Review of Eileen Reeves, Galileo’s glassworks: the telescope and the mirror

S. Dupré

Review of Eileen Reeves, Galileo’s glassworks: the telescope and the mirror

S. Dupré

Ghent University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Book/Film/Article review › Professional

Abstract

Galileo’s glassworks: the telescope and the mirror

Original language	Undefined/Unknown
Pages (from-to)	928-929
Number of pages	2
Journal	Renaissance Quarterly
Volume	61
Publication status	Published - 2008
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

The earliest encounters with the telescope, from the first application for a
privilege by a spectacle-maker in Middelburg in September 1608 to the printing
of the first celestial observations with this instrument in Galileo’s Sidereus Nuncius
in Venice in March 1610, have been construed in terms of breathtaking speed.
Historians have marveled at the speed with which the instrument spread from
Middelburg across Europe (for which the contingent fact of the whole world’s
having gathered in its place of invention, the Netherlands, for a peace conference
was helpful); at the speed with which Galileo rushed in to publication of his
telescopic discoveries; and, finally, at the speed with which he continued his
telescopic observations — not to speak of his unwillingness to share his telescopes
with other astronomers — even after the publication of Sidereus Nuncius in order
to monopolize all celestial discoveries yet to make. Nevertheless, as we all know too
well, nothing travels as fast as rumors and gossip. This fastness is precisely at the
root of the tardiness with which Galileo reacted to the invention of the telescope,
as Eileen Reeves argues in her newest book, Galileo’s Glassworks. Reeves establishes
that Galileo and his friend, Paolo Sarpi, already knew of the existence of the
telescope by November 1608. But it was months before they were moved to action
and tried to replicate the Dutch invention. Why? Reeves is not interested in sorting
out the mere rumors from the hard historical facts. The strength of her approach
in accounting for Galileo’s reluctance to become involved in the route that would
bring him fame is that she convincingly shows that the miscontrual of historical
events and facts, inherent in the circulation of gossip and rumors, shaped the
thoughts and beliefs about the telescope that were the cause of Galileo’s otherwise
strange idleness. The central argument of Reeves’s book is that Galileo let time pass
because he had every reason to believe that the new story was but an old tale. He
was convinced that a mirror was involved in the Dutch telescope.

Access to Document

Ren
Open Access (free)
Final published version, 45.3 KB

Cite this

@article{2ad3555013e04dbcb18d363694532089,

title = "Review of Eileen Reeves, Galileo{\textquoteright}s glassworks: the telescope and the mirror",

abstract = "Galileo{\textquoteright}s glassworks: the telescope and the mirror",

author = "S. Dupr{\'e}",

note = "The earliest encounters with the telescope, from the first application for a privilege by a spectacle-maker in Middelburg in September 1608 to the printing of the first celestial observations with this instrument in Galileo{\textquoteright}s Sidereus Nuncius in Venice in March 1610, have been construed in terms of breathtaking speed. Historians have marveled at the speed with which the instrument spread from Middelburg across Europe (for which the contingent fact of the whole world{\textquoteright}s having gathered in its place of invention, the Netherlands, for a peace conference was helpful); at the speed with which Galileo rushed in to publication of his telescopic discoveries; and, finally, at the speed with which he continued his telescopic observations — not to speak of his unwillingness to share his telescopes with other astronomers — even after the publication of Sidereus Nuncius in order to monopolize all celestial discoveries yet to make. Nevertheless, as we all know too well, nothing travels as fast as rumors and gossip. This fastness is precisely at the root of the tardiness with which Galileo reacted to the invention of the telescope, as Eileen Reeves argues in her newest book, Galileo{\textquoteright}s Glassworks. Reeves establishes that Galileo and his friend, Paolo Sarpi, already knew of the existence of the telescope by November 1608. But it was months before they were moved to action and tried to replicate the Dutch invention. Why? Reeves is not interested in sorting out the mere rumors from the hard historical facts. The strength of her approach in accounting for Galileo{\textquoteright}s reluctance to become involved in the route that would bring him fame is that she convincingly shows that the miscontrual of historical events and facts, inherent in the circulation of gossip and rumors, shaped the thoughts and beliefs about the telescope that were the cause of Galileo{\textquoteright}s otherwise strange idleness. The central argument of Reeves{\textquoteright}s book is that Galileo let time pass because he had every reason to believe that the new story was but an old tale. He was convinced that a mirror was involved in the Dutch telescope.",

year = "2008",

language = "Undefined/Unknown",

volume = "61",

pages = "928--929",

journal = "Renaissance Quarterly",

issn = "0034-4338",

publisher = "University of Chicago Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Review of Eileen Reeves, Galileo’s glassworks: the telescope and the mirror

AU - Dupré, S.

N1 - The earliest encounters with the telescope, from the first application for a privilege by a spectacle-maker in Middelburg in September 1608 to the printing of the first celestial observations with this instrument in Galileo’s Sidereus Nuncius in Venice in March 1610, have been construed in terms of breathtaking speed. Historians have marveled at the speed with which the instrument spread from Middelburg across Europe (for which the contingent fact of the whole world’s having gathered in its place of invention, the Netherlands, for a peace conference was helpful); at the speed with which Galileo rushed in to publication of his telescopic discoveries; and, finally, at the speed with which he continued his telescopic observations — not to speak of his unwillingness to share his telescopes with other astronomers — even after the publication of Sidereus Nuncius in order to monopolize all celestial discoveries yet to make. Nevertheless, as we all know too well, nothing travels as fast as rumors and gossip. This fastness is precisely at the root of the tardiness with which Galileo reacted to the invention of the telescope, as Eileen Reeves argues in her newest book, Galileo’s Glassworks. Reeves establishes that Galileo and his friend, Paolo Sarpi, already knew of the existence of the telescope by November 1608. But it was months before they were moved to action and tried to replicate the Dutch invention. Why? Reeves is not interested in sorting out the mere rumors from the hard historical facts. The strength of her approach in accounting for Galileo’s reluctance to become involved in the route that would bring him fame is that she convincingly shows that the miscontrual of historical events and facts, inherent in the circulation of gossip and rumors, shaped the thoughts and beliefs about the telescope that were the cause of Galileo’s otherwise strange idleness. The central argument of Reeves’s book is that Galileo let time pass because he had every reason to believe that the new story was but an old tale. He was convinced that a mirror was involved in the Dutch telescope.

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - Galileo’s glassworks: the telescope and the mirror

AB - Galileo’s glassworks: the telescope and the mirror

M3 - Book/Film/Article review

SN - 0034-4338

VL - 61

SP - 928

EP - 929

JO - Renaissance Quarterly

JF - Renaissance Quarterly

ER -