The Sleepwalkers (287 page)

3

Letters
on
Sunspots
,
Third
Letter,
1612,
transl.
Stillman
Drake
,
op.
cit.,
p.
126
f.

4

About
this
hilarious
chapter
of
science-mythology,
see
Lane
Cooper,
Aristotle,
Galileo
and
the
Tower
of
Pisa
,
Ithaca,
1935.

5

Zinner,
op. cit., p. 346.

6

This
episode
was
a
typically
Keplerian
comedy
of
errors.
On
28
May,
1607,
Kepler
had
observed
the
sun
through
a
kind
of
improvised
camera
obscura
.
It
consisted
in
narrow
gaps
between
the
shingles
on
the
roof
of
his
house
in
Prague.
The
gaps
let
the
rain
into
the
attic,
but
each
gap
deputised
for
the
aperture
of
a
(lenseless)
camera;
by
holding
a
sheet
of
paper
under
the
slit,
Kepler
obtained
a
projected
image
of
the
sun.
On
that
particular
day
he
observed
on
the
projected
disc
of
the
sun
"a
small,
almost
black
dot,
approximately
like
a
meagre
flea".
When
he
brought
the
paper
closer
to
the
gap,
thus
enlarging
the
disc
to
the
size
of
his
palm,
the
spot
grew
to
the
size
of
"a
small
mouse".
Kepler
was
convinced
that
the
spot
was
the
shadow
of
Mercury,
and
that
he
was
observing
a
transit
of
that
planet
across
the
disc
of
the
sun.
He
raced
up
the
Hradshin
to
the
Emperor's
palace,
and
conveyed
the
news
by
way
of
a
flunkey
to
Rudolph;
raced
down
again,
induced
several
people
to
convince
themselves
of
the
existence
of
the
black
dot
and
to
sign
documents
testifying
to
it,
and
in
1609
published
a
treatise
on
the
event:
Mercurius
in
Sole.

7

Il
Saggiatore, quoted by Zinner, p. 362.

8

Letters
on
Sunspots
,
transl.
Stillman
Drake,
op.
cit.,
p.
100.

8

Ibid.,
p. 113 f
.

9

Ibid.,
p. 144
.

10

"Conti
to
Galileo,
7.7.1612".
Quoted
by
G.
de
Santillana,
The
Crime
of
Galileo
,
Chicago,
1955,
p.
27
f.

11

Opere,
XI
,
427,
quoted
by
Stillman
Drake,
p.
146
f.
A
number
of
historians
(including,
recently,
Professor
de
Santillana)
have
tried
to
lend
this
incident
more
weight
by
stating
that
Lorini
had
preached
a
public
sermon
against
Galileo.
But
had
he
done
so
("on
All
Souls'
Day",
as
Santillana
says),
it
would
be
fantastic
to
assume
that
he
could
have
denied
the
fact
in
writing;
besides,
Galileo
himself
says
that
the
incident
occurred
"in
private
discussion".
(
Opere
V
,
291,
quoted
by
Drake,
p.
147
n.)

12

Opere,
XI
,
p.
605
f.;
quoted
by
Drake,
p.
151
f.

13

Transl.
Drake, op. cit., p. 175.

14

Ibid.,
pp. 181-3
.

15

Ibid.,
p. 192 f
.

16

Ibid.,
p. 194
.

17

Ibid.,
p. 194 f
.

18

Ibid.,
p. 213
.

19

10.1.1615.
Quoted by Gebler, op. cit., p. 52.

20

Opere,
XII
,
p.
123.
Quoted
by
Drake,
p.
155.

21

Transl.
Santillana, op. cit., p. 45 f.

21a

Gebler,
op. cit., p. 53.

22

He
maintained,
i.a.,
"that
Christ
was
not
God,
merely
an
unusually
skilled
magician
...
and
that
the
Devil
will
be
saved."
(Catholic
Encyclopaedia
on
Bruno.)

22a

It
is
surprising
to
note
how
indifferently
scholars
reacted
to
Bruno's
martyrdom,
at
any
rate
in
Germany.
This
is
illustrated
by
Kepler's
voluminous
correspondence,
in
which
every
subject
under
the
sky
is
discussed,
but
Bruno
is
hardly
mentioned.
One
of
Kepler's
favourite
pen-friends
during
his
Prague
period
was
the
physician
Brengger
in
Kaltbeuren,
a
man
of
great
erudition
and
a
wide
range
of
interests.
In
a
letter
dated
1
September,
1607,
Brengger
mentioned
in
passing
the
theory
of
"Jordano
Bruno
of
Nola"
about
the
plurality
of
worlds.
This
was
nearly
eight
years
after
Bruno
had
been
executed,
but
Brengger
was
evidently
unaware
of
the
fact.
Kepler
answered
(on
30
November,
1607)
that
"not
only
the
unfortunate
Bruno,
who
was
roasted
on
coals
in
Rome
,
but
my
venerated
Tycho
too
believed
that
the
stars
are
inhabited."
(He
actually
committed
one
of
his
dreadful
puns:
"...
infelix
ille
Prunus
prunis
tostus
Romae.
")
In
his
next
letter
(
7
March,
1608)
Brengger
wrote:
"You
say
that
Jordano
Bruno
was
roasted
on
coals,
from
which
I
gather
that
he
was
burnt",
and
inquired
why
this
had
been
done:
"I
pity
the
man."
Kepler
answered
(on
5
April):
"That
Bruno
was
burnt
in
Rome
I
learnt
from
Master
Wackher;
he
suffered
his
fate
steadfastly.
He
had
asserted
the
vanity
of
all
religions
and
had
substituted
circles
and
points
for
God."
Brengger
concluded
that
Bruno
must
have
been
insane
and
wondered
where
his
fortitude
had
come
from
if
he
denied
God
(
25
May,
1608).
This,
then,
was
the
comment
of
two
contemporary
scholars
on
the
burning
alive
of
Giordano
Bruno.
(G.
W.,
Vol.
XVI,
pp.
39,
116,
142,
166.)