Putting Galileo in his Place: Geographical Origins and the Rhetoric of Scholarly Credibility ☆

While in theory frowned upon, comments on the (regional) provenance of scholars frequently found their way into the scholarly debates of the Republic of Letters. This article uses early responses to Galileo Galilei's Sidereus Nuncius as a case study to explore various broader assumptions and associations underlying the use of such comments on provenance. Presenting a typology of these arguments, the article contends that provenance was used as a rather flexible marker of credibility, which allowed seventeenth‐century scholars to employ it to either advocate for, or against credibility. Scholars made full use of the rhetorical possibilities that origin‐based associations offered, demonstrating their flexible – if not to say opportunistic – attitude towards scholarly credibility in the process. This article furthermore investigates the motives Galileo's contemporaries had for invoking surreptitious boasts or slurs about provenance. In doing so, it illuminates a crucial mechanism informing the selection of specific arguments: competition on a personal, regional and national level.

Examining the role of provenance in scholarly debates thus not only helps to better understand the social and cultural dynamics behind the reception of Galileo's work; it also sheds new light on wider debates in the history of science. The analysis presented here is especially relevant in light of debates on the ways credibility was assigned and knowledge was stabilized. Early modern scholars often operated at a distance and needed to determine whether to trust one another without having met in person, or without having had access to the necessary instrument to verify new discoveries or claims for themselves. Given these circumstances, David Livingstone has observed, scholars tried to settle on 'strategies to stabilize knowing-at-adistance'. 7 Previous studies have examined several such strategies at play in the making and transmission of knowledge. Foremost among them are subscription to gentlemanly codes and norms of behaviour that conveyed disinterestedness, and the role of institutions such as academies and courts. These came to function as markers of credibility: scholars who successfully embraced these norms or gained the support of these institutions came to be considered as more reliable. 8 And indeed, some scholarly polemics feature arguments relating to the social background of its participants: Erasmus accused his one-time friend Heinrich von Eppendorf of falsely claiming to be of noble descent, and when Roberto Titi cast doubt on Julius Caesar Scaliger's claims of being a descendant of the Veronese La Scala family, this led to a fiery response from Scaliger. 9 This article argues that surreptitious boasts and slurs about provenance were similarly used as a marker of credibility in the Republic of Letters. In the first three sections, I discuss responses to Galileo's work from those who were critical of his discoveries and those who were largely supportive. The negative assumptions related to a supposed shared Florentine character, and to its institutional organization, and the positive associations to Florence's tradition of ingenuity. The fourth section hones in on the discourse of bias and explores a different use of provenance-related arguments: to claim impartiality or dismiss criticism. The variety of associations related to provenance early modern scholars had at their 7  disposal meant that they could select one that best fit their own position and interests. It becomes clear that references to provenance frequently played on, and further aggravated, existing tensions. Hence, they can be taken as an illuminating sign of the remarkably flexible attitude seventeenth-century scholars adopted toward scholarly credibility. As such, this article provides new insights into the social dynamics of the Republic of Letters, as well as into the reality and rhetoric of scholarly credibility.

SHREWD FLORENTINES
The publication of Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius in March 1610 sparked lively debates: did the moon indeed have a rough, rather than a smooth surface, and had Galileo truly discovered four satellites surrounding Jupiter? 10 Feverish correspondence between various scholarly hubs ensued as mathematicians wrote their colleagues to ask whether they had read the book or even managed to obtain an instrument and see Galileo's celestial marvels. They also asked whether they knew anything more about their discoverer: at the time Galileo published his work, he was a relatively unknown mathematics professor in Padua. He had not yet published on similar topics, and of the works he had written, one had mounted a defence against an accusation of plagiarism -hardly the best indicator of credibility. Moreover, the two works addressing his earlier invention, the geometric compass, had not nearly the same degree of circulation as the Sidereus Nuncius. 11 Both Galileo and the telescope were thus largely unknown, and the Republic of Letters quickly set to work to gain more information about both. One of the people looking for information was Johannes Schreck, a German residing in Rome. Schreck wrote a letter to the Neapolitan mathematician Giovanni Camillo Gloriosi in May 1610, hoping that Gloriosi would have access either to a telescope or to Galileo directly. He was in luck: not only did Gloriosi knew Galileo personally -he had asked for his help when he considered moving from Naples to Venice in 1604 -but he had also acquired a telescope and had even managed to observe two of the so-called Medicean 10 On the telescope and Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius see: Massimo Bucciantini, Michele Camerota and Franco stars. 12 Moreover, as an inhabitant of Venice, Gloriosi possessed inside information about Galileo and the way his discoveries were received there. 13 This, however, did not reflect well on Galileo: Rumour has it that others already discovered two of them [the satellites] by means of the spyglass. It is said publicly that Agostino da Mula, a Venetian aristocrat, was the first to observe these stars and that he informed Galileo, who knew nothing about them. His Excellency Messer Fugger told me he learned that the satellites of Jupiter were also observed by the Dutch, who invented the telescope. Perhaps Galileo was inspired by them and, to gain glory and money, even though he was not the first observer, he nevertheless wanted to be the first to write about them. As you know the Florentines are shrewd and industrious: hence, grasping this propitious opportunity, he proclaimed himself author and inventor of the telescope and of the new planets, and received many honors and advantages from both the Republic of Venice and the Grand Duke of Tuscany. 14 Here, Gloriosi suggested that Galileo had appropriated the earlier discoveries of another scholar to win 'glory and money', and he explicitly attributed this morally abject behaviour to a purportedly shared character trait of the Florentines: their shrewdness.
The French polymath Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc, addressing his correspondent Giulio Pace in June 1611, invoked Galileo's origins in a similar manner. 15 Like Gloriosi, De Peiresc had succeeded in verifying (at least part of) Galileo's discoveries by using a telescope himself. He had even taken to observing these heavenly bodies closely and diligently. Having established each individual satellite's orbit, he now hoped to attach his own name to this 'discovery', arguing that he had the right to do so because he had significantly deepened the understanding of Galileo's initial findings and had almost transformed them into something new. De Peiresc even endeavoured to present them as 'Franco-Medicean' by naming the satellites after various members of the Medici family, including the French queen and queen mother. 16  The characterizations Gloriosi and De Peiresc used are remarkably similar: both claimed that Florentines were shrewd and used this as an argument against Galileo's credibility. Their remarks also fit into a broader trend, which has been discussed by scholars of imagology and recently in particular by Joep Leerssen. 18 Over the course of the sixteenth century, thinking about character, and especially national characteristics and stereotypes, had become more pronounced and articulate. This development related at least partly to the growing popularity in Europe of theatrical productions as inspired by Aristotelian principles of decorum: on the stage, it was necessary that the audience recognized each character as being driven by inner motivations which could then explain outward behaviour. As theatre became more internationally oriented and frequently featured characters from different parts of Europe, one element that was perceived to mark such inner motivation and the ensuing outward-directed behaviour was provenance. Each nation was thought to possess different characteristics that distinguished its citizens from those of other nations, and such thinking about varied national characteristics gradually became more prominent and explicit. 19 Works on theatre began to include lists detailing the precise character of every nation in Europe, spurring the development of easily recognizable national stereotypes. 20 Such lists show a marked similarity to Gloriosi's and De Peiresc's portrayal of Galileo: they characterized Italians as shrewd, wicked and deceitful. Take for instance the description by Julius Caesar Scaliger (himself Italian), included in his Poetices libri septem (1561): 'One nation surpasses [the Spanish] in wickedness and is even less magnanimous: the Italians.' 21 Almost a century later, the French author Jules de la Mesnardière wrote in his Poétique (1640)  manners and adore profit'. 22 Of course, the political organization of Italy in the seventeenth century, with its various independently ruled regions with distinct dialects and traditions, meant that local identities often took precedence over a shared sense of 'Italianness'. 23 It is therefore not surprising to see that besides lists of national stereotypes, lists with regional characteristics also circulated. Given Florence's cultural importance, it is even possible that the label 'Florentine' and the label 'Italian' came to be used interchangeably (depending on the perspective of the speaker). In any case, to De Peiresc and Gloriosi the idea that Florentines were shrewd was a readily available preconception with which they could discredit Galileo. This indicates that the more pronounced thinking about local characteristics was not just a literary device but had also found its way into scholarly debates.
One point needs further clarification, however. Besides the idea that Florentines (or Italians) were shrewd, other notions existed as well. Studies relating to theatre have argued that stereotypes regarding national character almost always consisted of both positive and negative attributes. On stage and in these lists, Italians were portrayed as refined, smart, inventive people who were sensitive to and appreciative of culture and the arts; as the list by De la Mesnardière cited above indicates, Italians could also be depicted as courteous and cultured. Whether an author chose the positive or the negative image depended on various factors: context, the origin and point of view of the author, and power relations. 24 Here the question arises whether Gloriosi and De Peiresc themselves sincerely believed that all Florentines were untrustworthy, or, alternately, had simply found a useful rhetorical instrument with which to discredit Galileo and dismiss his claims of first discovery.
It is important to stress that both Gloriosi and De Peiresc did believe the satellites existed; each man had observed them personally (in Gloriosi's case, two of them). What they distrusted was either Galileo's role in their discovery (Gloriosi) or his reliability in keeping his promises (De Peiresc). In this, it seems, both scholars were driven by feelings of competition. On De Peiresc's part, he felt competitive towards Galileo mostly because of his personal drive for glory as well as his desire to contribute to France's glory: he hoped to present the satellites as 'Franco-Medicean'. Gloriosi's negative judgement of Galileo seems to have mostly been fuelled by a sense of regional competition and by hurt pride on the part of the Venetians. Galileo's first work on the 22 Ibid., 58-9. 23 Ibid. Also see David Gilmour, The Pursuit of Italy. A History of a Land, Its Regions and Their Peoples (New York: Penguin Books, 2011), 26-8. 24 Leerssen, 'Image', in Beller and Leerssen, Imagology, 343-4. spy-glass took place when he was a mathematics professor in Padua, and he presented his telescope to the Venetian government in the autumn of 1609. 25 Initially celebrating Galileo's achievements, the Venetians rewarded him generously and appointed him professor for life with an annual salary of 1000 florins. Yet Galileo dedicated his subsequent astronomical findings to the Florentine Grand Duke, using these discoveries to enter into a patronage relationship with the Medici family. 26 As a result, appreciation for Galileo's discoveries in Venice gradually curdled into an attitude of offended pride, along with envy directed towards Florence: Galileo, it was believed, had revealed himself to be ungrateful when he left the city to take up a position at the Florentine court. Both De Peiresc and Gloriosi harboured feelings of discontent towards Galileo, and could rely on readily available labels to give voice to them. That they selected the negative component of Florentines in their characterization of Galileo is indicative of an important mechanism in (dis)crediting scholars. Judgements regarding another scholar's work rested not just on scholarly merit, but were -earlier than previously assumed -also informed by bias and by feelings of competition on a personal or regional level. The existing framework of national thought fuelled these feelings of competition and, at the same time, allowed scholars to give voice to them in a way that resonated with others. Prejudice, nationalistic impulses, and personal feelings of competition came together to discredit Galileo.

INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
Galileo's move to Florence spurred jealousy on the part of Gloriosi and other Paduan and Venetian scholars. It also triggered one of his closest friends, the Venetian nobleman Gianfrancesco Sagredo, to utter words of caution and express concern for the consequences of Galileo's move. While Sagredo shared his concern directly with Galileo and did not explicitly tell him his scholarly credibility was at stake, his letter does hint at possible constraints exercised on scholars in Florence. These related to the city's institutional organization.
In a long letter, written in August 1611, Sagredo emphasized that he respected Galileo's decision to leave Venice and understood the native Tuscan's desire to return to his home region. Yet he also expressed two main concerns. One of these regarded the Jesuits' influence in Florence: 'But this being in the place where the authority of the friends of Berlinzone, as we call 25  them, applies, troubles me much, much more.' 27 Sagredo's anti-Jesuit stance was part of a more widespread feeling in the Venetian Republic. In 1606-1607, Pope Paul V had placed the city under an interdict due to longstanding tensions with Rome. Originally concerning the autonomy of the Venetian clergy, the conflict had much wider implications: disputes arose over the organization of the Paduan studio and the role of the city's other schools, especially those of the Jesuits. During the interdict, the Jesuits were expelled from the city and would not be readmitted for several years: a deep distrust against their 'meddling' was felt in the city. 28 Unlike Venice, Florence was known to be a city loyal to Rome, and from the Venetian point of view at least Galileo was now settling in a place where the oppressive influence of Catholic conservatism was greatly felt. 29 Sagredo's second concern related to the Florentine court. In leaving Venice, Sagredo claimed, Galileo had left the one city where he had enjoyed true freedom, and which had 'his best interest at heart', only to embark on 'uncertain and dubious adventures'. 30 In Venice, he need not serve anyone but himself, but at court Galileo would be vulnerable to the ruler's whims. 31 While Cosimo II may well appreciate Galileo's telescope at the moment, he might easily cast his gaze elsewhere and put the instrument aside. If that happened, Galileo might also lose his favoured position, for while he might easily develop a new instrument befitting the task at hand, it remained to be seen whether such an instrument would be properly appreciated at court. The court, Sagredo implied, was a place where reason counted for little: who would be able to invent a telescope to 'distinguish the mad from the wise, the good from the bad advice, the intelligent architect from an obstinate and ignorant one?' 32 Finally, the court harboured other potential hazards as well, as other courtiers might envy Galileo his position and create difficulties for him. 33 Sagredo was not alone in harbouring suspicion that courts and courtly rulers would adversely affect the scientific endeavour. Steven Shapin has signalled a similar assumption regarding the credibility of French and Italian practitioners of science among the English, who feared that the corrupting influence of courts compromised their integrity as scholars and made their 27 Ibid., 172. The phrase 'the friends of Berlinzone' referred to a practical joke Sagredo had played on the results less reliable. 34 By contrast, Mario Biagioli has shown that in other contexts, Galileo's discoveries found wider acceptance because of their prestigious connection to the Florentine ruling family. 35 The ways in which scholarly practitioners valued a particular marker of credibility, in this case an appointment at court, thus depended on their own position and (regional) background. Sagredo's letters to Galileo also show that the feelings of discontent among Venetians and Paduans were not soon forgotten. The letter from August 1611 refers to several acquaintances who no longer wish to be associated with him and even want Sagredo to break off ties with him. 36 A later letter, written in December 1612, suggests that the situation had not improved much over time. Talk had spread that Galileo might return to the city and take up again a professorship there, since the Paduan studio was looking for a mathematics professor with experience and 'great fame'. Sagredo had tried to convince others that should this happen, it would 'be the best thing that could happen to the honourableness of the Studio'. Yet while he found people who, like him, were willing to praise and esteem Galileo, he could not believe the 'disgust' that others still displayed about the way Galileo had left the city. 37 Once more, this attitude towards Galileo was fuelled by feelings of hurt pride in light of regional competition, further confirming this as a complicating factor in the supposedly impartial establishment of scholarly credibility and transmission of new ideas. TRADITION Thus far, we have encountered two varieties of arguments relating to Florence that cast doubt about Galileo's scholarly integrity. In addition to these more negative views, Galileo's ties to the city were also used in a positive manner: his supporters appealed to a Florentine tradition of ingenuity in order to enhance Galileo's credibility.
For this, we turn to Galileo's fellow members of the Accademia dei Lincei, who played an active part in the publication of his 1613 Sunspot Letters. 38 This work brought together three letters written by Galileo that had previously circulated in manuscript form, and that were written in response to the German Jesuit Christoph Scheiner, who wrote under the pseudonym 'Apelles'. Galileo and Scheiner each claimed to have priority of discovery and a better explanation for the sun spots, and the published collection of Galileo's letters was intended -by Galileo and the Lincei -to mark, once and for all, the superiority of his observations and understanding of the spots. To this end, the work would include many richly detailed illustrations, all paid for by the Lincei's leader Federico Cesi. In addition to lending financial support, his fellow academicians provided Galileo with all the paratextual materials for the work and advised him about the best way of attacking Scheiner. 39 Galileo and his supporters were aware that the seemingly personal conflict between Galileo and Scheiner could be cast into broader terms by playing on a rivalry between Italians on the one hand, and Germans on the other. They furthermore saw both advantages and disadvantages to this strategy, and carefully considered using various arguments relating to both scholars' origins to ultimately select the argument that best suited their purposes. Just after Galileo had learned Scheiner's identity, he proposed to attack his opponent on the basis of his origins. Yet Cesi thought this unwise: The liberty that you extend to me, gives me the courage to say that I do not think it would be good to attack the nation in any way, but better to deal an underhand blow to the person and the class. The nation is most hospitable to letters and scholars, and, with an abundance of books and editions, sustains their glory, and the Linceans specifically need to have their friendship: they are liberal in philosophizing, and I see that they honour the Italians greatly, when they do not have particular passion or envy. 40 Cesi's point of view was shared by the painter Ludovico Cigoli, a Florentine friend of Galileo who worked in Rome and helped the Lincei with the illustrations for the Sunspot Letters. He too advised Galileo to attack Scheiner specifically rather than the Germans in general: 'touch him, and not the ultramontane nation [i.e., the German nation]; rather honour that, because by printing your works, and Latin translations and commentaries, it seems it brings them [these works] much honour'. 41 The discussions between Galileo and the Lincei soon turned to the 'Letter to the Reader' that was to precede Galileo's main text. This time Galileo, believing that the Lincei were being too aggressive in their promotion of him, asked that they adopt a more nuanced tone. 42 Cesi, in contrast, claimed that an aggressive tone was precisely what was needed, as Galileo was not as well 39 Cesi's first letter to Galileo, which stems from November 1612, was written shortly after Galileo and the Lincei had finally learned that Apelles was the pseudonym for a German Jesuit. known in Germany as he thought he was and it was necessary for them to seize this opportunity to counter his adversaries' false accusations. He was, however, willing to compromise. He proposed: But it is possible to make the preface more earnest, and one can with less affection and less show obtain the same effect.
[…] Following the warning, the dedicatory letter will be slimmed down a bit. There was talk of adding an epigram in praise of Florence, to deal your adversaries an underhand punch. 43 Thus, as part of a new and more accommodating strategy, Cesi suggested including an epigram praising Florence. In the end, no poem was added; but the dedication, addressed to the Florentine nobleman Filippo Salviati, served the same purpose.44 This dedication emphasized the Florentine connection between recipient and author: And what miracle is it if, in addition to knowledge of Your merits, that bond of friendship with which he [Galileo] loves, admires and esteems You, the Lynx, your native region, and your constant companionship also bound you together? It was with good reason that the noble city of Florence, so fertile of virtuous minds, extraordinary cradle of learning, which has always flourished and still flourishes in every virtue, should first taste and enjoy her own fruits and discoveries. 45 With its emphasis on Florence as a cradle of learning, the dedication conspicuously placed both Galileo and Salviati in a long tradition of ingenious minds brought forth by the city. Foreign readers who did not recognize Galileo's name would here be reminded of Florence's status as a place of extraordinary scholarly achievement, which would, it was hoped, make them more inclined to regard Galileo as a learned, cultured, and ingenious man.
The letters between Cesi and Galileo thus show that Galileo's Florentine origins could also be employed as an argument in favour of his credibility. Moreover, they provide further evidence of the flexible approach to both origins and scholarly credibility current among seventeenth-century scholars. Cesi's letters especially show that finding the proper argument to defend an ally or attack an opponent was a fine balancing act that required both tact and a certain disregard for rules. The debate between Galileo and Scheiner could be framed so as to also play on a rivalry between Germans and Italians in general -but the Lincei were careful not to emphasize this too much. Galileo's proposed open attack on Scheiner's German origins was considered a low blow (tacciar sottomano), showing that such attacks on origin were not normally 43 GO XI, Salviati was an appropriate dedicatee: he had been made a member of the Lincei in 1612 at the instigation of Galileo; they were long-time friends and Galileo had carried out the majority of his observations on the sunspots at Salviati's villa just outside of Florence. Galileo, On Sunspots, 373. 45 GO V 77. considered appropriate behaviour in the Republic of Letters. At the same time, Cesi's letter also confirms that scholars frequently reverted to such attacks, and his explanation shows that he was discouraging Galileo from reverting to dealing such a low blow only because the particular circumstances in this case made it a less than ideal strategy. Indeed, Cesi's own flexibility in light of the proper rules of scholarly exchange is underlined by his later suggestion to include the epigram on Florence, which he also acknowledged to be a blow that was dealt 'sottomano' (underhanded). That Galileo and the Lincei eventually did revert to dealing such a low blow perhaps tells us something about the effectiveness of arguments relating to provenance: did the lowest blow hit the hardest?

THE RHETORIC OF COMPETITION
In the eighteenth century, Lorraine Daston has argued, the praise of scholars from other nations became an especially valuable currency as members of the Republic of Letters recognized that nationalistic tendencies could play a role in the spread and acceptance of new ideas. The solution to this problem was 'distance, both literal and figurative', as 'the only tribunal that could impartially confer that glory was composed of other European savants'. 46 The examples discussed above show that seventeenth-century participants in the Republic of Letters were also frequently driven by regional and national competition, and sometimes gave voice to this by resorting to arguments that relied on, and further confirmed, bias. Still, they were also aware that attacking a scholar's credibility by pointing to his origins was inappropriate. Precisely this awareness that the rules were often violated also allowed for a rhetorical strategy that stressed the impartiality of a scholarly observer.
For this, we turn to the earliest published response to Galileo's discoveries. This reaction came from none other than Johannes Kepler, the Imperial Mathematician to Emperor Rudolf II, whose opinion on Galileo's Sidereus Nuncius was solicited via the Medici ambassador in Prague. Willingly obliging, Kepler wrote a letter that circulated in manuscript form among his acquaintances and then, with slight revisions, was published under the title Dissertatio cum Nuncio Sidereo ('A Conversation with the Sidereal Messenger'). Strikingly, Kepler agreed to publish on the subject before he could personally verify Galileo's discoveries with a telescope: Kepler's endorsement was grounded not on his own observations but instead on his assessment of whether the discoveries could indeed be true, based on the text and illustrations Galileo had provided, and his trust in him as their discoverer. 47 Kepler's lack of a suitable telescope affected the discussion of the discoveries, and especially his own credibility as assessor of Galileo's work. Unable to simply offer an account of the procedure he had used to verify the discoveries, Kepler instead had to convince his audience that he was a reliable judge of Galileo's work, even though he lacked first-hand confirmation of the discoveries. To this end, Kepler stressed Galileo's knowledge, social status and connection to the Florentine court -which he thought of as positive. Kepler also posed rhetorical questions about why he should not 'believe a most learned mathematician', whether he should 'disparage him, a Florentine Gentleman', and wondered if it would be 'a trifling matter for him to mock the family of the Grand Dukes of Tuscany, and to attach the name of the Medici to figments of his imaginations, while he promises real planets?' 48 Kepler also emphasized his own credentials as assessor of Galileo's work at various points in the text. Especially relevant is the 'Note to the reader', where Kepler claimed his work had been criticized by friends who had read his Dissertatio and found his praise of Galileo excessive. 49 To defend himself against this criticism, Kepler again invoked Galileo's origins, now contrasting them to his own: In this passage, Kepler implicitly referred to the potential impact of national loyalties on the reception of scholarly claims but made clear that such loyalties did not play a role in his own verdict. Precisely because this tension between ideal and reality existed, reference to different loyalties could become a useful means of dismissing criticism and establishing the credibility of both the person delivering the verdict and the scholar whom it concerned.
The mechanism of bias Kepler had addressed could also work the other way around. Scholars were not necessarily only jealous of colleagues from different nationalities, but could envy their fellow countrymen as well. Again, awareness of this practice helped to dismiss criticism, as the example of Giovanni Antonio Magini shows. Magini, the mathematician of the Bolognese studio, initially lacked access to a telescope and first tried to assess Galileo's claims by turning to other experts, among them Kepler. 51 Kepler's verdict, of course, was positive. Yet by the time it arrived in Bologna, Galileo had already given a disappointing demonstration of his instrument at Magini's house: "More than twenty of the most educated men were there, yet none of them could see the new planets distinctly." 52 Convinced that the satellites around Jupiter were a figment of Galileo's imagination, Magini started an anti-Galileian campaign. He reached out to others, and, according to one of Galileo's correspondents, Martin Hasdale, tried to convince them that Galileo was a fraud. Among those he approached were the mathematician of the Elector of Cologne and mathematicians of "Germany, France, Flanders, Poland, England, etcetera". 53 Hasdale thought he knew why Magini was so poised to discredit Galileo: he especially resented him for surpassing him "in his own patria; had it happened somewhere else, it would have hurt less". 54 He repeated this claim in another letter: Magini so vehemently opposed Galileo because he found it difficult to endure someone else "stepping before him, especially in his own patria, in that profession where he wishes he was the only Phoenix". 55 This is not the end of Magini's story. When he did come around to Galileo's side, he suddenly emphasized their shared Italian roots and contrasted these with the German origins of one of Galileo's most vocal opponents, Martin Horky. 56 Horky was Magini's former assistant and had also been present during the demonstration on 24 and 25 April. Yet when he 51 GO X, 341. 52 Bucciantini, Camerota, and Giudice, Galileo's Telescope, 89-94, cit. Page 93; GO X, 359. Galileo did observe two of the four satellites on the 24th of April, and all four the evening after. Magini's assistant, Martin Horky, also managed to see all satellites, but still contested Galileo's claims. On the difficulties observers encountered when using early telescopes, see Van Helden, "Telescopes and Authority from Galileo to Cassini", 11-12 and Van Helden, "The Telescope in the Seventeenth Century" in Isis, Vol. 65, No. 1 (1974) published a violently critical treatise in response to the Sidereus Nuncius, Magini wished to dissociate himself from his former pupil. 57 He fired him and told a mutual friend of his and Galileo's that this dismissal was meant not only for Horky, "but for all the Germans, who are the enemies of us, other Italians". 58 This same anti-German sentiment is also echoed in letters from another of Magini and Galileo's mutual friends, who wrote Galileo to say that Magini had nothing to do with Horky's inappropriate attacks, as the latter had acted alone: he was "very stubborn, as is the habit of the Germans". 59 Some days later, this same correspondent added that Magini had tried to stop Horky before the publication of his Peregrinatio but had failed because the "people from beyond the Alps are always very eccentric individuals". 60 Magini's behaviour shows the full extent of the flexible, if not to say opportunistic, attitude towards scholarly credibility shared by many seventeenth-century scholars. This attitude was not unique, nor did it go undetected: Kepler's and Hasdale's comments demonstrate that they were keenly aware of the role played by jealousy in the acceptance and transmission of new ideas, and had no problem understanding the constantly shifting allegiances that drove scholarly debates. Precisely this awareness that the ideals of the Republic of Letters were often violated also allowed scholars to deflect criticism and claim impartiality for themselves, thereby making full use of the rhetorical possibilities references to origins offered them. CONCLUSION Galileo's Florentine origins evoked various associations with implications for his credibility. These associations included notions about a shared Florentine character that implied all Florentines were unreliable; assumptions about the restrictive influence of the Florentine court and the presence of conservative Catholic forces in the city; and ideas about Florence as a cradle of learning from which geniuses sprung in abundance. The associations partly related to Florence's history and institutional organization. They also sprang from a broader cultural trend which originated in theatre, where each nation was assigned specific character traits. functioned as a marker of credibility that was used alongside and sometimes intersected with other indicators, such as court affiliation, social status, and disinterestedness. Yet, in comparison to other indicators, provenance was a remarkably flexible marker: Galileo's Florentine origins were not simply presented as simply positive or negative. Instead, scholars had a wide variety of associations at their disposal to choose from. They could select the one most fitting for their audience, position and purposes, and thereby criticize or enhance their opponents' or allies' scholarly credibility. The marker's value lay precisely in its versatility, and early modern scholars made full use of its potential. The way they applied this specific indicator of credibility demonstrates both their rhetorical prowess and their flexible and sometimes even opportunistic attitude towards scholarly credibility.
A driving force behind the use of providence-related arguments was competition, be it on a national, regional or personal level. Arguments regarding shared Florentine character traits were used by opponents of Galileo to give voice to feelings of discontent and envy, and thus functioned to strengthen existing tensions. Feelings of jealousy and rivalry were a guiding mechanism in other cases where Galileo's roots were invoked as well, as competition between various members of the Republic of Letters was fierce and spurred many to breach the community's rules. This sort of behaviour did not just occur in Galileo's case, but reflects a broader trend, as the example of Magini and the various discussions between scholars of what did and did not constitute appropriate tactics indicates. The competition moreover worked in various directions: scholars of different national backgrounds competed with one another, but those working in one and the same country did so as well, and competition between various regions was similarly intense.
Thus, in the seventeenth century, regional and national differences played a larger role in the way scholarship was received and transmitted than previously recognized. The findings of this article especially nuance earlier claims that national differences were not as significant as religious differences, and only gained importance in the eighteenth century. Scholars also openly acknowledged the role played by bias, discussed its effects extensively, and displayed remarkable resourcefulness in putting it to use.