289
discuss the new project. This, of course, triggered the wrath of Tacchini, who persuaded the Committee at its November 29 meeting to appoint a second “Executive
Commission” to solicit and collect donations for an instrument “in accordance with
the original program.” The second Commission was composed of Manuelli,
Ramusani, the lawyer Andrea Balletti, and Tacchini himself (Relazione (2
a
) 1910:
12–16).
24
In January 1904, after having examined the bids that Tacchini had solicited from
“the gentlemen P. Henry of Paris, Cook of York, Zeiss of Jena, and Steinheil of
Munich,” the new Commission proposed the immediate acceptance of the most
advantageous one, from Steinheil. They had submitted a bid of 53,250 lire for a
70-cm objective lens, which was widely discounted by the company “because of the
purpose” of the lens (i.e., as a memorial monument to the famous astrophysicist
Secchi).
25
For the telescope mounting, Tacchini had contacted “Engr. Salmoiraghi
in Milan, the mechanician Cavignato at Padua Observatory
26
and Engr. Villiger at
Zeiss,” hoping to discuss their tenders as soon as possible. They even looked into the
possibility of exhibiting the mounting at the 1906 Milan International Exposition.
It was finally done!
17.7 Further Delays
No… it wasn’t.
The documents reveal that the relationship between Committee and Commission
was rather stormy. In a letter dated February 8, 1904 to Senator Levi, Manuelli
expressed his indignation at the discussions held in the previous day’s Committee
meeting. He strongly reiterated that “the Commission is able to prove that the complete Equatorial can be made with the available means” but a new obstacle was that
some Committee members claimed “to have a written guarantee from the
Government for the management of the Monument” as they considered it unclear if
the project was to be that of “a Telescope and not of an Observatory.”
Once again, things came to a stop. Nevertheless, negotiations had already been
undertaken with some firms, resulting in a heavy correspondence with the referents
of both Committee and Commission.
27
This correspondence lasted almost a year,
24 It is worthwhile noting that Tacchini, the main proposer of the project, had to struggle over the
years to defend his original idea.
25 Monumento Secchi. Commissione esecutiva. Adunanza del 26 gennaio 1904, annexed to Minutes
No. 15 of the Committee (ASRe-MS).
26 It may be interesting to note that in 1898 the firm “Cavignato Giuseppe” had been proposed to
the Committee as the only one able in Italy to build the mount for a big equatorial, having already
achieved those for Florence, Turin, Rome, and Catania: G. Cavignato to U. Levi, Padua Apr 11,
1898 (ASRe-MS).
27 The correspondence between Steinheil, Salmoiraghi, Zeiss, Cavignato, and Martini, on the one
hand, and Manuelli, Tacchini, and Levi, on the other, goes from Mar 27, 1904, to Jul 8, 1905
17 The Unfulfilled “Secchi Monument” at Reggio Emilia
discuss the new project. This, of course, triggered the wrath of Tacchini, who persuaded the Committee at its November 29 meeting to appoint a second “Executive
Commission” to solicit and collect donations for an instrument “in accordance with
the original program.” The second Commission was composed of Manuelli,
Ramusani, the lawyer Andrea Balletti, and Tacchini himself (Relazione (2
a
) 1910:
12–16).
24
In January 1904, after having examined the bids that Tacchini had solicited from
“the gentlemen P. Henry of Paris, Cook of York, Zeiss of Jena, and Steinheil of
Munich,” the new Commission proposed the immediate acceptance of the most
advantageous one, from Steinheil. They had submitted a bid of 53,250 lire for a
70-cm objective lens, which was widely discounted by the company “because of the
purpose” of the lens (i.e., as a memorial monument to the famous astrophysicist
Secchi).
25
For the telescope mounting, Tacchini had contacted “Engr. Salmoiraghi
in Milan, the mechanician Cavignato at Padua Observatory
26
and Engr. Villiger at
Zeiss,” hoping to discuss their tenders as soon as possible. They even looked into the
possibility of exhibiting the mounting at the 1906 Milan International Exposition.
It was finally done!
17.7 Further Delays
No… it wasn’t.
The documents reveal that the relationship between Committee and Commission
was rather stormy. In a letter dated February 8, 1904 to Senator Levi, Manuelli
expressed his indignation at the discussions held in the previous day’s Committee
meeting. He strongly reiterated that “the Commission is able to prove that the complete Equatorial can be made with the available means” but a new obstacle was that
some Committee members claimed “to have a written guarantee from the
Government for the management of the Monument” as they considered it unclear if
the project was to be that of “a Telescope and not of an Observatory.”
Once again, things came to a stop. Nevertheless, negotiations had already been
undertaken with some firms, resulting in a heavy correspondence with the referents
of both Committee and Commission.
27
This correspondence lasted almost a year,
24 It is worthwhile noting that Tacchini, the main proposer of the project, had to struggle over the
years to defend his original idea.
25 Monumento Secchi. Commissione esecutiva. Adunanza del 26 gennaio 1904, annexed to Minutes
No. 15 of the Committee (ASRe-MS).
26 It may be interesting to note that in 1898 the firm “Cavignato Giuseppe” had been proposed to
the Committee as the only one able in Italy to build the mount for a big equatorial, having already
achieved those for Florence, Turin, Rome, and Catania: G. Cavignato to U. Levi, Padua Apr 11,
1898 (ASRe-MS).
27 The correspondence between Steinheil, Salmoiraghi, Zeiss, Cavignato, and Martini, on the one
hand, and Manuelli, Tacchini, and Levi, on the other, goes from Mar 27, 1904, to Jul 8, 1905
17 The Unfulfilled “Secchi Monument” at Reggio Emilia