1of us to lament foreigners'lack of reverence towards Galileo; none of them has
reached the point of one Italian who seemed to have taken upon himself the
wretched task of stripping all he could of the laurels that embrace the im
mortal brow of the restorer of the experimental method and in some ponderous
volumes in which he set himself to weave its history, he has spared no low
insult nor poisonous insinuation to damage the dead in order to spite the
living”! The rest is in the same tone. I think I can identify in this harsh
accusation the echo of much of the criticism and even of the charges which
were brought against the incautious rapporteur of the Committee for the
Tomasoni Prize instituted so few years after the breach of Porta Pia and
destined “to whomsoever shall better tell the history of the experimental method
in Italy,” certainly presuming that the new atmosphere would lead to a freer,
more open condemnation of the old obscurantism.
reached the point of one Italian who seemed to have taken upon himself the
wretched task of stripping all he could of the laurels that embrace the im
mortal brow of the restorer of the experimental method and in some ponderous
volumes in which he set himself to weave its history, he has spared no low
insult nor poisonous insinuation to damage the dead in order to spite the
living”! The rest is in the same tone. I think I can identify in this harsh
accusation the echo of much of the criticism and even of the charges which
were brought against the incautious rapporteur of the Committee for the
Tomasoni Prize instituted so few years after the breach of Porta Pia and
destined “to whomsoever shall better tell the history of the experimental method
in Italy,” certainly presuming that the new atmosphere would lead to a freer,
more open condemnation of the old obscurantism.
The news that the winner was a parish priest from some little hill town in
Tuscany must have aroused much disappointment and not a little annoyance!
But actually Favaro and his accusers were not altogether wrong. Giovannozzi,
who has been the only defender of Caverni, also admits that “Strange and
almost incredible, there seems to linger in all this work an anti-Galilean spirit;
a subtle irony pervades it now and then, the intent to make use of every
opportunity to strip the laurels of the great old man of Arcetri, a frenzy to find
him at fault, to diminish his merits in order to attribute them to others, to
accuse him of having wanted to appropriate them all for himself.” He does
attempt, timidly, an explanation: “Who knows? Perhaps he wanted to guard
against an excessive admiration or idolatry and ended up falling into the
opposite defect.” And he seems to abstain from an all-out defense almost as
though afraid of being more damaging than useful to his friend and teacher.
The reasons justifying Caverni only in part, but which do explain his behavior
as that of a man of terrible, albeit resolute character rather than that of a
factious priest as Timpanaro would have him,
are also mentioned fleetingly
by Giovannozzi. There are three main ones. The recommendation of the
Committee that he mitigate his opinion of Galileo must have vexed Caverni
greatly; he must have felt that they had not tried to understand his labors.
Second, he was immediately reminded that he had to publish the whole work
at his own expense in order to have the prize, according to the instructions of
the testator who certainly had not imagined that publication would have meant
an expense far surpassing the amount of the prize. And last, he was profoundly
embittered and disappointed by the news that reached him shortly after he
learned of the prize thus conditioned, that his name had been excluded from the
committee for the monumental Galilean edition. This certainly was not
Tuscany must have aroused much disappointment and not a little annoyance!
But actually Favaro and his accusers were not altogether wrong. Giovannozzi,
who has been the only defender of Caverni, also admits that “Strange and
almost incredible, there seems to linger in all this work an anti-Galilean spirit;
a subtle irony pervades it now and then, the intent to make use of every
opportunity to strip the laurels of the great old man of Arcetri, a frenzy to find
him at fault, to diminish his merits in order to attribute them to others, to
accuse him of having wanted to appropriate them all for himself.” He does
attempt, timidly, an explanation: “Who knows? Perhaps he wanted to guard
against an excessive admiration or idolatry and ended up falling into the
opposite defect.” And he seems to abstain from an all-out defense almost as
though afraid of being more damaging than useful to his friend and teacher.
The reasons justifying Caverni only in part, but which do explain his behavior
as that of a man of terrible, albeit resolute character rather than that of a
factious priest as Timpanaro would have him,
are also mentioned fleetingly
by Giovannozzi. There are three main ones. The recommendation of the
Committee that he mitigate his opinion of Galileo must have vexed Caverni
greatly; he must have felt that they had not tried to understand his labors.
Second, he was immediately reminded that he had to publish the whole work
at his own expense in order to have the prize, according to the instructions of
the testator who certainly had not imagined that publication would have meant
an expense far surpassing the amount of the prize. And last, he was profoundly
embittered and disappointed by the news that reached him shortly after he
learned of the prize thus conditioned, that his name had been excluded from the
committee for the monumental Galilean edition. This certainly was not