diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/62402-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62402-0.txt | 4771 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4771 deletions
diff --git a/old/62402-0.txt b/old/62402-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 569cd3f..0000000 --- a/old/62402-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4771 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Galileo and his Judges, by F. R. Wegg-Prosser - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll -have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using -this ebook. - - - -Title: Galileo and his Judges - -Author: F. R. Wegg-Prosser - -Release Date: June 15, 2020 [EBook #62402] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES *** - - - - -Produced by deaurider, Charlie Howard, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - - - - - - - - -Transcriber’s Note - - -Table of Contents created by Transcriber and placed in the Public -Domain. Superscripts are indicated as ^m. - - - - -GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES. - - - - - GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES - - - BY - F. R. WEGG-PROSSER. - - - LONDON: CHAPMAN AND HALL, - LIMITED. - 1889. - [_All rights reserved._] - - - - - CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS, - CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS. - - - - -PREFACE. - - -There is no name in the annals of science which has been the occasion -of so long and fierce a controversy as that of Galileo. The historian, -the astronomer, and the theologian have all had a share in it. -Sometimes there has been a pause in the strife, and the question has -been allowed to rest; but after a while another disputant has rekindled -the embers, and the struggle has recommenced. This has been the case -within the last few years, some writers of considerable ability having -appealed to the history of Galileo in order to give point to opinions -that they wished to advance. During all this time, if there has been -unfairness on one side, there have been injudicious zeal and inaccuracy -on the other. - -These circumstances must form my apology for interfering in a dispute -already so prolonged and so envenomed; and it has appeared to me that I -may without presumption hope to amend the errors to which I have just -alluded, if in no other way, at least by stating correctly the facts -of the case. I do not, however, undertake to write a full biography of -the great philosopher, or to give a detailed account of his numerous -contributions to the scientific literature of his day; I confine myself -principally to those great crises in his life which have given rise to -so much discussion, and which have chiefly contributed to make him a -name in history. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - Preface v - Chapter I 1 - Chapter II 13 - Chapter III 42 - Chapter IV 78 - Chapter V 136 - - - - -GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES. - - - - -CHAPTER I. - - -Before entering on any details relating to Galileo’s life and works, -I propose to give a brief sketch of the progress of astronomical -knowledge up to his time; for without this, one cannot appreciate -correctly the value of his contributions to science, a value -exaggerated or underrated by different writers, each according to his -respective bias. - -The primitive conception of the Earth as a vast plain with the ocean -flowing round it, and the solid firmament in the sky above it, with the -Sun, Moon, and Stars driven across by some mysterious agency, need not -be noticed from an astronomical point of view; it appeared naturally -in ancient poetry and in the forms of speech adopted and continued by -popular usage; but it is not necessary to dwell upon it. - -The first astronomers with whom we are acquainted were the Greeks, -though it is said by some writers that the Chaldeans and Egyptians were -really the original astronomers of the ancient world, and what the -Greeks knew was borrowed from them. - -The vast majority of men from the earliest times down to the birth of -Galileo believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe, round -which the Sun, Moon, and Stars revolved every twenty-four hours; round -which, also (as careful observers had perceived), the Sun had an annual -motion, progressing through the various signs of the zodiac; moreover, -it had been noticed that the planets moved round the Earth, though at -widely differing periods. - -Yet there had been some few men, exceptionally gifted, who had guessed -(and truly so) that the popular conception was a wrong one. It is said -that the old Greek philosopher, Pythagoras, taught his disciples that -the Sun was the real centre of our system, and that the Earth and -planets circulated round it; but he does not seem to have openly and -explicitly published his doctrine, though the tradition of his having -so taught has always existed. If he taught it, however, he stands -almost alone among the ancients. There were two great authorities -in particular, whose opinion carried immense weight, and who were -both decided in holding that the Earth was the centre, and the Sun -a revolving planet. The first of these, Aristotle, has exercised an -influence over succeeding generations which is simply marvellous. -How vast was the weight of his name as a philosopher in the age of -the schoolmen is well known to every one who has ever glanced at the -greatest work of the greatest intellect of that age, the “Summa” of -St. Thomas Aquinas. This celebrated writer quotes him as “philosophus,” -in his opinion _the philosopher par excellence_, and besides his -general appreciation of him as thus shown, he wrote an elaborate -treatise on the “Astronomy” of Aristotle. - -Nor has this influence been confined to the schoolmen; it has remained -ever since, even to this day and in this country, where in the -University of Oxford his great work on ethics is still a standard book -of study. At the time of Galileo, such was the reverence felt towards -his authority in Italy and in Rome, that the Peripatetici, as those -who specially belonged to his school were called, were probably quite -as indignant with the revolutionary astronomer for disregarding the -teaching of their philosopher, as for going counter to the literal -interpretation of Scripture. - -But in pure astronomy, apart from all other philosophy, the greatest -of all ancient writers was Ptolemy, who in the second century of the -Christian era wrote a work called the “Almagest,” which is a complete -compendium of the science as known at that date. Ptolemy probably -borrowed very much from his great predecessor, Hipparchus, who has been -called the father of astronomy, and who was the first to discover--to -take a remarkable instance--the phenomenon known as the precession of -the equinoxes, involving as it does the difference in length between -the solar and sidereal years. The system of Ptolemy was briefly this: -The heavens and the Earth are both spherical in form--the Earth being -immovable in the centre, and all the heavenly motions taking place in -circles. For this he gives his reasons--sound and good reasons for the -spherical shape of the Earth; unsound and mistaken, however, for the -denial of the Earth’s rotation on its axis, an opinion he evidently -knew had been maintained by some persons; one important argument -on this latter head being that if the Earth rotated with the great -velocity necessary to carry it round in one day, it would leave the air -behind it. He places the Earth (as already said) in the centre, then -the Moon as the nearest planet revolving round it, the next Mercury, -then Venus, then the Sun, and beyond these Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. -All moved in circles, but since, with the exception of the Sun and -Moon, simple circles would not account for the motions, he supposes -small circles in a retrograde direction forming loops upon the main -circle, which he calls _epicycles_; undoubtedly following in this -respect, Hipparchus, who three centuries before had struck out the -same idea. It is curious that Ptolemy’s arguments (as above mentioned) -show clearly that in his day there were some persons, though their -names have perished,[1] some one or two philosophers endowed with a -marvellous insight into Nature, who had guessed at the true solution -of the great astronomical problem; but they left no enduring mark on -their age. The system of Ptolemy accounted for all the phenomena of -the heavenly bodies that could be observed without the use of the -telescope; naturally it held undisputed sway for many generations. - -The first writer who revived the doctrine of Pythagoras as to the -Earth’s movement (if, indeed, Pythagoras ever really taught it) was -Nicholas de Cusa; he was a German by birth, having, in fact, been born -at Trèves, in 1401; but he was educated in Italy. He rose to a high -ecclesiastical position, and was created cardinal by Pope Eugenius IV., -in 1448; his book just alluded to was entitled “De Docta Ignorantia,” -and was dedicated to Cardinal Cesarini. - -The first, however, whose work obtained any great notoriety, and -who upheld the doctrine that the Earth revolved around the Sun, was -Nicholas Kopernik, commonly called by the Latinised form of his name, -Copernicus. He, too, was a German, born at Thorn, in 1473; he studied -for a time at the University of Cracow, and like Nicholas de Cusa, -afterwards in Italy, and was subsequently raised to the ecclesiastical -dignity of a Canon. It is probable that he was not a priest (though he -is frequently spoken of as such), but a Canon in minor orders. In 1500 -he was appointed professor of mathematics at Rome; and such was his -scientific reputation that he was consulted by the Council of Lateran, -held in 1512, on the question of the reform of the calendar--a reform -carried out at a later period by Pope Gregory XIII. - -The system of Copernicus was well received at Rome. A German disciple -of his, John Albert Widmanstadt, in the year 1533, expounded it before -Pope Clement VII., and produced a very favourable impression. Nor was -the favour shown to Copernicus and his teaching ever withdrawn at Rome; -his great work, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium” (published, it -is said, by the advice of Cardinal Schunberg, Bishop of Capua), was -dedicated to the reigning Pope, Paul III.; nor does he appear to have -received at any time the least rebuke or discouragement from the Holy -See; he died, however, immediately after the printing of his book, in -May, 1543. - -Copernicus supposed the heavenly bodies, the Earth included, to revolve -round the Sun in _circles_; but, as it was evident that they did not -exactly do this, he used the theory of epicycles, and supposed each -planet to make two revolutions in each epicycle for every revolution -round the Sun. The true solution of the difficulty was due to Kepler, -who lived in the next century, and who discovered that the planets -moved in _ellipses_. Copernicus held, and, of course, held truly, that -the Earth revolves on its axis, thereby causing the apparent diurnal -motion of all the heavenly bodies from east to west. - -Owing to his work having been the first of any great importance that -maintained argumentatively the system called _heliocentric_, that is -to say, in which the Sun is the real centre, round which the planets, -including the Earth, revolve--for the treatise of Nicholas de Cusa -does not appear to have had any extensive circulation--it is usual -to speak of this system as the _Copernican_ one, notwithstanding the -errors from which its great author was unable to extricate himself, and -which have long since been rectified by subsequent writers; so that -even at this day we retain the name. - -It is always useful in scientific subjects to introduce a definition; -and this is my definition of the sense in which I employ the word -Copernican, that it is simply as opposed to the system in which the -Earth is the centre of the visible universe, and the Sun revolving -about it. It is, in fact, less accurate but more convenient than the -employment of the Greek words heliocentric and geocentric to denote -the two systems. Greek words, no doubt, abound in our scientific -vocabulary, as the following plainly show: astronomy, geology, -geography, barometer, thermometer, microscope, telescope; but these -have become naturalised in our language by long use, which heliocentric -and geocentric have not as yet been. - -After Copernicus there arose an astronomer of great merit, a Dane, -Tycho Brahé by name, who attempted to start a fresh system--a -modification, in fact, of that of Ptolemy. He made all the planets -revolve round the Sun, and the Sun, accompanied by the planets, round -the Earth. He deserves great credit for his painstaking observations; -but he lived just before the invention of the telescope--or, at least, -before it was used for astronomical purposes--and, therefore, was -under an infinite disadvantage. His chief objection to the system of -Copernicus was one at which a modern astronomer would smile, but which -in those days seemed very weighty--namely, the enormous distance at -which you must suppose the fixed stars to be situated, if it were true. -The philosophers of that age did not like to admit such a waste of -space as that which must intervene between the orbit of Saturn and the -stars. And, on the Copernican theory, if the stars were not situated at -an immense, almost infinite distance, they ought to appear to move in -a way they certainly do not. Tycho Brahé was born in 1546. His theory -never made much way; it had not, I imagine, sufficient elements of -probability to recommend it generally; while the subsequent invention -of the telescope, and the works of Kepler and Galileo, coming so soon -after Tycho Brahé, prepared the way for that almost universal reception -of the Copernican system which we have since witnessed. I shall refer -later on to Tycho and his observations. - -Such, then, was the state of astronomical theories in the latter -part of the sixteenth century. Enlightened men like Copernicus had -guessed--not accurately, it is true, but with a considerable approach -to accuracy--at the real facts of the case. Tycho Brahé (who, I -suspect, would have been converted to Copernicanism if his life had -been prolonged) had suggested a system of compromise not likely, in -the long run, to satisfy any thoughtful mind; while the bulk of men, -even the learned, adhered to the old Ptolemaic scheme. Something, -however, now occurred which was destined to work, sooner or later, a -complete revolution in astronomy. The telescope was invented, and, at -the same time, there arose a man who knew how to use it: that man was -Galileo. He was not the inventor of it, for it was first constructed -in Holland or Belgium; yet he had the energy and the skill to make a -telescope, without having previously seen one, simply from the account -he had heard of the instrument. The telescope that he constructed, -which still bears his name, was the simplest possible. It was of a -form now disused excepting for opera-glasses and for the far more -powerful binocular field-glasses with which we are so familiar; but for -telescopes properly so called an improved principle has long since been -introduced. Galileo was the first man that ever, so far as we know, -turned the telescope upon the heavens. How he was rewarded for his -pains we shall presently see; and I propose to introduce a narrative of -the principal events in his life, since there are no means for forming -a judgment so valuable as having the facts of the case clearly before -the mind. - -For most of the facts I am indebted to M. Henri de l’Épinois, whose -elaborate article in the French publication known as _La Revue des -Questions Historiques_ is of the highest value; as the author of this -article has done what I suspect very few writers on Galileo have even -attempted to do, namely, to inspect the documents preserved in the -Vatican bearing on the process, some of which he gives at full length. -Not having myself had the same advantage, I yet feel that I am treading -on safe ground when I take my facts from M. de l’Épinois; for there -is scarcely a statement that he makes for which he does not give his -authority, whether from the documents just mentioned, or from Galileo’s -own letters, or from other trustworthy evidence.[2] - -To treat of Galileo, and to pass over the events which brought him -into collision with the ecclesiastical authorities, would of course be -impossible, nor is it easy to touch upon these matters without having -some standpoint of one’s own--some principle to guide one, some basis -from which to argue. I do not shrink from stating that I write from a -Catholic standpoint; but without entering minutely into those subtle -questions which are the province of the trained theologian. - -As, however, a good deal of the narrative is connected with the -action of the Roman Congregations, as they are termed, it may not be -superfluous to explain briefly the nature of these institutions. They -are formed by the selection of certain Cardinals, one of them acting as -Prefect of the Congregation, to whom are added other ecclesiastics as -consultors and as secretary. The Congregation of the Index, to which -reference will hereafter be made, was instituted not long after the -Council of Trent, by Pope St. Pius V., and has for its duty, as its -name implies, the pointing out to the faithful people such books as -they ought to abstain from reading. The chief consultor of the Index -is the “Master of the Apostolic Palace,” whom I shall have occasion -to mention more than once in connection with that Dialogue of Galileo -which brought him into such serious disgrace at Rome. - -The Congregation of the Inquisition--I need hardly say, not to be -confounded with the Spanish tribunal of that name, which was founded at -an earlier period, nor with similar tribunals in other countries--was -erected in 1542 by Pope Paul III., and besides the other officials -attached to it, had certain theologians called “qualifiers,” whose duty -it was to give an opinion to the Congregation on questions submitted to -them. - -These two Congregations, as well as several others which it is not -necessary to enumerate, still exist, their functions being somewhat -modified by the changing circumstances of the age. Their action is for -the most part confined to matters of discipline, but they sometimes -have questions of doctrine and moral obligation referred to them by the -Pope, from whom, of course, they derive all authority that they possess. - -I do not here undertake to show the advantage and utility of these -Congregations, or of any other institutions connected with the -discipline of the Catholic Church. From the remarks I have just -previously made, it will be understood that I take all this for -granted, and that I feel justified in doing so. Those who differ from -me will, I trust, excuse me when they find that this conviction on my -part does not interfere with the impartial fairness of my narrative. - -Galileo, whom I believe to have been a devout Catholic, would, if he -were here to speak for himself, agree with me in principle, however -he might complain of the action of the Roman Congregations in his own -individual case. - -We shall then, as we proceed, inquire whether this celebrated -philosopher was, as some imagine, a hero and a martyr of science, or, -as others think, a rash innovator, who happened by chance to be right, -but who had little or nothing but vain and foolish arguments to adduce -in support of his doctrines. Perhaps we shall find that such critics, -on either side, are but imperfectly acquainted with the facts of the -case. - - - - -CHAPTER II. - - -Galileo Galilei Linceo--for such was his name in full--was born at -Pisa, the 18th February, 1564. When about seventeen years old he -commenced studying mathematics and physical science at the University -of Pisa, and later on, in 1585, he came to Florence, in order to go -through a mathematical course. - -He seems to have been wholly free from the sceptical and irreligious -spirit which unhappily warps the judgment of some scientific men -in our own day. His moral conduct, however, in early life was not -irreproachable, and it is recorded of him that he had a _liaison_ with -a lady named Maria Gamba, who became the mother of three children; but -this illicit attachment did not last very long, and a separation took -place, after which he saw Maria Gamba no more, and she was subsequently -married to some other person. He then entered the celebrated monastery -of Vallombrosa, where he was a novice for a short period; but, having -apparently no vocation for the religious life, he left the monastery, -and resumed his former pursuits. At the age of twenty-five he was -appointed professor of mathematics at Pisa, the Grand Duke of Tuscany -having invited him there on the recommendation of Cardinal del Monte. -Here it was that he first excited hostility by attacking the theories -of Aristotle on physical science, a thing not to be done with impunity -in that age. - -I have already alluded to the telescope constructed by Galileo, and it -is scarcely necessary to say that such an instrument, however simple -and rudimentary in its construction, could not fail to reveal to an -intelligent observer truths hitherto unknown. It was discovered that -the planet Jupiter had satellites, that Saturn had a ring, that Venus -passed through phases like the moon, that there were spots on the -Sun; this last discovery having been made about the same time by the -learned Jesuit, Father Scheiner, and by Fabricius. It was not, I think, -until the year 1610 that Galileo published his work called “Nuntius -Siderius,” in which he recounted the results he had obtained. This work -seems to have provoked some considerable opposition, but Galileo was -supported by the approbation of his patron, the Grand Duke of Tuscany. -In the following year, 1611, he went to Rome, and here he was well -received and treated with distinction by prelates of high position, -and even by the Pope then reigning, Paul V. Moreover, when, in the -year 1612, he published another work, which he called “Discorso sui -Gallegianti,” he met with general approval, and no less a person than -Cardinal Maffei Barberini, who afterwards became Pope under the title -of Urban VIII., is stated to have declared that he was in all points of -the same opinion as Galileo. - -Now it is quite true that incidental conversations, passing, perhaps, -through the hands of two or three persons, are not to be greatly relied -upon. It is also to be remarked that men in the position of Cardinals -or ecclesiastics of high rank may often look with toleration and even -favour on opinions stated in a guarded and hypothetical way, and yet, -if called on to pronounce an official judgment on such opinions, would -feel it a duty to pronounce against them. Nevertheless, there appears -considerable reason for thinking that since Galileo’s reputation stood -so high, and his ability was so manifest, he would have escaped all -censure if he had confined himself strictly to stating his views on the -Copernican system as a scientific hypothesis, and had firmly resisted -the temptation (strong as it was) to allow himself to be drawn into the -Scriptural argument. - -This, however, it must be remembered, was mainly the fault of his -opponents. Unable to grapple with the question in its purely scientific -aspect, some zealous anti-Copernicans turned to Holy Scripture for -support--Scripture in its most rigid and literal interpretation; an -interpretation, however, it must in fairness be stated, enshrined in -the traditions of successive generations. - -It is said that a monk named Sizi went so far as to maintain that the -Bible contradicted the existence of the satellites of Jupiter. If this -be true (which one cannot help doubting), we may well say that amongst -all the perversions of Scripture in which human fancy has indulged, -there is scarcely any one more monstrous; and we must not imagine that -all the Biblical arguments used against Galileo and Copernicus were so -unreasonable and exaggerated. - -It was in 1613 that our philosopher published at Rome another work, -entitled “L’Istoria e Dimostrazione Intorno alle Macchie Solari.” It -was, generally speaking, well received, though he drew a conclusion in -favour of the Earth’s rotation on its axis. - -The controversy, however, became still keener on the all-important -point of the interpretation of Scripture. Now that we can look back -on the events of that day with all judicious calmness, we may well -blame Galileo for having let himself fall into so dangerous a snare; -but there was some excuse for him, attacked as he was on this very -ground of the supposed incompatibility of his hypothesis with the -teaching of Scripture; and so he unfortunately committed a grave error -of judgment in grappling himself with a religious difficulty which, if -wise, he would have left entirely to theologians. It may be said that -this is not what we should naturally expect. We should suppose that -the ecclesiastical authorities would welcome any attempt to prove that -new scientific theories were not irreconcilable with the Scriptural -narrative, and possibly such would be the case at the present day; -but in those times it was certainly otherwise, and I am not quite -sure whether the tone and tendency of Rome (that is to say, Rome as -the centre of ecclesiastical tradition and authority) is not still, -as it was then, in favour of the same rule of conduct--that, namely, -which keeps a scientific man to his own province, and leaves to the -authorities of the Church the duty of reconciling physical theories and -speculations with the teaching of Holy Scripture. On this last-named -point I need not say I speak with the utmost diffidence; but on the -historical question, as to whether that was the feeling which animated -Popes and Cardinals in Galileo’s day, I think there can be very little -doubt. - -Now, as the controversy became embittered, a certain Father Cassini, a -Dominican, preaching in the Church of Santa Maria Novella at Florence, -attacked the Copernican doctrine as taught by Galileo; this aroused the -wrath of the philosopher, and he wrote (on the 21st December, 1612) a -letter to a Benedictine monk, Father Castelli, protesting against the -interpretation of Scripture which Father Cassini had used; and while -so protesting, over-stepping, it appears, the limits of prudence. The -result was that this unguarded letter was denounced by Father Lorini to -the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of the Index. - -The consequence of this was that in the early part of the year 1615 -there commenced a process which in the following year had an important -issue. It is said that in the month of March, 1615, Cardinal del Monte -and Cardinal Bellarmine had a conversation on the subject of Galileo -and his teaching, the result being that they both agreed on this one -point: that Galileo ought to avoid entering on the interpretation -of Scripture, this being a matter reserved to the ecclesiastical -authorities. - -Galileo was not then at Rome; and two influential friends of his, Mgr. -Dini and Prince Cesi, advised him to be quiet and silent; such advice, -however, was not to his taste, and he, on the contrary, thrust his -head into the lion’s mouth, confident of ultimate success. He came -personally to Rome, mixed in society, and endeavoured by the use of -such arguments as occurred to him in conversation to refute the ancient -opinions. Several of his friends, including some of the Cardinals, -advised moderation, but in vain; and such was his confidence in his -cause, that in the early part of the year 1616 he actually began to -complain of the delay in the process. - -The Pope looked upon his conduct with evident displeasure, and it is -stated in a letter of Guicciardini that on one occasion Cardinal Orsini -spoke to him in favour of Galileo, and he answered that the Cardinal -would do well to persuade his friend to abandon his opinion--adding -that the affair was placed in the hands of the Cardinals of the Holy -Office. After this incident, it is said, the Pope sent for Bellarmine, -talked the matter over with him, and agreed that Galileo’s opinion was -erroneous and heretical. A decided step was now taken: on the 19th -February, 1616, there was sent to certain theologians belonging to the -Congregation of the Inquisition--technically called the _Qualifiers_--a -copy of the propositions, the censure of which had been demanded: 1st, -That the Sun was the centre of the world, and consequently immovable -locally; 2nd, That the Earth was not the centre of the world, nor -immovable, but moved round itself by a diurnal rotation. - -The Qualifiers of the Congregation met on the 23rd February, and on -the next day, in presence of the eleven theologians who had been -consulted, the censure was pronounced. All declared that the first -proposition was foolish and absurd, philosophically speaking, and -also formally heretical, since it expressly contradicted numerous -texts of Holy Scripture, according to the proper meaning of the words, -and according to the ordinary interpretation and the sense admitted -by the holy Fathers and theological doctors. All declared that the -second proposition deserved the same censure philosophically, and -regarding theological truth, that it was at least erroneous in point -of faith. The next day, 25th February, Cardinal Mellinus notified to -the Commissary of the Holy Office what had taken place, and the Pope -desired Cardinal Bellarmine to send for Galileo, and admonish him to -abandon the opinion in question; if he refused to obey, the Father -Commissary, in presence of a notary and witnesses, was to enjoin -upon him a command to abstain wholly from teaching such doctrine and -opinion, from defending it, or treating of it; if, however, he would -not acquiesce, that he should then be imprisoned. On the following day, -26th February, this was accordingly done, and Galileo was warned “ut -supra dictum opinionem... omnino relinquat, nec eam de cetero quovis -modo doceat teneat aut defendat verbo aut scriptis,” with the threat -already mentioned in case of disobedience. Galileo promised to obey. - -In the beginning of the month of March there appeared a printed decree -of the Congregation of the Index prohibiting five works; and here -we arrive at the curious fact that no work whatever of Galileo was -prohibited by name. The feeling in the high ecclesiastical circles -of Rome seems at that time to have been very much to this effect: -“Let us stamp out the obnoxious opinion, but let us spare Galileo -individually.” The final result (including what took place in after -years) is strikingly contrasted with such expectations, if they -existed. Galileo had to suffer personally, not bodily torture or -incarceration, but humiliation and failure; whilst the dreaded doctrine -of Copernicanism, purified from incidental error and taught in an -enlightened form, has triumphed and reigns supreme. The decree of the -Index is particularly noteworthy, for it is the principal matter with -which we have to deal. After prohibiting certain Protestant books, the -decree proceeds as follows: “And since it has come to the knowledge -of the above-named Sacred Congregation that that false Pythagorean -doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture, concerning the -movement of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, taught by Nicolas -Copernicus in his work on the Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs, and -by Diego di Zunica in his work on Job, is already spread about and -received by many persons, as may be seen in a printed letter of a -certain Carmelite Father, entitled ‘A Letter of the Rev. Father, -Master Paul Anthony Foscarini, on the opinion of the Pythagoreans and -of Copernicus respecting the mobility of the Earth and the stability -of the Sun, and the new Pythagorean System of the World,’ printed at -Naples by Lazzaro Scorrigio, 1615, in which the said Father endeavours -to show that the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the Sun in -the centre of the universe and the mobility of the Earth is consonant -to the truth, and is not opposed to Holy Scripture: Therefore, lest -any opinion of this kind insinuate itself to the detriment of Catholic -truth, [the Congregation] has decreed that the said [works of] _Nicolas -Copernicus on the Revolutions of the Orbs_ and _Diego di Zunica on -Job_ should be suspended until they are corrected. But that the book -of Father Paul Anthony Foscarini the Carmelite should be altogether -prohibited and condemned; and that all other books teaching the same -thing should equally be prohibited, as by the present decree it -prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively. In witness -whereof the present decree has been signed and sealed by the hand and -seal of the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal of Santa -Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March, 1616.” - -Here follow the signatures: - - “P. EPISC. ALBANEN. CARD. SANCTÆ CÆCILIÆ. - “_Locus_ ✠ _sigilli_. - “F. FRANCISCUS MAGDALENUS CAPIFERREUS, - “_Ord. Prædicat., Secretarius_.” - -There followed a somewhat remarkable episode: some opponents of -Galileo having spread a report that he had been compelled to make an -abjuration, and also had had certain salutary penances inflicted on -him, Cardinal Bellarmine gave him a certificate to the effect that -nothing of the kind had taken place, but only that the declaration made -by the Pope and published by the Congregation of the Index had been -communicated to him; in which declaration was contained the statement -that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus on the movement of the Earth -round the Sun, and the stability of the Sun in the centre of the world -without its moving from east to west, was contrary to Holy Scripture, -and so could not be defended or held. It appears that the abjuration -alluded to was a solemn act demanded only from those who were suspected -of unsoundness in the faith, and carried with it some disgrace. Galileo -was naturally anxious to be cleared from such imputation, and the -authorities in Rome willingly met him so far, and avoided all acts -casting a personal slur on him. It is noteworthy that the interview -between Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo took place after the answers -had been returned by the Qualifiers of the Inquisition, but before the -publication of the decree of the Index. The certificate given by the -Cardinal, to which I have just alluded, was subsequent, and bears date -the 26th May, 1616. - -And here we may pause in the narrative, to inquire briefly what was the -effect, in an ecclesiastical point of view, of the decree just quoted, -and of the admonition given by Papal order to Galileo. On the mere face -of it, it cannot surely be maintained that there was any doctrinal -decision, strictly speaking, at all. I do not wish to undervalue the -importance of the disciplinary decision, I think it most momentous; -moreover, the reason alleged for it was that the opinion, the -publication of which was to be forbidden, was contrary to Scripture; -but I fail to see how this last-mentioned fact can possibly convert -what is avowedly a disciplinary enactment, prohibiting the circulation -of certain books, into a dogmatic decree. - -I should submit it to the judgment of theologians whether this would -not be true even if the Pope’s name had been explicitly introduced -as sanctioning the decree; as it stands, however, the decree appears -simply in the name of the Congregation of the Index. - -It would, I think, scarcely be necessary to argue these points at -length, were it not that the contrary view has been maintained in a -work entitled “The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the -Earth’s Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of them,” by the Rev. -William W. Roberts, a work written with ability and moderation as well -as considerable knowledge of the subject, since the author, though -determined to make all the controversial capital that is possible -out of the case of Galileo, rises superior to the vulgar atmosphere -of fable and false accusation; never alleges anything like personal -cruelty or ill-treatment as against the Pope or the Inquisition, and -scarcely alludes to the mythical story of “E pur si muove.” - -Moreover, even were the intrinsic value of the work less than it is, -attention has been publicly drawn to it by a writer whom, both from a -religious and scientific point of view, we feel bound to treat with -respect--Professor Mivart--although he has formed, on the other hand, -an exaggerated estimate of the importance of Mr. Roberts’ facts and -arguments. - -Here I wish to introduce an observation, as a sort of anticipatory -self-defence, which is that I do not feel bound to enter into all -the theological minutiæ which learned disputants have introduced -into this case. Those who wish to sift such arguments in detail can -read the articles in _The Dublin Review_ by the late Dr. Ward (since -republished) on the one hand, and Mr. Roberts’ book on the other. I -myself venture to look at the question as a lay theologian, employing -this expression not by any means in the sense of one who, having read -two or three theological treatises, presumes to discuss the sacred -science, himself an amateur, with men whose profession it is to teach -theology; for, to use a familiar expression, I hope I know my place -better. I employ the word in the sense of a man who seeks to know what -the Church teaches as requisite for a layman, that is an _educated_ -layman, to understand: thus the lay theologian, as I consider him, -ought to be able to discriminate between what the Church teaches him as -matter of faith and what she enjoins or encourages him to hold under -a less solemn sanction. He ought also to distinguish clearly between -matters laid down by the Church as parts of her definitive teaching -both on faith and morals--points, that is to say, laid down as of -_principle_, and therefore irrevocable--and on the other hand matters -of discipline which, whether intrinsically important or not, may and -do vary from age to age. He may of course make mistakes, as even -theologians may do, in applying his principles to particular cases; but -he ought to understand what the principles are. - -Now applying such plain principles to the Galileo case, I do not -understand how any one can come to any other conclusions than these: -first, that the decree of the Index and the other proceedings in -1616, though founded on reasons of doctrine, that is of the correct -interpretation of Scripture, were purely disciplinary in their -nature; secondly, that this being so, they were not infallible or -_irreformable_, as the term is; thirdly, that they were, however, -real acts of discipline, and intended to be enforced more or less -stringently according to circumstances. This last-named aspect of the -case is a matter of importance, and I shall return to it hereafter; -but the attempt to impugn the doctrinal infallibility of the Catholic -Church on the strength of such decisions as that of the Index in 1616, -seems to me so groundless that I should not discuss the question -further were it not that I think it right to notice some of Mr. -Roberts’ arguments. - -It appears that certain theologians have held that decrees of the -Roman Congregations are to be considered infallible, provided they -contain a statement in so many words that the Pope has approved them, -and provided also that they have been published by his explicit order. -This, it may be mentioned, does not necessarily imply that such decrees -concern matters which are strictly and technically matters of _faith_, -other less momentous issues being frequently involved. - -The decree of the Index in 1616 had no such statement about the Pope’s -approbation, nor any notice of his express order for its publication, -although, in reality, it was undoubtedly approved by him. Mr. Roberts -argues that this distinction is a worthless one, because, at that time, -the custom, since adopted on certain important occasions, of bringing -in the Pope’s name and authority explicitly, had not come into being. - -As an _argumentum ad hominem_ against certain writers who have -suggested that such an omission in the Galileo case was a remarkable -instance of Divine Providence, Mr. Roberts’ answer may stand; but it -has nothing to do with the main argument. It only shows that whereas -the Popes of more modern times have employed the Roman Congregations -as instruments for conveying to the world their own decrees on certain -doctrinal subjects, the Popes of the early part of the seventeenth -century had no such custom. They used the Congregations for various -disciplinary purposes, founded sometimes, no doubt, on reasons of -doctrine, and they sanctioned the proceedings so taken; but they did -not give them the explicit impress of their own name and authority. -Even when this latter has taken place, it is not every theologian who -holds that such decree is infallible. Cardinal Franzelin, a writer of -the highest authority, whose words I give in a note,[3] held that it -was not infallibly true, but only infallibly safe. His language is not -quite clear to the non-theological mind, but he probably meant that the -doctrine conveyed in such a decree was safe, so that it might certainly -be held without injury to any one’s faith, and that it was not safe to -reject it. But it is clear that he was not speaking of such decrees as -took place in the Galileo case, but only of those which bear on them -the marks of Papal authority in the strict sense. - -His own words are pretty plain proof of this. They are extracted from -his work, “De Divina Traditione et Scriptura,” and follow the other -words to which I have alluded: - - Coroll. D. Auctoritas infallibilitatis et supremum magisterium - Pontificis definientis omnino nihil unquam pertinuit ad causam - Galilei Galilei, et ad ejurationem opinionis ipsi injunctam. - Non solum enim nulla vel umbra definitionis Pontificiæ ibi - intercessit, sed in toto illo decreto Cardinalium S. Officii, - et in formula ejurationis ne nomen quidem Pontificis unquam - sive directe sive indirecte pronuntiatum reperitur... - pertinebat omnino ad _auctoritatem providentiæ ecclesiasticæ_ - cavere, ne quid detrimenti caperet interpretatio Scripturæ per - conjecturas et hypotheses plerisque tum temporis visas minime - verisimiles. - -We are not, however, I think, obliged to endorse the opinion conveyed -in the last sentence that I have quoted, though certain theologians of -great weight have held that the ecclesiastical authorities of Galileo’s -day were only acting with proper prudence in the then existing state of -astronomical knowledge. I shall hereafter state why I feel it difficult -to follow their judgment. - -But the words I have quoted from Cardinal Franzelin show plainly that -the decrees he had in his mind, when he wrote that they were infallibly -safe, were of a nature quite different from anything that took place -in the processes connected with Galileo; and although he alludes -principally to that which passed in 1633 before the Inquisition, he -appears to include the whole affair in the judgment he passes upon -it; indeed, the sentence of the tribunal in 1633, and the abjuration -enjoined upon Galileo at that time, were made to depend on the decree -of the Index in 1616, and the admonition then given to Galileo by -Cardinal Bellarmine. Cardinal Franzelin’s opinion, then, whatever -weight we may give to it, is clear enough. - -I give one more extract from the work of this learned author on the -subject of the Pope’s infallibility, showing that he was of opinion -that doctrinal definitions must be clearly and unmistakably intended -as such, and must carry with them some manifest signs to that effect. - -Extract from the same on the subject of the Pope’s infallibility, pp. -108 and 109: - - Neque enim _Cathedra Apostolica_ aliud est, quam supremum - authenticum magisterium, cujus definitiva sententia doctrinalis - obligat universam Ecclesiam ad consensum. Intentio hæc - definiendi doctrinam seu docendi definitivâ sententiâ et - auctoritate obligante universam Ecclesiam ad consensum debet - esse manifesta et cognoscibilis claris indiciis. - -In the case we have before us, I should say that the “clara indicia” -were all the other way; and indeed, were it not for the dust which -controversialists have tried to throw in our eyes, I should be disposed -to add that we might fairly drop this part of our subject--I mean the -part which raises the question whether there was not some decision or -definition, such as Catholics are bound by their principles to admit as -infallible, given against the Copernican doctrine. - -It is right, however, to notice one or two other arguments urged by Mr. -Roberts. - -Some of these consist in bringing forward supposed parallel cases, in -which the Pope has insisted on a full and complete assent being given -to the decision of some Roman Congregation. One case is that of a -“distinguished theologian and philosopher, Günther,” whose works were -condemned by a decree of the Index, having, however, the notice that -the Pope had ratified the decision and ordered its publication. This -was in 1857. Günther and many of his followers submitted, but others -contended that a merely disciplinary decree was not conclusive. On this -Pope Pius IX. addressed a brief to the Archbishop of Cologne, in which -he intimated that a decree sanctioned by his authority and published by -his order should have been sufficient to close the question, that the -doctrine taught by Günther could not be held to be true, and that it -was not permitted to any one to defend it from that time forward. - -I extract the words as given by Mr. Roberts: - - Quod quidem Decretum [that of the Index] Nostra Auctoritate - sancitum Nostroque jussu vulgatum, sufficere plane debebat, - ut questio omnis penitus dirempta censeretur, et omnes qui - Catholico gloriantur nomine clare aperteque intelligerent - sibi esse omnino obtemperandum, et sinceram haberi non posse - doctrinam Güntharianis libris contentam, ac nemini deinceps - fas esse doctrinam iis libris traditam tueri ac propugnare, et - illos libros sine debita facultate legere ac retinere. - -Mr. Roberts, it must be remembered, is not simply investigating the -history of Galileo, but is contending, for other reasons, against -certain opinions on the subject of Papal infallibility held by an able -foreign theologian, M. Bouix, and by Dr. Ward, and he uses Galileo as -a weapon (and, in his estimation, a most formidable weapon) in the -controversy. Now, in the capacity I have assumed of a _lay theologian_, -I do not feel bound to discuss whether the decree in Günther’s case -was merely disciplinary, or whether it was dogmatic; whether it came -within the category of strictly infallible pronouncements, or whether -it did not; and supposing the former alternative, whether it was -infallible in virtue of the Pope’s sanction and command to publish -in the first instance, or whether it only became so in virtue of the -brief addressed to the Archbishop of Cologne. All these questions, -interesting in themselves, I feel myself at liberty to pass over, -and to leave them, with the most profound respect, to be sifted by -professed theologians; I merely venture to remark, without attempting -to argue the matter, that, to my uninstructed intelligence, the whole -thing, including the Pope’s brief, appears to have a disciplinary -character rather than anything else. - -What, however, I would say is this--the questions above mentioned, -which in the Günther case are doubtful, are in that of Galileo clear -enough; the clause stating that the Pope had sanctioned the decree, and -ordered it to be published, on which the doubt alluded to is founded, -did not appear in the decree against the Copernican books; nor did the -Popes of that day issue any brief, such as Pius IX. addressed to the -Archbishop of Cologne. - -Mr. Roberts, it is true, thinks he has a clenching argument in a Bull -of Pope Alexander VII., of which I will speak hereafter, and which in -my humble judgment has the least force of any that he has adduced. - -The case of Professor Ubaghs, of the University of Louvain, which Mr. -Roberts thinks still more to the point, seems, I confess, to me even -weaker than the other for our present purpose. Here, again, I leave it -to theologians to decide whether the decree was or was not infallible; -but it undoubtedly appears, in point of form, to be a doctrinal -one, and emanated from the United Congregations of the Index and -Inquisition, to whom the Pope had expressly entrusted the examination -of the subject, and it was as follows: “Wherefore the most eminent -cardinals have arrived at this opinion: that in the philosophical -works, hitherto published by G. C. Ubaghs, and especially in his Logic -and Theodicea, doctrines or opinions are found that cannot be taught -without danger” (_inveniri doctrinas seu opiniones, quæ absque periculo -tradi non possunt_). “Which judgment our most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX. -has ratified and confirmed by his supreme authority.” Even then some -persons maintained that the decree was disciplinary and not doctrinal. -Cardinal Patrizi, however, writing in the Pope’s name to the Primate -of Belgium (if I mistake not), intimated that the dissentients must -acquiesce _ex animo_ in the judgment of the Apostolic See. Consequently -all the professors who had committed themselves to the proscribed -opinions were required to make an act of submission to the effect just -mentioned. The decree was treated as strictly doctrinal, and if so was, -I maintain, essentially different from the one we have now before us. - -In the case of Galileo, it is true that the opinion given in 1616 by -the Qualifiers of the Inquisition was a doctrinal one; the action -taken upon the strength of that opinion by the Pope in desiring -Cardinal Bellarmine to admonish Galileo, as well as by the Congregation -of the Index in prohibiting certain books, was simply disciplinary.[5] - -It remains for us to inquire what was the value of the decree of the -Index on certain works, written in favour of the new astronomical -doctrines, as appreciated by _contemporary_ feeling and opinion. We -naturally find that there were two views on the subject: one of those -who wished to magnify the effect of the decision, and one of those who -desired to minimise it. - -Galileo himself said that his opinion had not been accepted by the -Church, which, however, had only declared that it was not in conformity -with Holy Scripture; from which it followed that only books attempting -_ex professo_ to prove that the opinion is not contrary to Scripture -were prohibited. Whether Galileo was right or wrong in his estimate of -the scope of the decree, it seems evident that he considered the whole -matter as a question merely of discipline. - -It is said that Father Melchior Inchofer, S.J. (afterwards one of the -Consultors of the Holy Office), endeavoured to prove that the decision -proceeded from the Pope speaking _ex cathedrâ_. Mr. Roberts gives a -quotation to that effect from a work of Professor Berti; the original, -however, does not appear, and is probably not now extant. - -Mr. Roberts also quotes Caramuel, “the acute casuist,” who, in answer -to the supposed objection that the Copernican theory might hereafter -be shown to be true, says that it is impossible that the Earth should -hereafter be proved demonstratively to be in motion; if such an -impossibility be admitted, other impossible and absurd things would -follow. - -Caramuel, however great as a theologian, was evidently not endowed with -much scientific foresight. But he is not wholly wrong, for it has never -yet been possible to prove by _absolute demonstration_ the motion of -the Earth. - -One of the most important witnesses on the point we are here -considering is Cardinal Bellarmine, who was a very zealous -anti-Copernican, and had probably a great share (perhaps the principal -share) in bringing about the practical condemnation of Galileo’s -opinions in 1616. So far as I know, the only explicit statement bearing -on the question that we have of Bellarmine’s, is a letter to the -Carmelite Father Foscarini, dated April 1, 1615, though he has been -quoted as if he had expressed the opinion stated in the letter at a -later date. Mr. Roberts takes exception to the inference drawn from -this letter because it was written before the decree of the Index, -and we may add, about seven months before the referring of Galileo’s -writings to the Consultors of the Inquisition. - -Now we may admit that there would be some force in this argument if -Cardinal Bellarmine, instead of being what he was, had been a private -individual, having nothing to do but to listen submissively to what his -ecclesiastical superiors decided, whether in doctrine or discipline. -He was, however, one of the most trusted advisers of the Pope; he had -no small share in bringing about the censure of the Copernican theory, -such as it was; and it is almost certain that at the time when he -wrote the letter he foresaw that some proceedings of that nature would -follow, if indeed the proceedings had not already begun. We have no -sort of intimation that he ever afterwards changed his opinion, and -the way in which he was quoted by subsequent writers points to this -conclusion. I have thought it better to answer the objection made by -Mr. Roberts before stating what Bellarmine’s letter contains. I must -leave my readers to judge the value of the argument. All I say is, -that my own belief is that Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion, as recorded -in this letter to Father Foscarini, represents his permanent judgment. -It is a most curious letter, and is a singular illustration of the -danger that a man, however able and learned, may incur by attempting to -grapple with subjects of which he knows absolutely nothing. Bellarmine, -when writing on theological or controversial subjects, though he might -make an occasional mistake, was one of the clearest, ablest, and (may -one not add?) fairest of writers; but on a subject such as this, some -of his reasoning strikes us as very curious. - -The substance of it is as follows: After admitting that so long as the -Copernican doctrine is stated hypothetically, “_ex suppositione_,” -there is no objection whatever to it, he goes on to say that to -state it positively and as a reality is contrary to the principle -laid down by the Council (_i.e._ of Trent), that Scripture should -not be interpreted contrary to the common consent of the Fathers; -and, he added, not only that, but the universal opinions of modern -commentators. In answer to the objection that it is not a matter of -faith, he says: “if it is not so _ex parte objecti_, it is so _ex -parte dicentis_,” meaning apparently that a man who impugned the truth -of the Scriptural narrative in any respect would be heretical. Then -follows the paragraph which has given occasion to quote the letter, -and it is to this effect:[6] When there shall be a real demonstration -that the Sun stands in the centre of the universe, and that the Earth -revolves round it, it will then be necessary to proceed with great -consideration in explaining those passages of Scripture which seem to -be contrary to it, and rather to say that we do not understand them, -than say that a thing which is demonstrated is false. But for his own -part, until it had been shown to him, he would not believe there could -be any such demonstration, for it was one thing to prove that if the -hypothesis were true all things would appear as they actually do, and -another thing to prove that such is actually the fact; and in case of -doubt one ought not to leave the interpretation of Scripture as given -by the Fathers. Then comes what is really an extraordinary argument, as -we modern thinkers would view it. The text, “The sun arises and sets, -and returns to his own place,” was written by Solomon, who was not only -inspired by God, but was also the wisest and most learned of mankind -in human sciences, and in the knowledge of created things, and it was -not likely he could be wrong. Nor was it sufficient to say that Solomon -speaks according to appearances; for though in some cases erroneous -impressions, arising from appearances, can be corrected by observation -and experience, it is quite otherwise as regards the motion of the -Earth. - -It is certainly remarkable that it does not appear to strike Bellarmine -that the Fathers and commentators, not having this question before -them, naturally interpreted Scripture according to the ideas generally -entertained in their day. While to suppose that, because Solomon wrote -certain inspired works, and, moreover, was a great naturalist--the -greatest of his day--he was, therefore, infallible in his personal -views on astronomy, shows a state of mind so different from what we -find amongst even non-scientific men in our own day, that we are -almost startled and bewildered when we meet with it. The truth, -however, is that Bellarmine was a sort of link between the mediæval -and modern thinkers; in theology and controversy, and in appreciation -of the change that had taken place in Europe owing to the religious -revolution of the preceding century, in all that, he was, I imagine, in -advance of his age; in physical science he was a simple mediævalist. -But it was not for some time that even able men came to recognise the -principle that in the search for truth, so far as the works of Nature -are concerned, the opinions of the ancients and the traditions of -forefathers count but for little; and observation and experiment are -the true and only key to knowledge. It is otherwise, of course, with -theology and kindred studies; and it required some mental grasp, or in -default of that it required a long, very long, experience before the -human mind drew the distinction between the two. - -But this is a digression. I have quoted Bellarmine to show what he -thought of the necessity, from an ecclesiastical standpoint, of -putting down Copernicanism, at least until it should be proved to -demonstration. He did not appear to contemplate a dogmatic decision -against it, but what he did desire, and succeeded in obtaining, was a -disciplinary prohibition of the obnoxious doctrine. As a theologian -he well knew that such a prohibition would not be an irrevocable act; -it might be withdrawn when the conclusive proof of the forbidden -opinion should be established. He probably thought that the certain -demonstration of the opinion would only take place, as mathematicians -would say, at an infinitely distant date; nor was he wholly wrong, -as has already been remarked, for the absolute demonstration of the -Copernican doctrine is not, from the very nature of the case, a thing -to be achieved. - -Yet, if he had lived at a later period, I do not doubt that he would -have been satisfied with the moral evidence, the mass of indirect -proof, on which Copernicanism rests. Many years later, the Jesuit -Father Fabri, who appears to have held the office of Canon Penitentiary -of St. Peter’s, expresses himself in much the same way as Bellarmine. -He was replying to the arguments of some Copernican correspondent, -possibly an Englishman, since his reply was inserted in the Acts of the -English Royal Society in 1665, and he says: “There is no reason why -the Church should not understand those texts in their literal sense, -and declare that they should be so understood so long as there is no -demonstration to prove the contrary. But if any such demonstration -hereafter be devised by your party (which I do not at all expect), in -that case the Church will not at all hesitate to set forth that those -texts are to be understood in an improper--_i.e._, non-literal--and -figurative sense, according to the words of the poet, ‘terræque -urbesque recedunt.’” - -As a further illustration of the position thus taken by Bellarmine -and others as to the interpretation of Scripture, I may here mention -that some few years after the prohibition of Copernican works by -the Index (probably about 1623), it is said that Guidacci had an -interview with Father Grassi, at the suggestion of the Jesuit Father -Tarquinio Galluzzi, and that F. Grassi’s words were as follows: “When a -demonstration of this movement [that of the Earth] shall be discovered, -it will be fitting to interpret Scripture otherwise than has hitherto -been done: this is the opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine.” It is not -intended to deny that there were those who magnified the effect of the -decree of the Index; the devotees of Aristotle, who had gained what was -to them a great triumph, were sure to make the most of it. - - - - -CHAPTER III. - - -We will now return to the narrative; and in due course discuss the -condemnation of Galileo by the Inquisition sixteen years after the -events just described. - -It may be mentioned, as illustrating the feeling in Rome towards -Galileo personally, that on the 11th March, 1616, he had an audience, -lasting three-quarters of an hour, of Pope Paul V. He assured the Pope -of the rectitude of his intentions, and complained of the persecutions -of his adversaries. Paul V. answered very kindly, saying that both -himself and the Cardinals of the Index had formed a high personal -opinion of him, and did not believe his calumniators. - -In the year 1620 there appeared a monitum of the Congregation of the -Index, permitting the reading of the great work of Copernicus after -certain specified corrections had been made. - -Not long after this, in 1622, if I mistake not, Pope Paul V. died, and -Galileo’s friend, Cardinal Barberini, succeeded him, taking the name -of Urban VIII. Another of his friends, Monsignor Ciampoli, became -secretary of briefs to the new Pope. - -Our philosopher having ascertained that he would be well received, -went to Rome in April, 1624, and was treated by the new Pope with -all possible consideration. He had, in fact, several conversations -with him; and we may well conjecture it was on these occasions that -Urban VIII., discussing the Copernican theory, used some of those -arguments which Galileo afterwards put in the mouth of Simplicio in his -celebrated Dialogue, thereby deeply offending the Pope. - -But there was, about this time, a sort of moderate reaction in favour -of Galileo among the authorities at Rome. For instance, a work of his -published since the decree of the Index, and entitled “Il Saggiatore,” -in which he had favoured the theory of the Earth’s motion, was -attacked, and an attempt was made to have it prohibited or at least -corrected, but the attempt was a failure. - -The reports of casual or unofficial conversations are always to be -received with caution and with some qualification; yet at least they -are “straws which show how the wind blows.” - -Thus we are told that Cardinal Hohen-Zollern, in a conversation with -the Pope (Urban VIII.) on the subject of Copernicus, endeavoured to -show the necessity of proceeding with great circumspection on that -point, to which it is said the Pope replied that the Church had not -condemned and would not condemn that opinion as heretical, but only as -temerarious. So again the Master of the Sacred Palace, himself resting -neutral between Ptolemy and Copernicus, is reported to have said that -there was no matter of faith in question, the great point being that -one must not in any way mix up the Holy Scriptures with it. - -We may suppose that when the Pope spoke of the opinion having been -condemned as temerarious, what he meant was not that it had been -explicitly censured as such--using the word in the technical sense -which it bears when applied as a censure--for that it plainly had not -been, but that the general effect of the prohibition issued by the -Index was to stamp the mark of rashness upon it. This, I may observe, -if it be the right interpretation, is quite consistent with the theory -that the prohibition was of a disciplinary and a provisional character. - -We have also another reputed conversation of the Pope with -Campanella--resting on the authority of Prince Cesi, who related it to -Father Castelli--and it is important if true. Campanella had said that -certain Germans, ready to embrace the Catholic faith, had hesitated on -account of the condemnation of Copernicus, to which Pope Urban VIII. -had replied that this was not his intention, and if he had had the -arrangement of matters the decree would never have been made. “Non fu -mai nostra intenzione, e se fosse toccato a noi, non si sarebbe fatto -quel decreto.” - -As already remarked, we must not attach too great weight to reports -of private conversations; but it is probable that some such scene -took place as here represented, and, if it did, it is surely wholly -incompatible with the idea that the decree was a decision in matters -of faith. No Pope, no well-informed ecclesiastic of any rank, would -express himself so in such a case; but it is quite consistent with what -we might expect in a question of simple discipline. - -It will now be convenient, before discussing the matter further, to -resume the narrative, and to touch upon the questions connected with -the condemnation of Galileo by the Inquisition, and his enforced -abjuration. It is, indeed, these latter proceedings that have left so -deep an impression upon the popular mind, though, strictly speaking, -they were of less importance than the decree of the Index--of less -importance, that is, to all others besides Galileo himself. - -It seems that our philosopher overrated the effect of the reaction that -had taken place in his favour, real though it was so far as it went. -He thought he might now safely publish the work on which he had been -labouring, and on which he probably relied as likely to influence the -minds of learned men, ecclesiastical as well as lay, in the direction -of Copernicanism. - -He came in May in the year 1630 to Rome, and had a very long audience -with the Pope, who treated him with great kindness and even increased -a pension he had already bestowed upon him; but we do not know what -passed as to other matters on this occasion. He had also an interview -with Father Riccardi, who had now become Master of the Sacred Palace, -with a view of obtaining authority to print his book. Father Riccardi -upon this engaged Father Visconti, who was a professor of mathematics, -to read the work and mark such passages as he thought necessary. - -Father Visconti reported that there were some passages which required -correction, and many points that he would like to discuss with the -author. However, the Master of the Sacred Palace gave leave for the -printing of the work, expressing at the same time a wish to see it once -more himself; consequently it was arranged that Galileo should return -to Rome in the autumn, in order to add the preface, and to insert in -the body of the work certain passages, calculated to show that the -question was being treated purely as a hypothesis. - -Two untoward events, however, now occurred: one was the death of Prince -Cesi, a powerful and devoted friend of Galileo, which took place on -the 1st May; and the other was the outbreak of the plague at Florence, -a circumstance which interrupted communications, and caused delays -resulting in mistakes and misunderstandings. With a view of having -the Dialogue printed at Florence, it was arranged that the revision -required by the ecclesiastical authorities should take place there -instead of at Rome. Father Hyacinthe Stephani, a Dominican, who acted -as reviser, marked several passages in the work, thinking that they -should be explained before the final permission for publication was -conceded. - -Then followed mutual delays: the author was tardy in sending to Rome -the corrections to which he had in principle agreed, and the Master of -the Sacred Palace was late in sending to Florence the preface and the -conclusion, so the impatient philosopher began to print his book. The -plague still continued, and the result was that communications were -still interrupted. - -The Inquisitor of Florence however received from Rome the power to -approve officially the copy of Galileo’s work that would be submitted -to him, with instructions specially added by Father Riccardi that he -must bear in mind the wishes of the Pope to the following effect: -The title of the work must indicate that it dealt only with the -mathematical question connected with Copernicanism, also that the -Copernican opinion must not be put forward as a positive truth, but -merely as a hypothesis, and this without alluding to the interpretation -of Scripture; moreover, that it should be stated that the work was only -written to show that if the decree (_i.e._ of 1616) was made at Rome, -nevertheless the authorities knew all the reasons against it that could -be urged, and were not ignorant of one of them--an idea conformable to -the words of the preface and the conclusion, which he would send from -Rome corrected. With this precaution, it was intimated the book would -meet with no obstacle at Rome, and thus satisfaction might be given -to the author, and also to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, who had shown -himself to be so eager in the matter. - -This remarkable letter points towards a conclusion which has been -drawn by some writers, that the preface to the Dialogue was written for -Galileo by Father Riccardi or some other person, and was not his own -composition; for the above is precisely what was said in the preface -as it afterwards appeared, and it seems to me almost incredible that -Galileo should have spontaneously written any such words, exposing him -to the charge, which has really been made against him, of transparent -irony, thereby giving offence in the very quarters where conciliation -was desirable. - -And it must be remarked that when Father Riccardi on the 19th July of -this year sent the preface to Florence, he allowed Galileo the liberty -of making verbal alterations only; so that whether he composed it or -only revised it, it is Father Riccardi rather than the author of the -Dialogue who must be held responsible for the contents, and the same -remark applies at least partially to the conclusion also, it having -been specially revised by the same hand. - -The preface is addressed to the discreet reader, and the words to -which I have just alluded are as follows: “Some years ago, a wholesome -edict was promulgated in Rome which, in order to check the dangerous -scandals of the present age, imposed an opportune silence upon the -Pythagorean opinion of the motion of the earth. There were not wanting -some who rashly asserted that that decree resulted, not from judicious -examination, but from ill-informed passion; and there were heard -complaints that Consultors, wholly inexperienced in astronomical -observations, ought not to be allowed, with a hasty prohibition, to -clip the wings of speculative intellects. My zeal could not keep -silence on hearing the temerity of the complaints so made. As one fully -informed of that most prudent decision, I judged it right to appear -publicly in the theatre of the world, as a witness of pure truth. I -happened then to be present in Rome; I had not only audiences, but -approbations from the most eminent prelates of that Court, and it was -not without my own previous information that the publication of that -decree then followed.” The author goes on to say that he wished to -show to foreign nations how much was known in Italy, and particularly -in Rome, on this subject; and that from this climate there proceed not -only dogmas for the salvation of the soul, but ingenious devices for -the delight of the mind. - -This last clause certainly savours of bitter irony, and probably did -not proceed from Father Riccardi’s pen. He then states that for the -purpose in hand he had taken the Copernican part in the Dialogue -as a pure mathematical hypothesis, endeavouring by every artifice -to represent it as superior, not to that of the stability of the -Earth absolutely speaking, but to the doctrine as defended by the -Peripatetics, to whom he alludes with some contempt. - -He adds that he will treat of three principal heads: under the first -he would show that all our experience was insufficient to prove -conclusively the motion of the Earth, but that it adapted itself -equally to either theory; he hoped also to produce many observations -unknown to antiquity. In the second place, the celestial phenomena -would be examined, by which the Copernican hypothesis would be so -reinforced as if it ought to come out of the contest absolutely -victorious. In the third place he would propound his theory about -the tides: “proporrò una fantasia ingegnosa,” he says. He had long -been of opinion that the unknown problem of the tides would receive -some light on the assumption of the Earth’s motion. Other persons had -adopted his statement on this point as if it had been their own; he -therefore thought it desirable to expound it himself. He hints, too, -that the willingness to admit the stability of the Earth, and to take -the contrary side solely for mathematical caprice, is partly based -on piety, religion, the knowledge of the Divine omnipotence, and the -consciousness of human weakness. - -He had thought it well to cast these thoughts into the form of a -dialogue, which gave a certain amount of freedom to digressions. - -He then introduces the personages who sustain the discussion, and who -are supposed to meet at Venice at the palace of one of their number, -Sagredo by name. - -This preface, if one may judge by internal evidence, was probably the -joint composition of Galileo and Father Riccardi, the former having -written the original draft, the latter having altered the draft and -supplemented it with important additions. - -The body of the Dialogue--which I suspect that many persons who -consider themselves competent to give an opinion on the Galileo -case have not so much as even seen--is divided into four portions, -each being supposed to be one day’s dialogue. The interlocutors are -Salviati, Sagredo, and Simplicio. Great offence was taken at the rôle -attributed to this last-named personage--the true doctrine put into the -mouth of a simpleton! It has been said that Pope Urban VIII. considered -it as an insult directed against himself, because, in conversation with -Galileo, he had used some of the very arguments employed by Simplicio. -This, however, may have happened without the author intending thereby -to offer any personal affront to His Holiness; some character was bound -to appear on the anti-Copernican side, and it was inevitable that the -arguments that Galileo had heard, whether from ignorant or enlightened -antagonists, should be put into the mouth of such character. The name -Simplicio is of course not meant as a compliment; moreover, he is made -to say some very unwise things, and is occasionally treated with a -sort of polite contempt by the scientific and mathematical Salviati; -and yet he is not at all a simpleton in our sense of the word, he is -a devoted follower of Aristotle, whom he constantly quotes, and is in -fact a type--probably exaggerated--of the school of the Peripatetics, -as they were, and still are, called; he does not know much of geometry -or arithmetic, and so is at no small disadvantage when arguing with -Salviati, but he is far from being a mere fool. Our author, in his -preface, introduces Salviati and Sagredo--the former a Florentine, -the latter a Venetian--as real personages, deceased friends of his -own, though this may be a mere conventional form of expression; but -he expressly states that Simplicio is not the true name of the “buon -Peripatetico.” - -The friends are supposed to meet in the palace of Sagredo, at Venice, -as before stated. - -The first day’s dialogue deals with a good deal of what one may term -preliminary matter: that bodies have three dimensions and no more; that -circular motion is the most perfect and the most natural; showing by -this that Galileo had not at that time arrived at a true comprehension -of the first law of motion, as we now hold it. The motion of weights -on an inclined plane finds also a place in the discussion; and so does -what we now term the law of accelerating force, which Galileo had -grasped so well as to be able to explain how the velocity increases by -infinitely small steps gradually, and not, as it were, by sudden jumps. - -Much of the matter disputed on--as, for example, whether the heavenly -bodies being incorruptible differ in that respect from the Earth, -liable as it is to corruption and decay--which seems to us either -erroneous in conception or irrelevant to the question at issue, or -both--arose out of the old Aristotelian philosophy; and in those days a -dissertation which neglected points of this kind would have been looked -upon probably with contempt, as evading subjects that it ought to have -grappled with. The distinction between natural and artificial motion, -which occurs repeatedly in the Dialogue, is an instance of an utterly -mistaken notion, having its origin in Aristotle, who, great philosopher -though he was in other ways, failed in his investigations of physical -science, partly from being misled by verbal fallacies.[7] - -Another point that our author endeavours to establish in the first -day’s dialogue is that the Moon is not a polished surface, as Simplicio -and others thought, but much like our own Earth, with mountains and -plains and seas--this last being a mistake, as subsequent observation -has shown. The solar spots are also discussed, and so, incidentally, is -the question whether the heavenly bodies are inhabited, the affirmative -opinion finding little favour with any one. - -During the second day the great subject is the revolution of the Earth -on its axis; and Salviati urges forcibly the improbability of the -motion of the whole celestial sphere round the Earth in twenty-four -hours, including such a number of vast bodies, and with such an immense -velocity, while one single body (the Earth), turning round on itself, -would produce the same effect. He argues also that if you believe in -this motion of the celestial sphere, you must suppose the planets to -be moving in two opposite directions at the same time, the diurnal -one from east to west, and the annual one from west to east--using -the word _annual_ in its extended sense, as applied to the periodical -revolutions of all the planets. To this Simplicio makes the sapient -answer that Aristotle proves that circular motions are not contrary -to each other; upon which the third interlocutor, Sagredo, asks him -whether when two knights meet one another in the open field, or two -fleets at sea--in the latter case sinking each other--such motions -can be called contrary? This Simplicio is obliged to admit; he uses, -however, another argument, which did not seem so absurd in the then -existing state of science, namely, that there may be another sphere -beyond that of the stars, and itself starless, to which belongs the -property of the diurnal revolution, and that this sphere may carry -along with it the inferior spheres, these latter participating in its -movement. Ideas such as these were part of the pre-telescopic notions -of astronomy. Simplicio’s argument is in reply to some powerful reasons -drawn from the motions of the planets, the nearer revolving in a -shorter, and the more remote in a longer period; it being extremely -unlikely that they would be all whirled round the Earth in one day; and -also from considerations connected with the stars. - -It took a long time to disabuse the human mind of the antiquated -opinion that the stars and planets were set in vast movable spheres, as -lamps might be set in a large revolving cupola. - -One of the objections made at that time against the axial rotation of -the Earth was that, if it were really the case, any weight dropped from -a high tower would fall some way to the west of the tower, on account -of the latter having been carried on eastward by the revolution of the -Earth during the few seconds the weight takes in falling,[8] and that -such a result was contrary to experience. In those days, when even -the first law of motion had been barely guessed at, the second law, -that of the action of combined forces on any body, was of course not -generally understood; and a considerable debate as to this point occurs -in this same day’s dialogue. Simplicio has the hardihood to assert that -if a stone be let fall from the mast of a vessel, the vessel being in -motion, it falls behind the mast. Salviati, after making a foolish -distinction--in accordance, however, with the philosophical ideas then -prevalent--between the natural motion of the Earth on its axis, and -the artificial motion of the vessel, asks Simplicio if he has ever -tried the experiment, which, of course, he had not. He then tells him, -and most truly so, that the experiment, if made, would show a very -different result, and that the stone would fall at the foot of the -mast, whether the vessel were in motion or not. Further on, Simplicio -maintained that a projectile thrown from the hand, according to -Aristotle’s argument, is carried on by the air, itself set in motion by -the hand of the projector; and if the stone let fall from the mast of a -ship falls at the foot of the mast, it must be the effect of the air. -So again he imagines that a ball dropped from the hand of a man, riding -fast on horseback, falls some way behind, and does not partake of the -horse’s speed. Salviati, however, tells him that he deceives himself, -and that experience would teach him the contrary. - -Various difficulties are discussed in this dialogue well known to the -disputants of that day. It being questioned why a projectile shot from -a gun point-blank towards the east does not fall above the mark aimed -at; or shot westwards fall below it? How it is that birds, when flying, -are not left behind by the revolving Earth, since they at any rate are -completely detached from the ground above which they are soaring? Why -it is that light objects do not fly off at a tangent? - -One sees throughout the power of the master-mind of Galileo. He knew -many things in mechanics which no subsequent research or experiment -has ever corrected; but here and there, as may naturally be supposed, -he is at fault. It must ever be remembered that a dialogue, though -a convenient form of argument in some respects, does not always give -one a clear insight into the author’s real convictions. You are not -sure whether he quite agrees with any of the spokesmen, and, indeed, -Galileo, in his defence before the Inquisition, practically assumes -that he did not so agree. It is, however, a good form of discussion -for a man whose opinions are intended to be expressed in a _tentative_ -shape, and perhaps Galileo’s mind was in a state congenial to such -expression. But, at any rate, it makes it rather more difficult to do -justice to the author, as one is never sure what he intends to be taken -as the expression of his own deliberate belief; indeed, whatever may -have been the amount of indecision in which in this case our author’s -mind was involved, it is scarcely possible, notwithstanding his -disclaimer, to ignore the fact of his strong Copernican opinions. - -I think one may say that Galileo did not, at the time when he wrote -the dialogue, know the gravity of the air. I say at that time, because -it is quite possible that he knew it before his death, since he lived -some ten or twelve years after writing this work. It is maintained that -he knew it because there is extant a letter from Baliani, the date -of which I believe to be about 1631, in which the latter expresses -his acknowledgments to Galileo for having taught him this truth. May -it not, however, be that what is here meant is the _pressure_ of the -air? If any one thinks Galileo understood at that time the principle -of the gravity of the atmosphere, I refer him to the second day’s -dialogue. He was aware, no doubt, that the air was carried round by -the Earth in its diurnal motion, but why it was so carried round I do -not think he quite understood; indeed, as may well be supposed, he did -not _clearly_ understand what gravity was; it was a mysterious force, -drawing heavy bodies towards the centre of the Earth, a force to which -we, indeed, give the name of gravity, but of the essence of which we -know nothing, as, in fact, we know nothing of the nature of the force -that moves the heavenly bodies. This passage is remarkable because it -looks as if Galileo half suspected that the force which acted on the -Moon and the planets might be akin to that which attracted terrestrial -objects towards the centre of the Earth. If he really had arrived at -such a conclusion, he would have anticipated the great discovery made -thirty or forty years later. I think, however, that he only wished to -illustrate the one by the other, and that the allusion means no more. -I give, however, the passage in a note,[9] so that any reader may form -his own judgment; and I may add that according to an opinion commonly -held by the Copernican school of that age, the adherence of the -atmosphere to the Earth as it revolved was the effect of _friction_. - -Our philosopher, wise as he was, had not freed himself from the -antiquated notion that some bodies were essentially heavy and others -light, which latter had no tendency to descend; not thereby meaning -comparatively light substances, but such as were absolutely free from -the action of gravity; the fact not being then understood that it is -only the resistance of the air that prevents the smallest feather from -falling to the ground as quickly as a cannon-shot. - -Another mistake into which he falls is that of maintaining, in answer -to the argument that the diurnal rotation of the Earth would cause -objects to fly off from the surface at a tangent, that _no amount_ of -velocity of rotation would be sufficient for such a result to follow; -whereas, it is well known to modern students of mechanics that if a -certain very high velocity of rotation were reached, the centrifugal -force would overcome that of gravity, and objects would be projected -from the surface of the Earth in the direction of the tangent at that -point. - -Some irrelevant arguments occur, of which, no doubt, many were -employed at that time on both sides; I think it was the late Professor -de Morgan who (in an article written for a popular periodical) made -a list of these; and it must in all fairness be said, that this -circumstance ought to be taken into account, as palliating the apparent -obstinacy of the anti-Copernican party in denying the motion of the -Earth. The argument drawn from the tides is, of course, the most -striking instance of these scientific fallacies; but it was by no means -the only one; in this particular dialogue there is another, which is -worth noticing because it confirms what I have just said as to Galileo -knowing nothing of the doctrine of universal gravitation. He puts -into the mouth of Salviati the argument that bodies which emit light, -as do the Sun and fixed stars, are essentially different from those -which, like the Earth and planets, have no such property--a distinction -which modern astronomy does not endorse--and that, as the Earth in -this respect resembles the planets, and the planets are undoubtedly -moving, so probably the Earth also is like them in motion, whilst the -Sun and the stars remain at rest. It is obvious that ideas of this -kind, however plausible they may seem, are utterly at variance with the -theory of universal gravitation, according to which, even if the Sun -were a dark, cold body and the Earth glowing with heat and light, the -Earth would revolve about the Sun just as it does now, _provided the -mass of the two bodies remained the same_ as at present. - -Another suggestion, and a rather amusing one, on the opposition side, -was that all things in motion require occasional rest, as we see to -be the fact with animals; therefore the Earth, if it were constantly -moving, would stand in need of rest--an argument, I suppose, which -needs no very elaborate answer. - -In the third day’s dialogue a question is raised, and sifted at -great length, as to whether a certain newly observed star in the -constellation Cassiopeia was in the firmament among the distant fixed -stars, or “sublunar,” _i.e._ nearer to the Earth than the Moon. This -star was probably the same as the very remarkable one first observed -by Tycho Brahé in 1572, which attained a brilliancy so extraordinary, -that it is said to have been equal to the planet Venus, and to have -been visible to good eyes in full daylight; in about a month’s time it -appeared to grow smaller, and gradually faded away until it disappeared -entirely--about six months after it was first discovered. This was some -years before the invention of the telescope, and the observations were -deprived of any assistance they might have gained from that source. The -star was one of the most noteworthy of all the variable stars on record. - -There followed upon the mention of this star, a dissertation on the -method of finding the distances of the heavenly bodies by parallax. The -principle of this method was, as we may suppose, well known to Galileo; -but he probably did not allow _sufficiently_ for the great difficulty -in taking accurate observations, especially with the imperfect -instruments then in use; I say sufficiently, because that there were -such errors he knew, and he insists on the fact in the Dialogue. - -Much discourse is spent on the distance of this new star; the -apparent reason of which is that it had created some sensation among -the astronomers of that day, and therefore the subject received an -attention out of proportion to its real importance--I mean importance -so far as the Copernican controversy was concerned. - -The conversation is then brought back to the objections made by -contemporary philosophers to the Copernican system. Aristotle’s idea -of the universe was that of a vast sphere, or number of concentric -hollow spheres, with the Earth in the centre; if that were shown to be -probably untrue, his system broke down.[10] Coming, however, to our own -immediate portion of the universe, the question is now raised whether -the Earth or the Sun is the centre of revolution. Galileo, by the mouth -of Salviati, explains forcibly the argument for the Sun being so. That -Mercury and Venus revolve round the Sun he takes for certain; the -phases of Venus, which he had himself observed, proved it as regards -that planet; and the fact of neither of these bodies ever being seen -far apart from the Sun, greatly strengthened the conclusion in respect -of both of them. A transit of Mercury over the Sun’s disc had, in fact, -been observed in the year 1631, by Gassendi; but Galileo was doubtless -not aware of it when he wrote the Dialogue. - -It being clear then that Venus and Mercury revolve round the Sun, -Galileo shows what strong ground there is for inferring that the -superior planets, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn (the others not being then -known), do so also; this he judges from the greater size of these -latter, and particularly of Mars, when in opposition than when in -conjunction; whence we may conclude that the Earth, which as well as -the Sun is contained within their orbits, is not in the centre of them, -or nearly so. It is remarkable that Galileo treats all the planets as -revolving in _circles_, though one would think he must at that time -have been aware of Kepler’s discovery--that they move in _ellipses_. He -makes Simplicio grant these last-mentioned points, which is curious; -and he also explains how the telescope showed phenomena, such as the -phases of Venus, which were unknown to Copernicus. Simplicio has -hitherto had no confidence in this new instrument, and following in the -footsteps of his friends the Peripatetic philosophers, has supposed the -appearances in question to be optical illusions arising from the lenses -used; he will, however, gladly be corrected if in error. Simplicio’s -mathematical acquirements are not very great, and it is necessary to -explain to him that the areas of circles vary in proportion, not to -their diameters simply but to the squares of the diameters, a point -which arises in reference to the false judgment formed by the naked eye -as to the size of the celestial bodies, an error which is corrected -by the telescope. Then to those who made it a difficulty that the -Earth should move round the Sun, not alone, but accompanied by the -Moon, Salviati is made to reply that Jupiter revolves round the Sun -accompanied by four moons. - -Again the greater simplicity of the Copernican theory, in accounting -for the planetary motions, as they appear to us, is expounded by the -same personage. - -Galileo occasionally makes the interlocutors allude to himself as “il -nostro amico comune,” “il nostro Accademico Linceo,” etc., and thus -claims credit for having been the first to discover the solar spots, a -credit which ought not to belong exclusively to him, as Fabricius and -the Jesuit Father Scheiner saw the spots at about the same time. - -An argument is here attempted to be drawn in favour of the Earth’s -annual motion from the apparent course of the Sun-spots, and the -curves they sometimes describe (as viewed from hence), owing to the -inclination of the Sun’s axis to an axis perpendicular to the plane of -the ecliptic--an inclination of about 7°; there is nothing, however, at -all conclusive in such argument, because the appearances in question -result from the different _relative_ positions of the Earth and Sun at -different seasons of the year, and would be the same whichever of the -two bodies were in motion. - -There follows some conversation arising from one of the anti-Copernican -books of that day; one of the difficulties suggested, being the vast -distance at which you must suppose the fixed stars to be placed, if -Copernicus be right. We who are accustomed to the idea of these immense -distances, can scarcely understand the prejudices of the philosophers -of that age against admitting them. And it is worth noting that Galileo -takes for granted, while answering these theoretical objections, the -calculation of his predecessors--that the distance of the Sun is that -of 1,208 semi-diameters of the Earth, that is something more than -4,800,000 miles, about one-nineteenth part of what we now know it to -be. So also he supposes the size of the Sun to be much less than what -is really the case. He was also under the erroneous impression, arising -doubtless from the imperfection of the instruments he used, that the -stars really had an apparent diameter, though less than Tycho Brahé and -other astronomers had supposed, and estimates the angular diameter of a -star of the first magnitude at about 5″; consequently he imagined the -stars to be much nearer than is actually the fact. It is well known to -modern observers, that the apparent size of a star is the effect of an -optical illusion, and that greatly as the stars vary in brightness, -they present no appreciable diameter at all to the eye; not even those -classed as being of the first magnitude. - -Another and more weighty objection to Copernicus is, however, urged by -the mouth of Simplicio, and it is this--if the Earth really makes an -annual revolution round the Sun, why do not the fixed stars, viewed as -they must be at different seasons of the year from points so widely -distant, change their apparent positions in the heavens? We have just -seen that the true distance of the Sun was not known at that time;--if -it had been known, and if the men of that age had been aware that the -diameter of the Earth’s orbit was about 184,000,000 miles in length, -the objection would have been still more forcible. But the modern -answer to it is conclusive: the stars, or rather a certain number -of them, do actually undergo a small displacement in their apparent -position every year, or in the technical language of astronomy, they -have an annual parallax, a fact which not merely disposes of the -objection, but actually confirms the truth of the Copernican theory. - -Galileo’s reply (by the mouth of Salviati) is to the effect that -the followers of Ptolemy admit that it takes 36,000 years to effect -a complete revolution of the starry sphere; then, judging from the -planets, the length of time required for the orbit is in proportion -to the distance, and we suppose the distance of the starry sphere to -be, on such assumption, 10,800 semi-diameters of the Earth’s orbit (or -Sun’s orbit, as they called it). At so great a distance as that, the -change of position caused by the Earth’s annual motion round the Sun -would not be appreciable. - -The principle of this reply is of course quite sound, and we, who know -the stars to be considerably farther from us than the above estimate -supposes, can well understand that the vast majority of them have no -annual parallax whatever, that the finest instruments can discover. - -To further objections drawn from the enormous distances of the stars, -and the difficulty of perceiving the use which such remote bodies can -be to the Earth, it is replied that such speculations are useless and -presumptuous, and also that words like small, very small, immense, -etc., are relative rather than absolute. - -Some pains are taken in the course of the dialogue to explain how the -stars, according to their different positions, would be affected by -annual parallax, supposing such to be discoverable, and assuming the -motion of the Earth. And a minute explanation is also given, on this -latter assumption, of the length of day and night varying in different -latitudes according to the seasons; illustrating the fact that details -which appear to us elementary and are taught to schoolboys, were -strange to the minds even of educated and learned men in those days. - -One remark, arising from the questions connected with stellar parallax, -is most striking, as showing how far Galileo was advanced in his -knowledge of pure mathematics as well as of mechanics and astronomy. -Salviati is made to say that the circumference of an infinite circle -is identical with a straight line: “sono l’istessa cosa.” This idea, -familiar though it be to modern mathematicians, is one that we -should not have expected to find enunciated in the early part of the -seventeenth century; even the intelligent Sagredo cannot understand or -believe it, and it is not further discussed; but the fact of its being -here stated is especially noteworthy.[11] - -Another (less felicitous) guess is hazarded by the same interlocutor -Salviati, who, as I have already remarked, appears to be the one that -most nearly represents the author’s own mind,--to account for the -Earth keeping her axis pointed (approximately, that is to say) in the -same direction during each annual revolution round the Sun. Salviati -suggests that it may be due to some magnetic influence, and that the -interior of the Earth may be a vast loadstone. This is strange, because -it is evident from what immediately preceded, that the author was aware -of the true reason, which in fact he illustrates by the well-known -experiment of a light ball floating in a bucket of water, to which a -revolving motion is imparted. It seems, however, that a work by William -Gilbert on the subject of magnetism had had some influence on the -scientific thought of the period, and that Galileo had considered it -worthy of his attention. The writer had maintained the probability of -this theory, of the Earth’s interior being an enormous loadstone--not -an unnatural idea in the then-existing state of science--and Galileo -was evidently somewhat fascinated by the hypothesis. Magnetism was -attracting the notice of the philosophers of that day, and the property -of the needle, which is termed the _dip_, had been recently discovered. - -There is not much else worthy of special mention in the third day’s -dialogue; which in fact, as a whole, is not equal to that of the second -day. - -The fourth day is mainly devoted to the argument drawn from the tides. -It was in handling this branch of the subject that Galileo’s great -sagacity and power of discernment seem to have deserted him. It is a -curious thing that the inhabitant of a Mediterranean country, who, for -all that one knows, never saw a really great tide in his life, should -have seized upon this topic, and so utterly misused and perverted it. - -If, instead of living in Italy, he had resided at an English seaport, -he would probably have never fallen into the mistakes he thus made. In -the Mediterranean there are currents, arising from other causes, which -he, however, attributed to tidal action; but for the most part there -is little, if any, appreciable ebb and flow of the tides, scarcely any -perceptible rise and fall of the sea, a fact which he particularly -notices. But in some few places, and notably at Venice, there is -a sensible tide, so it is said, causing a difference of a few feet -between high and low water. - -Now Galileo was under the impression that the ebb and flow took each -about six hours, following the ordinary solar day; whereas, if he had -observed the phenomenon on the shores of any sea, where the tidal wave -of the ocean made its full force to be felt, or again, at the mouth of -a great tidal river, he never could have failed to perceive that the -rise and fall of the water follow approximately the _lunar_, and not -the solar day, the former being fifty minutes longer than the latter. -It must of course be understood that the theory of the tides was first -investigated fully and scientifically by the same great genius to whom -we owe the theory of universal gravitation; and Galileo, who lived -half a century earlier, may well be excused for not having grasped -it. But it had long been known that the Sun and Moon had an influence -upon the tides, and as I have just stated, any one who watched the -movements of the sea from day to day, and from week to week, at a place -where there is a great rise and fall--as for instance, in the Bristol -Channel--could not fail to perceive that the Moon had the principal -share in the work, however unable he might be to comprehend the theory. -Besides which, the theory, however obvious to us (at least in its main -outlines), was not by any means so intelligible to the men of Galileo’s -age. They might just guess that the Sun exercised some attractive -influence over the Earth, and the Earth again over the Moon, but they -did not know that the Moon attracted the Earth exactly in the same way, -though with far inferior potency, owing to her much smaller mass; and -consequently they were not aware of the Moon’s power to raise the great -tidal wave in the ocean, to which are due the remarkable phenomena so -familiar to the inhabitants of the English coasts. - -Galileo would have been wise if he had not touched on a point which -he neither understood in theory, nor had properly acquainted himself -with by practical observation. Good causes are often damaged by bad -arguments, and such was the case on this occasion.[12] There was, -however, something ingenious in his argument. If you take a basin of -water, and move it along quite smoothly and evenly, no great commotion -in the water takes place; but suppose some stoppage or jerk to occur, -the result will be, as we know, very different. Now the Earth has two -motions, one round its axis in twenty-four hours, and the other round -the Sun in one year; every point, then, on the Earth’s surface moves -through space more rapidly while on that side of the globe which is -turned away from the Sun, than on that side which by the diurnal -revolution is turned round in the contrary direction. Here, then, with -the sea lying in its vast basin, and revolving with other things on the -surface of the Earth from west to east every day, and thus accelerated -in its motion through space during twelve hours and retarded during -the other twelve hours, you have on a large scale the same result -that a basin, half full of water, held in your hands and checked by -some retarding obstacle, gives you on a very small and minute scale. -Strange indeed it is that a man who was acquainted with the laws of -motion sufficiently to know that anything thrown or dropped in a -vessel or a vehicle, partook of the motion of the latter and followed -its course (so long as it remained within the vehicle) just as if the -whole were at rest--that he should have failed to perceive that the -ocean, lying in its bed in that mighty vehicle the Earth, would be -carried round in the daily rotation with an uniform velocity, unless -interfered with by the attraction of other bodies. Simplicio, who for -once is right, puts the difficulty, that if the sea behaved in the -way supposed, the air would do so in the same way: the reply to which -is that the air being thin and light is less adherent to the Earth -than the water which is heavier, and does not accommodate itself to -the Earth’s movements as water does; further, that where the air is -not hemmed in, as it were, by mountains and other inequalities on the -Earth’s surface, it really is partially left behind by the diurnal -rotation, and in the neighbourhood of the tropics, where the effect is -chiefly felt, a constant wind blows accordingly from east to west. Our -philosopher had evidently heard of the trade winds, though he had not -acquired an accurate knowledge of their course or of their origin. It -is undoubtedly true that they do help strongly to prove the revolution -of the Earth, because they arise from cold currents of air flowing in -from the north and from the south respectively towards the tropics, -to supply the place of the atmosphere rarefied by the sun’s heat, and -consequently ascending, as is the case in those regions. Then these -cold currents, coming from latitudes where there is a less velocity of -rotation, tend to preserve that velocity and lag behind the Earth as -it revolves, so that they have the effect of north-easterly winds in -the northern hemisphere, and south-easterly in the southern hemisphere. -Galileo’s imperfect information prevented him from using this important -argument. - -However, to return to the tides. He had to account for other phenomena, -besides the daily rise and fall, namely, for the much greater rise and -fall which take place soon after new and full moon, and which are known -as the spring-tides. Unable to deny that these were in some way due -to lunar influence, he took refuge in the supposition that the Moon, -when at the full, retarded the motion of the Earth in its orbit, since -as the two travel together round the Sun at those particular times, -they form, as it were, a lengthened pendulum, longer than at other -times by the semi-diameter of the lunar orbit; and therefore (like any -other pendulum) must vibrate more slowly. I should say that he does -not appear to have been aware of the existence of _two_ spring-tides -in each lunation, and therefore only tries to account for one; and it -is obvious that this method of explaining them is not only utterly -inadequate, but even absurd. The Moon truly enough exercises a certain -disturbing influence on the orbital motion of the Earth, but that has -nothing to do with the spring-tides. - -There remained the necessity of accounting for the annual, or, more -properly, semi-annual increase of the ebb and flow of the sea. Galileo -suggests that this arises from the angle made by the plane of the -equator with the ecliptic at the equinoxes, owing to which there would -not be the same counteraction exercised by the Earth’s motion in its -orbit on the waters of the ocean at those periods as there would at -the solstices. But it seems that this would rather tend to diminish -the tides than to increase them, as, indeed, would be the case as -regards the last-mentioned explanation with respect to the ordinary -spring-tides. What really does happen at the equinoxes is, that the Sun -and the full or new Moon being at those times vertical to the equator -(or nearly so), they have a greater attractive force than at other -spring-tides over the vast expanse of the ocean, and the tides are -consequently greater. There is also another increase which sometimes -occurs when the Moon happens to be at its least distance from the -Earth at the time of spring-tides, but that was unknown to Galileo. -He touches, however, and very properly so, on the great modifications -in the tides caused by various gulfs, by the forms of the great -continents, and the shapes of different seas--modifications, in fact, -which are well known to be almost innumerable, and have been learnt -only by careful observation and experience. - -One of the worst features of this Dialogue is the contempt which the -author shows for those opinions on the subject which differ from his -own; and it is difficult to suppress a feeling of disgust when he -alludes in this way to Kepler, who had partly guessed the true cause of -the tides, and of whom he otherwise speaks in terms of respect.[13] - -If a man of science, when he wishes to publish to the world a discovery -or a hypothesis, adopts the form of a dialogue as a method of stating -his case, he ought in all reason to do full justice to the antagonistic -side, and state his opponent’s case as well as his own. I fear that -Galileo failed to do this, not only in this particular dialogue, but -also to some extent in those of the three preceding days. Simplicio, -as I said above, is not a fool, but as a personage in a scientific -argument he is lamentably deficient. - -Simplicio at the end of the Dialogue urges that God could, in His -infinite power, cause the tides by some other means than those -suggested by Salviati, to which true and pious (though, perhaps, rather -irrelevant) argument the latter respectfully and devoutly assents. - -The concluding sentences are said, as I have remarked elsewhere, to -have been recast or retouched by Father Riccardi. - -It is worth noticing that there is a passage in the fourth day’s -dialogue, in which the author alludes to the fact of the Sun being -apparently longer by about nine days in passing along the ecliptic from -the spring to the autumn equinox, than in passing from the autumnal to -the vernal; that is to say, of the northern hemisphere having so much -longer summer than winter, and he treats it as one of the recondite -problems of astronomy not as yet understood. This is an additional -proof that for some reason or another he had not made himself -acquainted with Kepler’s researches; for as soon as it became known -that the planets move, not in circles, but in ellipses, with the Sun -in one of the foci, it was obvious that there would be in every case -(though in some more than others) this inequality to which allusion has -been made, and the Earth, if a planet, would be subject to the same -rule as the rest. - -Such, then, is a somewhat imperfect _précis_ of this famous work of -Galileo, which owes its importance to the historical circumstances -connected with its publication quite as much, to say the least of it, -as to its own intrinsic merit. - - - - -CHAPTER IV. - - -Resuming the history of events, we find that early in the year 1632 the -printing of the Dialogue was completed. The author caused some copies -to be bound and gilt and sent to Rome. It was not easy to pass them, -on account of the quarantine; yet some amongst them found their way, -and great was the sensation caused in the ecclesiastical world by their -appearance. - -There were a few admirers of Galileo who approved warmly; but there -was the School of Aristotle, as in these enlightened days there is the -School of Darwin,[14] and they could not bear that anything should -be published reflecting on the scientific infallibility of their -great philosopher. Thus we find that Father Scheiner, writing to -Gassendi, observed that Galileo had written his work “contra communem -Peripateticorum Scholam.” - -The agitation against the book was successful, and a report arose -forthwith that it would be condemned. The report was no mere _canard_, -as the subsequent proceedings soon showed. In the month of August -of this same year the Master of the Sacred Palace gave orders to the -printer at Florence to suspend the distribution of the copies, and -he also sent for those which had been brought to Rome. Nor was this -all. In the following month the Pope ordered that a letter should be -written to the Inquisitor of Florence, enjoining him to direct Galileo -to present himself in Rome in the month of October, in order to explain -his conduct. - -The book had already been examined by special Commission--a step taken -with the view of pleasing the Grand Duke of Tuscany, so as to avoid -bringing the affair before the Inquisition. - -The Pope, from whatever cause, was much displeased. This appeared in -a conversation with Niccolini, the Tuscan Ambassador, in which His -Holiness said that Galileo had entered on ground which he ought not -to have touched, and that both Ciampoli and the Master of the Sacred -Palace had been deceived. Still it seemed that, so far, there was no -intention to do more than censure the book and demand a retractation. - -The special Commission, of which mention has just been made, after a -month’s interval, reported that Galileo had been disobedient to orders -in the following respects: Affirming as an absolute truth the movement -of the Earth instead of stating it as a hypothesis; attributing the -tides to this cause--_i.e._ to the revolution and movement of the -Earth; deceitfully keeping silence as to the order given him in 1616 -to abandon the opinion that the Earth revolved, and that the Sun was -the centre of the universe. - -Another memorial (drawn up about the same time), after enumerating -the facts of the case, stated eight heads of accusation against the -philosopher: - - 1.--Having, without leave, placed at the beginning of his work the - permission for printing, delivered at Rome. - - 2.--Having, in the body of the work, put the true doctrine in the - mouth of a fool, and having approved it but feebly by the - argument of another interlocutor. - - 3.--Having quitted the region of hypothesis by affirming, in an - absolute manner, the mobility of the Earth and the stability - of the Sun, etc. - - 4.--Having treated the subject as one that was not already decided, - and in the attitude of a person waiting for a definition, and - supposing it to have not been yet promulgated. - - 5.--Having despised the authors who were opposed to the - above-mentioned opinion, though the Church uses them in - preference to others. - - 6.--Having affirmed (untruly) the equality supposed to exist, for - understanding geometrical matters, between the divine and - human intellect. - - 7.--Having stated, as a truth, that the partisans of Ptolemy ought - to range themselves with those of Copernicus, and denied the - converse. - - 8.--Having wrongly attributed the tides to the stability of the Sun - and mobility of the Earth, which things do not exist. - -It must be observed that all this was merely of the nature of an -accusation, and was in no way an ecclesiastical decision. - -It appears, too, that some apprehensions were entertained in Rome that -false philosophical and theological doctrines might be drawn out of the -opinion put forth by Galileo. No. 6 of the above-mentioned accusations -points in that direction. - -At any rate, no time was lost in summoning the philosopher to Rome, -there to answer for his offences. A message to that effect was -communicated to him by the Inquisitor at Florence, on the 1st October. -Upon this, Galileo, anxious to gain time, and to excuse himself -from going to Rome, if it were possible to do so, wrote to Cardinal -Barberini, and sought the powerful advocacy of the Grand Duke of -Tuscany; he urged his infirm health, and advanced age, nearly seventy -years, as grounds for consideration. It was intimated to him, however, -that although some little time would be allowed him on the ground of -health, yet to Rome he must come; and a threat was added, through the -Inquisitor at Florence, of bringing him fettered as a prisoner if it -turned out that his health was not really such as he represented it to -be. So at last he yielded, and started for Rome on the 20th January, -1633, and, travelling very slowly, arrived on the 13th February, when -the Tuscan Ambassador, Niccolini, who had sent his litter for him, -received him at his Palace. This, with all the freedom it implied, was -indeed an unusual indulgence to persons situated as he was. After a -short time, during which no official steps were taken, he was conveyed -to the office of the Inquisition, and lodged there, but well and -commodiously, by the Pope’s order. - -On the 12th April he appeared for the first time before the Court; -he admitted the authorship of the Dialogue; he admitted, too, that -the decree of the Index had been notified to him; but stated that -Cardinal Bellarmine had informed him that it was allowable to hold the -Copernican doctrine as a hypothesis. He maintained further that he -had not contravened the order given him, that he should not defend or -support this doctrine; and he declared that he did not remember having -been forbidden in any way to teach it. - -It would seem that this latter prohibition was meant to include -teaching by implication, such as one may do through the medium of an -interlocutor in a dialogue. - -It is startling that Galileo should have said among other things on -this occasion, that he had not embraced or defended in his book the -opinion that the Earth is in motion and the Sun stationary; but, on the -contrary, had shown that the reasons produced by Copernicus were feeble -and inconclusive. - -After this examination he was well lodged, though treated as a -prisoner, being placed in the apartments of the “Fiscal of the -Holy Office,” instead of in the ordinary chambers appropriated to -accused persons; moreover, he had leave to walk in the garden, and -was attended by his own servant. He said himself, in a letter to his -friend Bocchineri, that his health was good, and that he had every -attention shown to him by the Tuscan Ambassador and Ambassadress. It -is well to note these things, because they dispose of the popular -accusations of cruelty which have been made by ignorant or malicious -controversialists, although the antagonists with whom I am dealing are -too well informed to resort to them. - -A slight indisposition from which our philosopher suffered about this -time, illustrated still further the desire which existed to treat -him with _personal_ kindness; the Commissary and the Fiscal charged -with the process, both visited him and spoke encouragingly to him. As -soon as he had recovered he requested to have a further hearing. This -took place on the 30th April; but meanwhile, three theologians, who -had been consulted, Augustin Orezzi, Melchior Inchofer, and Zacharias -Pasqualigo, had each separately presented a memorial to the effect -that Galileo had taught in his book the motion of the Earth and the -immobility of the Sun. At the hearing on the 30th April, being asked -to say whatever occurred to him, he stated that he had read his -Dialogue again--not having seen it for three years previously--in -order to ascertain if there was anything--“se contro alla mia -purissima intenzione, per mia inavertenza”--by which he had been at all -disobedient to the order imposed on him in 1616; and he had found there -were some arguments, notably about the solar spots and the tides, which -he had put too forcibly, and which he thought could be refuted. As -regards the latter of these two points we may, I think, cordially agree -with him in his retractation: but it had been a favourite argument with -him. He also stated on this occasion--not having, I fear, the courage -of his convictions--that he had not held as true the condemned opinion -as to the Earth’s motion, and was ready to write something fresh in -order to refute it, if the time to do so were allowed him. - -On this same day (30th April) the Commissary-General of the -Inquisition, with the Pope’s sanction, allowed Galileo to be -imprisoned, under certain conditions, at the Palace of the Tuscan -Ambassador, this favour being conceded on account of his age and health. - -He was again called before the Court on the 10th May, and he then -presented a written statement, to which was appended the original of -Cardinal Bellarmine’s injunction, laid on him in 1616. It contained -certain prohibitions, but not the word “teach.” - -He pleaded also that he had done his best to avoid all fault in his -book, which he had himself submitted to the Grand Inquisitor. Now -follows what seems like more severe treatment, whether because he had -not impressed his judges with a belief in his candour and sincerity, -or from other reasons. However, the Pope, on the 16th June, gave orders -that he should be questioned as to his _intention_; then, after he -had been _threatened_ with torture (apparently without any view of -putting the threat into execution), and made to pronounce an abjuration -full and entire, that he should be condemned to prison according to -the discretion of the Inquisition; also that his treatise should be -prohibited, and himself forbidden to treat, either by word or writing, -on the subject of the Sun and the Earth. - -Yet, with all this, the Pope, two days afterwards, said to Niccolini, -the Tuscan Ambassador, that it was impossible not to prohibit this -opinion (Copernicanism) as it was contrary to the Holy Scriptures, -and that Galileo must remain a prisoner for some time for having -contravened the orders given him in 1616, but that he (the Pope) would -see if the condemnation could be mitigated. - -It appears that he was thinking of sentencing him to a temporary -seclusion in the Monastery of Santa Croce, at Florence. - -When, in pursuance of the Pope’s order, Galileo was questioned (21st -June), he was asked how long it was since he had held the opinion -that the Sun, and not the Earth, was the centre of the universe; to -which he replied that long before the decree of 1616 he held that the -two opinions could equally be sustained; but that since the decree, -convinced as he was of the prudence of the superior authorities, all -uncertainty in his mind had ceased, that he had then adopted, and still -held, the opinion of Ptolemy on the mobility of the Sun as true and -indubitable. Certain passages in his book were then put to him as being -irreconcilable with the statements he was making; and yet he maintained -that, though he had stated the case _pro_ and _con_ in his work, he did -not, in his heart, hold the condemned opinion. “Concludo dunque dentro -di me medesimo ne tenere ne haver tenuto dopo la determinazione delli -Superiori la dannata opinione.” - -Threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth, he persevered -in his answer as already given; upon which the tribunal, after making -him sign his deposition, dismissed him. On the next day, the 22nd -June, he was taken to Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, and brought before -the Cardinals and Prelates of the Congregation, that he might hear his -sentence and pronounce his abjuration. - -The accusation was that he had openly violated the order given him not -to maintain Copernicanism; that he had unfairly extorted permission to -print his book, without showing the prohibition received in 1616; that -he had maintained the condemned opinion, although he alleged that he -had left it undecided and as simply probable--which, however, was still -a grave error, since an opinion declared contrary to Scripture could -not in any way be probable. - -His sentence was to the effect that he had rendered himself strongly -suspected of heresy in believing and maintaining a doctrine false and -opposed to Holy Scripture in respect of the motion of the Sun and the -Earth, and in believing that one might maintain and defend any opinion -after it had been declared to be contrary to Holy Scripture. He had, -therefore, incurred the censures in force against those who offend in -such ways; from which, however, he would be absolved provided that, -with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, he would abjure the said -errors and heresies; but, as a penance and as a warning to others, -he was to undergo certain inflictions. The book was henceforth to be -prohibited, he himself was to be condemned to the ordinary prison of -the Holy Office for a time the Holy Office would itself limit, and he -was to recite the seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years. -The Holy Office reserved to itself the power to remit or change part -or all of the above-named penances. Galileo abjured, accordingly, as -directed. - -The well-known legend that after his abjuration he stamped on the -ground with his foot, saying: “E pur si muove” (And yet it, _i.e._ -the Earth, _does_ move), is not found in any contemporary author, and -first appears towards the end of the eighteenth century. It is also -to the last degree improbable; Galileo was in far too great dread of -his judges to provoke them by openly perpetrating such an action; and -if he did it _sotto voce_, who heard it, and who testified to it? The -late Dr. Whewell in his “History of the Inductive Sciences,” suggests -that it was “uttered as a playful epigram in the ear of a Cardinal’s -secretary, with a full knowledge that it would be immediately repeated -to his master.” This writer is eminently fair, though naturally he -writes from a Protestant point of view; but he takes the extraordinary -line of maintaining what I think no one who knows all the facts could -possibly suppose, namely, that the whole thing was a kind of solemn -farce, and that the Inquisitors did not believe Galileo’s abjuration -to be sincere, or even wish it to be so; thus he says: “though we may -acquit the Popes and Cardinals of Galileo’s time of stupidity and -perverseness in rejecting manifest scientific truths, I do not see how -we can acquit them of dissimulation and duplicity.” That is, he thinks -the process was a piece of decorous solemnity, adopted to hoodwink -the ecclesiastical public. I do not think it necessary to discuss so -improbable a theory. And the story of “E pur si muove,” as also that of -bodily torture or any personal cruelty being inflicted on Galileo, may, -I venture to think, be dismissed into the realm of fable. - -The Pope, without delay, commuted the sentence of imprisonment to -one of seclusion in the Palace of the Tuscan Ambassador, on the -Monte Pincio, after which Galileo was allowed to retire to Sienna, -to the Palace of the Archbishop of that place, Piccolomini, one of -his warmest friends, from whom he received every possible attention. -Indeed, the Archbishop seems to have gone beyond the limits of -prudence, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the -temper of the times, in the enthusiasm of his admiration for the great -astronomer, and to have hinted to various persons that, in his opinion, -he had been unjustly condemned, that he was the greatest man in the -world and would always live in his writings, even those that had been -prohibited; such, at least, was the report that found its way to Rome, -and it caused great prejudice to Galileo. He had received permission to -go to his country house at Arcetri, near Florence, on condition that -he lived there quietly, receiving only the visits of his friends and -relatives, in such a way as not to give umbrage; and the report, to -which allusion has just been made, coupled with the accusation that, -under the encouragement of his host the Archbishop, he had spread -opinions that were not soundly Catholic in the city of Sienna, caused -some additional strictness to be enforced as to the manner of his -seclusion. - -Thus he was detained for four years in his villa, and was refused -permission to go to Florence for medical treatment, it being, however, -apparent that the villa was sufficiently near to the city to enable -physicians and surgeons to go _to him_ when required. Later on, in -1638, when his sufferings had increased, and he had become (wholly or -partially) blind, permission was given him to reside in Florence, on -condition that he should not speak to his visitors on the subject -of the movement of the Earth. Of this concession he availed himself, -and lived for his few remaining years in Florence, occupying himself -with scientific pursuits. In this same year he published at Leyden a -work entitled, “Dialoghi delle Nuove Scienze”; this, in fact, was his -last work of importance, and he died on the 8th January, 1642, in his -seventy-eighth year. - -It is not easy to form an accurate estimate of the character of -Galileo, so far, at least, as affected by the proceedings just related. -By some he has been called a “Martyr of Science”; but a martyr, unless -the word be used in a loose and inaccurate sense, ought, above all -things, to have the courage of his convictions, and as we have seen, -that was hardly the case with Galileo. I will here again quote Dr. -Whewell’s work on the “History of the Inductive Sciences,” and this -time in agreement with his words: “I do not see with what propriety -Galileo can be looked upon as a martyr of science. Undoubtedly he -was very desirous of promoting what he conceived to be the cause of -philosophical truth; but it would seem that, while he was restless -and eager in urging his opinions, he was always ready to make such -submissions as the spiritual tribunals required.... But in this case -(_i.e._ the case of his refusing to abjure) he would have been a martyr -to a cause of which the merit was of a mingled character; for his own -special and favourite share in the reasonings by which the Copernican -system was supported, was the argument drawn from the flux and reflux -of the sea, which argument is altogether false.” - -Yet though we deny him the credit of having been a hero or a martyr, -we must not be too severe in condemning him. He was old and enfeebled -by bad health; moreover, his friends had advised him to submit fully -and unreservedly to the tribunal of the Inquisition. And to this we -may add the following considerations. There can be little doubt that -he held the Copernican theory as a very probable opinion; how, indeed, -with his knowledge of astronomy, and with his own discoveries before -his eyes, could it be otherwise? But it is very possible that he had no -fixed, absolute conviction on the subject; he was a sincere Catholic, -and had a deep respect for the Pope and for the Church, and, unlike -modern scientific men, he probably allowed some weight to the decisions -of ecclesiastical authorities. Remembering all this, we may well admit -that there is much to palliate his conduct, though not fully to justify -it. - -But his want of candour evidently prejudiced his judges against him. -They accepted his reiterated denials of belief, even a qualified -belief, in Copernicanism, but they did not credit them as being -true. I incline to hold that he would have done as well and given -more satisfaction to the tribunal if he had made a straightforward -defence in some such way as this: that he could not help believing -Copernicanism to be a probable hypothesis on purely scientific -grounds, and _more than this_, the then-existing state of astronomical -knowledge would not have justified him in saying: that he left to -the ecclesiastical authorities henceforth the entire question of -reconciling the theory with Holy Scripture, and that he would not in -future teach it even as a hypothesis, or publish any work so teaching -it, without permission. A statement of this nature, coupled with an -apology for any indiscretion connected with the publication of the -Dialogue, might have availed him better than the line he adopted, and -would at least have had the merit of candour. - -A few words may here be added on the scientific character of Galileo; -in this respect he was, with the exception of Kepler, the first man of -his age. - -He has the credit of being the discoverer of the first law of motion; -but whether he fully realised this all-important law, or whether it -was one of those happy guesses which we sometimes find to have been -made by men who are the precursors of great discoverers, but who do not -perceive the full scope and the ultimate bearing of the truths on which -they have lighted, I need not here discuss. He did, however, state the -law in a Dialogue on mechanics, published in 1638, in these words: - -“I imagine a movable body projected in a horizontal plane, all -impediments [to motion] being removed; it is then manifest from what -has been said more fully elsewhere, that its (the body’s) motion will -be uniform and perpetual upon the plane, if the plane be extended to -infinity.” - -This of course involves the principle of the first of the three laws -of motion, the Newtonian laws, as they are frequently called, because -the man whose name they bear was the one who used them clearly and -consistently as the basis of a great astronomical theory. The law, as -now usually stated, is fuller and more explicit than that given by -Galileo, and may be enunciated thus: “Every body perseveres in its -state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is -compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it.” - -It is, however, greatly to the scientific credit of Galileo that -before the close of his life he should have emancipated himself from -the erroneous idea that circular motion alone is naturally uniform, -and should have stated in the language just quoted the true mechanical -doctrine, unknown to his predecessors, unknown even to Kepler, -a doctrine which involved nothing less than a revolution in the -conception of the laws of motion. Nor was this his only contribution -to the science of mechanics; he it was who first understood the law -that regulates the velocity of falling bodies; he perceived that they -were acted upon by an uniformly accelerating force, that of terrestrial -gravity, and that the velocity at any given point is proportional to -the time of descent. - -The principle of virtual velocities is said by some persons to have -been discovered by Galileo, and it appears that he stated it fully and -clearly; but he can scarcely be said to be the discoverer of it, as -it had been known to others, and had even--at least as exemplified in -the case of the lever--been noticed by Aristotle. There is, however, -no doubt that Galileo was the greatest man of his day in mechanical -knowledge, whether we attribute more or less weight to the light he -threw on particular details. - -In astronomy he was necessarily a discoverer, for the all-important -reason that, as already stated, he was the first man that ever used the -telescope for investigating the phenomena of the heavens. He thus saw -what no one previously had seen,[15] the satellites of Jupiter, the -spots on the Sun, and the moon-like phases of the planet Venus, besides -the greatly increased number of stars, so many of which are invisible -to the naked eye. - -The first-mentioned of these discoveries, that of the satellites of -Jupiter, seems to have created an immense sensation among the _savants_ -of that day. It _suggested_ that the theories of Ptolemy were anything -but complete or correct, and yet it _proved_ nothing, excepting against -those _à priori_ reasoners, who would not believe that a body round -which a moon circulated could itself be in motion; but the phases of -Venus were simply conclusive against the Ptolemaic system, and for -this reason: According to that system Venus was a planet revolving -round the Earth in an orbit outside that of Mercury, but within that -of the Sun. Now the phases of Venus did not correspond with any -supposed period of her revolution round the Earth, as the phases of -the Moon obviously do, nor did any one ever imagine that the Earth -went round Venus. They did, however, correspond with the time of a -probable orbit in which either Venus revolved round the Sun or the Sun -round Venus; and here again this latter alternative was inadmissible. -There remained, therefore, the one only reasonable solution of the -phenomenon, namely, that Venus travelled in an orbit round the Sun. -This was further confirmed when, in December, 1639, our own countryman, -Horrox, at that time a young curate residing in the north of England, -but gifted with a knowledge of astronomy which would have done credit -to a man of double his age and experience, observed a transit of -the planet across the Sun’s disc. This occurred some few years after -Galileo’s condemnation; but it may be remarked that Gassendi had -already, in November, 1631, witnessed a transit of Mercury. Thus it -appeared that these two planets revolved round the Sun, contrary to -what Ptolemy had supposed. And yet this was not conclusive in favour -of Copernicanism, for the theory of Tycho Brahé was precisely to this -effect: that the planets revolved round the Sun, and that the Sun in -his turn circulated round the Earth. This hypothesis was of the nature -of a compromise, and it has been said that Tycho was led to it by his -interpretation of Scripture rather than of Nature; yet he was one of -the best astronomers and best observers of his age, and had Kepler for -one of his pupils. He had a reason, too, for rejecting Copernicanism -which in his time seemed to have considerable weight, namely, the -incredible distances at which the fixed stars must be supposed to be -placed if the theory were true, since no sensible motion could be -detected among them--apparent motion, that is--such as would result -from the annual motion of the Earth if the stars were at any distance -approaching to that of the planets. We know now how futile this -objection is, but in that age there was an idea that Nature could never -allow of such a waste of space as is implied in these vast distances. -If Tycho had lived longer, we may well doubt whether he would have -adhered to his system. Kepler saw its weakness, and was the first to -discover the true nature of the curves which both the Earth and the -planets describe in their respective orbits; and this, although he did -not know the first law of motion. His books, published in 1619 and -1622, stated not only the elliptic form of the orbits, which no one -previously had found out, but also the important law connecting the -distances of the planets with their periods of revolution. - -It is necessary to bear in mind how gradually these various items of -knowledge dawned upon the scientific world, and how imperfect was the -state in which the study of astronomy remained until the discovery -of that great law of gravitation, which binds together and regulates -the physical universe. Men of mature years had not then learnt the -lesson now taught to youths at college, that in natural science we must -discard _à priori_ arguments, and trust to the experimental method -for guidance. It has been said contemptuously that the Cardinals who -condemned Galileo and the Copernican system were not only ignorant of -the science of the present day (which was inevitable), but even of that -of their own day. If that means merely that they were deficient in that -far-reaching intelligence which enables some gifted men to foresee the -future effect of recent discoveries and hypotheses scarcely emerged -from a state of embryo, we may readily grant it. - -We may allow also that some of the recent discoveries of Galileo, as, -for instance, that of the phases of Venus, were not at first fully -appreciated, nor their bearing on the controversy perfectly understood, -excepting by professed astronomers. It required careful observation to -perceive that this planet’s phases were only to be explained on the -theory of her revolving round the Sun. - -On the other hand, if these ecclesiastics were wise enough to see the -futility of Galileo’s argument drawn from the tides, it is certainly -not for us to blame them; the tides have nothing to do with the -questions then at issue. - -And it is only fair to remember that supposing Ptolemy completely -overthrown, as in reality he assuredly was, by the observations on -Venus and Mercury, there remained the system of Tycho Brahé, as has -been remarked already, and this system partly met the case of those -phenomena that Ptolemy failed in accounting for; and although we can -easily see now that it was something of the nature of a makeshift, at -that time there was no clear or conclusive evidence against it. - -I proceed now to state what appears to have been the ecclesiastical -force of the two condemnations by the Roman tribunals--that of the -Index prohibiting certain books, and that of the Inquisition punishing -Galileo individually, and forcing him to abjure his real or imputed -opinions on the Copernican system of astronomy. I trust I shall not -lose sight of my position as a _lay theologian_ (in the sense I have -defined the term), or trespass upon strictly ecclesiastical preserves; -but I may surely say at once, that it is evident no decision was -pronounced on any matter of faith. The first case, that of the Index in -1616, I have already discussed; and as for the latter one, that of the -Inquisition, it seems hardly credible that any one should maintain that -the sentence of a Roman tribunal on an individual, however eminent, -could constitute an _ex cathedrâ_ decision on a question of faith. Mr. -Roberts, however, seems to maintain something very like this; but he -does so by taking some strong, and perhaps extreme, statements made -by theologians, such as M. Bouix and Dr. Ward, when writing on some -totally different point, and by urging that if these things are true, -then Galileo’s condemnation was tantamount to a definition _de fide_. - -I do not feel called upon to answer arguments of this kind. But there -is another which is more relevant, drawn from the Brief addressed by -Pope Pius IX. to the Archbishop of Munich, about twenty-five years -ago, when the congress of philosophers, of whom Dr. Döllinger was the -leading spirit, had been held in that city. In that Brief, the Pope -states that it is requisite for good Christians to subject themselves -in conscience to decisions pertaining to doctrine that are put forth by -the Pontifical Congregations; and also to such heads of doctrine as are -held to be theological truths by the common consent of Catholics, even -when the denial of these does not involve heresy, but deserves some -other censure. - -Theologians, I believe, are not agreed as to whether this Brief is -strictly _ex cathedrâ_, and therefore to be treated as infallible. But -let us assume that it is so. Does the expression, “subject themselves -in conscience,” mean necessarily anything more than a respectful -acquiescence, as distinguished from a full interior assent? And, -allowing that it does even mean this latter, it is for _doctrinal_ -decisions that such authority is claimed; and what I am maintaining is, -that the decrees in the case of Galileo were purely disciplinary. - -I do not of course deny that the line of demarcation between doctrinal -and disciplinary is sometimes hard to define. But surely the putting -of books on the “Index Librorum Prohibitorum,” whatever be the reasons -stated for doing so, is essentially an act of discipline; and so -also is the condemnation of any individual man for having disobeyed -injunctions laid upon him by authority, or for having disregarded the -principles laid down by the same authority for the regulation of its -practical conduct, so long as they were in force, and not repealed by -any subsequent act. - -And this leads me to touch upon another argument of Mr. Roberts, who -says, truly enough, that the authority of Rome is greater than that -of individual theologians, and that Rome must know her own mind. And -because the decision of the Inquisition in 1633, condemning Galileo -personally, referred in strong and marked language to the decree of -the Index in 1616, therefore he infers that the latter is thereby -proved to have been, in the judgment of Rome herself, a doctrinal -decision in the strict sense of the words. It is quite true that the -Inquisition said that Galileo had done wrong in treating Copernicanism -as a probable opinion, since by no means could an opinion be probable -that had been declared and defined to be contrary to Holy Scripture; -they also said in allusion to the decree of the Index that the books -treating of the doctrine had been prohibited, and the doctrine--_i.e._ -Copernicanism--had been declared false and altogether contrary to -sacred and Divine Scripture. But a stream cannot rise higher than its -source; and the Inquisition itself, having no other powers but those -entrusted to it by the Pope, had no authority to put any more stringent -interpretation on the decree of 1616 than what it already bore. So -far as its actual wording goes, it is palpably a disciplinary decree, -though founded on a doctrinal reason; and when the Inquisition cited -it as if it were more than this, their language must be interpreted in -accordance with the facts of the case; that is, as meaning that for the -_purposes of discipline_, and for all practical intents and purposes, -it had been defined that such a theory as that of Copernicus was -inadmissible, and on the ground that it was contrary to Scripture as -hitherto understood. But a decision of that nature is not irrevocable; -it holds good as long as the ecclesiastical authorities determine it -should do so, and no longer. - -Rome must know her own mind, Mr. Roberts says; and she has shown her -own mind, and borne out the construction I am putting on her acts, by -further and subsequent action; for, after suspending the prohibitions -against Copernicanism--or modifying them--in 1757, a distinct -permission was given in 1820 to teach the theory of the Earth’s -movement; and again, in 1822, the permission was repeated in a more -formal manner, and with the express sanction of the Pope, Leo XII. - -Now we know that doctrinal decrees, once fully sanctioned and -promulgated by the Holy See, are irreversible; but disciplinary -enactments are changed according to the needs of the time and the -circumstances of the Christian world.[16] If, then, these decrees -against the Copernican theory of astronomy have been practically -repealed by a decision no less formal than that which called them -originally into existence, it is certain that Rome, who knows her own -mind as well after the lapse of two hundred years as after that of -seventeen years, considered them as appertaining to the province of -discipline and not to that of dogma. - -Moreover, Pius IX., when addressing the Archbishop of Munich, must -have been well aware of the above-named facts, and when he enunciated -the simple rule that good Catholics ought to submit in conscience to -the doctrinal decrees of the Roman Congregations--indeed, how can any -one imagine the _rule_ to be anything else?--he must in common sense -be understood to be speaking of decrees wholly different in scope and -character from those relating to the case of Galileo and the system of -Copernicus. - -It must, nevertheless, be observed that an argument has been adduced by -Mr. Roberts, and repeated even by so eminent a writer as Mr. Mivart, -as if it were something that threw a new and important light on the -subject. It is that Pope Alexander VII., on the 5th March, 1664, -published a Bull--known as the Bull “Speculatores”--approving a new -and authentic edition of the Index of prohibited books, which Index -contained the decree of 1616, and also the monitum of 1620, ordering -certain corrections in the work of Copernicus, so that the theory he -advocated should be stated merely as a hypothesis--in the preamble of -which monitum, however, it is stated that the principles of Copernicus, -relating to the movement of the Earth, were contrary to the true and -Catholic interpretation of Holy Scripture--and contained also an -edict, signed by Bellarmine, prohibiting and condemning Kepler’s work, -“Epitome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ;” an edict of August, 1634, prohibiting -Galileo’s Dialogue; and in fine, a prohibition of all books teaching -the movement of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun. - -In the year following this Bull another Index was also published, -in which the following words occur, under the head Libri, as being -forbidden to the faithful: “Libri omnes, et quicumque libelli, -commentarii, compositiones, consulta, epistolæ, glossæ, opuscula, -orationes, responsa, tractatus, tam typis editi, quam manuscripti, -continentes et tractantes infrascriptas materias, seu de infrascriptis -materiis... De mobilitate terræ, et immobilitate Solis.” This, of -course, is very sweeping, as it includes all pamphlets and letters, and -even writings in manuscript, advocating Copernicanism. - -Now, in reply to all this, I think I may remark that even lay -theologians know, or ought to know, that Papal Bulls are divided into -two distinct classes--dogmatic and disciplinary. The first, according -to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, are held to be infallible, but -still only as regards the decisions on faith or morals therein laid -down, and not in respect of the reasons alleged; the second stand in -a totally different position, and are not considered, as a general -rule, to be in any way infallible--in fact, they are liable at any -time to be modified or recalled, as in the instance before us has -actually happened. The Bull “Speculatores” is plainly a disciplinary -one. But I may perhaps be allowed to quote one who is professedly a -theologian--the Reverend Jeremiah Murphy, an Irish ecclesiastic of -learning and ability--who, replying to Mr. Mivart in _The Nineteenth -Century_ of May, 1886, explains, at some length, the real nature of -this Bull. He says: “This Bull, so far from being a special approbation -of each decree contained in the Index to which it is prefixed, is not a -special approbation of even one of them.... It is a re-issue, by public -authority, of all these decrees (those of the Index), but it leaves -each decree just as it was.... The Pope, after referring to the origin -of the Index, says that at that time there was no catalogue, issued by -public authority, embracing the prohibited books and condemned authors, -on which account great confusion has arisen. Accordingly, with the -advice of the Cardinals, the Pope, as he states, has decreed to issue -a new Index. This was done in order that people should ‘have a clear -knowledge of all that was done from the beginning in this matter,’ also -to facilitate references for readers and especially for booksellers. -The Pope goes on to say that he ‘confirmed and approved this same -general Index as aforesaid, composed and revised by our order, and -printed at our apostolic press.’” - -Mr. Murphy adds: “No new decree is issued, no new obligation imposed, -no change in the character of any of the decrees is made by this -Bull.... No Catholic theologian would for a moment regard this Bull -as equivalent to an approbation, by special mandate, of any decree -contained in the volume to which it is prefixed.... The Bull is a -purely disciplinary act, perfectly valid until it is cancelled by an -authority equal to that which issued it, but it condemns no new error, -and defines no new truth.” - -It may no doubt be urged that there have been certain indiscreet -controversialists who have maintained that the Popes had nothing to do -with the condemnation of Galileo or of the Copernican theory--that, in -fact, it was all the work of the Cardinals. - -The Bull “Speculatores” is a good _argumentum ad hominem_ addressed to -such persons, but no one who knows the facts of the case can take up -or ought to take up such a position. As a matter of discipline, the -Popes did give their sanction to the condemnation in question. The -Congregations of the Index and of the Inquisition have no authority at -all except so far as the Pope confers it on them; and whether he gives -them the authority beforehand, or confirms their acts by subsequent -approval, the principle is essentially the same. He delegates to them -certain disciplinary powers, but he does not delegate, and has not the -power to delegate, his prerogative of defining dogma, and enforcing its -belief on the whole Catholic world. - -I should not have dwelt at so much length on this particular point -had it not been urged, with what I fear I must call much perverted -ingenuity, by Mr. Roberts that the Copernican theory was condemned _ex -cathedrâ_, as if it were a heresy, by the Pope himself; nor, again, is -it willingly that I quote so frequently the same author’s arguments -with a view to their refutation. He has, however, stated the anti-Roman -case with ability, and without descending to vulgar claptrap. If, -then, his arguments are satisfactorily answered, there is no need of -combating other antagonists. - -But I do not at all shrink from considering another and most important -question. I have shown clearly and conclusively that the decrees -against Copernicanism were not definitions of faith; but I am bound to -state now what I believe to have been the effect of them in their own -undoubted sphere, that of ecclesiastical discipline. And here there are -two distinct questions to deal with, which are perhaps sometimes mixed -up together, but which ought to be kept separate. - -One is this: What should have been the conduct of contemporary -Catholics, supposed to be scientific men, during the period that the -decrees were in force? The other: What opinion ought _we_ now to form -upon the whole transaction, viewing it retrospectively? - -To begin with the first of these two. I have little doubt as to what -ought to have been the conduct of such Catholics--viz., implicit -obedience to the disciplinary rules of the Church so long as the -superior authorities thought fit to enforce them. Thus no good Catholic -could have read the forbidden books, whether by Galileo or by any -other author, without obtaining the requisite permission--a permission -which in these days, at any rate, is given with great readiness to -well-educated persons. Still less could a conscientious Catholic -publish a work advocating the Copernican theory as the true one, or -as most probably the true one. What I think he might have done is to -publish a treatise stating any purely astronomical or mathematical -arguments which seemed to favour Copernicanism as a hypothesis, and, at -the same time, professing his entire submission to the ecclesiastical -authorities, and explicitly disclaiming any attempt to meddle with the -interpretation of Scripture. A protest of some such nature as this -was inserted in an edition of the “Principia” which was allowed to be -published by two Fathers of the order of Minims, Le Seur and Jacquier, -in the year 1742, when the decrees were still in force. - -But the first step, and that the most fitting and becoming, would have -been to submit privately to the Roman authorities all the scientific -arguments which the Catholic astronomer--supposing such to be the -case--had discovered as throwing fresh light on the question. No one -has a right to infer from the instance of Galileo, whose arguments were -not all of them sound or convincing, that such an astronomer as I have -imagined would have been treated with contempt or neglect, especially -if he made it evident that he was wholly submissive to the decrees of -the Index, or other Roman Congregations. - -Some writers, and notably the late Dr. Ward, have maintained that -besides outward submission, a certain “interior assent” was due to the -decision of the Congregation of the Index--such assent, however, being -different in kind from that given to an article of Faith. - -I submit, however, that although the fact of a book being placed on the -forbidden list requires from all good Catholics a respectful assent -to the _principle_ that the Church has a right to enact these rules -of discipline, it does not require an interior act of intellectual -approval. It is said that Bellarmine’s great controversial work was for -a short time placed on the Index on account of some unpalatable opinion -expressed in it. Did he think it necessary to make an interior act of -assent to the decree? - -It is true that in the case of the works of Copernicus and others, -the grounds for prohibiting them were stated; but I would ask, are we -obliged to assent interiorly to the grounds alleged for such acts? - -In saying this, I do not wish to contradict the opinion of those -theologians who hold that the non-scientific Catholics of Galileo’s age -were bound, by what is termed “the piety of Faith,” to give a certain -interior assent to the pronouncements of the Roman Congregations; and -that on the ground that such persons had no better evidence to act -upon. Their assent then would be very much like that given by dutiful -sons, not yet of age, to the opinions of their father; similar in kind -though stronger in degree. - -I am of course assuming the contemporary Catholics, whose case I am -considering, to be men of an obedient and dutiful disposition. - -I have confined myself so far to the decrees of the Index. The sentence -of the Inquisition on Galileo affected himself alone. It was no doubt -held up as an example _in terrorem_ for the benefit of others; but -strictly and immediately it concerned Galileo alone, and when he died, -it died with him. - -I now pass to the all-important question, what ought we to think of the -whole proceeding, with all the light that has been thrown on it by the -two centuries and a half that have since elapsed? Here, then, I have -to steer a middle course between what I hold to be extreme opinions on -opposite sides, each held by men of note, and men whose principles and -character demand that they should be heard with respect. One opinion -is that of the late Dr. Ward, whom I take as a representative man on -his side, though he is not the only writer who has taken the view to -which I allude, and it is to the effect that the Roman Congregations -acted not only fully within their rights, not only within their -legitimate sphere, but that, considering all the circumstances of their -time, they acted wisely and prudently; that the fault was on the side -of Galileo and his followers, and the Cardinals could not have done -otherwise than they did. - -The other and opposite opinion has been stated by no Catholic writer -with greater force than by Mr. Mivart; and it amounts, so far as I -understand it, to this: that the Church has no authority to interfere -in matters relating to physical science, and that the issue of the -Galileo case has proved the fallacy of her attempting to do so; that -without entering into the discussion of what ought or what ought -not to have been done in former times, we of the present generation -have evidence sufficient to show us that scientific investigations -should by right be free from the control of ecclesiastical authority. -The distinguished author to whom I allude has somewhat modified his -original statements, and so I am in some danger of misrepresenting -him, but I think the above is a fair epitome of his views on the -subject; and at any rate I feel myself justified in dealing with him -as he appeared in the widely circulated periodical in which he first -enunciated his opinions, excepting so far as he may have explicitly -retracted what he then said (which I do not believe to be the fact). - -I regret that it is my lot to differ from both these able writers. As -against Mr. Mivart, I venture to maintain that the Church has a full -right to control the study of physical science; as against the late -Dr. Ward, that we are not called upon to defend the action of the -Congregation of the Index or of the Inquisition in this particular -instance. - -I take Mr. Mivart first, and I may be permitted to say that had it not -been for his somewhat aggressive article, I should not have ventured -to publish my own views on the subject. I call it aggressive because, -though the writer would doubtless disclaim such intention, it seemed -as though he were determined, so to speak, to drive the ecclesiastical -authorities into a corner, and leave them no honourable mode of exit; -letting his readers infer that, because certain untenable decisions -were once promulgated, it results that no further respect need now be -paid to the same authorities when touching on similar questions. Now, -it need scarcely be pointed out that no one would presume to treat -the decision of secular courts--assuredly fallible as they are--in so -contemptuous a way; and if any one practically did so, the executive of -the country where it occurred, unless it had fallen into a condition of -hopeless impotence, would speedily vindicate the rights of the courts -so impugned. But if it should be urged that the two cases are not -parallel, I prefer to confine my argument to ecclesiastical tribunals -only. I maintain, then, that--always assuming the truth of the Catholic -standpoint, which, with Mr. Mivart, I am justified in doing--the Church -has an obvious right to interfere with and to regulate the study of -physical science and the promulgation of scientific theories. It would -be more consistent and more intelligible to deny the right of the -Church to proscribe any theories whatever, or to forbid the reading of -any books, however profane, than to admit it in all other matters, but -deny it in the one case of physical science. - -I yield to no one in feeling a deep interest in science generally, -and especially astronomy, the Queen of Sciences, as it is sometimes -called; many sciences, and astronomy in particular, well deserve to -be studied for their own sake, and for the intellectual profit and -pleasure they convey to the mind, putting aside all questions of -practical utility. And yet if we are to measure all the advantages -derivable from the study of natural science against the mighty and -momentous issues which Religion brings before us, it seems to me that -in so doing we are measuring some finite quantity with that which -transcends all our powers of comparison because it is not only vast but -simply _infinite_. If you do not believe Religion, or at least revealed -Religion, to be true, then I understand your worshipping science, or -like the Positivists worshipping Humanity, or any idol you choose to -constitute; but I do not understand a Christian’s doing so, that is, -a Christian in the strict and legitimate sense of the word. Pursue -science by all means, as you pursue literature, art, or any other -innocent human study, but do not make it such an idol as to obscure -your perception of spiritual truths. - -And to take the Copernican theory in particular: profoundly interesting -as it is, let us ask ourselves not merely whether it is so important -as to require that all religious considerations should give way before -it, but whether the knowledge of its truth, which we now possess, adds -very materially to the sum total of human happiness. Let us then, for a -moment, think how many men among the millions that people this Earth, -or if we please to limit our inquiry, how many among the civilised -nations of the Earth understand anything whatever about the motions -of the heavenly bodies. No doubt, in England, and probably many other -countries, the elementary books that are taught to children state in a -rough general way that the Earth, like other planets, goes round the -Sun in the space of one year, and revolves on its axis in twenty-four -hours. So far, so good. Suppose you asked those, who as children have -learned these facts, a few ordinary questions in astronomy--I do not -mean things relating to celestial distances, or anything that can -be learnt by heart, but questions requiring thought--how many would -be able to answer you? How many, for example, could explain such a -familiar phenomenon as the harvest moon?--though that has nothing to -do with the Copernican theory. How many could explain the precession of -the equinoxes? Suppose yourself in a room full of educated persons, but -not specially instructed in science, how many could state correctly the -first law of motion?[17] - -It is unnecessary to multiply instances; astronomy is obviously -a science adapted not to the multitude of mankind, but to the -comparatively few, who reflect and think. If, then, some check were -given in the seventeenth century, by the action of the ecclesiastical -authorities in Rome, to the progress of physical astronomy, we must -surely allow that the injury to human welfare and human happiness was -so small that we need not dwell upon it. - -Mr. Mivart tells us that Descartes was deterred for some time from -publishing his work. Now Descartes, as a pure mathematician, stands in -the highest rank. The method which he invented of applying algebraical -analysis to geometry has facilitated calculation to an extent -impossible to over-estimate; notwithstanding the discovery and adoption -of other and rival methods, that of Descartes still holds its own, and -will probably do so as long as the science of mathematics is cultivated. - -But as an astronomer, Descartes can be allowed no such pre-eminence; -his work on Vortices was actually a retrograde step, and in France -it even hindered for a considerable time the reception of the true -doctrine of universal gravitation. So that we may well say if Descartes -had never published his book at all, physical astronomy would have been -the gainer rather than the loser. - -Mr. Mivart writes as if he were under some apprehension that the Church -would interfere with his favourite study of biology. I believe his -fears are unfounded. The Roman ecclesiastical authorities are doubtless -conscious of the fact that there is a great moral chasm between the -Europe of the seventeenth century and the Europe of this day. The means -that were adapted for contending against error, real or supposed, two -hundred and fifty years ago, are inapplicable in the present age. -Experience has shown that false scientific theories are pretty sure -to be demolished, time enough being allowed, either by the internal -dissensions of their own supporters, or by the sharp criticism of the -supporters of some antagonistic theory; or, perhaps, the triumphant -progress of new discoveries. Works of a particularly offensive or -irreligious character may from time to time be put on the Index of -prohibited books; but the Church will probably leave purely scientific -hypotheses of all kinds to find their own level, and to stand or fall, -as the case may be. - -There remains one objection, brought forward by Mr. Roberts, which I -may notice. It is one of the condemned propositions recited in the -well-known “Syllabus,” that the decrees of the Apostolic See and the -Roman Congregations hinder the free progress of science. But can any -one honestly say that they do? It is one thing to admit that the Church -may for certain reasons put an occasional and temporary check on the -study of some particular science; another, to accuse her of generally -and systematically hindering the progress of knowledge; for be it -observed that the Latin word, _scientia_, from which the above is -translated, does not merely mean physical science. - -The Catholic Church has put strong restrictions on the use of -vernacular translations of Holy Scripture--restrictions which, though -greatly modified in practice, are not yet abolished--but a proposition -stating broadly that the Church was opposed to the study of Scripture -would be condemned, and very justly so. - -I now come to deal with the other extreme opinion, if I may venture so -to call it--that maintained by the late Dr. Ward, and others--to the -effect that not only has the Church a right to condemn this or that -scientific theory, but that the exercise of such right, as practically -exemplified in the prohibition of certain Copernican works, and in -the condemnation of Galileo, was sound and prudent, and what might -reasonably have been expected. I am not sure whether Dr. Ward goes -quite so far as regards the condemnation of Galileo by the Inquisition; -but he does so in respect of the previous decree of 1616. His ground is -that at that period the Copernican doctrine was, even scientifically -speaking, improbable; while it gave a shock to those who venerated the -traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture. Few men have a greater -respect than myself for the memory of the able writer whose views I -am about to criticise; but physical science was not his strong point. -His knowledge of metaphysical philosophy was great; so, too, was his -knowledge of dogmatic theology; but he does not appear to have been -well versed in natural science, and with that modesty which is a -characteristic of sound and solid learning, he was careful never to -pretend acquaintance with any particular branch of knowledge, unless he -really possessed it. - -He was at times even scrupulous in expressing his acknowledgments -for the assistance he had received from others in matters outside -the limits of his own studies; as also in admitting an error if he -felt really guilty of one; showing therein a candour and honesty of -purpose that we do not always meet with. So much I say in tribute to -an honoured memory. I now proceed to state why I cannot follow his -views. It is surely paradoxical, to say the least of it, to maintain -that an opinion is theologically false but scientifically true; or -to state the case more accurately, to maintain that it was right to -condemn as contrary to Scripture what has since turned out to be -true--assuming, of course, this latter to be the fact, which Dr. Ward -fully admitted. It may doubtless be pleaded in mitigation that the -Cardinals only meant that the opinion was contrary to the _traditional_ -interpretation of Scripture, and that it was just conceivable that the -method of interpretation would have to be revised hereafter; and we -have seen that Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini points decidedly in -that direction. Nevertheless, the decree on the face of it appears to -imply more than this, and when coupled with the subsequent condemnation -of Galileo, and strengthened by the repeated prohibition, even in more -stringent terms, of all works favouring the Copernican theory, it -obviously dealt as heavy a blow at the doctrine of the Earth’s diurnal -and annual movement, as could well have been done, short of a dogmatic -decision. It may be quite true that if Galileo had been more prudent -and judicious, much of this would have been averted, and possibly -the decree of 1616 might have been modified or suspended a century -earlier than it actually was so. But without discussing imaginary -possibilities, we take the facts as they stand. - -Now to give one or two specimens of Dr. Ward’s mode of writing on -this subject. He says (after stating correctly the Catholic principle -that books theologically unsound should be kept from persons who -are not specially qualified to read them without injury): “In -Galileo’s time all books which advocated the truth of Copernicanism -were theologically unsound. And a most important service was done -by preserving the Catholic flock free from the plague; free from a -most false, proud, irreverent, and dangerous principle of Scriptural -interpretation.”--_Dublin Review_, October, 1865. - -I have already said that Galileo would have been wiser if he had -entirely left alone the question of the interpretation of Scripture; -but it must always be remembered that it was not he but his opponents -who commenced the discussion on that particular head. They were weak in -the astronomical argument; and they tried to damage their opponent by -attacking him on Scriptural grounds. It is difficult to understand what -Dr. Ward means by the forcible language I have just quoted, nor how a -principle of Scriptural interpretation, adopted at the present day by -every one, could have been in Galileo’s time false, proud, irreverent, -and dangerous.[18] Dr. Ward grounds his argument, however, on an idea -that he had, to the effect that the Copernican system in Galileo’s day -was “scientifically unlikely:” this, however, is just the reverse of -the truth. It was _unproved_; and, as I have repeatedly said, it is not -even now proved to absolute demonstration. - -It is also true that certain most powerful arguments for it were not -then available, as I shall hereafter have occasion to show at more -length; but it was not scientifically unlikely. Galileo had indirectly -damaged the cause by using a certain erroneous argument in its favour; -but then his discoveries had simply pulverised the great rival system -of Ptolemy, and no astronomer, who knew what he was about, could do -otherwise than choose between Copernicus and Tycho Brahé, each of these -being of course somewhat modified in detail. Now the theory of Tycho -Brahé was a new one, still newer than that of Copernicus, and had all -the appearance of a temporary makeshift; it was not probable that it -would receive much approbation in the long run, as in fact it never -did. Probability (I mean, of course, in a purely scientific sense) -pointed strongly to the Copernican theory even in Galileo’s time; and -after Kepler’s celebrated laws had been published, far more strongly -still than before. Of course, as Dr. Ward points out, there _may_ -be other reasons of so cogent a nature as to outweigh _scientific_ -probability; but that is not now the question: he denies even the -existence of this latter at the period we are treating of; and on this -point he was evidently misinformed. - -It is said that the Cardinals of the Index or Inquisition consulted -some astronomers before formulating their decrees, and this is likely -enough; as there is _odium medicum_ in these days, there was doubtless -_odium astronomicum_ in those days. - -And we may easily imagine how the philosophers who believed in the -infallibility of Aristotle looked with horror and perhaps contempt on -the School of Galileo. If people once persuade themselves that physical -science is to be learnt merely from tradition, or from _à priori_ -arguments, they will naturally have an antipathy to the discoveries -made by actual observation and experiment. If men such as these were -called in to advise the Cardinals, we may well admit it as a mitigating -circumstance, forbidding us to pass a severe judgment on the conduct -of the ecclesiastical tribunals. It is no part of my contention, and -indeed the very reverse, to lay excessive blame on the Congregations -of the Index and Inquisition; but neither, on the other hand, do I -understand why we should give them our unqualified approval. - -I feel that the opinion I have expressed above, and which might -otherwise be considered by some persons as presumptuous towards the -ecclesiastical authorities, receives great confirmation, and at the -same time what is tantamount to an acquittal from all disrespect to -the Church and her authority, by the following extract which I give -from the article entitled, “Dr. Mivart on Faith and Science,” published -in the October number of _The Dublin Review_ (1887), by the Bishop -of Newport and Menevia, the Right Rev. J. C. Hedley. Not only does -the high character of the author, both as a theologian and a man of -scientific knowledge, give a sanction to all that is contained in the -article, but the Review in which it appears, having for its proprietor -another Bishop and an able ecclesiastic for its acting editor, carries -with it a stamp of Catholic authority such as few periodicals possess. -After some other remarks the Bishop of Newport proceeds thus: - - I do not by any means wish to deny that the case of Galileo has - had an important effect on the action of Church authorities. - It seems quite clear that it has made them more cautious - in pronouncing on the interpretation of Scripture when the - sacred text speaks of natural phenomena. The reason of this - is not so much the fact that science has proved authority - wrong in one case, as because that case, taking it with all - its circumstances, was one the like of which can never happen - again. The Galilean controversy marked the close of a period - and the opening of a new one. The heliocentric view was the - first step in modern scientific expression. Before the days - of Galileo men spoke of what they saw with the naked eye, and - on the surface of things; thenceforth they were to use the - telescope and the microscope; they investigated the bowels - of the earth and the distances of the heavens. It was a - far-reaching and most pregnant generalisation when men first - took in the idea that the arrangements which their books had - hitherto called by the expression “nature” were merely a very - few of the most obvious aspects of a vast organisation, which - could be, and which must be, searched into by observation. At - once a multitude of familiar phrases lost their meaning, and - many accepted truths had to be dethroned. - - And the effect of the discussion in the days of Galileo was not - only to make men revise their formularies about the earth’s - motion, but to impress them most forcibly with the possibility - that such a process might have to be gone through about a very - large number of other things. The prevailing views were held - by the Church authorities as by every one else. They were not - really a part of the Divine revelation. Some people thought - they were, and (we may admit it was a misfortune) the very - authorities who had to pronounce, used language which was - to some extent mistaken in the same direction. On the other - hand, it is clear now that men of mark and standing asserted - over and over again, that the new theories need not in any - point contradict Holy Scripture. It was a matter which was not - clear all at once. It is often not immediately evident that - novel scientific views do or do not contradict Revelation. - They have to be made precise, to be qualified, to be analysed, - and that by fallible men. During the process many Catholics - will naturally make mistakes, and there is no reason why, now - and then, Church authority itself should not make a mistake - in this particular matter. When the requisite reflection has - had time to be made, then it is seen, as it was in the case - of the views under discussion, that what was held by Catholic - persons was something quite apart from Catholic faith. And we - have no objection to admit that reflection was quickened, and - caution was deepened by the case of Galileo. In this sense, - and not in any other, that case may be called “emancipatory.” - If the Church authorities ever feel themselves called upon to - pronounce on the dates or the authorship of the Hexateuch, or - on the formation of Adam’s body, they will proceed--we may say - it without suspicion of undutifulness--with more enlightened - minds than the Congregations which condemned Galileo. - - The teaching Church is composed of fallible men, who must - sometimes, in certain departments, make mistakes, and who - must learn by experience as other men learn. The part of a - dutiful Catholic is to lessen the effect of mistaken decisions - by prudent silence or respectful remonstrance in the proper - quarter, and not to make scandal worse by inept generalisations - and unnecessary bitterness. - -Further on, the Bishop says: - - I do not decline to face the difficulty of Galileo’s compulsory - retractation. It seems to me that either Galileo had - sufficiently strong reasons to prevent his mind from making - the retractation or not. I think it possible he had not. It - does not seem that he had anything like evidence that the earth - moved. If he had not, there was no reason why he should not - assent to a strong expression of authority, that authority - being one to which he owed filial obedience.... Still, if - Galileo had present to his mind strong proof of the correctness - of his own teachings, I do not hesitate to say that he was - wrong, and, indeed, committed sin, in making the retractation - demanded. - -On the purely astronomical question whether Galileo had evidence that -the Earth moved, I presume that the Bishop means _conclusive_ evidence; -for evidence of some kind he surely had; not conclusive, it is true, -but good as far as it went. Long before Galileo was tried by the -tribunal of the Inquisition, his contemporary, Kepler, had published -those important astronomical laws which still bear his name, and which -tended powerfully to corroborate the theory of the Earth’s motion. -Apart, however, from this, as I have already intimated, I think there -was good ground for the opinion in question. - -This, however, is to some extent a digression. I have quoted the Bishop -principally in order to strengthen, by his high authority, the line -of argument I have ventured to pursue, which, in effect, is this: -that the principle on which the Roman Congregations acted in Galileo’s -case was sound, but the application of it in the particular instance -mistaken and injudicious. - -I may also be permitted to cite, as confirming my own opinion, the -words of the distinguished writer to whom, in common with all students -of the Galileo case, I am so much indebted, M. Henri de l’Épinois. They -do not, of course, possess the same theological authority as that of -the prelate I have just quoted, but, coming from a learned Catholic -layman, they are well worthy of attention. These are his words: - - Galilée, en établissant les principes de mécanique qui sont ses - titres de gloire, comme en soutenant la doctrine de Copernic, - a rencontré pour adversaires déclarés les partisans de la - philosophie d’Aristote, qui combattaient aussi bien Képler - à Tubingue, et Descartes en Hollande. Ils appelèrent à leur - aide des textes de l’Écriture, les opposèrent aux affirmations - de Galilée. Pour se défendre celui-ci voulut expliquer ces - textes. Dès lors, il changeait l’interprétation jusque-là - admise par l’Église et éveillait les justes susceptibilités des - Catholiques. Avait-il raison? Avait-il tort? Il avait tort dans - plusieurs de ses propositions, et sa conduite manqua souvent - de prudence; il avait évidemment raison dans sa doctrine - fondamentale. En fait le tribunal s’est trompé en condamnant - comme fausse et contraire à l’Écriture une doctrine vraie et - qui pouvait s’accorder avec les textes sacrés. Il a manqué de - prudence en se montrant trop circonspect, et a ainsi dépassé le - but. Il faut toutefois le remarquer. Aujourd’hui il est facile - de dire: le tribunal a eu tort; mais en 1616, en 1633, la - plupart des savants, les Universités et les Académies disaient: - il a raison.... - - Tous les témoignages contemporains nous montrent que deux - pensées, deux opinions, deux influences étaient en présence: - d’un côté les Aristotéliciens acharnés contre Galilée, - détestant ses principes, voulant les anéantir; de l’autre les - papes, les cardinaux, pleins d’estime pour Galilée, mais qui - voulaient prévenir les fâcheuses conséquences de sa doctrine. - - Selon que l’une ou l’autre de ces influences domina dans les - conseils, on tint une conduite différente: tantôt sévère et - rigoureuse, tantôt douce et indulgente. Mais il n’y eut point - là, comme on le prétend encore, de lutte entre la science et - le Catholicisme: la question fut débattue entre la science et - l’Aristotélisme.[19] - -It was not till the year 1757 that any authoritative step was taken to -relax the prohibitions imposed by the Index on the works advocating the -Copernican system. This was more than a century after the condemnation -of Galileo, seventy years after the publication of the “Principia,” -and thirty years after the discovery of the aberration of light. Even -Dr. Ward allows that it might have been more prudent to remove the -prohibitions some forty or fifty years sooner than was actually the -case. No one, he observes, supposes the Church to be infallible in -mere matters of _prudence_, and I think that in making this statement, -which, I presume, every theologian would at once endorse, he half -admits the principle for which I contend; for if the Roman authorities -could err in point of prudence in leaving the censure so long in force, -might they not err--I mean, of course, as to the prudent administration -of discipline--in inflicting those censures at all, or at any rate in -applying them so rigorously in practice as was done in the instance of -Galileo? - -However, be this as it may, in the year 1757 the relaxation of the -censures took place; in 1820, on the 16th August, a distinct permission -was given for teaching the movement of the Earth; and again on the -17th September, 1822, a re-examination of the whole subject having -taken place, a decree appeared, sanctioned by the Pope, Leo XII., -in which the Inquisitors General, in conformity with the decrees of -1757 and 1820, declared that the printing and publishing at Rome of -works treating of the movement of the Earth and the immobility of the -Sun, according to the opinion of modern astronomers, was henceforth -permitted. Thus the decree of 1616 was practically abrogated. - -Mr. Mivart, among other remarks on the proceedings in Galileo’s case, -says that no amends were ever made by the authorities of the Church -for the injustice done to the philosopher, but he does not state what -kind of amends or what sort of apology he expected. If he means that -no personal reparation was made to Galileo, that is doubtless true; -nor was any sacrifice ever offered to his Manes. Indeed, it must be -allowed that the ecclesiastical authorities hindered the erection, -after his decease, of a monument in his honour. Nor is this a matter -for surprise; it may be taken for granted that the object of those who -desired to erect the monument was to pay an especial tribute of respect -to the deceased astronomer as one who had suffered unjustly; and that -was precisely what the Pope and Cardinals of that age would not for a -moment admit. - -No personal amends, then, were made to Galileo in life or in death; but -I think this was not the point to which Mr. Mivart intended to allude. -I believe he had in his mind a different sort of reparation--that, -namely, supposed to be owing to the injured cause of Science. If that -be so, then I can only say that he must have been unaware of the facts -above mentioned, of the proceedings taken in Rome in 1757, in 1820, and -in 1822. - -The adjustment of the relations of revealed Religion with physical -Science is often perplexing, owing partly to mistaken zeal in -insisting on particular interpretations of certain passages in Holy -Scripture, and partly to the prevalence, at different times, of -doubtful scientific theories, which flourish for a time, and then fade -away because they fail to stand the test of continued and rigorous -investigation. - -Instances of both these will readily occur to the mind, and the -Copernican theory in the seventeenth century will be a prominent one, -as coming under the first of the two heads. But it is not fair, as -I have already argued, to be too severe upon the men who clung with -tenacity to the old traditional interpretation of Scripture. It is, -in fact, only right so to cling until some just reason is shown for -introducing a fresh interpretation. In this case there were some good -reasons, no doubt; but there were also bad reasons alleged, and, as we -have seen, Galileo, with all his great ability and mechanical knowledge -so far beyond his age, could yet damage his cause with unsound -arguments. - -Such being the case, amidst the whirlpool of good and bad -arguments--that drawn from the tides being by no means the only one of -the latter class--it is not astonishing that even able and intelligent -men were misled. - -The antipathy to adopting a new system of the universe--a system -which demolished many cherished ideas and traditional opinions--was -overwhelmingly strong; the reasons uncertain, or, at least, -inconclusive. The discoveries of Galileo had, no doubt, overthrown the -system of Ptolemy, but they had not established that of Copernicus, so -long as there remained what may be called the tentative theory of Tycho -Brahé, who was one of the greatest observers of his day. Though he -did not unravel the true cause of the motions of the heavenly bodies, -and went, in fact, in a wrong direction, we must never forget the -important services he rendered to science. He was the first to employ -refraction as a correction to the apparent positions of the celestial -bodies; his collection of instruments, on which he had expended the -whole of his private fortune, was the finest that had ever yet been -seen; and, in fact, his observations, utilised by others, had a great -share in leading to the discovery of the real nature of the planetary -movements.[20] Small blame, then, must be meted out to those who held -on for a time to the system excogitated by so enlightened a man. I do -not mean to deny what I have already stated--that the Cardinals who put -on the Index of forbidden books the works of Copernicus and others, and -those who condemned Galileo, were unable, astronomically speaking, to -read the signs of the times. All I am asserting is that there was much, -even from a scientific point of view, to excuse their inability. - -They put forward as their main objection that the new theory -contradicted Holy Scripture, and adhered to that rigidly literal -interpretation of it, which has since then been necessarily given up, -and which seems somewhat strange to us, accustomed as we now are to -a far greater latitude of interpretation than they even dreamed of. -We who have learned that the six days of Creation are not to be taken -in their strict sense;[21] who have sound reason for holding that the -Deluge was only universal in the sense of covering that part of the -earth then inhabited by the human race; and who are told by some -people, including learned ecclesiastics, that it was more restricted -in its operation even than this; and who finally hear it said by men -of undoubted orthodoxy that the evolution of man from some lower -animal, so far as his _body_ is concerned and so long as you do not -include his soul and his rational faculties, is consistent with the -Christian faith--we, I say, who are familiar with these non-literal -interpretations of Scripture, find it difficult to comprehend the -standpoint adopted and maintained with such tenacity by the Cardinals -of the seventeenth century. - -There were, moreover, other very cogent reasons which, though not put -prominently forward, may well have worked upon their minds; reasons, -indeed, which must strike the really thoughtful man. Let us consider -this one point. In old times, when the Earth was believed to be the -actual centre of the physical universe, it was easy to suppose that -it was the sole abode of life. But if you believe that the Earth, far -from being such a centre, is only one amongst many planets revolving -round the Sun; and, further, that the Sun himself is only one of a -mighty host of stars, some of which may have planets revolving round -them, you naturally ask yourself immediately, are none of these worlds -inhabited except our Earth? Truly Scripture says nothing to contradict -the opinion that there are inhabitants and rational creatures to be -found elsewhere; but, nevertheless, the history of the Creation and -Redemption of the human race reads as if such creatures, intelligent -beings like ourselves, lived upon this Earth, and nowhere besides. - -I know not how far thoughts and speculations of this nature passed -through the minds of the ecclesiastics, and other men of religious -feeling, in the age of Galileo. They have since then been sifted more -or less by scientific men, and various opinions have been suggested. -Some went so far as to think it possible that the Sun was inhabited. -So able an astronomer as Arago, to say nothing of others, thought -such might be the fact. No one thinks so now. The tendency of modern -thought, strictly speaking _modern_ (that is, the most recent), is -rather to discredit such imaginations. The various observations made -upon the Sun, including those made by the use of the spectroscope, have -shown that the supposition of his being inhabited is simply incredible. -For other reasons the same result has been reached with regard to -the Moon. Then as to the planets, although there are no such cogent -reasons, we may fairly say that the probability is against any one of -them being at the present moment fitted for the habitation of such a -creature as man. Some persons would make an exception in favour of -Mars, where a recent French observer imagines he has detected signs of -work as if by human hands--a stretch indeed of imagination. - -But the planets are probably not all in the same stage of what may be -termed geological history. Some may very possibly be in the same state -in which the Earth was a few millions of years ago, long before it was -fitted for the reception of man on its surface, or, indeed, for that of -any of the higher mammalia. The Earth had had a long history, and had -undergone vast changes, ranging perhaps over many millions of years, -before man appeared on the scene; and the period that has elapsed -since that event, whatever the date of it may be, is simply nothing in -comparison of the ages that had previously rolled by since the first -moment when the darkness gave way, and the light appeared. It is, then, -far from unlikely that our own Earth is the only planet in the solar -system which at the present time is suitable for the habitation of man, -or creatures resembling him.[22] - -Passing then from our own system, we come to the myriads of suns, some, -we may well believe, far greater than our Sun, which are spread through -the realms of space.[23] Many of these we may reasonably suppose are -surrounded by planets, and in one or two cases there are special -reasons for thinking that some opaque body intervenes occasionally -between the star and ourselves. But the conditions under which several -of the stars (we know not how many) exist, is very different from that -to which we are accustomed here with our own Sun. There are double -stars which appear to revolve round a common centre of gravity, a -system of two suns. Have each of them, or have both of them in common, -a set of planets moving round them? Who can tell? And where there -are stars with planets accompanying them, does any one know in what -state those planets are? The whole subject, however interesting as a -speculation, is shrouded in impenetrable mystery. - -From all this it follows that although there certainly may be rational -and intellectual inhabitants on some or other of these distant worlds, -yet, on the other hand, there _may not_ be. And it is perfectly -possible that our Earth, minute little object as it is, comparatively -speaking, may still be the great and favoured life-house of the -universe, the _moral_, though not _material_, centre. That the Earth -is not the physical centre of the universe we now are well aware; nor -is the Sun the centre; nor, indeed, do we know whether there is any -such centre at all. There is good reason for thinking that the Sun, -with his attendant planets, is in motion in a certain direction in -space; and I may observe that this direction is not in the plane of the -Earth’s orbit, or anything near it; so that though the Earth describes -an elliptical orbit with regard to the Sun, its path in space is some -kind of spiral curve, that is as it would appear to a being poised for -a time in some point of space far away outside our orbit, having the -necessary powers of vision, and having a plane of reference from which -he could take his observations. - -What else this gifted being might see--whether he would observe some -great central body round which the whole of the heavenly bodies -revolve, or, as seems more probable, would detect, instead of one, -many centres, each with its own group--all this we do not and cannot -know, and we must be content, at least so long as our life here below -continues, to remain in profound ignorance. - -Seeing, then, how wide in extent and how difficult of solution are some -of the speculative problems, originating in the Copernican theory, it -can be no matter of surprise that the ecclesiastics of the seventeenth -century recoiled from it with more than common aversion. - - - - -CHAPTER V. - - -As a sequel to the story of Galileo, I think it may be interesting to -inquire what the evidence, as _we now have it_, proves with regard -to the truth of the Copernican theory, there being two opposite and -contradictory errors on this subject, and these not merely popular -errors, but shared to some extent by educated and otherwise learned -men. But I must, before proceeding, remind my readers that I use the -word _Copernican_ simply to signify the system of modern astronomy, -that in which the Sun is the centre round which the Earth and the other -planets revolve, and not as meaning the precise theory of Copernicus, -which (as I have said) was overthrown by Kepler, when he discovered -that the planetary orbits were not circular but elliptical, the Sun, -moreover, not being strictly in the centre, but in one of the foci of -the orbit. - -Now it is a plain fact, which all persons must perceive, that either -the Earth revolves on its axis in twenty-four hours (more accurately -23 hours 56 mins. 5 secs.), or else that the whole of the celestial -bodies are carried round the Earth in that same time. It is also a fact -no less perceptible to _careful_ observers, that either the Sun goes -round the Earth in the course of a year, or else that the Earth goes -round the Sun. The question is how these facts are to be accounted for. - -The first of the two errors I have just mentioned is that which -supposes the Copernican theory to have been directly and conclusively -proved. This I imagine to be very common, and to arise from the -elementary books learnt by schoolboys, which state (naturally enough) -the modern theory of astronomy without the reasons that support it. - -We need not dwell long on this point. Persons who have got this -erroneous impression misunderstand the nature of the evidence. Some -things in astronomy can be positively proved from observation, as, -for instance, the existence of sun-spots. Many things in mechanics, -chemistry, optics, and other branches of physical study can be -demonstrated by experiment. The motion of the Earth round the Sun -cannot, however, be so treated. It is inferred, and very rightly so, -from the fact that it explains completely and easily all the observed -phenomena, while, on the other hand, there are certain things which, as -_far as our present knowledge goes_, cannot be explained in any other -way; and the same argument applies to the rotation of the Earth on its -axis. But though all this is perfectly clear so far, who can possibly -say that as science progresses some explanation may not be hereafter -found consistent with the antagonistic theory--consistent, let us say, -with the system of Tycho Brahé, or some modification of it? I need -not add that I consider the future discovery of such explanation as so -improbable, that one may practically dismiss the idea, but I should be -sorry to deny it as being conceivably possible. - -The other, and opposite, error is that of certain well-meaning but -ill-informed persons, who imagine that the Copernican theory is even -now doubtful and liable to be overthrown--liable, I mean, in a real and -practical sense, and not by distant contingencies, such as those at -which I have just hinted, and which may be considered as shadowy and -intangible. I do not suppose that amongst educated men there are many -such scientific recusants; but at any rate it may be useful to give a -short summary of the evidence on which the Copernican conclusion is -based. In doing this I fear I shall tire the patience of my readers by -partly repeating Galileo’s own arguments, which I have already quoted -in discussing the Dialogue. This cannot easily be avoided, for much -of his reasoning is so sound and so forcible, that after the lapse of -more than two centuries we can add but little to it. On the other hand, -there are grave mistakes that must be shunned; and, moreover, there -have been discoveries made since the day when the Dialogue was written, -of inestimable importance. - -The best way of treating the question is to resume the history of -astronomical research from the point where we dropped it; that is, at -the time when Galileo first made known to the world the result of his -observations. - -It ought to be clearly understood that from the moment the telescope -was turned on the heavens, the old system of astronomy was doomed, and -nothing could finally have saved it. For a time prejudice and other -more creditable feelings kept it floating on the sea of speculation, -but such a state of things could not last; and the startling -information that men like Galileo, Fabricius, and Scheiner imparted -to the scientific world, could not fail to expel the old theory of -the universe from the minds of men--at least, men of intellectual -capacity--gradually and slowly, but yet most surely. - -Now we have seen what the revelations were which the telescope at once -displayed, even in its comparatively rude and imperfect state. There -were the spots on the Sun, the satellites of Jupiter, the phases of -Venus, the greater apparent size of the superior planets (Mars and the -rest) when on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun, this last -phenomenon being quite inconsistent with the system of Ptolemy. - -One consequence of all this was that the less enlightened men of -the old school indulged in a violent antipathy to the new-fangled -instrument, which threatened to overthrow their time-honoured -traditions, and simply refused to believe in the telescope and its -results. Thus the principal professor of philosophy at Padua, when -invited by Galileo to look through his glass at the Moon and the -planets, pertinaciously refused to do so. Simplicio, who, of course, -represents in the Dialogue the prejudices of men of this stamp, admits -(as we have seen) his feelings on this subject, and his suspicions that -the new discoveries were to be attributed to optical errors. He was -willing to be corrected if mistaken, but such had hitherto been his -opinion. - -It was not, however, to be expected that men of sound sense would -allow themselves to be misled for any length of time by fallacies such -as these. Continued observations carefully made are sure to correct -mere optical errors, and after a reasonable interval it must have been -evident that the phenomena discerned through the telescope were facts -that had to be dealt with--not phantoms to be ignored. - -Thus, when it was found that the planet Venus presented to the eye -phases such as the Moon does, instead of always appearing like a round -body, it became evident that she revolved, not as Ptolemy supposed, -round the Earth, but round the Sun, an inference subsequently confirmed -by the observation of her transits over the Sun’s disc. - -This being so, the adherents of Ptolemy had to meet this difficulty: -here was a planet much nearer to the Earth than to the Sun,[24] and -yet revolving round the latter in preference to the former. There was -clearly, then, _some_ attractive force belonging to the Sun (whatever -its nature might be), greater than that of the Earth, which Venus -obeyed; the same was true of Mercury, with the difference that this -planet was much nearer to the Sun. Then as regards the superior -planets, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the probability that the Sun was -the great central power that controlled their movements was a very -strong one. There is but little to add on these topics to Galileo’s -own forcible argument in the third day’s dialogue; he is, however, -inaccurate in his figures, and states that Mars appears sixty times as -large when in opposition to the Sun, as at conjunction. More recent -observations have shown that he appears rather more than thirty times -as large when at his nearest point to the Earth, than he does when -near his conjunction with the Sun, and consequently at his farthest -point from the Earth; but this variation is quite sufficient for the -argument, and proves incontestably that if Mars revolves round the -Earth as in any way the centre of his orbit, it must be in an ellipse -of so great eccentricity as no one could reasonably imagine him to -do; indeed, the anti-Copernicans of Galileo’s day knew nothing of the -elliptic motions of the planets; neither, as we have seen, did Galileo -himself. - -The same argument, drawn from the apparent size of the planet at -different periods, applies also to Jupiter and Saturn--the other -exterior planets were discovered much later--only not so strikingly as -in the case of Mars. The improbability, if we once admit that all the -planets revolve round the Sun, that the Earth, occupying the position -it does, should be at rest, while the Sun, controlling the motions -of the planets (vast bodies, some of them), circled, nevertheless, -round the Earth; the improbability, I say, of this is so great as to -be almost overwhelming; at any rate, unless the difficulties of the -counter hypothesis were shown to be insurmountable, which, as we know, -is far from being the case. It was of course possible, without going -the lengths of the Paduan professor, and setting oneself against the -telescope altogether, to admit the facts but deny the inferences; to -grant, for instance, that Mars appeared to have a diameter more than -six times as great in one position as in another, and to attribute -it, as I hinted just now, to some extraordinary eccentricity in his -orbit round the Earth; but it is not wise to look through a telescope -with the eyes of the body open and the eyes of the mind closed; -and generally it is but right to be guided by clear and distinct -probabilities when discussing questions of natural philosophy on -scientific grounds--and it is of these alone that I am at the present -moment speaking. - -It must be borne in mind distinctly that the discovery of the moon-like -phases of Venus, showing her to revolve round the Sun, was simply -conclusive as against the old system of Ptolemy, which had so long been -the received system of astronomy. The theory of Tycho Brahé, or some -modification of it, was the only one that could henceforth be adopted. -But when you dethrone an ancient theory which has for centuries held -an almost undisputed sway, you have to reconsider your whole position, -and compromises such as that of Tycho are not always adequate to the -emergency. - -But these considerations formed only a part of this complicated -controversy. The anti-Copernicans of the seventeenth century would -not even admit the revolution of the Earth on its own axis, and were -consequently forced to hold that the whole of the heavenly bodies were -carried round this our globe in twenty-four hours. In ancient times, -when men knew little or nothing of the sizes and distances of the -Sun, the planets, or the stars, such a belief was quite reasonable -and natural; they thought the stars were set as if they were jewels -in a hollow sphere, which was turned round its poles each day. But -the astronomers of Galileo’s day knew something far more accurate -than this; he himself, as we observed in the Dialogue, greatly -under-estimated the distance and the size of the Sun, and had but a -very imperfect idea of the enormous interval that separates us from the -stars; yet he evidently perceived the improbability of all these vast -and remote bodies revolving with an almost inconceivable velocity round -the Earth every twenty-four hours. And what must be _our_ judgment -on such a subject, seeing that we know the Sun’s mean distance to be -about 92,000,000 miles, more than nineteen times as much as Galileo’s -estimate? And yet some of the planets are farther and much farther -from us than the Sun. Then as regards the stars, α Centauri, the -nearest of them, is calculated to be more than 20,000,000,000,000 miles -distant; but this calculation supposes the truth of the Copernican -theory, and that we may not seem to argue in a circle, we will not use -it, but content ourselves with saying that, from certain reasons about -which there can be no mistake, we are sure that the distance of the -stars is very considerably greater than even the remotest planet in -our own system, which is Neptune. Now, this planet’s distance from the -Sun is computed at 2,775,000,000 miles, and if, indeed, he is carried -daily round the Earth in a circle, it must be with a velocity exceeding -that of light; the stars, therefore, with a velocity far greater still. -Now, nothing with which we are acquainted moves with so great a speed -as light--or, as some men call it, _radiant energy_, meaning thereby -to include heat as well as light in the term--a speed estimated at -186,000 miles in a second of time. Are we then to believe that the -stars are carried in a circle round the Earth every day at a velocity -much exceeding even this? It seems almost enough to ask such a question -without pausing for the answer. The simple rotation of the Earth on its -own axis explains all the phenomena without resorting to such extreme -suppositions as those just mentioned. - -It is remarkable that no one of any note--at least, in modern times, -for I am not so sure about the ancients--ever appears to have -suggested the intermediate theory of the Earth revolving on its axis, -and yet remaining stationary as regards any motion of translation. -With our present knowledge of astronomy we could not entertain such -an opinion, though in the early part of the seventeenth century it -might have been considered plausible. Since, however, it has not been -maintained by any noteworthy author, we need not further discuss it. - -The reader will bear in mind what has already been said on this -branch of the subject in the second day’s dialogue,[25] and it is not -necessary to repeat it in detail. It may, however, be useful to mention -a few experiments of a later date, which have tended to confirm the -truth of the Earth’s diurnal revolution. - -Before the close of the seventeenth century it was observed that a -diminution of gravity occurred at, and near, the equator. This was -proved by the vibration of the pendulum, an experiment associated -chiefly with the name of Richer; and it has, if I mistake not, been -since then carefully tested by spring balances. This phenomenon is -owing partly to the spheroidal figure of the Earth--itself the result -of the rotation on the axis--but principally to the centrifugal -tendency being greater at the equator, from the higher velocity of -rotation. - -I have already alluded to the trade winds, and the argument to be drawn -from them, which I think a sound and strong one; but I need not dwell -on it further. - -It is, however, well worth remembering that in our own day another -proof has been given, which has been generally allowed to be an -important one. It is the result of an experiment of Foucault, and is -simply this: if a pendulum, with a heavy weight attached to it, be -made to oscillate in a plane due north and south, say in the latitude -of Paris, the pendulum, after a time, and supposing it to continue in -movement long enough for the purpose of observation, will oscillate -in a direction slightly north-east and south-west. Now the pendulum -moves naturally always in the same direction, backwards and forwards, -as originally started, and if the Earth were shaped like a cylinder -no change would be detected; but the spherical form of the Earth, as -it rotates on its axis, here makes the whole difference; the floor -of the room where the pendulum vibrates is carried round the axis of -rotation, as everything else is, but the plane of oscillation remaining -the same--or parallel to the original one--it no longer points north -and south. At the equator this phenomenon would disappear, and in the -southern hemisphere it would be the other way: that is, the pendulum -would vibrate north-west and south-east. - -The same thing is exemplified by the small machine called the -gyroscope, where a heavy disc, so adjusted as to revolve freely in any -given direction, independently of the frame in which it is placed, will -continue, when once set in rapid motion, to spin in the same plane, -directed, for instance, to any one star that happens at the time to be -due north or due south of us, while the frame moves round it with the -rotation of the Earth. - -I think, then, on the whole, we may say that those persons who, in -the present state of our knowledge on the subject, are not convinced -that the Earth revolves on its own axis, would not be satisfied by any -evidence whatever. - -Returning now to the general question of Copernicanism, we find that -for some time after the trial of Galileo, things remained much _in -statu quo_; unless we except the observation of the transit of Venus, -in 1639; but, as that eventful seventeenth century was drawing to its -close, there came on the scene some thoughtful and able astronomers, -who could not only utilise the knowledge of their predecessors, but -could also guess, with more or less accuracy, what that law--hitherto -unknown--might be, which governed the planets and our own Earth in -their movements. It was about this time that the Royal Society was -founded in London, and a stimulus was thus given to investigation and -to experiment. The third law of Kepler, which states that in all the -planetary orbits the square of the periodic time of revolution is in -a constant proportion to the cube of the mean distance, suggested the -existence of another law, not yet discovered, a law of attraction, on -which this itself depended. Among the astronomers of that day three -names deserve special mention, Wren, Hooke, and Halley, because each -of them guessed with some accuracy at the true doctrine--as it is now -known to be--that the planets are attracted to the Sun by a force which -acts inversely as the square of the distance. Hooke, in particular, -deserves the credit of having applied this law to the path of a -projectile, under certain circumstances, as well as to the planetary -orbits; but though he thus lighted upon true conclusions, he appears -to have been deficient in mathematical skill, and therefore unable to -verify his results. It is, however, only just to the memory of Horrox, -who was carried off by an early death, to mention that the true theory -of the identity of terrestrial and astronomical gravity had occurred -to his mind; if he had lived twenty or thirty years longer, he might -have survived in history as the discoverer of the great problem. - -Be this as it may, there now arose another man greater than his -predecessors, and greater than all his contemporaries; he also was an -Englishman, by name Isaac Newton. What others guessed, or concluded -on insufficient evidence, became, in his powerful hands, clear and -well-grounded truths, proved, so far as such things could be proved, by -rigid mathematical reasoning, and established on a solid basis, which -time has not shaken, and which subsequent investigation has confirmed. -Others had supposed the existence of the law of attraction by which the -Sun acted on the planets; many persons had understood the existence of -terrestrial gravitation. Newton showed that these two are identical; -and, moreover, that every particle of matter attracts every other -particle _mutually_, and according to the one universal law, that of -the inverse square of the distance; so that a vast planet revolving -round the Sun obeys the same law as a pebble dropped from one’s hand to -the Earth. The popular story of his having been suddenly led to this -conclusion by the sight of an apple falling is apparently fabulous; and -what really occurred is this: he sat alone one day in a garden, and -fell into a speculation (as men of scientific mind are apt to do) on -the power of gravity, that is, of gravity as we feel it here on the -Earth. Then it struck him that however high you ascend, even on the -loftiest mountains, no sensible diminution in this remarkable force -takes place; so, he said to himself: why not as high as the Moon? If -so, perhaps she is retained in her orbit by this very power. And again -if so, what then? To which question his active mind gave the just and -true answer, that it was probably one and the same force that acted at -the surface of the Earth, at the distance of the Moon, and finally, as -regulating the action of the Sun on the planets. - -It seems that there was an error, which it is unnecessary to explain in -detail, in Newton’s first calculations; but that when, after a lapse of -time and with the error corrected, he again returned to them, he found -the motion of the Moon to be exactly accounted for by his theory. - -Again, in dealing with the complicated problem of the action of the -heavenly bodies one upon the other, that is, when the disturbing force, -for instance, of a third body is brought to bear on the motions of -two others, although Hooke and others had as a conjecture put forth -the existence of such mutual action, yet Newton was the first who -thoroughly grappled with it. - -The mutual attraction of matter, so far as things terrestrial are -concerned, had occurred to the inquiring intellect of Francis Bacon; -but it was left for Newton to propound it as the great principle that -governs the physical universe. - -Now let us see how all this bears on the truth of the Copernican -system. Newton proved--and I may add that the improved methods of -mathematics which have been adopted since his day make the proofs more -simple and easy--that if any body moves in an ellipse, or indeed, in -one of the other conic sections, the law of force, tending to the -focus, is that of the inverse square of the distance.[26] Conversely, -he proved that a body under the action of a central force, varying in -intensity as the inverse square of the distance, will move in a conic -section. - -Then if the Moon moved in an ellipse, as it was easy to perceive that -she did, and if her motion corresponded precisely with what it would -be on the theory of universal gravitation; if also, as seemed evident, -the planets revolved in ellipses, then the inference that the law -of gravitation, as stated by Newton, was true became irresistible; -not susceptible, as before stated, of direct and absolute proof, but -established conclusively by a sound and legitimate induction. - -What I have just stated shows that Kepler’s first law corresponds -with Newton’s discovery; but the same is true of the two other laws. -It would of course be out of place here to go minutely into all the -evidence which can be gathered in support of the doctrine of universal -gravitation. I may briefly state that all of Kepler’s laws are -simply explicable by that hypothesis, and that the evidence derives -additional confirmation from the following curious fact: observation -shows that Kepler’s laws, though approximately true, are not strictly -and accurately so; if the planets were mere particles revolving round -the Sun, they would then be quite rigidly true, but the planets have -a certain mass (though very small compared to the Sun) and so do in -some measure attract the Sun as well as being attracted by him, and -they, moreover, exercise a disturbing influence on each other. These -perturbations, however, have been calculated, and the result is that -they agree with what ought reasonably to be expected, supposing the -theory of universal gravitation to be true. This confirmatory proof has -been acquired, I need not add, since the time of Newton by the labours -of astronomers, Laplace and others, who have succeeded him, and who -have had the advantage of that more manageable method of mathematical -calculation to which I have just alluded. - -Supposing then the law of gravitation to be established by sufficient -proof, we may now ask what must become of the old systems of -astronomy? What must befall Ptolemy and even Tycho Brahé? - -It is obvious that they could do nothing but collapse. If the law -of gravitation were once admitted to be true, the idea of the Sun -revolving round the Earth must be dismissed as impossible. Here it is -right to remark that (assuming the law of universal gravitation) it -is not, strictly and scientifically speaking, correct to say that any -one heavenly body revolves round another, but that they both revolve -round their common centre of gravity. In the case of the Earth and the -Sun, so vastly superior is the mass of the latter that the centre of -gravity is far away within his volume, and the disturbance exercised -on him by the Earth is scarcely appreciable; so also, in the case of -the Moon and the Earth, the centre of gravity is within the latter, -but at a considerable distance from its own centre; and here there is -a distinctly appreciable oscillation of the Earth, arising from this -very cause, during each revolution of the Moon in her orbit. When two -bodies are more nearly equal in mass, as is probably the case with the -double stars that have been observed in recent times, then the two -revolve round a centre of gravity lying between them, exterior to both -of them. It is believed that this is actually the fact in the instance -I am here alluding to of the double stars, and there is some reason for -supposing that the curve in which they revolve is an ellipse. This, if -true, would clearly indicate that the law of gravitation, as stated by -Newton, extends not only through our own solar system, but over the -whole material universe. - -And there is one remarkable property of this mysterious agency which -we term gravitation, and that is its instantaneous action even at the -greatest distances. Light travels with an enormous and yet a finite -velocity, so that it takes a few years to arrive at the Earth from even -the nearest stars. The force of gravity knows no such limit, nor is its -action retarded by even the minutest fraction of time. - -Nor, again, is it impeded, as in the case of light, by any screen or -obstacle of whatever nature. Furthermore, it does not lose anything of -its intensity, as light does, by being diffused over a larger surface; -it varies as the _mass_ of the bodies concerned, but not in the least -according to the extent of their surfaces. Given the same distance, no -diffusion weakens its force. - -Great as was the evidence adduced by Newton for the truth of his -theory, there were some real difficulties in the way of its reception. -I need not allude to these in detail; they are explained in treatises -on physical astronomy for the benefit of those who are interested in -the subject. Briefly, I may say that subsequent research and careful -calculations have removed the difficulties, and thereby confirmed the -already existing evidence. - -Then, as regards terrestrial gravity, experiments have been -made--notably at the mountain Schehallion, in Scotland--throwing -additional light upon it, and indicating that not merely the Earth as a -whole, but any great mass, such as a mountain, exercises an appreciable -attractive force. - -Newton seems to have expected that some further discovery would take -place, at no distant period, as to the nature of this occult agency -which operates so powerfully in the heavens and on the Earth. In one -of his letters he strongly disclaims the opinion that gravity is -essential to matter and inherent in it; he thinks it is “inconceivable -that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something -else which is not material, operate on and affect other matter -without mutual contact... that gravity should be innate, inherent, -and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a -distance through a _vacuum_, without the mediation of anything else by -and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to -another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has -in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall -into it.” - -And yet we see that what he thought absurd is still apparently true, -and that, great as was Newton’s sagacity in discovering and proving the -effects of this great cosmical law, he failed when he came to speculate -on the more remote causes of it. Since his time, other ingenious -theorists have imagined hypotheses in the hopes of accounting for it; -but their efforts have not met with any great success, and the last -word of science on the subject is that the cause of gravitation remains -undiscovered. - -But if the attempt to trace the ultimate cause of the law of -gravitation has been a failure, the proof of its operation in the -physical universe has been a marvellous success, and that not only in -the present day, when difficulties have been removed and fresh evidence -has been added, but, to a certain extent, even in Newton’s own time, -and especially here in his own country. Indeed, we cannot suppress a -feeling of admiration when we contemplate the revolution in astronomy -brought about by this quiet, unobtrusive man, who is said to have spent -thirty-five years of his long life within the walls of Trinity College, -Cambridge, of which he was a Fellow, and who, though twice elected to -represent the University in Parliament, never opened his lips in the -House of Commons. I may, perhaps, be here permitted to insert a passage -from a work to which I have previously alluded, Whewell’s “History of -the Inductive Sciences,” well worth quoting both for its eloquence and -its truth. After recounting, with some detail, the circumstances of -this great epoch in astronomical knowledge, he proceeds: - - Such, then, is the great Newtonian induction of universal - gravitation, and such its history. It is indisputably and - incomparably the greatest scientific discovery ever made, - whether we look at the advance which it involved, the extent - of the truth disclosed, or the fundamental and satisfactory - nature of this truth. As to the first point, we may observe - that any one of the five steps into which we have separated - the doctrine [these were, 1st, that the force attracting - _different_ planets to the sun, and, 2nd, the force attracting - the _same_ planet in different parts of its orbit, is as the - inverse square of the distances; 3rd, that the earth exerts - such a force on the moon, and that this is identical with - terrestrial gravity; 4th, that there is a _mutual_ attraction - of the heavenly bodies on one another; 5th, that there exists - a mutual attraction of _all particles of matter_ throughout - the universe] would of itself have been considered as an - important advance, would have conferred distinction on the - persons who made it, and the time to which it belonged. All the - five steps made at once formed not a leap, but a flight; not - an improvement merely, but a metamorphosis; not an epoch, but - a termination. Astronomy passed at once from its boyhood to - mature manhood. Again, with regard to the extent of the truth, - we obtain as wide a generalisation as our physical knowledge - admits when we learn that every particle of matter, in all - times, places, and circumstances, attracts every other particle - in the universe by one common law of action. And by saying - that the truth was of a fundamental and satisfactory nature, I - mean that it assigned, not a rule merely, but a cause, for the - heavenly motions; and that kind of cause which most eminently - and peculiarly we distinctly and thoroughly conceive, namely, - mechanical force. Kepler’s laws were merely _formal_ rules, - governing the celestial motions according to the relations - of space, time, and number; Newton’s was a _causal_ law, - referring these motions to mechanical reasons. It is no doubt - conceivable that future discoveries may both extend and further - explain Newton’s doctrines; may make gravitation a case of - some wider law, and may disclose something of the way in which - it operates--questions with which Newton himself struggled. - But, in the meantime, few persons will dispute that, both in - generality and profundity, both in width and depth, Newton’s - theory is without a rival or neighbour.[27] - -The effect of all this on the Copernican system and the evidence on -which it rested, was to raise that system from a simple though strong -probability, a question on which at any rate something might be said -for and against it, to a probability of almost overwhelming force; for -it not only showed how the heavenly bodies moved, but it explained the -cause of their motions, and in a word furnished the key that unlocked -the arcana of Nature. When you came to know not only how the Moon and -the planets moved, but the law which regulated their movements, and -when you found that all fitted into one harmonious whole (at least with -some minor exceptions), it was not easy to refuse assent to a theory -supported by such powerful evidence. - -Yet in saying this we are perhaps rather viewing the question from -our present standpoint, than as a contemporary would have done. As -a matter of fact, Newton’s hypothesis, though eagerly received in -England, met with a long opposition on the Continent, and particularly -in France, where Descartes’ theory of vortices reigned supreme for many -years. It must not be supposed that these Cartesian philosophers were -anti-Copernicans; far otherwise, only they accounted for the celestial -motions in a different way from Newton, and, as every one now admits, -in a wrong way. - -I have already remarked that there were some apparent difficulties in -the application of the law of universal gravitation to all the heavenly -bodies, and that these have been removed by subsequent calculation. One -of these difficulties, if indeed it could be so called (for it hardly -amounted to that), has been solved within living memory. It was noticed -that the planet Uranus showed signs of perturbation from some unknown -reason; and even the work I have just quoted, “Whewell’s History of -the Inductive Sciences,” published in 1847, contains the following -sentence: “Uranus still deviates from his tabular place, and the cause -remains yet to be discovered.” Two astronomers, one French and one -English, Le Verrier and Adams, found out the cause by discovering the -existence, each independently of the other, of an exterior planet -revolving in an orbit more distant by far than that of Uranus; to this -planet the name of Neptune has been given, and his existence is one -more confirmatory proof of the theory of gravitation. - -The Copernican system had been built up and consolidated by Newton’s -great discovery; but another piece of evidence, of a most important -character, was added by the investigations of Bradley, Professor of -Astronomy at Oxford, and afterwards Astronomer Royal; this careful -observer, while engaged in endeavouring to detect such an apparent -motion of the fixed stars (so called) as would indicate an annual -parallax, noticed that another motion existed different from that -which the annual parallax would produce, and for which he could not -account; the apparent orbits described by the stars observed depended -on the distance of the stars from the pole of the ecliptic; the -phenomenon was different from anything hitherto discovered, and one -or two modes of explanation were tried in vain. Accident, however, -turned Bradley’s thoughts in the right direction; he was one day in -a boat on the Thames, and observed that the vane on the mast gave a -different apparent direction to the wind, according as the boat sailed -in different courses. Here, then, was the solution of the difficulty: -it was already known from Römer’s investigations that light moved with -a finite velocity, and if so it would naturally produce the same effect -as that observed in the boat, or to take an illustration very commonly -given, like that which any one finds when moving along rapidly in a -shower of rain, in which latter case the rain seems to fall not in the -direction it has when one is at rest, but in a direction compounded of -that and the one opposite to the person’s line of motion. - -Bradley soon drew the correct conclusion, that light acted in precisely -the same way upon the Earth as it moved in its orbit, and that the -_apparent_ annual displacement of the stars, as detected by him, arose -from this sole cause. All the great astronomers who followed him have -agreed with his conclusions, and the phenomenon in question, which is -called the aberration of light, has conferred a lasting fame on its -discoverer. And the remarkable point about it is this, that not only -does it give a fresh illustration to the Copernican theory, but it -is one of the very few scientific facts that cannot (so far as our -knowledge of the subject goes) be explained in any other way. It is, -therefore, generally considered as a critical test of the truth of the -system. - -There are two other phenomena, on which however I do not propose to -dwell at any length, known as precession and nutation, which it is -not easy to explain otherwise than by the modern theory of astronomy -and the principle of gravitation; the latter of these two owed its -discovery to Bradley, and the former to Hipparchus, who could not have -been aware of its real cause, though he had observed the fact of its -occurrence. - -But passing on from these, I may call attention to one most remarkable -result of modern scientific research, connected with the stars. In -Galileo’s day, it was a drawback to the Copernican theory that none of -the stars showed the smallest annual parallax; in popular language, -none of them seemed to undergo any change of place, however small, -when observed at opposite points of the Earth’s orbit, or as the -opponents would have said, the Earth’s imagined orbit. A displacement -of this kind, I need hardly repeat, must not be confounded with that -other motion which Bradley observed and explained. This was one of -Tycho Brahé’s reasons for rejecting the Copernican system, and it -was one of the best arguments used by the opponents of Galileo. As -the enormous distance of the stars from the Earth was, as we have -already seen, at that time unknown, the celestial distances generally -being under-estimated even by the best astronomers, the argument had -an apparent force, which no one now would attribute to it. Galileo -himself had some hope of overcoming the difficulty by discovering some -annual displacement in certain stars, but it is needless to add that -his instruments were unequal to such a task. Subsequent observers -tried various methods, but without any real success until the present -century, when Bessel and other observers found that a star called -61 Cygni had a certain annual parallax; and not long afterwards, -Henderson, making his observations at the Cape of Good Hope on a -conspicuous star in the constellation of the Centaur, a constellation -belonging to the southern hemisphere, found at length that this star, -which in fact is a double star, and known as α Centauri, had a parallax -of nearly 1″; subsequent calculations show it to be probably rather -less, that is to say about 0″·91. This means that it is more than -twenty billions of miles distant, and that light takes more than three -years to travel from α Centauri to the earth. It is, however, believed -to be much the nearest of all the stars, no other coming within double -of the distance. - -Now it is difficult to evade the conclusion which naturally follows -from these results, that the Earth really does move in an annual orbit -round the Sun. It is no part of my present task to give a list of the -stars of which the parallax has been found, but I may say there are -several others besides the two I have named; and I know of no method -of accounting for the fact in any way but by the annual motion of the -Earth, unless we suppose some instrumental error to have occurred. -There have been so many of these in times past that it may seem rash to -exclude such a possibility, but, considering the perfection of modern -scientific instruments, it is in the highest degree improbable; and we -may fairly reckon the parallaxes of the stars as a strong confirmation -of the already strong evidence in favour of the Copernican theory--a -theory which, as we have seen, was, from a purely scientific point of -view, very probable in the days of Galileo, overwhelmingly probable -after the great discovery of Newton, and at the present time, with all -the light that subsequent research and observation have thrown on it, -scarcely short of a moral certainty. - -I may repeat once more that it has not, indeed, that absolute physical -certainty, arising from direct experiment, which has been obtained in -other scientific investigations; but, allowing for this faint element -of instability, we may fairly say that no truth of natural philosophy -stands on a firmer basis. - -And for Galileo, who lived before the day when, as Whewell says, -“Astronomy passed from boyhood to mature manhood,” we may fairly say -that, after we have censured his faults and his errors, after we have -ascertained that he was not a hero or a “martyr of science,” we must -still recognise the fact that he was one of the greatest natural -philosophers of his day, pre-eminent in astronomy, in mechanics, -in mathematics. To his honour also be it added, that his religious -faith, and his respect for the Church and her authority, so far as we -can judge, never failed. Whatever his defects may have been--want of -prudence, want of candour, want of consideration for others--we can -easily perceive that he would never have been willingly drawn into any -controversy intended to provoke antagonism between Religion and Science. - -In the present age, unhappily, there have been men who have taken -the other course, and have contributed their share towards exciting -antagonism, heedless of the consequences. Some have done this -unwittingly, arguing on the side of religion, but without a proper -supply of sound scientific information; others, on the opposite -side, have shown so bitterly hostile a spirit to Revelation, if not -even to Natural Religion, as to render it more than ever difficult -to re-establish that concord between the two studies, that of the -supernatural and that of the physical, which should never have been -interrupted. - -This, however, is so wide a subject that I must not be led into it. Yet -I may briefly remark that two of the greatest lights of the Catholic -Church, men whose teaching and whose writings have exercised an undying -influence, have both, either by words explicitly, or implicitly by -their example, contributed to encourage a sound knowledge of natural -philosophy, and in harmony with Christian theology. - -They both lived when physical science was in its infancy, though at -intervals of nearly 800 years apart. St. Augustine, who flourished -towards the latter part of that period dominated by the corrupt -civilisation of ancient Rome, amongst his voluminous works devoted -one treatise to the interpretation of the Book of Genesis, “De Genesi -ad Litteram;” and he takes the opportunity of cautioning those whom -he addresses against the risk of exciting the ridicule of unbelievers -by a mistaken adherence to a rigidly literal interpretation of Holy -Scripture. He was, I believe, one of the first that interpreted the six -days of Creation in the non-literal sense, though his particular theory -is not one in accordance with modern scientific opinion. I allude to -him not for the details of natural philosophy, but as enunciating a -principle, which some subsequent authors have not followed as they -might have done. - -St. Thomas Aquinas lived in those middle ages of which he was one of -the most brilliant ornaments. The power of his intellect is admitted by -those who have little sympathy with his teaching; his literary industry -is a standing marvel; and I have already observed that besides the -theological and metaphysical works on which he expended so much labour, -he wrote a treatise on the astronomy of Aristotle. It may be said this -is no very great matter, but I mention it as illustrating the breadth -of mind of this great saint and theologian, who could spare time for -a study of physical science without neglecting the more solemn duties -of his calling. His active mind was alive to every source from whence -wisdom and learning could be imbibed; and if he had lived in the age of -Galileo, I have sometimes fancied that he would have thrown some oil on -the troubled waters, would have counselled prudence to the adventurous -astronomer, patience and forbearance to his antagonists. But it is of -no avail to indulge in speculations such as these. Each age of the -world has its difficulties, moral and intellectual, and we can neither -hurry the stream of human thought onwards nor drive it backwards. - -So again it is with the dispositions of individuals; if Galileo had -been gifted with the calm, dignified reserve of Newton, instead of -being the vivacious, loquacious Italian that he in fact was, he might -have lived and died in peace. - -And now, if I may be permitted to recur once more to the subject of -gravitation, I have a word to say as to the lesson which this great -all-pervading law seems to teach. It has nothing to do with any -question of revealed Religion; but does it not bear the unmistakable -signs of the action of an all-wise, an all-powerful Creator? It may -possibly be the result of some other, though unknown, law; and even -then it brings us back to the same point. The result in nature remains -the same, and that result is written in characters that cannot be -ignored. Mathematicians have occupied themselves in making suppositions -as to the effects of imaginary laws of gravity, some of which might, -no doubt, ensure sufficient order and regularity to maintain this -world, and the countless worlds that people space, while others would -cause hopeless confusion. The striking thing is that the existing law -perfectly answers its purpose. - -Only let us imagine that no law of attraction acted upon matter at all, -nor any force of whatever kind--what would be the result? There would -be no coherence, no abode for human or animal life--nothing but chaos -and anarchy. - -If, then, we contrast this imagined picture with the one actually -before us, we are, I think, forcibly led to the conclusion that the -physical universe owes its origin, its existence, its harmony to an -Omnipotent Being, unseen, yet not unknown, intangible to the senses, -ever present to the intelligence. - -And now, in order to avoid misapprehension, I venture to restate -briefly the propositions I have sought to establish. - -I have maintained that the Catholic Church has a right to lay her -restraining hand on the speculations of Natural Science, just as much -as she has in the case of other speculative inquiries. Those who do -not believe in her prerogatives will, of course, deny such right _in -toto_; but I contend that if you grant the existence of this right at -all, you cannot exclude Physical Science from its operation. - -On the other hand, in the particular case of Galileo, I have not -attempted to defend all the proceedings of the Cardinals of the Index -and the Cardinals of the Inquisition. For it must be remembered -it was no gentle rebuke with which the Copernican system and the -individual Galileo were visited; no such light condemnation as that -of placing on the Index of prohibited books all Copernican works as -being _inopportune_, or again, that of a caution to Galileo to be more -prudent, was deemed adequate to the emergency--if, indeed, any one even -thought of them. - -So with the facts of the history before us, I think any sweeping -defence of the proceedings in question would be unnecessary from an -ecclesiastical point of view, and from a scientific point of view -untenable. - -Moreover, I must add, as an indispensable premiss to the conclusion -just stated, I have also maintained that the censures pronounced by -the Cardinals on both occasions were not dogmatic decisions, such -as Catholic theologians hold to be infallible; but disciplinary -enactments, varying with the changing characters of different ages. - -Then again, referring to the scientific questions involved, we may -see that Astronomy, considered historically, is divided into three -periods--the ancient one before the invention of the telescope, that -is, up to the time of Galileo; the intermediate one, when the telescope -was in use but the law of universal gravitation as yet unknown--from -Galileo until the publication of the “Principia” of Newton; and the -modern one, from Newton downwards. During the first period it seemed -highly probable to the whole world, with the exception of a few gifted -intellects, that this Earth was the centre of the Universe, and that -all the heavenly bodies revolved round it; during the second period, -when the telescope had shed a light so powerful and so brilliant upon -astronomical research that men could not absolutely close their eyes -to it even if they wished, the balance of probability passed into the -opposite scale, and the more intelligent men of science guessed at the -truth, however indistinctly. But some elements of uncertainty remained; -and this circumstance, taken in connection with the irrelevant -arguments so much in vogue at that time, must in all fairness be -allowed as an excuse for the many good men, ecclesiastics and others, -who opposed the Copernican doctrine. After the great step made by -Newton it was no longer a question of balancing probabilities, for the -weights were almost all transferred to one scale, and the probabilities -of the truth of the Heliocentric System (to give it for once its -accurate name) became overwhelming. The subsequent investigations -of Bradley and others have gone further still, and have converted -this strong, overpowering probability into something approaching -indefinitely near to a moral certainty. - -Beyond this we cannot reasonably expect to go; _physical_ certainty -is not to be attained when we have to traverse the vast distances of -celestial space, and human infirmity must be content to recognise the -boundary beyond which it may not pass, the limit imposed on finite -minds by the Infinite. - - -THE END. - - -CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS, CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] Nicetas of Syracuse (whose date I am not able to give) seems to -have been aware of the diurnal movement of the earth round its axis. - -[2] M. de l’Épinois has, since then, published a still more complete -collection of the various documents he had obtained permission to -inspect at Rome; but this work is, unfortunately, out of print. - -[3] “Principium 7^m.--Sancta Sedes Apostolica cui divinitus commissa -est custodia depositi, potestas pascendi universam Ecclesiam ad salutem -animarum, potest sententias theologicas vel quatenus cum theologicis -nectuntur proscribere ut sequendas vel proscribere ut non sequendas, -non unice ex intentione definitivâ sententiâ infallibiliter decidendi -veritatem, sed etiam absque ilia ex necessitate et intentione vel -simpliciter vel pro determinatis adjunctis prospiciendi _securitati_[4] -doctrinæ Catholicæ. In hujusmodi declarationibus licet non sit -doctrinæ _veritas infallibilis_, quia hanc decidendi ex hypothesi -non est intentio; est tamen _infallibilis securitas_. Securitatem -dico tum objectivam doctrinæ declaratæ [vel simplicitea vel pro -talibus adjunctis], tum subjectivam quatenus omnibus tutum est eam -amplecti, et tutum non est, nec absque violatione debitæ submissionis -erga magisterium divinitus constitutum fieri potest, ut eam amplecti -recusent. - -“Coroll. C. Falsum est, auctoritatem propter quam debeatur assensus -intellectus, solam esse auctoritatem Dei revelantis seu Ecclesiæ vel -Pontificis infallibiliter definientis; sunt enim gradus assensus -religiosi multiplices. In præsenti distinguendus est assensus _fidei -proprie et immediate divinæ_ propter auctoritatem Dei revelantis; -assensus fidei quam supra diximus _mediate divinam_ propter -auctoritatem infallibilitur definientis doctrinam ut veram non tamen -ut revelatam; assensus _religiosus_ propter auctoritatem universalis -providentiæ ecclesiasticæ in sensu declarato.”--_De Divina Traditione -et Scriptura_, p. 116, et seq. Ed. 1870. - -[4] “Non coincidere hæc duo, infallibilem veritatem et securitatem, -manifestum est vel ab eo, quod secus nulla doctrina probabilis aut -probabilior posset dici sana et secura.” - -[5] It happens, curiously enough, that the doctrine of the perfect -immobility of the Sun, which so shocked the Qualifiers of the -Inquisition, is simply discarded by modern astronomers. No one now -holds that the Sun is the centre of the whole universe, or that he is -immovable. It is generally supposed that he travels in space, though -not round any _known_ centre, and the Earth and Planets with him. - -[6] “Dico, che quando ci fosse vera dimostratione che il Sole stia nel -centro del mondo, e la terra nel 3 cielo, e che il Sole non circonda la -terra, ma la terra circonda il Sole, allora bisogneria andar con molta -consideratione in esplicare le Scritture che paiono contrarie, e più -sotto dire che non l’ intendiamo, che dira che sia falso quello che si -dimostra. Ma io non crederò che ci sia tale dimostratione fin che non -mi sia mostrata, etc.”--_Extract from Cardinal Bellarmine’s Letter to -F. Foscarini._ - -[7] A brief but interesting résumé of the Aristotelian physics is given -in Whewell’s “History of the Inductive Sciences,” a work to which I -shall have occasion to refer more than once. - -[8] It is said that a weight dropped from the top of a very high -tower falls slightly to the _east_, because the velocity of the axial -rotation is greater at the summit of the tower than at its foot, and -the stone or ball dropped partakes of the motion of the _highest_ part -of the tower from which it falls; this is perfectly true in theory; -and experiments, made not only from the summits of towers but also in -mines, tend to confirm it. - -[9] Simplicio having said that the cause why parts of the earth are -carried downwards was gravity, Salviati answers: “Voi errate, Signor -Simplicio, voi dovevate dire, che ciaschedun sa, ch’ ella si chiama -gravità; ma io non vi domando il nome, ma dell’ essenza della cosa: -della quale essenza voi non sapete punto più di quello, che voi -sappiate dell’ essenza del movente le Stelle in giro; eccetuatone il -nome, che a questa è stato posto, e fatto familiare, e domestico per -la frequente esperienza, che mille volte il giorno noi ne veggiamo; ma -non è, che realmente noi intentiamo più, che principio, o che virtù -sia quella, che muove la pietra in giù, di quel noi sappiamo chi la -muova in sù, separata del proiciente; o chi muova la Luna in giro, -eccettochè (come ho detto) il nome, che più singolare e proprio gli -abbiamo assegnato di gravità; dovechè a quello con termine più generico -assegniamo virtù impressa, a quello diamo intelligenza o assistente, o -informante; e a infiniti altri moti diamo loro per cagione la natura.” - -[10] It is curious that the notion of the universe being shaped -as a curve returning into itself has been started by some modern -German philosophers, founders of what has been called “non-Euclidian -geometry.” The investigations of astronomers, however, rather point to -the conclusion that the stellar universe has no centre, no symmetrical -figure, though speculations such as these must always be uncertain. - -[11] To speak of the circumference of a circle of infinite radius as -being identical with a straight line (though practically true enough) -is not rigidly accurate. We should say that they approximate infinitely -to one another, or in mathematical phraseology, they are equal to each -other _in the limit_. - -[12] It is not intended here to deny what some writers state--that -the _friction_ caused by the Earth’s rotation does in some degree act -upon the tidal wave. It is remarkable, so far as can be ascertained -from observations taken at some small island at a distance from any -continent, that the tidal wave of the Ocean only rises, even at the -spring, about five or six feet. The enormous rise of water at some -places arises from the tidal wave being driven into estuaries, mouths -of rivers, and other narrow channels. - -[13] These are the author’s words, spoken by Salviati: “Tra tutti -gli nomini grandi, che sopra tal mirabile effetto di natura hanno -filosofato, più mi maraviglio del Keplero, che di altri, il quale -d’ingegno libero, e acuto, e che aveva in mano i moti attribuiti alla -terra, abbia poi dato l’orecchio, e assenso a _predominii della Luna -sopra l’acqua_, e a proprietà occulte, e simili fanciullezze.” - -[14] It is not intended to imply that these two Schools of thought -stand on anything like the same scientific level. - -[15] The spots on the Sun were seen at about the same period of time by -Fabricius and by Father Scheiner, a Jesuit, as already mentioned. - -[16] I must not be understood as implying that even doctrinal decisions -promulgated by the Roman Congregations _in their own name_ are -considered by theologians to be infallible; such character belonging -only to decisions addressed by the Pope himself to the Church. - -[17] A curious instance of popular unacquaintance with astronomy was -afforded some months ago, when the planet Venus, which one would think -was a well-known object to most people, was mistaken for “the Star of -Bethlehem;” and this mistake was by no means confined to the ignorant, -but was shared by persons of education. - -The planet was at the time a brilliant “morning star;” and the effect -on the eye is more striking in these circumstances than when it is -seen, as is very commonly the case, in the evening, shortly after -sunset. I suppose this would account in some measure for the delusion. - -In clearer and finer skies than those of England, Venus is sometimes so -brilliant in the early morning as to startle an unaccustomed observer. - -[18] Dr. Ward makes a curious mistake in one point; he speaks in one -of the articles of _The Dublin Review_ (which he then edited) of -Copernicanism as destroying the old ideas as to _above and below_; -that is to say, for instance, your idea of ascending on high towards -heaven was thereby nullified, and ascending from the surface of the -earth meant going in any direction which the earth’s rotation might -place above your head at any particular moment. But Dr. Ward, who -was doubtless thinking of the very old and exploded notion that the -earth was a flat surface, does not seem to have been aware that this -objection applies in principle to the Ptolemaic system also; Ptolemy -knew that the earth was spherical in its shape, and consequently that -what would be _above_ a person in the eastern parts of India, to take -an example, would be widely different from that which would be so at -the westernmost point of Africa. It may, however, be admitted that an -additional cause for bewilderment was presented by the diurnal rotation -of the Earth, since it then appeared that the same point in space -_above_ you at noon would be far away _below_ you at midnight. - -[19] Quoted from an article in the “Revue des Questions Historiques,” -1867, “Galilée, son Procès, sa Condemnation, d’après des documents -inédits,” by M. Henri de l’Épinois. - -[20] Tycho Brahé discovered two out of the principal inequalities in -the Moon’s motion--known to astronomers as the Variation and the Annual -Equation; the third, which is the most obvious of all and is called the -Evection, was discovered by Ptolemy. - -[21] The figurative interpretation, however, in this instance is as -old as St. Augustine, though his speculations lead him to a different -conclusion from that of modern scientific men; namely, that of -supposing the actual creation to be the work of one moment. - -[22] It is, I think, Mr. Proctor who uses this argument in one of his -works, to prove how very doubtful a thing is the existence of highly -organised and rational beings on the other planets. - -[23] It is quite possible, as Mr. Lockyer has recently argued, that -many objects that appear to us as stars, are in reality nebulæ in a -more or less advanced stage of condensation. - -[24] The _relative_ distances could be computed geometrically, even -before the absolute distances were known, and in fact were so; Kepler’s -third law affords a simple rule for calculating them, but they were -known even previously. - -[25] I may, perhaps, be permitted to recall to the reader’s mind, in a -note, one or two of the main objections urged by the anti-Copernicans. -One of these was that it would leave the atmosphere behind, the true -answer to which is that the atmosphere itself is attracted by the -force of gravity to the earth, and is carried round by the rotation, -as everything else is; this Galileo did not perfectly understand, as -may be seen by his remarks, both in the second and the fourth day’s -dialogue. Another was this--and it was put forward by no less a man -than Tycho Brahé--a stone dropped from a high tower ought to fall to -the westward of the tower, because the tower would be carried on to the -east by the earth’s rotation, and the stone would not; this, however, -being contrary to experience. The real fact is that the stone partakes -of the rotatory movement as much as the tower does, the two forces of -rotation and gravity being combined according to the second law of -motion, while the stone is falling; this Galileo did know. Supposing -a very high tower, the stone ought to fall slightly to the east, on -account of the superior velocity of rotation at the top of the tower to -that at the bottom. It is said this experiment has been successfully -tried, as stated in note, page 55. - -[26] There are other laws, besides that of the inverse square of the -distance, which would cause a body to move in an ellipse, at least if -the force acting on it were placed, not in the focus, but in the centre -of the orbit. The question has been discussed with reference to some of -the binary stars which appear to move round one another in ellipses. No -doubt is thereby raised as to the prevalence of the law of the inverse -square in our own solar system, where it has been verified by long and -careful observation; the doubt (I think we may say a comparatively -slight one) is whether the same law extends to the whole stellar -universe, where, of course, accurate observation is impracticable. - -[27] I do not think the truth of this is affected by any of the -great modern discoveries; though that of the Conservation of Energy -approaches more nearly than others to Universal Gravitation in its -importance. - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - - -Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a -predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they -were not changed. - -Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced quotation -marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left -unbalanced. - -Original text uses “loadstone”, not “lodestone”. - -Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of pages, have been collected and -moved to the end of this eBook. - -Page 22: The symbol in “Locus sigilli” is a version of a Maltese cross. - -Footnote 4, originally on page 27, is a sub-note of footnote 3. - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Galileo and his Judges, by F. R. Wegg-Prosser - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES *** - -***** This file should be named 62402-0.txt or 62402-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/2/4/0/62402/ - -Produced by deaurider, Charlie Howard, and the Online -Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This -file was produced from images generously made available -by The Internet Archive) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |