301
inappropriateness of the site, the developments in instrumentation, and the new
directions of astronomical research certainly favored some of the proposals to move
Secchi Monument elsewhere or to direct it towards purposes other than celestial
observations. This only contributed to the indecisiveness of a Committee that
appeared increasingly unprepared and unfit to decide.
While the four official Reports (1897, 1910, 1918, and 1921) present quite a
sugar-coated view of the difficulties that gradually emerged, with embarrassing justifications for the delays in taking over the responsibilities of the monument, the
archival correspondence reveals a very different situation. Some people (Tacchini
and Manuelli first) continually insisted on a quick decision, providing estimates and
asserting the simplicity and viability of the initial project – a large refractor in a
dome, entrusted to the scientific management of astronomers, and with economic
support from the Government. But the Committee, or some of its members, appeared
to be increasingly oriented towards establishing a completely independent institution at Reggio: an astronomical observatory, or a meteorological one, or an agrarian
or a popular one, or an institute of astrophysics, or of cosmic or terrestrial physics,
or a solar tower, and so on. Every time the matter seemed to be close to a solution,
snags arose that made the Committee put off any decision. Under the leadership of
Senator Ulderico Levi, the Committee was extremely efficient at obtaining a large
amount of funding; but otherwise, the Committee appeared to be paralyzed in every
decision.
Almost 50 years passed from the beginning of its history in 1879 to the closing
of the Committee with the passage of the project to the Province in 1927. But to the
protagonists this slow progress was seen to be a feature, and even a deliberate
choice – a sort of festina lente – as can be read in the second Report of 1910:
If the Committee (…) stops and looks back to contemplate the path it has traveled, there
will be no complaint about its delays, its uncertainties, its prudence, if all this contributes to
make it more confident in the way forward. Nor, working silently and with reflection, need
it ever have to indulge in an unhealthy craving for popularity and notoriety, even while the
unknowing crowd insists, with raised voice and sometimes not without a hint of irony, that
something ought to be done, no matter what it is, no matter what it does! If one can be
allowed to compare our small selves to the greats, if we modest people can raise our eyes to
those who are high, we must say that the examples from the vault of history of Fabius
Maximus the Cunctator [“the Delayer”] and William the Taciturn were for us neither idle
nor unreachable models.
… this, after 30 years had passed since the beginning of the story. What more can
we say? “The Cunctator and the Taciturn” were amateurs in comparison to this
Committee.
17.14 The Final Monument
Despite this long and endless story, a “scientific monument to Father Angelo Secchi”
does actually exist.
17 The Unfulfilled “Secchi Monument” at Reggio Emilia
inappropriateness of the site, the developments in instrumentation, and the new
directions of astronomical research certainly favored some of the proposals to move
Secchi Monument elsewhere or to direct it towards purposes other than celestial
observations. This only contributed to the indecisiveness of a Committee that
appeared increasingly unprepared and unfit to decide.
While the four official Reports (1897, 1910, 1918, and 1921) present quite a
sugar-coated view of the difficulties that gradually emerged, with embarrassing justifications for the delays in taking over the responsibilities of the monument, the
archival correspondence reveals a very different situation. Some people (Tacchini
and Manuelli first) continually insisted on a quick decision, providing estimates and
asserting the simplicity and viability of the initial project – a large refractor in a
dome, entrusted to the scientific management of astronomers, and with economic
support from the Government. But the Committee, or some of its members, appeared
to be increasingly oriented towards establishing a completely independent institution at Reggio: an astronomical observatory, or a meteorological one, or an agrarian
or a popular one, or an institute of astrophysics, or of cosmic or terrestrial physics,
or a solar tower, and so on. Every time the matter seemed to be close to a solution,
snags arose that made the Committee put off any decision. Under the leadership of
Senator Ulderico Levi, the Committee was extremely efficient at obtaining a large
amount of funding; but otherwise, the Committee appeared to be paralyzed in every
decision.
Almost 50 years passed from the beginning of its history in 1879 to the closing
of the Committee with the passage of the project to the Province in 1927. But to the
protagonists this slow progress was seen to be a feature, and even a deliberate
choice – a sort of festina lente – as can be read in the second Report of 1910:
If the Committee (…) stops and looks back to contemplate the path it has traveled, there
will be no complaint about its delays, its uncertainties, its prudence, if all this contributes to
make it more confident in the way forward. Nor, working silently and with reflection, need
it ever have to indulge in an unhealthy craving for popularity and notoriety, even while the
unknowing crowd insists, with raised voice and sometimes not without a hint of irony, that
something ought to be done, no matter what it is, no matter what it does! If one can be
allowed to compare our small selves to the greats, if we modest people can raise our eyes to
those who are high, we must say that the examples from the vault of history of Fabius
Maximus the Cunctator [“the Delayer”] and William the Taciturn were for us neither idle
nor unreachable models.
… this, after 30 years had passed since the beginning of the story. What more can
we say? “The Cunctator and the Taciturn” were amateurs in comparison to this
Committee.
17.14 The Final Monument
Despite this long and endless story, a “scientific monument to Father Angelo Secchi”
does actually exist.
17 The Unfulfilled “Secchi Monument” at Reggio Emilia