67
fields that he cultivated as a hobby, such as paleontology and archaeology. Secchi
did not care much for theoretical speculations; he preferred theories that were supported by experimental evidence, gathered through observations, experiences, etc.
For example, in a dispute about the nature of sunspots in 1872–1873, Secchi’s complaint against his rivals was specifically that their theories were not validated by
observations (Chinnici and Gasperini 2013: 313 and ff.). For this reason, his works
are poor in mathematical formulae; rather, he presents descriptions, illustrations,
drawings, and so forth, trying to reproduce his observational results. Being an excellent observer but only a passable draughtsman, Secchi often turned to carefully
selected collaborators to help him in this work; their drawing skills were crucial in
obtaining the detailed pictures of planetary surfaces, solar sunspots and prominences, meteorological charts, etc. that he wanted to reproduce. Sometimes he also
asked artists to collaborate in making reproductions; an example of this is the case
of the beautiful picture of the crater Copernicus which Secchi asked to be drawn
from one of his Moon photographs in 1858 (Chinnici 2019: 61–62). It may be that
he pioneered the application of photography in astronomy precisely to have an
accurate reproduction of his observations in order to remedy his poor ability in
drawing them.
In contrast to his attention to careful descriptions of the phenomena, Secchi was
often accused by his scientific rivals of never having produced any mathematical
model of his theories. He usually ignored their mathematical framework and focused
instead on observations or experiments that could validate them. This led him to
modify and improve the designs of his instruments (Chinnici 2017; Johnson, here),
which he basically considered as tools with which the human mind could explore
nature. Secchi had a very “personal” approach to instruments and materials; he
would jokingly to ascribe human attitudes to them so that, for example, the collodium was “idle” and “capricious” (Secchi 1856a), the barometer was “sympathetic”
(Secchi 1860), the rocks had been “tormented” by internal forces (Argentieri and
Parotto, here), and so forth. This intimate hands-on approach to the physical world
inspired him to produce three-dimensional representations of weather charts
(Iafrate-Beltrano, here), colored drawings of planetary surfaces (Sheehan and
McKim, here), and so forth, handling matter and materials to give physical consistence to his observations.
In this respect, Secchi could be seen to be a scientist who was "playing" with
nature: he found pleasure and fun in applying physical laws, in inventing and tinkering with instruments, in observing phenomena, in trying to capture their secrets, on
Earth as in the rest of the universe. Moreover, as a Jesuit, he had the joyful conviction that this intimate process of discovery led him nearer to God (Tanzella-Nitti,
Chap. 3 in this volume) – and this increased his enthusiasm. He felt that he was a
part of the universe he was observing, sympathetic with all creation. Consistent with
the idea that science is also enjoyment, in Secchi’s view machines ought to help
people to do repetitive, fatiguing, and time-consuming work, with the goal of avoiding stress or boredom. His invention of the meteorograph (Brenni, here), which
automatically recorded meteorological data, had its origins in the need to solve the
problem of having to climb up the Calandrelli Tower where the meteorological
4 Angelo Secchi: Portrait of a “Multi-versed” Jesuit Scientist
fields that he cultivated as a hobby, such as paleontology and archaeology. Secchi
did not care much for theoretical speculations; he preferred theories that were supported by experimental evidence, gathered through observations, experiences, etc.
For example, in a dispute about the nature of sunspots in 1872–1873, Secchi’s complaint against his rivals was specifically that their theories were not validated by
observations (Chinnici and Gasperini 2013: 313 and ff.). For this reason, his works
are poor in mathematical formulae; rather, he presents descriptions, illustrations,
drawings, and so forth, trying to reproduce his observational results. Being an excellent observer but only a passable draughtsman, Secchi often turned to carefully
selected collaborators to help him in this work; their drawing skills were crucial in
obtaining the detailed pictures of planetary surfaces, solar sunspots and prominences, meteorological charts, etc. that he wanted to reproduce. Sometimes he also
asked artists to collaborate in making reproductions; an example of this is the case
of the beautiful picture of the crater Copernicus which Secchi asked to be drawn
from one of his Moon photographs in 1858 (Chinnici 2019: 61–62). It may be that
he pioneered the application of photography in astronomy precisely to have an
accurate reproduction of his observations in order to remedy his poor ability in
drawing them.
In contrast to his attention to careful descriptions of the phenomena, Secchi was
often accused by his scientific rivals of never having produced any mathematical
model of his theories. He usually ignored their mathematical framework and focused
instead on observations or experiments that could validate them. This led him to
modify and improve the designs of his instruments (Chinnici 2017; Johnson, here),
which he basically considered as tools with which the human mind could explore
nature. Secchi had a very “personal” approach to instruments and materials; he
would jokingly to ascribe human attitudes to them so that, for example, the collodium was “idle” and “capricious” (Secchi 1856a), the barometer was “sympathetic”
(Secchi 1860), the rocks had been “tormented” by internal forces (Argentieri and
Parotto, here), and so forth. This intimate hands-on approach to the physical world
inspired him to produce three-dimensional representations of weather charts
(Iafrate-Beltrano, here), colored drawings of planetary surfaces (Sheehan and
McKim, here), and so forth, handling matter and materials to give physical consistence to his observations.
In this respect, Secchi could be seen to be a scientist who was "playing" with
nature: he found pleasure and fun in applying physical laws, in inventing and tinkering with instruments, in observing phenomena, in trying to capture their secrets, on
Earth as in the rest of the universe. Moreover, as a Jesuit, he had the joyful conviction that this intimate process of discovery led him nearer to God (Tanzella-Nitti,
Chap. 3 in this volume) – and this increased his enthusiasm. He felt that he was a
part of the universe he was observing, sympathetic with all creation. Consistent with
the idea that science is also enjoyment, in Secchi’s view machines ought to help
people to do repetitive, fatiguing, and time-consuming work, with the goal of avoiding stress or boredom. His invention of the meteorograph (Brenni, here), which
automatically recorded meteorological data, had its origins in the need to solve the
problem of having to climb up the Calandrelli Tower where the meteorological
4 Angelo Secchi: Portrait of a “Multi-versed” Jesuit Scientist