HISTORY OF PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY.

523

assert that the Dutch instrument was formed by a combination of a convexwith a concave lens. The account of the invention as given by the latterof these two writers is the more worthy of confidence, inasmuch as heassociates it with the story of the weathercock, but, of course, makes noallusion to an inverted image. Again, we find Lorenzo Pignoria writingto his friend, that Galileo had received a thousand florins annually forlife, on account of a perspective like the one which had been sent fromFlanders; but it is very obvious that if the Dutch telescopes had ex-hibited objects inverted, he would have expressed himself in differentlanguage.

The Dutch telescopes were, doubtless, much less powerful than thoseof Galileo, but this is not to be wondered at, when we consider the con-summate skill of the latter in matters relating to practical science, andthe remarkable success which generally attended his experimental efforts.Still, we are by no means disposed to believe that they were such meanproductions of art as they have been frequently represented to be. Wehave seen that the States General agreed to give 900 florins to Lipperhey for his instrument. The amount of remuneration tends to impress uswith a favourable opinion of the instrument given in exchange, for, asDr. Moll justly remarks, the Dutch people cannot be charged with areadiness to throw away their money upon a trifling toy, which possessedno other claim to recommendation than its novelty. It is true that theinventor was prohibited from making any telescopes except those orderedby the States General , and the latter would naturally consider themselvesbound, on this account, to remunerate him more liberally for his laboursthan they would otherwise feel disposed to do. This prohibition, however,tends to confirm our belief of the value they set upon his telescopes.They refused him an exclusive privilege to make and sell them, on thealleged grounds that others were already in possession of the invention,but they reasonably believed that the instruments of the inventor wouldbe superior to any others constructed, and they accordingly resolved tosecure to themselves the monopoly of his skill. That the invention hadalready transpired, and that a restriction, such as we have mentioned, badbeen imposed upon the inventor, is clearly proved by the following ex-tract from the correspondence of the celebrated president, Jeannin, whohad been sent to Holland by his sovereign, Henry IV. , to negotiate atruce between Spain and the States General . On the 28th of December,1 608, only a few days after the States General had refused the object ofLipperhey’s petition, Jeannin thus writes to Henry ’s minister, the famousSully:—“ The bearer of this letter is a soldier from Sedan , who belongsto the Prince’s company, and who is held very ingenious in many inven-tions and artifices of war. He has also made, a few days ago, an instru-ment, in imitation of that which has been made by a spectacle maker ofMiddleburg, to see at a distance. He will show it to you, and make yousome for your sight; I requested the original inventor to make me two,one for the king, and one for you; but the States prohibited him frommaking any but for themselves. They have, however, given orders toexecute some for me, that I may send them to you, which I will not failto do as soon as I receive them.”* It is quite clear, from the foregoingpassage, that the States General contemplated making use of the instru-

* “ Lettres et Negociations du President de Jeannin,” fob, Paris, 1G56 (cited by Dr.Moll).