diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/62402-h/62402-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62402-h/62402-h.htm | 6284 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 6284 deletions
diff --git a/old/62402-h/62402-h.htm b/old/62402-h/62402-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 193d4b4..0000000 --- a/old/62402-h/62402-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6284 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of Galileo and His Judges, by F. R. Wegg-Prosser. - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 2.5em; - margin-right: 2.5em; -} - -h1, h2 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; - margin-top: 2.5em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - word-spacing: .3em; -} - -h1 {line-height: 1; page-break-before: always; page-break-after: always;} - -h2+p {margin-top: 1.5em;} - -.transnote h2 { - margin-top: .5em; - margin-bottom: 1em; -} - -p { - text-indent: 1.75em; - margin-top: .51em; - margin-bottom: .24em; - text-align: justify; -} -.caption p, .center p, p.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0;} - -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.vspace {line-height: 1.5;} -.vmid {vertical-align: 90%; line-height: .5;} - -.in0 {text-indent: 0;} -.in4 {padding-left: 4em;} -.in6 {padding-left: 6em;} - -.small {font-size: 70%;} -.smaller {font-size: 85%;} -.larger {font-size: 125%;} -.large {font-size: 150%;} -.xxlarge {font-size: 200%;} - -.center {text-align: center;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.firstword {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.bold {font-weight: bold;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 4em; - margin-bottom: 4em; - margin-left: 33%; - margin-right: auto; - clear: both; -} - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - max-width: 12em; - border-collapse: collapse; -} - -.tdl { - text-align: left; - vertical-align: top; - padding-right: .25em; - padding-left: 1.5em; - text-indent: -1.5em; -} - -.tdr { - text-align: right; - vertical-align: bottom; - padding-left: .3em; - white-space: nowrap; -} - -td {padding-bottom: .33em;} -td.c1 {max-width: 2.5em;} -td.c2 {max-width: 2em;} -td.c3 {width: 6em;} - -.pagenum { - position: absolute; - right: 4px; - text-indent: 0em; - text-align: right; - font-size: 70%; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; - font-style: normal; - letter-spacing: normal; - line-height: normal; - color: #acacac; - border: 1px solid #acacac; - background: #ffffff; - padding: 1px 2px; -} - -img { - padding: .1em .2em 0 .2em; - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} - -.footnotes { - border: thin dashed black; - margin: 4em 5% 1em 5%; - padding: .5em 1em .5em 1.5em; -} - -.footnote {font-size: .95em;} -.footnote p {text-indent: 1em;} -.footnote p.in0 {text-indent: 0;} -.footnote p.fn1 {text-indent: -.7em;} -.footnote p.fn2 {text-indent: -1.1em;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: 60%; - line-height: .7; - font-size: smaller; - text-decoration: none; -} -.footnote .fnanchor {font-size: .8em;} - -blockquote { - margin: 1em 5% 1em 5%; - font-size: 95%; -} - -.hang p { - padding-left: 3em; - text-indent: -3em; -} - -.transnote { - background-color: #999999; - border: thin dotted; - font-family: sans-serif, serif; - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 5%; - margin-top: 4em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - padding: 1em; -} -.covernote {visibility: hidden; display: none;} - -.wspace {word-spacing: .3em;} - -@media print, handheld -{ - h1, .chapter, .newpage {page-break-before: always;} - h1.nobreak, h2.nobreak, .nobreak {page-break-before: avoid; padding-top: 0;} - - p { - margin-top: .5em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .25em; - } - - table {width: auto; max-width: 12em;} - - .tdl { - padding-left: 1em; - text-indent: -1em; - padding-right: 0; - } -} - -@media handheld -{ - body {margin: 0;} - - hr { - margin-top: .1em; - margin-bottom: .1em; - visibility: hidden; - color: white; - width: .01em; - display: none; - } - - blockquote {margin: 1.5em 3% 1.5em 3%;} - - .transnote { - page-break-inside: avoid; - margin-left: 2%; - margin-right: 2%; - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - padding: .5em; - } - - .covernote {visibility: visible; display: block; text-align: center;} -} - - </style> - </head> - -<body> - - -<pre> - -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) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<div class="transnote"> -<h2>Transcriber’s Note</h2> - -<p class="center covernote">Cover created by Transcriber and placed in the Public Domain.</p> - -<p class="center">Table of Contents created by Transcriber and placed in -the Public Domain.</p> -</div> - -<h1>GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES.</h1> - -<hr /> - -<div class="newpage p4 center vspace wspace"> -<p class="xxlarge"> -GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES</p> - -<p class="p2"><span class="small">BY</span><br /> -<span class="larger">F. R. WEGG-PROSSER.</span></p> - -<p class="p2"><span class="larger">LONDON: CHAPMAN AND HALL,</span><br /> -<span class="smcap">Limited</span>.<br /> -1889.<br /> -<span class="smaller">[<i>All rights reserved.</i>]</span> -</p> - -<hr /> - -<p class="newpage p4 small"> -CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS,<br /> -CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS. -</p> -</div> -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_v">v</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="PREFACE">PREFACE.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">There</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_vi">vi</span> -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.</p> -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">1</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<table summary="Contents"> - <tr> - <td class="tdl c1">Preface</td> - <td class="tdr c2"> </td> - <td class="tdr c3"><a href="#PREFACE">v</a></td> -</tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl">Chapter</td> - <td class="tdr">I</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">1</a></td> -</tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl">Chapter</td> - <td class="tdr">II</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">13</a></td> -</tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl">Chapter</td> - <td class="tdr">III</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">42</a></td> -</tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl">Chapter</td> - <td class="tdr">IV</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">78</a></td> -</tr> - <tr> - <td class="tdl">Chapter</td> - <td class="tdr">V</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">136</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="GALILEO_AND_HIS_JUDGES"><span class="larger">GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES.</span></h2> -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Before</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The vast majority of men from the earliest times<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">2</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">3</span> -St. Thomas Aquinas. This celebrated writer quotes -him as “<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">philosophus</span>,” in his opinion <em>the philosopher -<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">par excellence</span></em>, and besides his general appreciation -of him as thus shown, he wrote an elaborate treatise -on the “Astronomy” of Aristotle.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">4</span> -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 <em>epicycles</em>; 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,<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">1</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">5</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The system of Copernicus was well received at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">6</span> -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.</p> - -<p>Copernicus supposed the heavenly bodies, the -Earth included, to revolve round the Sun in <em>circles</em>; -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 <em>ellipses</em>. 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.</p> - -<p>Owing to his work having been the first of any -great importance that maintained argumentatively -the system called <em>heliocentric</em>, that is to say, in -which the Sun is the real centre, round which the -planets, including the Earth, revolve—for the treatise<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">7</span> -of Nicholas de Cusa does not appear to have had any -extensive circulation—it is usual to speak of this -system as the <em>Copernican</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">8</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">9</span> -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.</p> - -<p>For most of the facts I am indebted to M. Henri -de l’Épinois, whose elaborate article in the French -publication known as <cite xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">La Revue des Questions -Historiques</cite> is of the highest value; as the author<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">10</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">2</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">11</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>I do not here undertake to show the advantage<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">12</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">13</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Galileo Galilei Linceo</span>—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.</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">liaison</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">14</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">15</span> -title of Urban VIII., is stated to have declared that -he was in all points of the same opinion as Galileo.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">16</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">17</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">18</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">19</span> -certain theologians belonging to the Congregation -of the Inquisition—technically called the <em>Qualifiers</em>—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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">20</span> -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 “<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">ut supra dictum opinionem... omnino -relinquat, nec eam de cetero quovis modo doceat -teneat aut defendat verbo aut scriptis</span>,” with the -threat already mentioned in case of disobedience. -Galileo promised to obey.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">21</span> -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] <cite>Nicolas Copernicus on the Revolutions -of the Orbs</cite> and <cite>Diego di Zunica on Job</cite> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">22</span> -Cardinal of Santa Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the -5th day of March, 1616.”</p> - -<p>Here follow the signatures:</p> - -<p class="in0 in4"> -“<span class="smcap">P. Episc. Albanen. Card. Sanctæ Cæciliæ.</span><br /> -<span class="in6 vmid">“<i>Locus</i></span> <img src="images/mcross.png" width="23" height="23" alt="Maltese cross" /><!--<span class="large bold vmid">✠</span>--> <span class="vmid"><i>sigilli</i>.</span><br /> -“<span class="smcap">F. Franciscus Magdalenus Capiferreus</span>,<br /> -<span class="in6">“<i>Ord. Prædicat., Secretarius</i>.”</span> -</p> -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">23</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">24</span> -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 “<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">E pur si muove</span>.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <cite>The Dublin -Review</cite> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">25</span> -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 <em>educated</em> 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 <em>principle</em>, -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>irreformable</em>,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">26</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>faith</em>, other less momentous -issues being frequently involved.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>As an <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">argumentum ad hominem</i> against certain<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">27</span> -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,<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">3</a> held that it was not infallibly<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">28</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<blockquote> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">29</span> -indirecte pronuntiatum reperitur... pertinebat omnino ad -<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">auctoritatem providentiæ ecclesiasticæ</i> cavere, ne quid detrimenti -caperet interpretatio Scripturæ per conjecturas et hypotheses plerisque -tum temporis visas minime verisimiles.</p></blockquote> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">30</span> -definitions must be clearly and unmistakably intended -as such, and must carry with them some manifest -signs to that effect.</p> - -<p>Extract from the same on the subject of the Pope’s -infallibility, pp. 108 and 109:</p> - -<blockquote> - -<p><span xml:lang="la" lang="la">Neque enim <em>Cathedra Apostolica</em> 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.</span></p></blockquote> - -<p>In the case we have before us, I should say that the -“<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">clara indicia</span>” 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.</p> - -<p>It is right, however, to notice one or two other -arguments urged by Mr. Roberts.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">31</span> -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.</p> - -<p>I extract the words as given by Mr. Roberts:</p> - -<blockquote> - -<p><span xml:lang="la" lang="la">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.</span></p></blockquote> - -<p>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 <em>lay theologian</em>, I do not -feel bound to discuss whether the decree in Günther’s -case was merely disciplinary, or whether it was dogmatic;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">32</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The case of Professor Ubaghs, of the University -of Louvain, which Mr. Roberts thinks still more to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">33</span> -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” (<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">inveniri -doctrinas seu opiniones, quæ absque periculo tradi -non possunt</i>). “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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex animo</i> -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.</p> - -<p>In the case of Galileo, it is true that the opinion -given in 1616 by the Qualifiers of the Inquisition was a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">34</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">5</a></p> - -<p>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 <em>contemporary</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex professo</i> 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.</p> - -<p>It is said that Father Melchior Inchofer, S.J. (afterwards -one of the Consultors of the Holy Office),<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">35</span> -endeavoured to prove that the decision proceeded -from the Pope speaking <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex cathedrâ</i>. 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>absolute demonstration</em> the -motion of the Earth.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">36</span> -and we may add, about seven months before the -referring of Galileo’s writings to the Consultors of the -Inquisition.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">37</span> -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.</p> - -<p>The substance of it is as follows: After admitting -that so long as the Copernican doctrine is stated -hypothetically, “<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex suppositione</i>,” 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>i.e.</i> 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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex parte -objecti</i>, it is so <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex parte dicentis</i>,” 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:<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">6</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">38</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">39</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">40</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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>i.e.</i>, non-literal—and figurative<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">41</span> -sense, according to the words of the poet, ‘terræque -urbesque recedunt.’”</p> - -<p>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.</p> -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">42</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">We</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">43</span> -Another of his friends, Monsignor Ciampoli, became -secretary of briefs to the new Pope.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 “<cite xml:lang="it" lang="it">Il Saggiatore</cite>,” -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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">44</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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. “<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">Non fu mai nostra intenzione, e se -fosse toccato a noi, non si sarebbe fatto quel decreto.</span>”</p> - -<p>As already remarked, we must not attach too great -weight to reports of private conversations; but it is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">45</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">46</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Then followed mutual delays: the author was tardy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">47</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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>i.e.</i> 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.</p> - -<p>This remarkable letter points towards a conclusion<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">48</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">49</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>He adds that he will treat of three principal -heads: under the first he would show that all our<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">50</span> -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.</p> - -<p>He had thought it well to cast these thoughts -into the form of a dialogue, which gave a certain -amount of freedom to digressions.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>This preface, if one may judge by internal evidence, -was probably the joint composition of Galileo -and Father Riccardi, the former having written the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">51</span> -original draft, the latter having altered the draft -and supplemented it with important additions.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">52</span> -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 “<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">buon Peripatetico</span>.”</p> - -<p>The friends are supposed to meet in the palace of -Sagredo, at Venice, as before stated.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">53</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">7</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">54</span> -(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 <em>annual</em> 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.</p> - -<p>It took a long time to disabuse the human mind<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">55</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">8</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">56</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">57</span> -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 <em>tentative</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>pressure</em> of the air? If -any one thinks Galileo understood at that time the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">58</span> -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 <em>clearly</em> 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,<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">9</a> 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 <em>friction</em>.</p> - -<p>Our philosopher, wise as he was, had not freed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">59</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>no amount</em> -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.</p> - -<p>Some irrelevant arguments occur, of which, no<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">60</span> -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, <em>provided the mass of -the two bodies remained the same</em> as at present.</p> - -<p>Another suggestion, and a rather amusing one, on<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">61</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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>i.e.</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>sufficiently</em> -for the great difficulty in taking accurate observations,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">62</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">10</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">63</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>circles</em>, though -one would think he must at that time have been -aware of Kepler’s discovery—that they move in -<em>ellipses</em>. 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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">64</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Galileo occasionally makes the interlocutors allude -to himself as “<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">il nostro amico comune</span>,” “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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">65</span> -such argument, because the appearances in question -result from the different <em>relative</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">66</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">67</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">68</span> -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: -“<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">sono l’istessa cosa</span>.” 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.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">11</a></p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">69</span> -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 <em>dip</em>, -had been recently discovered.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">70</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>lunar</em>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">71</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">12</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">72</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">73</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">74</span> -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 <em>two</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">75</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">13</a></p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">76</span> -as I said above, is not a fool, but as a -personage in a scientific argument he is lamentably -deficient.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The concluding sentences are said, as I have remarked -elsewhere, to have been recast or retouched -by Father Riccardi.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Such, then, is a somewhat imperfect <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">précis</i> of this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">77</span> -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.</p> -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">78</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">Resuming</span> 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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">14</a> -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 “<cite xml:lang="la" lang="la">contra communem Peripateticorum -Scholam</cite>.”</p> - -<p>The agitation against the book was successful, and -a report arose forthwith that it would be condemned. -The report was no mere <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">canard</i>, as the subsequent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">79</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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>i.e.</i> to -the revolution and movement of the Earth; deceitfully -keeping silence as to the order given him in 1616 to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">80</span> -abandon the opinion that the Earth revolved, and that -the Sun was the centre of the universe.</p> - -<p>Another memorial (drawn up about the same time), -after enumerating the facts of the case, stated eight -heads of accusation against the philosopher:</p> - -<blockquote class="hang"> - -<p>1.—Having, without leave, placed at the beginning -of his work the permission for printing, -delivered at Rome.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>5.—Having despised the authors who were opposed -to the above-mentioned opinion, though the -Church uses them in preference to others.</p> - -<p>6.—Having affirmed (untruly) the equality supposed -to exist, for understanding geometrical -matters, between the divine and -human intellect.</p> - -<p>7.—Having stated, as a truth, that the partisans of -Ptolemy ought to range themselves with those -of Copernicus, and denied the converse.</p> - -<p>8.—Having wrongly attributed the tides to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">81</span> -stability of the Sun and mobility of the -Earth, which things do not exist.</p></blockquote> - -<p>It must be observed that all this was merely of the -nature of an accusation, and was in no way an ecclesiastical -decision.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">82</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>After this examination he was well lodged, though<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">83</span> -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.</p> - -<p>A slight indisposition from which our philosopher -suffered about this time, illustrated still further the -desire which existed to treat him with <em>personal</em> -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—“<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">se<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">84</span> -contro alla mia purissima intenzione, per -mia inavertenza</span>”—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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">85</span> -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 <em>intention</em>; then, after he had -been <em>threatened</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>It appears that he was thinking of sentencing him -to a temporary seclusion in the Monastery of Santa -Croce, at Florence.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">86</span> -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 <em>pro</em> and <em>con</em> in his work, he did not, -in his heart, hold the condemned opinion. “<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">Concludo -dunque dentro di me medesimo ne tenere ne haver -tenuto dopo la determinazione delli Superiori la -dannata opinione.</span>”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>His sentence was to the effect that he had rendered<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">87</span> -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.</p> - -<p>The well-known legend that after his abjuration -he stamped on the ground with his foot, saying: -“<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">E pur si muove</span>” (And yet it, <i>i.e.</i> the Earth, <em>does</em> -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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">sotto voce</i>, who heard it, -and who testified to it? The late Dr. Whewell in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">88</span> -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 “<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">E pur si muove</span>,” 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">89</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>to him</em> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">90</span> -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, “<cite xml:lang="it" lang="it">Dialoghi -delle Nuove Scienze</cite>”; this, in fact, was his last -work of importance, and he died on the 8th -January, 1642, in his seventy-eighth year.</p> - -<p>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 “<cite>History of the -Inductive Sciences</cite>,” 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>i.e.</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">91</span> -was supported, was the argument drawn from the -flux and reflux of the sea, which argument is -altogether false.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">92</span> -Copernicanism to be a probable hypothesis on purely -scientific grounds, and <em>more than this</em>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<p>“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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">93</span> -will be uniform and perpetual upon the plane, if -the plane be extended to infinity.”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The principle of virtual velocities is said by some<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">94</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">15</a> 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.</p> - -<p>The first-mentioned of these discoveries, that of -the satellites of Jupiter, seems to have created an -immense sensation among the <i xml:lang="fr" lang="fr">savants</i> of that day. -It <em>suggested</em> that the theories of Ptolemy were anything -but complete or correct, and yet it <em>proved</em> -nothing, excepting against those <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">à priori</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">95</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">96</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">97</span> -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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">à priori</i> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>And it is only fair to remember that supposing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">98</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>lay theologian</em> (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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex cathedrâ</i> 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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">99</span> -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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">de fide</i>.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Theologians, I believe, are not agreed as to whether -this Brief is strictly <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex cathedrâ</i>, 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 <em>doctrinal</em> decisions that such -authority is claimed; and what I am maintaining is, -that the decrees in the case of Galileo were purely -disciplinary.</p> - -<p>I do not of course deny that the line of demarcation -between doctrinal and disciplinary is sometimes hard<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">100</span> -to define. But surely the putting of books on the -“<cite xml:lang="la" lang="la">Index Librorum Prohibitorum</cite>,” 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.</p> - -<p>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>i.e.</i> Copernicanism—had -been declared false and altogether contrary to sacred -and Divine Scripture. But a stream cannot rise<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">101</span> -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 -<em>purposes of discipline</em>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Now we know that doctrinal decrees, once fully -sanctioned and promulgated by the Holy See, are -irreversible; but disciplinary enactments are changed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">102</span> -according to the needs of the time and the circumstances -of the Christian world.<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">16</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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 -<em>rule</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">103</span> -VII., on the 5th March, 1664, published a Bull—known -as the Bull “<cite xml:lang="la" lang="la">Speculatores”</cite>—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, “<cite xml:lang="la" lang="la">Epitome Astronomiæ Copernicanæ</cite>;” 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.</p> - -<p>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: -“<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">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.</span>” This, of course, -is very sweeping, as it includes all pamphlets and -letters, and even writings in manuscript, advocating -Copernicanism.</p> - -<p>Now, in reply to all this, I think I may remark<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">104</span> -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 -“<cite xml:lang="la" lang="la">Speculatores</cite>” 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 <cite>The Nineteenth Century</cite> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">105</span> -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.’”</p> - -<p>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.”</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>The Bull “<cite xml:lang="la" lang="la">Speculatores</cite>” is a good <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">argumentum -ad hominem</i> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">106</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 -<i xml:lang="la" lang="la">ex cathedrâ</i>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>One is this: What should have been the conduct -of contemporary Catholics, supposed to be scientific<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">107</span> -men, during the period that the decrees were in -force? The other: What opinion ought <em>we</em> now -to form upon the whole transaction, viewing it -retrospectively?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>But the first step, and that the most fitting and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">108</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>principle</em> -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?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">109</span> -assent interiorly to the grounds alleged for such -acts?</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>I am of course assuming the contemporary Catholics, -whose case I am considering, to be men of an obedient -and dutiful disposition.</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">in terrorem</i> for the benefit of others; -but strictly and immediately it concerned Galileo -alone, and when he died, it died with him.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">110</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">111</span> -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).</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">112</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>infinite</em>. 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;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">113</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">114</span> -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?<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">17</a></p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">115</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">116</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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, <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">scientia</i>, from which the above is -translated, does not merely mean physical science.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">117</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">118</span> -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 <em>traditional</em> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">119</span> -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.”—<cite>Dublin -Review</cite>, October, 1865.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> Dr. Ward grounds<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">120</span> -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 <em>unproved</em>; and, as -I have repeatedly said, it is not even now proved to -absolute demonstration.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">121</span> -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 <em>may</em> be other reasons of -so cogent a nature as to outweigh <em>scientific</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">odium medicum</i> in these days, there was -doubtless <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">odium astronomicum</i> in those days.</p> - -<p>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 <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">à priori</i> 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.</p> - -<p>I feel that the opinion I have expressed above, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">122</span> -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, “<cite>Dr. Mivart on Faith and Science</cite>,” published -in the October number of <cite>The Dublin Review</cite> (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:</p> - -<blockquote> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">123</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">124</span> -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.</p></blockquote> - -<p>Further on, the Bishop says:</p> - -<blockquote> - -<p>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.</p></blockquote> - -<p>On the purely astronomical question whether -Galileo had evidence that the Earth moved, I -presume that the Bishop means <em>conclusive</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">125</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<blockquote xml:lang="fr" lang="fr"> - -<p>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....</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">126</span> -pleins d’estime pour Galilée, mais qui voulaient prévenir les -fâcheuses conséquences de sa doctrine.</p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">19</a></p></blockquote> - -<p>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 <em>prudence</em>, 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?</p> - -<p>However, be this as it may, in the year 1757 the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">127</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">128</span> -and Cardinals of that age would not for a moment -admit.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">129</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">130</span> -discovery of the real nature of the planetary movements.<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">20</a> -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.</p> - -<p>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;<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">21</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">131</span> -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 <em>body</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">132</span> -if such creatures, intelligent beings like ourselves, -lived upon this Earth, and nowhere besides.</p> - -<p>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 <em>modern</em> -(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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">133</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">22</a></p> - -<p>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.<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">23</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">134</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>may not</em> 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 <em>moral</em>, though -not <em>material</em>, 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.</p> - -<p>What else this gifted being might see—whether he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">135</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">136</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V.</h2> -</div> - -<p class="in0"><span class="firstword">As</span> a sequel to the story of Galileo, I think it may be -interesting to inquire what the evidence, as <em>we now -have it</em>, 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 -<em>Copernican</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>careful</em> observers,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">137</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 -<em>far as our present knowledge goes</em>, 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?<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">138</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>It ought to be clearly understood that from the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">139</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">140</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">24</a> and yet revolving -round the latter in preference to the former. There -was clearly, then, <em>some</em> attractive force belonging -to the Sun (whatever its nature might be), greater<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">141</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">142</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">143</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>our</em> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">144</span> -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, <em>radiant energy</em>, 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.</p> - -<p>It is remarkable that no one of any note—at least, -in modern times, for I am not so sure about the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">145</span> -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.</p> - -<p>The reader will bear in mind what has already been -said on this branch of the subject in the second day’s -dialogue,<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">25</a> 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">146</span> -to confirm the truth of the Earth’s diurnal revolution.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">147</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Returning now to the general question of Copernicanism, -we find that for some time after the trial of -Galileo, things remained much <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">in statu quo</i>; unless -we except the observation of the transit of Venus, in -1639; but, as that eventful seventeenth century<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">148</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">149</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>mutually</em>, 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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">150</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Now let us see how all this bears on the truth<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">151</span> -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.<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">26</a> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>What I have just stated shows that Kepler’s first<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">152</span> -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.</p> - -<p>Supposing then the law of gravitation to be established -by sufficient proof, we may now ask what<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">153</span> -must become of the old systems of astronomy? What -must befall Ptolemy and even Tycho Brahé?</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">154</span> -Newton, extends not only through our own solar -system, but over the whole material universe.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>mass</em> 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Then, as regards terrestrial gravity, experiments -have been made—notably at the mountain Schehallion,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">155</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>vacuum</em>, 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.”</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">156</span> -not met with any great success, and the last word of -science on the subject is that the cause of gravitation -remains undiscovered.</p> - -<p>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:</p> - -<blockquote> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">157</span> -into which we have separated the doctrine [these were, 1st, that -the force attracting <em>different</em> planets to the sun, and, 2nd, the force -attracting the <em>same</em> 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 <em>mutual</em> attraction of the heavenly bodies on one -another; 5th, that there exists a mutual attraction of <em>all particles -of matter</em> 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 <em>formal</em> rules, governing the celestial -motions according to the relations of space, time, and number; -Newton’s was a <em>causal</em> 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.<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">27</a></p></blockquote> - -<p>The effect of all this on the Copernican system -and the evidence on which it rested, was to raise that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">158</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">159</span> -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, “<cite>Whewell’s History of the Inductive -Sciences</cite>,” 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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">160</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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 <em>apparent</em> 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.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">161</span> -It is, therefore, generally considered as a critical test -of the truth of the system.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">162</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">163</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">164</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">165</span> -contributed to encourage a sound knowledge of -natural philosophy, and in harmony with Christian -theology.</p> - -<p>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, “<cite xml:lang="la" lang="la">De Genesi ad Litteram</cite>;” -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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">166</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">167</span> -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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>And now, in order to avoid misapprehension, I -venture to restate briefly the propositions I have -sought to establish.</p> - -<p>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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">168</span> -such right <i xml:lang="la" lang="la">in toto</i>; but I contend that if you grant -the existence of this right at all, you cannot exclude -Physical Science from its operation.</p> - -<p>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 -<em>inopportune</em>, 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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>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.</p> - -<p>Then again, referring to the scientific questions -involved, we may see that Astronomy, considered -historically, is divided into three periods—the ancient<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">169</span> -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<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">170</span> -have converted this strong, overpowering probability -into something approaching indefinitely near to a -moral certainty.</p> - -<p>Beyond this we cannot reasonably expect to go; -<em>physical</em> 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.</p> - -<p class="p4 center smaller wspace">THE END.</p> - -<p class="p4 center small wspace">CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS, CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS</p> - -<div class="chapter"><div class="footnotes"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="FOOTNOTES">FOOTNOTES</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="fnanchor">1</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="fnanchor">2</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="fnanchor">3</a> “<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">Principium 7<sup>m</sup>.—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 -<em>securitati</em><a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> doctrinæ Catholicæ. In hujusmodi declarationibus -licet non sit doctrinæ <em>veritas infallibilis</em>, quia hanc -decidendi ex hypothesi non est intentio; est tamen <em>infallibilis -securitas</em>. 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.</span> -</p> -<p> -“<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">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 <em>fidei proprie et immediate divinæ</em> propter auctoritatem Dei -revelantis; assensus fidei quam supra diximus <em>mediate divinam</em> -propter auctoritatem infallibilitur definientis doctrinam ut veram -non tamen ut revelatam; assensus <em>religiosus</em> propter auctoritatem -universalis providentiæ ecclesiasticæ in sensu declarato.</span>”—<cite>De -Divina Traditione et Scriptura</cite>, p. 116, et seq. Ed. 1870.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> “<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">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.</span>”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="fnanchor">5</a> 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 <em>known</em> centre, and the Earth and Planets -with him.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="fnanchor">6</a> “<span xml:lang="la" lang="la">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.</span>”—<cite>Extract from Cardinal Bellarmine’s -Letter to F. Foscarini.</cite></p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="fnanchor">7</a> A brief but interesting résumé of the Aristotelian physics is -given in Whewell’s “<cite>History of the Inductive Sciences</cite>,” a work to -which I shall have occasion to refer more than once.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="fnanchor">8</a> It is said that a weight dropped from the top of a very high -tower falls slightly to the <em>east</em>, 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 <em>highest</em> -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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn1"><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="fnanchor">9</a> Simplicio having said that the cause why parts of the earth -are carried downwards was gravity, Salviati answers: “<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">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.</span>”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="fnanchor">10</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="fnanchor">11</a> 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 <em>in the limit</em>.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="fnanchor">12</a> It is not intended here to deny what some writers state—that -the <em>friction</em> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="fnanchor">13</a> These are the author’s words, spoken by Salviati: “<span xml:lang="it" lang="it">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 <em>predominii della -Luna sopra l’acqua</em>, e a proprietà occulte, e simili fanciullezze.</span>”</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="fnanchor">14</a> It is not intended to imply that these two Schools of thought -stand on anything like the same scientific level.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="fnanchor">15</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="fnanchor">16</a> I must not be understood as implying that even doctrinal -decisions promulgated by the Roman Congregations <em>in their own -name</em> are considered by theologians to be infallible; such character -belonging only to decisions addressed by the Pope himself to the -Church.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="fnanchor">17</a> 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. -</p> -<p> -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. -</p> -<p> -In clearer and finer skies than those of England, Venus is -sometimes so brilliant in the early morning as to startle an unaccustomed -observer.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> Dr. Ward makes a curious mistake in one point; he speaks -in one of the articles of <cite>The Dublin Review</cite> (which he then edited) -of Copernicanism as destroying the old ideas as to <em>above and below</em>; -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 <em>above</em> 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 <em>above</em> you at -noon would be far away <em>below</em> you at midnight.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="fnanchor">19</a> Quoted from an article in the “Revue des Questions Historiques,” -1867, “<cite xml:lang="fr" lang="it">Galilée, son Procès, sa Condemnation, d’après -des documents inédits</cite>,” by M. Henri de l’Épinois.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="fnanchor">20</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="fnanchor">21</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="fnanchor">22</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="fnanchor">23</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="fnanchor">24</a> The <em>relative</em> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="fnanchor">25</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="fnanchor">26</a> 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.</p></div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="fn2"><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="fnanchor">27</a> 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.</p></div> -</div></div> - -<div class="chapter"><div class="transnote"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="Transcribers_Notes">Transcriber’s Notes</h2> - -<p>Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made -consistent when a predominant preference was found -in the original book; otherwise they were not changed.</p> - -<p>Simple typographical errors were corrected; unbalanced -quotation marks were remedied when the change was -obvious, and otherwise left unbalanced.</p> - -<p>Original text uses “loadstone”, not “lodestone”.</p> - -<p>Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of pages, have been collected and -moved to the end of this eBook.</p> - -<p><a href="#Page_22">Page 22</a>: The symbol in “Locus sigilli” is a version of -a Maltese cross.</p> - -<p><a href="#Footnote_4">Footnote 4</a>, originally on <a href="#Page_27">page 27</a>, is a sub-note of -<a href="#Footnote_3">footnote 3</a>.</p> -</div></div> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -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-h.htm or 62402-h.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. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> |