A letter to His Royal Highness the President of the Royal Society [i.e. the Duke of Sussex], on the new catalogue of the library of that institution now in the press / [Sir Anthony Panizzi].

  • Panizzi, Anthony, Sir, 1797-1879
Date:
[1837]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A letter to His Royal Highness the President of the Royal Society [i.e. the Duke of Sussex], on the new catalogue of the library of that institution now in the press / [Sir Anthony Panizzi]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    14/60 (page 14)
    process of reasoning, by which phosphorus was metamor¬ phosed into a heavenly body. To demonstrate this in “ as correct and complete” a man¬ ner “ as the circumstances of the case will allow,” I beg to call Your Royal Highness’s attention to another work by Liceti which does exist in the library of the Royal Society, and which was catalogued in the following manner, in the specimen now under consideration : LICETUS (Fort.) De Lume sub obscura luce prope Conjunctiones Libri III. 4to. Utini, 1642. In my proofs it stands thus : LICETUS (Fortunius). De Lunse subobscura luce prope conjunctiones, et in eclipsibus observata. 4to. Utini, 1642. The 50th Chapter in the Litheosphorus is entitled : De Lunse subobscura luce prope conjunctiones et in deliquiis observata, digressio physico-mathematica. In this work Liceti declares, “ lumen illud obscurum non esse solare nunc a terra revibratum in lunarem superficiem,” against the opinion of one Galileo, (not less known than Cavalieri out of the Royal Society’s apartments) who held it “ essere effetto cagionato dal reflesso de’ raggi solari nella superbcie del nostro globo terrestre.” At the request of Leopold Prince of Tuscany, Galileo wrote to him a long letter in Italian, dated Arcetri, 1st of March, 1640, the object of which was to answer Liceti’s objections, as well as to show that the opinion which he held that the light in question origi¬ nated, “ ex repercussu Solaris luminis ab sethere lunse con- termino,” was incorrect. Liceti states in these words his opinion at the very beginning of the work, “ De Dunce subobscura luce” and continues: “ Quam opinionem co- lere placuit in opere de lapide Bononiensi lucifero, qui cum Luna in ista passione mihi visus est habere miram analo- giam.” This special treatise “ De Dunce subobscura luce,” was written on purpose to reply to Galileo, whose Italian letter is inserted at length, and analyzed, paragraph by paragraph. Whoever catalogued the last of these works, happening to cast his eyes on the first page, where the words just quoted occur, thinking that Lucifer must mean either the Devil or a star, and observing that the Lucifer spoken of by Liceti, was one which according to this author had a won¬ derful analogy with the moon, he came to the philosophical conclusion, that it must rather be like a star, than like a