to Cornelius Drebbel, a salaried mathematician at the court of our James the first, where William Borelli (not the author above

Lettère d'Uomini illustri Venezia, 1744.
Borelli. De vero Telescopii inventore, 1655.

mentioned) saw it many years afterwards, when ambassador from the United Provinces to England, and got from Drebbel this account of the quarter whence it came. Lipperhey afterwards, in 1609, accidentally hit upon the telescope, and on the fame of this discovery it would not be difficult for Jansen, already in possession of an instrument so much resembling it, to perceive the slight difference between them, and to construct a telescope independently of Lipperhey, so that each, with some show of reason, might claim the priority of the invention. A notion of this kind reconciles the testimony of many conflicting witnesses on the subject, some of whom do not seem to distinguish very accurately whether the telescope or microscope is the instrument to which their evidence refers. Borelli arrives at the conclusion, that Jansen was the inventor; but not satisfied with this, he endeavours, with a glaring partiality which makes his former determination suspicious, to secure for him and his son the more solid reputation of having anticipated Galileo in the useful employment of the invention. He has however inserted in his collections a letter from John the son of Zacharias, in which John, omitting all mention of his father, speaks of his own observation of the satellites of Jupiter, evidently seeking to insinuate that they were earlier than Galileo's; and in this sense the letter has since been quoted,* although it appears from John's own deposition, preserved in the same collection, that at the time of their discovery he could not have been more than six years old. An oversight of this sort throws doubt on the whole of the pretended observations, and indeed the letter has much the air of being the production of a person imperfectly informed on the subject on which he writes, and probably was compiled to suit Borelli's purposes, which were to make Galileo's share in the invention appear as small as possible.

Galileo himself gives a very intelligible account of the process of reasoning, by which he detected the secret.— "I argued in the following manner. The contrivance consists either of one glass or of more—one is not sufficient, since it must be either convex, concave, or plane; the last does not produce any sensible alteration in objects, the concave diminishes them: it is true that the

• Encyclopædia Britannica. Art. TELESCOPE.

convex magnifies, but it renders them confused and indistinct; consequently, one glass is insufficient to produce the desired effect. Proceeding to consider two glasses, and bearing in mind that the plane glass causes no change, I determined that the instrument could not consist of the combination of a plane glass with either of the other two. I therefore applied myself to make experiments on combinations of the two other kinds, and thus obtained that of which I was in search." It has been urged against Galileo that, if he really invented the telescope on theoretical principles, the same theory ought at once to have conducted him to a more perfect instrument than that which he at first constructed; but it is plain, from this statement, that he does not profess to have theorized beyond the determination of the species of glass which he should employ in his experiments, and the rest of his operations he avows to have been purely empirical. Besides, we must take into account the difficulty of grinding the glasses, particularly when fit tools were yet to be made, and something must be attributed to Galileo's eagerness to bring his results to the test of actual experiment, without waiting for that improvement which a longer delay might and did suggest. Galileo's language bears a resemblance to the first passage which we quoted from Baptista Porta, sufficiently close to make it not improbable that he might be as sisted in his inquiries by some recollection of it, and the same passage seems, in like manner, to have recurred to the mind of Kepler, as soon as he heard of the invention. Galileo's telescope consisted of a plano-convex and plano-concave lens, the latter nearest the eye, distant from each other by the difference of their focal lengths, being, in principle, exactly the same with the modern opera-glass. He seems to have thought that the Dutch glass was the same, but this could not be the case, if the above quoted particular of the inverted weathercock, which belongs to most traditions of the story, be correct; because it is the peculiarity of this kind of telescope not to invert objects, and we should be thus furnished with a demonstrative proof of the falsehood of Fuccarius's insinuation: in that case the Dutch glass must have been similar to what was afterwards called the astronomical telescope, consisting of two

• Ibid.