Spots on the Sun—Essay on Floating Bodies—Scheiner—Change in Saturn.

Galileo did not indulge the curiosity of his Roman friends by exhibiting only the wonders already mentioned, which now began to lose the gloss of novelty, but disclosed a new discovery, which appeared still more extraordinary, and, to the opposite faction, more hateful than anything of which he had yet spoken. This was the discovery, which he first made in the month of March, 1611, of dark spots on the body of the sun. A curious fact, and one which well serves to illustrate Galileo's superiority in seeing things simply as they are, is, that these spots had been observed and recorded centuries before he existed, but, for want of careful observation, their true nature had been constantly misapprehended. One of the most celebrated occasions was in the year 807 of our era, in which a dark spot is mentioned as visible on the face of the sun during seven or eight days. It was then supposed to be Mercury.[67] Kepler, whose astronomical knowledge would not suffer him to overlook that it was impossible that Mercury could remain so long in conjunction with the sun, preferred to solve the difficulty by supposing that, in Aimoin's original account, the expression was not octo dies (eight days), but octoties—a barbarous word, which he supposed to have been written for octies (eight times); and that the other accounts (in which the number of days mentioned is different) copying loosely from the first, had both mistaken the word, and misquoted the time which they thought they found mentioned there. It is impossible to look on this explanation as satisfactory, but Kepler, who at that time did not dream of spots on the sun, was perfectly contented with it. In 1609, he himself observed upon the sun a black spot, which he in like manner mistook for Mercury, and unluckily the day, being cloudy, did not allow him to contemplate it sufficiently long to discover his error, which the slowness of its apparent motion would soon have pointed out.[68] He hastened to publish his supposed observation, but no sooner was Galileo's discovery of the solar spots announced, than he, with that candour which as much as his flighty disposition certainly characterized him at all times, retracted his former opinion, and owned his belief that he had been mistaken. In fact it is known from the more accurate theory which we now possess of Mercury's motions, that it did not pass over the sun's face at the time when Kepler thought he perceived it there.

Galileo's observations were in their consequences to him particularly unfortunate, as in the course of the controversy in which they engaged him, he first became personally embroiled with the powerful party, whose prevailing influence was one of the chief causes of his subsequent misfortunes. Before we enter upon that discussion, it will be proper to mention another famous treatise which Galileo produced soon after his return from Rome to Florence, in 1612. This is, his Discourse on Floating Bodies, which restored Archimedes' theory of hydrostatics, and has, of course, met with the opposition which few of Galileo's works failed to encounter. In the commencement, he thought it necessary to apologize for writing on a subject so different from that which chiefly occupied the public attention, and declared that he had been too closely occupied in calculating the periods of the revolutions of Jupiter's satellites to permit him to publish anything earlier. These periods he had succeeded in determining during the preceding year, whilst at Rome, and he now announced them to complete their circuits, the first in about 1 day, 18½ hours; the second in 3 days, 13 hours, 20 minutes; the third in 7 days, 4 hours; and the outermost in 16 days, 18 hours. All these numbers he gave merely as approximately true, and promised to continue his observations, for the purpose of correcting the results. He then adds an announcement of his recent discovery of the solar spots, "which, as they change their situation, offer a strong argument, either that the sun revolves on itself, or that, perhaps, other stars, like Venus and Mercury, revolve about it, invisible at all other times, on account of the small distance to which they are removed from him." To this he afterwards subjoined, that, by continued observation, he had satisfied himself that these solar spots were in actual contact with the surface of the sun, where they are continually appearing and disappearing; that their figures were very irregular, some being very dark, and others not so black; that one would often divide into three or four, and, at other times, two, three, or more would unite into one; besides which, that they had all a common and regular motion, with which they revolved round with the sun, which turned upon its axis in about the time of a lunar month.

Having by these prefatory observations assuaged the public thirst for astronomical novelties, he ventures to introduce the principal subject of the treatise above mentioned. The question of floating bridges had been discussed at one of the scientific parties, assembled at the house of Galileo's friend Salviati, and the general opinion of the company appearing to be that the floating or sinking of a body depended principally upon its shape, Galileo undertook to convince them of their error. If he had not preferred more direct arguments, he might merely have told them that in this instance they were opposed to their favourite Aristotle, whose words are very unequivocal on the point in dispute. "Form is not the cause why a body moves downwards rather than upwards, but it does affect the swiftness with which it moves;"[69] which is exactly the distinction which those who called themselves Aristotelians were unable to perceive, and to which the opinions of Aristotle himself were not always true. Galileo states the discussion to have immediately arisen from the assertion of some one in the company, that condensation is the effect of cold, and ice was mentioned as an instance. On this, Galileo observed, that ice is rather water rarefied than condensed, the proof of which is, that ice always floats upon water.[70] It was replied, that the reason of this phenomenon was, not the superior lightness of the ice, but its incapacity, owing to its flat shape, to penetrate and overcome the resistance of the water. Galileo denied this, and asserted that ice of any shape would float upon water, and that, if a flat piece of ice were forcibly taken to the bottom, it would of itself rise again to the surface. Upon this assertion it appears that the conversation became so clamorous, that Galileo thought it pertinent to commence his Essay with the following observation on the advantage of delivering scientific opinions in writing, "because in conversational arguments, either one or other party, or perhaps both, are apt to get overwarm, and to speak overloud, and either do not suffer each other to be heard, or else, transported with the obstinacy of not yielding, wander far away from the original proposition, and confound both themselves and their auditors with the novelty and variety of their assertions." After this gentle rebuke he proceeds with his argument, in which he takes occasion to state the famous hydrostatical paradox, of which the earliest notice is to be found in Stevin's works, a contemporary Flemish engineer, and refers it to a principle on which we shall enlarge in another chapter. He then explains the true theory of buoyancy, and refutes the false reasoning on which the contrary opinions were founded, with a variety of experiments.

The whole value and interest of experimental processes generally depends on a variety of minute circumstances, the detail of which would be particularly unsuited to a sketch like the present one. For those who are desirous of becoming more familiar with Galileo's mode of conducting an argument, it is fortunate that such a series of experiments exists as that contained in this essay; experiments which, from their simplicity, admit of being for the most part concisely enumerated, and at the same time possess so much intrinsic beauty and characteristic power of forcing conviction. They also present an admirable specimen of the talent for which Galileo was so deservedly famous, of inventing ingenious arguments in favour of his adversaries' absurd opinions before he condescended to crush them, shewing that nothing but his love of truth stood in the way of his being a more subtle sophist than any amongst them. In addition to these reasons for giving these experiments somewhat in detail, is the fact that all explanation of one of the principal phenomena to which they allude is omitted in many more modern treatises on Hydrostatics; and in some it is referred precisely to the false doctrines here confuted.

The marrow of the dispute is included in Galileo's assertion, that "The diversity of figure given to any solid cannot be in any way the cause of its absolutely sinking or floating; so that if a solid, when formed for example into a spherical figure, sinks or floats in the water, the same body will sink or float in the same water, when put into any other form. The breadth of the figure may indeed retard its velocity, as well of ascent as descent, and more and more according as the said figure is reduced to a greater breadth and thinness; but that it may be reduced to such a form as absolutely to put an end to its motion in the same fluid, I hold to be impossible. In this I have met with great contradictors who, producing some experiments, and in particular a thin board of ebony, and a ball of the same wood, and shewing that the ball in water sinks to the bottom,[71] and that the board if put lightly on the surface floats, have held and confirmed themselves in their opinion with the authority of Aristotle, that the cause of that rest is the breadth of the figure, unable by its small weight to pierce and penetrate the resistance of the water's thickness, which is readily overcome by the other spherical figure."—For the purpose of these experiments, Galileo recommends a substance such as wax, which may be easily moulded into any shape, and with which, by the addition of a few filings of lead, a substance may be readily made of any required specific gravity. He then declares that if a ball of wax of the size of an orange, or bigger, be made in this manner heavy enough to sink to the bottom, but so lightly that if we take from it only one grain of lead it returns to the top; and if the same wax be afterwards moulded into a broad and thin cake, or into any other figure, regular or irregular, the addition of the same grain of lead will always make it sink, and it will again rise when we remove the lead from it.—"But methinks I hear some of the adversaries raise a doubt upon my produced experiment: and, first, they offer to my consideration that the figure, as a figure simply, and disjunct from the matter, works no effect, but requires to be conjoined with the matter; and, moreover, not with every matter, but with those only wherewith it may be able to execute the desired operation. Just as we see by experience that an acute and sharp angle is more apt to cut than an obtuse; yet always provided that both one and the other are joined with a matter fit to cut, as for instance, steel. Therefore a knife with a fine and sharp edge cuts bread or wood with much ease, which it will not do if the edge be blunt and thick; but if, instead of steel, any one will take wax and mould it into a knife, undoubtedly he will never learn the effects of sharp and blunt edges, because neither of them will cut; the wax being unable, by reason of its flexibility, to overcome the hardness of the wood and bread. And therefore, applying the like discourse to our argument, they say that the difference of figure will shew different effects with regard to floating and sinking, but not conjoined with any kind of matter, but only with those matters which by their weight are able to overcome the viscosity of the water (like the ebony which they have selected); and he that will select cork or other light wood to form solids of different figures, would in vain seek to find out what operation figure has in sinking or floating, because all would swim, and that not through any property of this or that figure, but through the debility of the matter.

"When I begin to examine one by one all the particulars here produced, I allow not only that figures, simply as such, do not operate in natural things, but also that they are never separated from the corporeal substance, nor have I ever alleged them to be stript of sensible matter: and also I freely admit, that in our endeavours to examine the diversity of accidents which depend upon the variety of figures, it is necessary to apply them to matters which obstruct not the various operations of those various figures. I admit and grant that I should do very ill if I were to try the influence of a sharp edge with a knife of wax, applying it to cut an oak, because no sharpness in wax is able to cut that very hard wood. But yet, such an experiment of this knife would not be beside the purpose to cut curded milk, or other very yielding matter; nay, in such matters, the wax is more convenient than steel for finding the difference depending on the acuteness of the angles, because milk is cut indifferently with a razor, or a blunt knife. We must therefore have regard not only to the hardness, solidity, or weight of the bodies which, under different figures, are to divide some matters asunder; but also, on the other hand, to the resistance of the matter to be penetrated. And, since I have chosen a matter which does penetrate the resistance of the water, and in all figures descends to the bottom, my antagonists can charge me with no defect; nor (to revert to their illustration) have I attempted to test the efficacy of acuteness by cutting with matters unable to cut. I subjoin withal, that all caution, distinction, and election of matter would be superfluous and unnecessary, if the body to be cut should not at all resist the cutting: if the knife were to be used in cutting a mist, or smoke, one of paper would serve the purpose as well as one of Damascus steel; and I assert that this is the case with water, and that there is not any solid of such lightness or of such a figure, that being put on the water it will not divide and penetrate its thickness; and if you will examine more carefully your thin boards of wood, you will see that they have part of their thickness under water; and, moreover, you will see that the shavings of ebony, stone, or metal, when they float, have not only thus broken the continuity of the water, but are with all their thickness under the surface of it; and that more and more, according as the floating substance is heavier, so that a thin floating plate of lead will be lower than the surface of the surrounding water by at least twelve times the thickness of the plate, and gold will dive below the level of the water almost twenty times the thickness of the plate, as I shall shew presently."

In order to illustrate more clearly the non-resistance of water to penetration, Galileo then directs a cone to be made of wood or wax, and asserts that when it floats, either with its base or point in the water, the solid content of the part immersed will be the same, although the point is, by its shape, better adapted to overcome the resistance of the water to division, if that were the cause of the buoyancy. Or the experiment may be varied by tempering the wax with filings of lead, till it sinks in the water, when it will be found that in any figure the same cork must be added to it to raise it to the surface.—"This silences not my antagonists; but they say that all the discourse hitherto made by me imports little to them, and that it serves their turn, that they have demonstrated in one instance, and in such manner and figure as pleases them best, namely, in a board and a ball of ebony, that one, when put into the water, sinks to the bottom, and that the other stays to swim at the top; and the matter being the same, and the two bodies differing in nothing but in figure, they affirm that with all perspicuity they have demonstrated and sensibly manifested what they undertook. Nevertheless I believe, and think I can prove that this very experiment proves nothing against my theory. And first it is false that the ball sinks, and the board not; for the board will sink too, if you do to both the figures as the words of our question require; that is, if you put them both in the water; for to be in the water implies to be placed in the water, and by Aristotle's own definition of place, to be placed imports to be environed by the surface of the ambient body; but when my antagonists shew the floating board of ebony, they put it not into the water, but upon the water; where, being detained by a certain impediment (of which more anon) it is surrounded, partly with water, partly with air, which is contrary to our agreement, for that was that the bodies should be in the water, and not part in the water, part in the air. I will not omit another reason, founded also upon experience, and, if I deceive not myself, conclusive against the notion that figure, and the resistance of the water to penetration have anything to do with the buoyancy of bodies. Choose a piece of wood or other matter, as for instance walnut-wood, of which a ball rises from the bottom of the water to the surface more slowly than a ball of ebony of the same size sinks, so that clearly the ball of ebony divides the water more readily in sinking than does the walnut in rising. Then take a board of walnut-tree equal to and like the floating ebony one of my antagonists; and if it be true that this latter floats by reason of the figure being unable to penetrate the water, the other of walnut-tree, without all question, if thrust to the bottom ought to stay there, as having the same impeding figure, and being less apt to overcome the said resistance of the water. But if we find by experience that not only the thin board, but every other figure of the same walnut-tree will return to float, as unquestionably we shall, then I must desire my opponents to forbear to attribute the floating of the ebony to the figure of the board, since the resistance of the water is the same in rising as in sinking, and the force of ascension of the walnut-tree is less than the ebony's force for going to the bottom.

"Now, let us return to the thin plate of gold or silver, or the thin board of ebony, and let us lay it lightly upon the water, so that it may stay there without sinking, and carefully observe the effect. It will appear clearly that the plates are a considerable matter lower than the surface of the water which rises up, and makes a kind of rampart round them on every side, in the manner shewn in the annexed figure, in which BDLF represents the surface of the water, and AEIO the surface of the plate. But if it have already penetrated and overcome the continuity of the water, and is of its own nature heavier than the water, why does it not continue to sink, but stop and suspend itself in that little dimple that its weight has made in the water? My answer is, because in sinking till its surface is below the water which rises up in a bank round it, it draws after and carries along with it the air above it, so that that which in this case descends and is placed in the water, is not only the board of ebony or plate of iron, but a compound of ebony and air, from which composition results a solid no longer specifically heavier than the water, as was the ebony or gold alone. But, Gentlemen, we want the same matter; you are to alter nothing but the shape, and therefore have the goodness to remove this air, which may be done simply by washing the upper surface of the board, for the water having once got between the board and air will run together, and the ebony will go to the bottom; and if it does not, you have won the day. But methinks I hear some of my antagonists cunningly opposing this, and telling me that they will not on any account allow their board to be wetted, because the weight of the water so added, by making it heavier than it was before, draws it to the bottom, and that the addition of new weight is contrary to our agreement, which was that the matter should be the same."

"To this I answer first, that nobody can suppose bodies to be put into the water without their being wet, nor do I wish to do more to the board than you may do to the ball. Moreover, it is not true that the board sinks on account of the weight of the water added in the washing; for I will put ten or twenty drops on the floating board, and so long as they stand separate it shall not sink; but if the board be taken out, and all that water wiped off, and the whole surface bathed with one single drop, and put it again upon the water, there is no question but it will sink, the other water running to cover it, being no longer hindered by the air. In the next place it is altogether false that water can in any way increase the weight of bodies immersed in it, for water has no weight in water, since it does not sink. Now, just as he who should say that brass by its own nature sinks, but that when formed into the shape of a kettle, it acquires from that figure a virtue of lying in the water without sinking, would say what is false, because that is not purely brass which then is put into the water, but a compound of brass and air; so is it neither more nor less false, that a thin plate of brass or ebony swims by virtue of its dilated and broad figure. Also I cannot omit to tell my opponents, that this conceit of refusing to bathe the surface of the board, might beget an opinion in a third person of a poverty of arguments on their side, especially as the conversation began about flakes of ice, in which it would be simple to require that the surfaces should be kept dry; not to mention that such pieces of ice, whether wet or dry, always float, and as my antagonists say, because of their shape.

"Some may wonder that I affirm this power to be in the air of keeping the plate of brass or silver above water, as if in a certain sense I would attribute to the air a kind of magnetic virtue for sustaining heavy bodies with which it is in contact. To satisfy all these doubts, I have contrived the following experiment to demonstrate how truly the air does support these solids; for I have found, when one of these bodies which floats when placed lightly on the water, is thoroughly bathed and sunk to the bottom, that by carrying down to it a little air without otherwise touching it in the least, I am able to raise and carry it back to the top, where it floats as before. To this effect I take a ball of wax, and with a little lead make it just heavy enough to sink very slowly to the bottom, taking care that its surface be quite smooth and even. This, if put gently into the water, submerges almost entirely, there remaining visible only a little of the very top, which, so long as it is joined to the air, keeps the ball afloat; but if we take away the contact of the air by wetting this top, the ball sinks to the bottom, and remains there. Now to make it return to the surface by virtue of the air which before sustained it, thrust into the water a glass, with the mouth downwards, which will carry with it the air it contains; and move this down towards the ball, until you see by the transparency of the glass that the air has reached the top of it; then gently draw the glass upwards, and you will see the ball rise, and afterwards stay on the top of the water, if you carefully part the glass and water without too much disturbing it.[72] There is therefore a certain affinity between the air and other bodies, which holds them united, so that they separate not without a kind of violence, just as between water and other bodies; for in drawing them wholly out of the water, we see the water follow them, and rise sensibly above the level before it quits them." Having established this principle by this exceedingly ingenious and convincing experiment, Galileo proceeds to shew from it what must be the dimensions of a plate of any substance which will float as the wax does, assuming in each case that we know the greatest height at which the rampart of water will stand round it. In like manner he shows that a pyramidal or conical figure may be made of any substance, such that by help of the air, it shall rest upon the water without wetting more than its base; and that we may so form a cone of any substance that it shall float if placed gently on the surface, with its point downwards, whereas no care or pains will enable it to float with its base downwards, owing to the different proportions of air which in the two positions remain connected with it. With this parting blow at his antagonist's theory we close our extracts from this admirable essay.

The first elements of the theory of running waters were reserved for Castelli, an intimate friend and pupil of Galileo. On the present occasion, Castelli appeared as the ostensible author of a defence against the attacks made by Vincenzio di Grazia and by Lodovico delle Columbe (the author of the crystalline composition of the moon) on the obnoxious theory. After destroying all the objections which they produced, the writer tauntingly bids them remember, that he was merely Galileo's pupil, and consider how much more effectually Galileo himself would have confuted them, had he thought it worth while. It was not known till several years after his death, that this Essay was in fact written by Galileo himself.[73]

These compositions merely occupied the leisure time which he could withhold from the controversy on the solar spots to which we have already alluded. A German Jesuit named Christopher Scheiner, who was professor of mathematics at Ingolstadt, in imitation of Galileo had commenced a series of observations on them, but adopted the theory which, as we have seen, Galileo had examined and rejected, that these spots are planets circulating at some distance from the body of the sun. The same opinion had been taken up by a French astronomer, who in honour of the reigning family called them Borbonian stars. Scheiner promulgated his notions in three letters, addressed to their common friend Welser, under the quaint signature of "Apelles latens post tabulam." Galileo replied to Scheiner's letters by three others, also addressed to Welser, and although the dispute was carried on amid mutual professions of respect and esteem, it laid the foundation of the total estrangement which afterwards took place between the two authors. Galileo's part of this controversy was published at Rome by the Lyncean Academy in 1613. To the last of his letters, written in December, 1612, is annexed a table of the expected positions of Jupiter's satellites during the months of March and April of the following year, which, imperfect as it necessarily was, cannot be looked upon without the greatest interest.

In the same letter it is mentioned that Saturn presented a novel appearance, which, for an instant, almost induced Galileo to mistrust the accuracy of his earlier observations. The lateral appendages of this planet had disappeared, and the accompanying extract will show the uneasiness which Galileo could not conceal at the sight of this phenomenon, although it is admirable to see the contempt with which, even in that trying moment, he expresses his consciousness that his adversaries were unworthy of the triumph they appeared on the point of celebrating.—"Looking on Saturn within these few days, I found it solitary, without the assistance of its accustomed stars, and in short, perfectly round and defined like Jupiter, and such it still remains. Now what can be said of so strange a metamorphosis? are perhaps the two smaller stars consumed, like the spots on the sun? have they suddenly vanished and fled? or has Saturn devoured his own children? or was the appearance indeed fraud and illusion, with which the glasses have for so long a time mocked me, and so many others who have often observed with me. Now perhaps the time is come to revive the withering hopes of those, who, guided by more profound contemplations, have fathomed all the fallacies of the new observations and recognised their impossibility! I cannot resolve what to say in a chance so strange, so new, and so unexpected; the shortness of the time, the unexampled occurrence, the weakness of my intellect, and the terror of being mistaken, have greatly confounded me." These first expressions of alarm are not to be wondered at; however, he soon recovered courage, and ventured to foretel the periods at which the lateral stars would again show themselves, protesting at the same time, that he was in no respect to be understood as classing this prediction among the results which depend on certain principles and sound conclusions, but merely on some conjectures which appeared to him probable. From one of the Dialogues on the System, we learn that this conjecture was, that Saturn might revolve upon his axis, but the period which he assumed is very different from the true one, as might be expected from its being intended to account for a phenomenon of which Galileo had not rightly apprehended the character.

He closed this letter with renewed professions of courtesy and friendship towards Apelles, enjoining Welser not to communicate it without adding his excuses, if he should be thought to dissent too violently from his antagonist's ideas, declaring that his only object was the discovery of truth, and that he had freely exposed his own opinion, which he was still ready to change, so soon as his errors should be made manifest to him; and that he would consider himself under special obligation to any one who would be kind enough to discover and correct them. These letters were written from the villa of his friend Salviati at Selve near Florence, where he passed great part of his time, particularly during his frequent indispositions, conceiving that the air of Florence was prejudicial to him. Cesi was very anxious for their appearance, since they were (in his own words) so hard a morsel for the teeth of the Peripatetics, and he exhorted Galileo, in the name of the society, "to continue to give them, and the nameless Jesuit, something to gnaw."