297
After a long and severe illness, Rajna died in September 1920, without knowing the
outcome. Guido Horn d’Arturo, named to succeed him, tried again in 1921, in vain,
to resume contact with the Committee,
42
before turning in a different direction and
in 1936 building the observational station at Loiano with a 60-cm Zeiss reflector
telescope, thanks to the legacy of Bianca Montanari, Merlani’s widow.
The proposal “by Porro of Genoa,” mentioned in the Report, had been made in
1918 by Francesco Porro de’ Somenzi (1861–1937), professor of astronomy in the
Royal University of Genoa and director of the local meteorological observatory. He
had proposed to use the funds to “implement the direct use of solar energy,” arguing
that “science must adopt a utilitarian role to address the needs of the public”
(Relazione (3
a
) 1918: 8–9): this proposal also went unheeded.
Forty years had passed and, going back to the fourth Report, it is clear that the
economic aspect was the prevailing factor in the lack of decision: in 1920 the capital
had grown to 152,995.27 lire but (as shown in Table 17.1) its purchasing power was
largely decreased. Hence, the Committee had no choice but “to reduce the scientific
Monument to a minimum, or wait for the lira to recover its value, or convey it to
another purpose, or donate it to another Institute.”
17.11 Still Other Proposals and Delays
A bitter controversy arose during the Conference of the Italian Society for the
Advancement of Sciences (SIPS), held in Trieste in September 1921. According to
the secretary-rapporteur of the Secchi Committee, the participants wanted to drop
the previous work of the Committee itself; in fact, a motion proposed by Luigi
Carnera (1875–1962), director of Trieste Astronomical Observatory, and approved
during the Astronomy and Geodesy Session, essentially requested that the
Committee “be recomposed with competent technical persons and that it contribute
economically to the solar tower in Arcetri” (Almagià 1922). The SIPS intervention
was rejected with indignation by the Committee (Relazione (4
a
) 1921: 9–10):
Due to limited resources of our universities, we understand how those who direct them try
to bring grist to their own mill at the cost of letting their neighbor die of thirst, but we
believe that these resolutions are not supported either by the Government or by public opinion, and that the Committee has the right to retain full freedom to decide, without indulging
in special interests and the clamor of people who ignore or pretend to ignore the true state
of affairs.
They explicitly claimed, therefore, that the only option was to establish “a modest
Institute that recalls Secchi to his fellow citizens.” But even this could not be
achieved.
42 Letters by G. Horn d’Arturo to Triglia (unidentified) in Rome, Apr 23 and May 9, 1921, in
AABo, Fondo Guido Horn d’Arturo, Epistolario privato, B02.68 e B02.82.
17 The Unfulfilled “Secchi Monument” at Reggio Emilia
After a long and severe illness, Rajna died in September 1920, without knowing the
outcome. Guido Horn d’Arturo, named to succeed him, tried again in 1921, in vain,
to resume contact with the Committee,
42
before turning in a different direction and
in 1936 building the observational station at Loiano with a 60-cm Zeiss reflector
telescope, thanks to the legacy of Bianca Montanari, Merlani’s widow.
The proposal “by Porro of Genoa,” mentioned in the Report, had been made in
1918 by Francesco Porro de’ Somenzi (1861–1937), professor of astronomy in the
Royal University of Genoa and director of the local meteorological observatory. He
had proposed to use the funds to “implement the direct use of solar energy,” arguing
that “science must adopt a utilitarian role to address the needs of the public”
(Relazione (3
a
) 1918: 8–9): this proposal also went unheeded.
Forty years had passed and, going back to the fourth Report, it is clear that the
economic aspect was the prevailing factor in the lack of decision: in 1920 the capital
had grown to 152,995.27 lire but (as shown in Table 17.1) its purchasing power was
largely decreased. Hence, the Committee had no choice but “to reduce the scientific
Monument to a minimum, or wait for the lira to recover its value, or convey it to
another purpose, or donate it to another Institute.”
17.11 Still Other Proposals and Delays
A bitter controversy arose during the Conference of the Italian Society for the
Advancement of Sciences (SIPS), held in Trieste in September 1921. According to
the secretary-rapporteur of the Secchi Committee, the participants wanted to drop
the previous work of the Committee itself; in fact, a motion proposed by Luigi
Carnera (1875–1962), director of Trieste Astronomical Observatory, and approved
during the Astronomy and Geodesy Session, essentially requested that the
Committee “be recomposed with competent technical persons and that it contribute
economically to the solar tower in Arcetri” (Almagià 1922). The SIPS intervention
was rejected with indignation by the Committee (Relazione (4
a
) 1921: 9–10):
Due to limited resources of our universities, we understand how those who direct them try
to bring grist to their own mill at the cost of letting their neighbor die of thirst, but we
believe that these resolutions are not supported either by the Government or by public opinion, and that the Committee has the right to retain full freedom to decide, without indulging
in special interests and the clamor of people who ignore or pretend to ignore the true state
of affairs.
They explicitly claimed, therefore, that the only option was to establish “a modest
Institute that recalls Secchi to his fellow citizens.” But even this could not be
achieved.
42 Letters by G. Horn d’Arturo to Triglia (unidentified) in Rome, Apr 23 and May 9, 1921, in
AABo, Fondo Guido Horn d’Arturo, Epistolario privato, B02.68 e B02.82.
17 The Unfulfilled “Secchi Monument” at Reggio Emilia