,transcriber's ,note ,table of ,contents created by ,transcriber and placed in the ,public ,domain4 ,superscripts are indicated as m4 ,,galileo ,,and ,,his ,,judges4 ,,galileo ,,and ,,his ,,judges ,,by ,f4 ,r4 ,,wegg-,,prosser4 ,,london3 ,,chapman ,,and ,,hall1 ,,limited4 #ahhi4 ,all rights reserved4 ,,charles ,,dickens ,,and ,,evans1 ,,crystal ,,palace ,,press4 ,,preface4 ,there is no name in the annals of science which has been the occasion of so long and fierce a controversy as that of ,galileo4 ,the historian1 the astronomer1 and the theologian have all had a share in it4 ,sometimes there has been a pause in the strife1 and the question has been allowed to rest2 but after a while another disputant has rekindled the embers1 and the struggle has recommenced4 ,this has been the case within the last few years1 some writers of considerable ability having appealed to the history of ,galileo in order to give point to opinions that they wished to advance4 ,during all this time1 if there has been unfairness on one side1 there have been injudicious zeal and inaccuracy on the other4 ,these circumstances must form my apology for interfering in a dispute already so prolonged and so envenomed2 and it has appeared to me that ,i may without presumption hope to amend the errors to which ,i have just alluded1 if in no other way1 at least by stating correctly the facts of the case4 ,i do not1 however1 undertake to write a full biography of the great philosopher1 or to give a detailed account of his numerous contributions to the scientific literature of his day2 ,i confine myself principally to those great crises in his life which have given rise to so much discussion1 and which have chiefly contributed to make him a name in history4 ,,contents ,preface v ,chapter ,i #a ,chapter ,,ii #ac ,chapter ,,iii #db ,chapter ,,iv #gh ,chapter ,v #acf ,,galileo ,,and ,,his ,,judges4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,before entering on any details relating to ,galileo's life and works1 ,i propose to give a brief sketch of the progress of astronomical knowledge up to his time2 for without this1 one cannot appreciate correctly the value of his contributions to science1 a value exaggerated or underrated by different writers1 each according to his respective bias4 ,the primitive conception of the ,earth as a vast plain with the ocean flowing round it1 and the solid firmament in the sky above it1 with the ,sun1 ,moon1 and ,stars driven across by some mysterious agency1 need not be noticed from an astronomical point of view2 it appeared naturally in ancient poetry and in the forms of speech adopted and continued by popular usage2 but it is not necessary to dwell upon it4 ,the first astronomers with whom we are acquainted were the ,greeks1 though it is said by some writers that the ,chaldeans and ,egyptians were really the original astronomers of the ancient world1 and what the ,greeks knew was borrowed from them4 ,the vast majority of men from the earliest times down to the birth of ,galileo believed that the ,earth was the centre of the universe1 round which the ,sun1 ,moon1 and ,stars revolved every twenty-four hours2 round which1 also 7as careful observers had perceived71 the ,sun had an annual motion1 progressing through the various signs of the zodiac2 moreover1 it had been noticed that the planets moved round the ,earth1 though at widely differing periods4 ,yet there had been some few men1 exceptionally gifted1 who had guessed 7and truly so7 that the popular conception was a wrong one4 ,it is said that the old ,greek philosopher1 ,pythagoras1 taught his disciples that the ,sun was the real centre of our system1 and that the ,earth and planets circulated round it2 but he does not seem to have openly and explicitly published his doctrine1 though the tradition of his having so taught has always existed4 ,if he taught it1 however1 he stands almost alone among the ancients4 ,there were two great authorities in particular1 whose opinion carried immense weight1 and who were both decided in holding that the ,earth was the centre1 and the ,sun a revolving planet4 ,the first of these1 ,aristotle1 has exercised an influence over succeeding generations which is simply marvellous4 ,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 age1 the 8,summa0 of ,st4 ,thomas ,aquinas4 ,this celebrated writer quotes him as 8philosophus10 in his opinion the philosopher par excellence1 and besides his general appreciation of him as thus shown1 he wrote an elaborate treatise on the 8,astronomy0 of ,aristotle4 ,nor has this influence been confined to the schoolmen2 it has remained ever since1 even to this day and in this country1 where in the ,university of ,oxford his great work on ethics is still a standard book of study4 ,at the time of ,galileo1 such was the reverence felt towards his authority in ,italy and in ,rome1 that the ,peripatetici1 as those who specially belonged to his school were called1 were probably quite as indignant with the revolutionary astronomer for disregarding the teaching of their philosopher1 as for going counter to the literal interpretation of ,scripture4 ,but in pure astronomy1 apart from all other philosophy1 the greatest of all ancient writers was ,ptolemy1 who in the second century of the ,christian era wrote a work called the 8,almagest10 which is a complete compendium of the science as known at that date4 ,ptolemy probably borrowed very much from his great predecessor1 ,hipparchus1 who has been called the father of astronomy1 and who was the first to discover--to take a remarkable instance--the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes1 involving as it does the difference in length between the solar and sidereal years4 ,the system of ,ptolemy was briefly this3 ,the heavens and the ,earth are both spherical in form--the ,earth being immovable in the centre1 and all the heavenly motions taking place in circles4 ,for this he gives his reasons--sound and good reasons for the spherical shape of the ,earth2 unsound and mistaken1 however1 for the denial of the ,earth's rotation on its axis1 an opinion he evidently knew had been maintained by some persons2 one important argument on this latter head being that if the ,earth rotated with the great velocity necessary to carry it round in one day1 it would leave the air behind it4 ,he places the ,earth 7as already said7 in the centre1 then the ,moon as the nearest planet revolving round it1 the next ,mercury1 then ,venus1 then the ,sun1 and beyond these ,mars1 ,jupiter1 and ,saturn4 ,all moved in circles1 but since1 with the exception of the ,sun and ,moon1 simple circles would not account for the motions1 he supposes small circles in a retrograde direction forming loops upon the main circle1 which he calls epicycles2 undoubtedly following in this respect1 ,hipparchus1 who three centuries before had struck out the same idea4 ,it is curious that ,ptolemy's arguments 7as above mentioned7 show clearly that in his day there were some persons1 though their names have perished1#a some one or two philosophers endowed with a marvellous insight into ,nature1 who had guessed at the true solution of the great astronomical problem2 but they left no enduring mark on their age4 ,the system of ,ptolemy accounted for all the phenomena of the heavenly bodies that could be observed without the use of the telescope2 naturally it held undisputed sway for many generations4 ,the first writer who revived the doctrine of ,pythagoras as to the ,earth's movement 7if1 indeed1 ,pythagoras ever really taught it7 was ,nicholas de ,cusa2 he was a ,german by birth1 having1 in fact1 been born at ,trves1 in #adja2 but he was educated in ,italy4 ,he rose to a high ecclesiastical position1 and was created cardinal by ,pope ,eugenius ,,iv41 in #addh2 his book just alluded to was entitled 8,de ,docta ,ignorantia10 and was dedicated to ,cardinal ,cesarini4 ,the first1 however1 whose work obtained any great notoriety1 and who upheld the doctrine that the ,earth revolved around the ,sun1 was ,nicholas ,kopernik1 commonly called by the ,latinised form of his name1 ,copernicus4 ,he1 too1 was a ,german1 born at ,thorn1 in #adgc2 he studied for a time at the ,university of ,cracow1 and like ,nicholas de ,cusa1 afterwards in ,italy1 and was subsequently raised to the ecclesiastical dignity of a ,canon4 ,it is probable that he was not a priest 7though he is frequently spoken of as such71 but a ,canon in minor orders4 ,in #aejj he was appointed professor of mathematics at ,rome2 and such was his scientific reputation that he was consulted by the ,council of ,lateran1 held in #aeab1 on the question of the reform of the calendar--a reform carried out at a later period by ,pope ,gregory ,,xiii4 ,the system of ,copernicus was well received at ,rome4 ,a ,german disciple of his1 ,john ,albert ,widmanstadt1 in the year #aecc1 expounded it before ,pope ,clement ,,vii41 and produced a very favourable impression4 ,nor was the favour shown to ,copernicus and his teaching ever withdrawn at ,rome2 his great work1 8,de ,revolutionibus ,orbium ,clestium0 7published1 it is said1 by the advice of ,cardinal ,schunberg1 ,bishop of ,capua71 was dedicated to the reigning ,pope1 ,paul ,,iii42 nor does he appear to have received at any time the least rebuke or discouragement from the ,holy ,see2 he died1 however1 immediately after the printing of his book1 in ,may1 #aedc4 ,copernicus supposed the heavenly bodies1 the ,earth included1 to revolve round the ,sun in circles2 but1 as it was evident that they did not exactly do this1 he used the theory of epicycles1 and supposed each planet to make two revolutions in each epicycle for every revolution round the ,sun4 ,the true solution of the difficulty was due to ,kepler1 who lived in the next century1 and who discovered that the planets moved in ellipses4 ,copernicus held1 and1 of course1 held truly1 that the ,earth revolves on its axis1 thereby causing the apparent diurnal motion of all the heavenly bodies from east to west4 ,owing to his work having been the first of any great importance that maintained argumentatively the system called heliocentric1 that is to say1 in which the ,sun is the real centre1 round which the planets1 including the ,earth1 revolve--for the treatise of ,nicholas de ,cusa does not appear to have had any extensive circulation--it is usual to speak of this system as the ,copernican one1 notwithstanding the errors from which its great author was unable to extricate himself1 and which have long since been rectified by subsequent writers2 so that even at this day we retain the name4 ,it is always useful in scientific subjects to introduce a definition2 and this is my definition of the sense in which ,i employ the word ,copernican1 that it is simply as opposed to the system in which the ,earth is the centre of the visible universe1 and the ,sun revolving about it4 ,it is1 in fact1 less accurate but more convenient than the employment of the ,greek words heliocentric and geocentric to denote the two systems4 ,greek words1 no doubt1 abound in our scientific vocabulary1 as the following plainly show3 astronomy1 geology1 geography1 barometer1 thermometer1 microscope1 telescope2 but these have become naturalised in our language by long use1 which heliocentric and geocentric have not as yet been4 ,after ,copernicus there arose an astronomer of great merit1 a ,dane1 ,tycho ,brah by name1 who attempted to start a fresh system--a modification1 in fact1 of that of ,ptolemy4 ,he made all the planets revolve round the ,sun1 and the ,sun1 accompanied by the planets1 round the ,earth4 ,he deserves great credit for his painstaking observations2 but he lived just before the invention of the telescope--or1 at least1 before it was used for astronomical purposes--and1 therefore1 was under an infinite disadvantage4 ,his chief objection to the system of ,copernicus was one at which a modern astronomer would smile1 but which in those days seemed very weighty--namely1 the enormous distance at which you must suppose the fixed stars to be situated1 if it were true4 ,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 stars4 ,and1 on the ,copernican theory1 if the stars were not situated at an immense1 almost infinite distance1 they ought to appear to move in a way they certainly do not4 ,tycho ,brah was born in #aedf4 ,his theory never made much way2 it had not1 ,i imagine1 sufficient elements of probability to recommend it generally2 while the subsequent invention of the telescope1 and the works of ,kepler and ,galileo1 coming so soon after ,tycho ,brah1 prepared the way for that almost universal reception of the ,copernican system which we have since witnessed4 ,i shall refer later on to ,tycho and his observations4 ,such1 then1 was the state of astronomical theories in the latter part of the sixteenth century4 ,enlightened men like ,copernicus had guessed--not accurately1 it is true1 but with a considerable approach to accuracy--at the real facts of the case4 ,tycho ,brah 7who1 ,i suspect1 would have been converted to ,copernicanism if his life had been prolonged7 had suggested a system of compromise not likely1 in the long run1 to satisfy any thoughtful mind2 while the bulk of men1 even the learned1 adhered to the old ,ptolemaic scheme4 ,something1 however1 now occurred which was destined to work1 sooner or later1 a complete revolution in astronomy4 ,the telescope was invented1 and1 at the same time1 there arose a man who knew how to use it3 that man was ,galileo4 ,he was not the inventor of it1 for it was first constructed in ,holland or ,belgium2 yet he had the energy and the skill to make a telescope1 without having previously seen one1 simply from the account he had heard of the instrument4 ,the telescope that he constructed1 which still bears his name1 was the simplest possible4 ,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 familiar2 but for telescopes properly so called an improved principle has long since been introduced4 ,galileo was the first man that ever1 so far as we know1 turned the telescope upon the heavens4 ,how he was rewarded for his pains we shall presently see2 and ,i propose to introduce a narrative of the principal events in his life1 since there are no means for forming a judgment so valuable as having the facts of the case clearly before the mind4 ,for most of the facts ,i am indebted to ,m4 ,henri de l'pinois1 whose elaborate article in the ,french publication known as ,la ,revue des ,questions ,historiques is of the highest value2 as the author of this article has done what ,i suspect very few writers on ,galileo have even attempted to do1 namely1 to inspect the documents preserved in the ,vatican bearing on the process1 some of which he gives at full length4 ,not having myself had the same advantage1 ,i yet feel that ,i am treading on safe ground when ,i take my facts from ,m4 de l'pinois2 for there is scarcely a statement that he makes for which he does not give his authority1 whether from the documents just mentioned1 or from ,galileo's own letters1 or from other trustworthy evidence4#b ,to treat of ,galileo1 and to pass over the events which brought him into collision with the ecclesiastical authorities1 would of course be impossible1 nor is it easy to touch upon these matters without having some standpoint of one's own--some principle to guide one1 some basis from which to argue4 ,i do not shrink from stating that ,i write from a ,catholic standpoint2 but without entering minutely into those subtle questions which are the province of the trained theologian4 ,as1 however1 a good deal of the narrative is connected with the action of the ,roman ,congregations1 as they are termed1 it may not be superfluous to explain briefly the nature of these institutions4 ,they are formed by the selection of certain ,cardinals1 one of them acting as ,prefect of the ,congregation1 to whom are added other ecclesiastics as consultors and as secretary4 ,the ,congregation of the ,index1 to which reference will hereafter be made1 was instituted not long after the ,council of ,trent1 by ,pope ,st4 ,pius ,v41 and has for its duty1 as its name implies1 the pointing out to the faithful people such books as they ought to abstain from reading4 ,the chief consultor of the ,index is the 8,master of the ,apostolic ,palace10 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 ,rome4 ,the ,congregation of the ,inquisition--,i need hardly say1 not to be confounded with the ,spanish tribunal of that name1 which was founded at an earlier period1 nor with similar tribunals in other countries--was erected in #aedb by ,pope ,paul ,,iii41 and besides the other officials attached to it1 had certain theologians called 8qualifiers10 whose duty it was to give an opinion to the ,congregation on questions submitted to them4 ,these two ,congregations1 as well as several others which it is not necessary to enumerate1 still exist1 their functions being somewhat modified by the changing circumstances of the age4 ,their action is for the most part confined to matters of discipline1 but they sometimes have questions of doctrine and moral obligation referred to them by the ,pope1 from whom1 of course1 they derive all authority that they possess4 ,i do not here undertake to show the advantage and utility of these ,congregations1 or of any other institutions connected with the discipline of the ,catholic ,church4 ,from the remarks ,i have just previously made1 it will be understood that ,i take all this for granted1 and that ,i feel justified in doing so4 ,those who differ from me will1 ,i trust1 excuse me when they find that this conviction on my part does not interfere with the impartial fairness of my narrative4 ,galileo1 whom ,i believe to have been a devout ,catholic1 would1 if he were here to speak for himself1 agree with me in principle1 however he might complain of the action of the ,roman ,congregations in his own individual case4 ,we shall then1 as we proceed1 inquire whether this celebrated philosopher was1 as some imagine1 a hero and a martyr of science1 or1 as others think1 a rash innovator1 who happened by chance to be right1 but who had little or nothing but vain and foolish arguments to adduce in support of his doctrines4 ,perhaps we shall find that such critics1 on either side1 are but imperfectly acquainted with the facts of the case4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,galileo ,galilei ,linceo--for such was his name in full--was born at ,pisa1 the #ahth ,february1 #aefd4 ,when about seventeen years old he commenced studying mathematics and physical science at the ,university of ,pisa1 and later on1 in #aehe1 he came to ,florence1 in order to go through a mathematical course4 ,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 day4 ,his moral conduct1 however1 in early life was not irreproachable1 and it is recorded of him that he had a liaison with a lady named ,maria ,gamba1 who became the mother of three children2 but this illicit attachment did not last very long1 and a separation took place1 after which he saw ,maria ,gamba no more1 and she was subsequently married to some other person4 ,he then entered the celebrated monastery of ,vallombrosa1 where he was a novice for a short period2 but1 having apparently no vocation for the religious life1 he left the monastery1 and resumed his former pursuits4 ,at the age of twenty-five he was appointed professor of mathematics at ,pisa1 the ,grand ,duke of ,tuscany having invited him there on the recommendation of ,cardinal del ,monte4 ,here it was that he first excited hostility by attacking the theories of ,aristotle on physical science1 a thing not to be done with impunity in that age4 ,i have already alluded to the telescope constructed by ,galileo1 and it is scarcely necessary to say that such an instrument1 however simple and rudimentary in its construction1 could not fail to reveal to an intelligent observer truths hitherto unknown4 ,it was discovered that the planet ,jupiter had satellites1 that ,saturn had a ring1 that ,venus passed through phases like the moon1 that there were spots on the ,sun2 this last discovery having been made about the same time by the learned ,jesuit1 ,father ,scheiner1 and by ,fabricius4 ,it was not1 ,i think1 until the year #afaj that ,galileo published his work called 8,nuntius ,siderius10 in which he recounted the results he had obtained4 ,this work seems to have provoked some considerable opposition1 but ,galileo was supported by the approbation of his patron1 the ,grand ,duke of ,tuscany4 ,in the following year1 #afaa1 he went to ,rome1 and here he was well received and treated with distinction by prelates of high position1 and even by the ,pope then reigning1 ,paul ,v4 ,moreover1 when1 in the year #afab1 he published another work1 which he called 8,discorso sui ,gallegianti10 he met with general approval1 and no less a person than ,cardinal ,maffei ,barberini1 who afterwards became ,pope under the title of ,urban ,,viii41 is stated to have declared that he was in all points of the same opinion as ,galileo4 ,now it is quite true that incidental conversations1 passing1 perhaps1 through the hands of two or three persons1 are not to be greatly relied upon4 ,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 way1 and yet1 if called on to pronounce an official judgment on such opinions1 would feel it a duty to pronounce against them4 ,nevertheless1 there appears considerable reason for thinking that since ,galileo's reputation stood so high1 and his ability was so manifest1 he would have escaped all censure if he had confined himself strictly to stating his views on the ,copernican system as a scientific hypothesis1 and had firmly resisted the temptation 7strong as it was7 to allow himself to be drawn into the ,scriptural argument4 ,this1 however1 it must be remembered1 was mainly the fault of his opponents4 ,unable to grapple with the question in its purely scientific aspect1 some zealous anti-,copernicans turned to ,holy ,scripture for support--,scripture in its most rigid and literal interpretation2 an interpretation1 however1 it must in fairness be stated1 enshrined in the traditions of successive generations4 ,it is said that a monk named ,sizi went so far as to maintain that the ,bible contradicted the existence of the satellites of ,jupiter4 ,if this be true 7which one cannot help doubting71 we may well say that amongst all the perversions of ,scripture in which human fancy has indulged1 there is scarcely any one more monstrous2 and we must not imagine that all the ,biblical arguments used against ,galileo and ,copernicus were so unreasonable and exaggerated4 ,it was in #afac that our philosopher published at ,rome another work1 entitled 8,l',istoria e ,dimostrazione ,intorno alle ,macchie ,solari40 ,it was1 generally speaking1 well received1 though he drew a conclusion in favour of the ,earth's rotation on its axis4 ,the controversy1 however1 became still keener on the all-important point of the interpretation of ,scripture4 ,now that we can look back on the events of that day with all judicious calmness1 we may well blame ,galileo for having let himself fall into so dangerous a snare2 but there was some excuse for him1 attacked as he was on this very ground of the supposed incompatibility of his hypothesis with the teaching of ,scripture2 and so he unfortunately committed a grave error of judgment in grappling himself with a religious difficulty which1 if wise1 he would have left entirely to theologians4 ,it may be said that this is not what we should naturally expect4 ,we should suppose that the ecclesiastical authorities would welcome any attempt to prove that new scientific theories were not irreconcilable with the ,scriptural narrative1 and possibly such would be the case at the present day2 but in those times it was certainly otherwise1 and ,i am not quite sure whether the tone and tendency of ,rome 7that is to say1 ,rome as the centre of ecclesiastical tradition and authority7 is not still1 as it was then1 in favour of the same rule of conduct--that1 namely1 which keeps a scientific man to his own province1 and leaves to the authorities of the ,church the duty of reconciling physical theories and speculations with the teaching of ,holy ,scripture4 ,on this last-named point ,i need not say ,i speak with the utmost diffidence2 but on the historical question1 as to whether that was the feeling which animated ,popes and ,cardinals in ,galileo's day1 ,i think there can be very little doubt4 ,now1 as the controversy became embittered1 a certain ,father ,cassini1 a ,dominican1 preaching in the ,church of ,santa ,maria ,novella at ,florence1 attacked the ,copernican doctrine as taught by ,galileo2 this aroused the wrath of the philosopher1 and he wrote 7on the #bast ,december1 #afab7 a letter to a ,benedictine monk1 ,father ,castelli1 protesting against the interpretation of ,scripture which ,father ,cassini had used2 and while so protesting1 over-stepping1 it appears1 the limits of prudence4 ,the result was that this unguarded letter was denounced by ,father ,lorini to the ,cardinal ,prefect of the ,congregation of the ,index4 ,the consequence of this was that in the early part of the year #afae there commenced a process which in the following year had an important issue4 ,it is said that in the month of ,march1 #afae1 ,cardinal del ,monte and ,cardinal ,bellarmine had a conversation on the subject of ,galileo and his teaching1 the result being that they both agreed on this one point3 that ,galileo ought to avoid entering on the interpretation of ,scripture1 this being a matter reserved to the ecclesiastical authorities4 ,galileo was not then at ,rome2 and two influential friends of his1 ,mgr4 ,dini and ,prince ,cesi1 advised him to be quiet and silent2 such advice1 however1 was not to his taste1 and he1 on the contrary1 thrust his head into the lion's mouth1 confident of ultimate success4 ,he came personally to ,rome1 mixed in society1 and endeavoured by the use of such arguments as occurred to him in conversation to refute the ancient opinions4 ,several of his friends1 including some of the ,cardinals1 advised moderation1 but in vain2 and such was his confidence in his cause1 that in the early part of the year #afaf he actually began to complain of the delay in the process4 ,the ,pope looked upon his conduct with evident displeasure1 and it is stated in a letter of ,guicciardini that on one occasion ,cardinal ,orsini spoke to him in favour of ,galileo1 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 ,office4 ,after this incident1 it is said1 the ,pope sent for ,bellarmine1 talked the matter over with him1 and agreed that ,galileo's opinion was erroneous and heretical4 ,a decided step was now taken3 on the #aith ,february1 #afaf1 there was sent to certain theologians belonging to the ,congregation of the ,inquisition--technically called the ,qualifiers--a copy of the propositions1 the censure of which had been demanded3 #ast1 ,that the ,sun was the centre of the world1 and consequently immovable locally2 #bnd1 ,that the ,earth was not the centre of the world1 nor immovable1 but moved round itself by a diurnal rotation4 ,the ,qualifiers of the ,congregation met on the #bcrd ,february1 and on the next day1 in presence of the eleven theologians who had been consulted1 the censure was pronounced4 ,all declared that the first proposition was foolish and absurd1 philosophically speaking1 and also formally heretical1 since it expressly contradicted numerous texts of ,holy ,scripture1 according to the proper meaning of the words1 and according to the ordinary interpretation and the sense admitted by the holy ,fathers and theological doctors4 ,all declared that the second proposition deserved the same censure philosophically1 and regarding theological truth1 that it was at least erroneous in point of faith4 ,the next day1 #beth ,february1 ,cardinal ,mellinus notified to the ,commissary of the ,holy ,office what had taken place1 and the ,pope desired ,cardinal ,bellarmine to send for ,galileo1 and admonish him to abandon the opinion in question2 if he refused to obey1 the ,father ,commissary1 in presence of a notary and witnesses1 was to enjoin upon him a command to abstain wholly from teaching such doctrine and opinion1 from defending it1 or treating of it2 if1 however1 he would not acquiesce1 that he should then be imprisoned4 ,on the following day1 #bfth ,february1 this was accordingly done1 and ,galileo was warned 8ut supra dictum opinionem444 omnino relinquat1 nec eam de cetero quovis modo doceat teneat aut defendat verbo aut scriptis10 with the threat already mentioned in case of disobedience4 ,galileo promised to obey4 ,in the beginning of the month of ,march there appeared a printed decree of the ,congregation of the ,index prohibiting five works2 and here we arrive at the curious fact that no work whatever of ,galileo was prohibited by name4 ,the feeling in the high ecclesiastical circles of ,rome seems at that time to have been very much to this effect3 8,let us stamp out the obnoxious opinion1 but let us spare ,galileo individually40 ,the final result 7including what took place in after years7 is strikingly contrasted with such expectations1 if they existed4 ,galileo had to suffer personally1 not bodily torture or incarceration1 but humiliation and failure2 whilst the dreaded doctrine of ,copernicanism1 purified from incidental error and taught in an enlightened form1 has triumphed and reigns supreme4 ,the decree of the ,index is particularly noteworthy1 for it is the principal matter with which we have to deal4 ,after prohibiting certain ,protestant books1 the decree proceeds as follows3 8,and since it has come to the knowledge of the above-named ,sacred ,congregation that that false ,pythagorean doctrine1 altogether contrary to ,holy ,scripture1 concerning the movement of the ,earth and the immobility of the ,sun1 taught by ,nicolas ,copernicus in his work on the ,revolutions of the ,heavenly ,orbs1 and by ,diego di ,zunica in his work on ,job1 is already spread about and received by many persons1 as may be seen in a printed letter of a certain ,carmelite ,father1 entitled #8,a ,letter of the ,rev4 ,father1 ,master ,paul ,anthony ,foscarini1 on the opinion of the ,pythagoreans and of ,copernicus respecting the mobility of the ,earth and the stability of the ,sun1 and the new ,pythagorean ,system of the ,world1' printed at ,naples by ,lazzaro ,scorrigio1 #afae1 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 truth1 and is not opposed to ,holy ,scripture3 ,therefore1 lest any opinion of this kind insinuate itself to the detriment of ,catholic truth1 the ,congregation has decreed that the said works of ,nicolas ,copernicus on the ,revolutions of the ,orbs and ,diego di ,zunica on ,job should be suspended until they are corrected4 ,but that the book of ,father ,paul ,anthony ,foscarini the ,carmelite should be altogether prohibited and condemned2 and that all other books teaching the same thing should equally be prohibited1 as by the present decree it prohibits1 condemns1 and suspends them all respectively4 ,in witness whereof the present decree has been signed and sealed by the hand and seal of the ,most ,illustrious and ,most ,reverend ,lord ,cardinal of ,santa ,cecilia1 ,bishop of ,albano1 on the #eth day of ,march1 #afaf40 ,here follow the signatures3 8,p4 ,,episc4 ,,albanen4 ,,card4 ,,sanct ,c,,cili4 8,locus sigilli4 8,f4 ,,franciscus ,,magdalenus ,,capiferreus1 8,ord4 ,prdicat41 ,secretarius40 ,there followed a somewhat remarkable episode3 some opponents of ,galileo having spread a report that he had been compelled to make an abjuration1 and also had had certain salutary penances inflicted on him1 ,cardinal ,bellarmine gave him a certificate to the effect that nothing of the kind had taken place1 but only that the declaration made by the ,pope and published by the ,congregation of the ,index had been communicated to him2 in which declaration was contained the statement that the doctrine attributed to ,copernicus on the movement of the ,earth round the ,sun1 and the stability of the ,sun in the centre of the world without its moving from east to west1 was contrary to ,holy ,scripture1 and so could not be defended or held4 ,it appears that the abjuration alluded to was a solemn act demanded only from those who were suspected of unsoundness in the faith1 and carried with it some disgrace4 ,galileo was naturally anxious to be cleared from such imputation1 and the authorities in ,rome willingly met him so far1 and avoided all acts casting a personal slur on him4 ,it is noteworthy that the interview between ,cardinal ,bellarmine and ,galileo took place after the answers had been returned by the ,qualifiers of the ,inquisition1 but before the publication of the decree of the ,index4 ,the certificate given by the ,cardinal1 to which ,i have just alluded1 was subsequent1 and bears date the #bfth ,may1 #afaf4 ,and here we may pause in the narrative1 to inquire briefly what was the effect1 in an ecclesiastical point of view1 of the decree just quoted1 and of the admonition given by ,papal order to ,galileo4 ,on the mere face of it1 it cannot surely be maintained that there was any doctrinal decision1 strictly speaking1 at all4 ,i do not wish to undervalue the importance of the disciplinary decision1 ,i think it most momentous2 moreover1 the reason alleged for it was that the opinion1 the publication of which was to be forbidden1 was contrary to ,scripture2 but ,i fail to see how this last-mentioned fact can possibly convert what is avowedly a disciplinary enactment1 prohibiting the circulation of certain books1 into a dogmatic decree4 ,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 decree2 as it stands1 however1 the decree appears simply in the name of the ,congregation of the ,index4 ,it would1 ,i think1 scarcely be necessary to argue these points at length1 were it not that the contrary view has been maintained in a work entitled 8,the ,pontifical ,decrees against the ,doctrine of the ,earth's ,movement1 and the ,ultramontane ,defence of them10 by the ,rev4 ,william ,w4 ,roberts1 a work written with ability and moderation as well as considerable knowledge of the subject1 since the author1 though determined to make all the controversial capital that is possible out of the case of ,galileo1 rises superior to the vulgar atmosphere of fable and false accusation2 never alleges anything like personal cruelty or ill-treatment as against the ,pope or the ,inquisition1 and scarcely alludes to the mythical story of 8,e pur si muove40 ,moreover1 even were the intrinsic value of the work less than it is1 attention has been publicly drawn to it by a writer whom1 both from a religious and scientific point of view1 we feel bound to treat with respect--,professor ,mivart--although he has formed1 on the other hand1 an exaggerated estimate of the importance of ,mr4 ,roberts' facts and arguments4 ,here ,i wish to introduce an observation1 as a sort of anticipatory self-defence1 which is that ,i do not feel bound to enter into all the theological minuti which learned disputants have introduced into this case4 ,those who wish to sift such arguments in detail can read the articles in ,the ,dublin ,review by the late ,dr4 ,ward 7since republished7 on the one hand1 and ,mr4 ,roberts' book on the other4 ,i myself venture to look at the question as a lay theologian1 employing this expression not by any means in the sense of one who1 having read two or three theological treatises1 presumes to discuss the sacred science1 himself an amateur1 with men whose profession it is to teach theology2 for1 to use a familiar expression1 ,i hope ,i know my place better4 ,i employ the word in the sense of a man who seeks to know what the ,church teaches as requisite for a layman1 that is an educated layman1 to understand3 thus the lay theologian1 as ,i consider him1 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 sanction4 ,he ought also to distinguish clearly between matters laid down by the ,church as parts of her definitive teaching both on faith and morals--points1 that is to say1 laid down as of principle1 and therefore irrevocable--and on the other hand matters of discipline which1 whether intrinsically important or not1 may and do vary from age to age4 ,he may of course make mistakes1 as even theologians may do1 in applying his principles to particular cases2 but he ought to understand what the principles are4 ,now applying such plain principles to the ,galileo case1 ,i do not understand how any one can come to any other conclusions than these3 first1 that the decree of the ,index and the other proceedings in #afaf1 though founded on reasons of doctrine1 that is of the correct interpretation of ,scripture1 were purely disciplinary in their nature2 secondly1 that this being so1 they were not infallible or irreformable1 as the term is2 thirdly1 that they were1 however1 real acts of discipline1 and intended to be enforced more or less stringently according to circumstances4 ,this last-named aspect of the case is a matter of importance1 and ,i shall return to it hereafter2 but the attempt to impugn the doctrinal infallibility of the ,catholic ,church on the strength of such decisions as that of the ,index in #afaf1 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 ,mr4 ,roberts' arguments4 ,it appears that certain theologians have held that decrees of the ,roman ,congregations are to be considered infallible1 provided they contain a statement in so many words that the ,pope has approved them1 and provided also that they have been published by his explicit order4 ,this1 it may be mentioned1 does not necessarily imply that such decrees concern matters which are strictly and technically matters of faith1 other less momentous issues being frequently involved4 ,the decree of the ,index in #afaf had no such statement about the ,pope's approbation1 nor any notice of his express order for its publication1 although1 in reality1 it was undoubtedly approved by him4 ,mr4 ,roberts argues that this distinction is a worthless one1 because1 at that time1 the custom1 since adopted on certain important occasions1 of bringing in the ,pope's name and authority explicitly1 had not come into being4 ,as an argumentum ad hominem against certain writers who have suggested that such an omission in the ,galileo case was a remarkable instance of ,divine ,providence1 ,mr4 ,roberts' answer may stand2 but it has nothing to do with the main argument4 ,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 subjects1 the ,popes of the early part of the seventeenth century had no such custom4 ,they used the ,congregations for various disciplinary purposes1 founded sometimes1 no doubt1 on reasons of doctrine1 and they sanctioned the proceedings so taken2 but they did not give them the explicit impress of their own name and authority4 ,even when this latter has taken place1 it is not every theologian who holds that such decree is infallible4 ,cardinal ,franzelin1 a writer of the highest authority1 whose words ,i give in a note1#c held that it was not infallibly true1 but only infallibly safe4 ,his language is not quite clear to the non-theological mind1 but he probably meant that the doctrine conveyed in such a decree was safe1 so that it might certainly be held without injury to any one's faith1 and that it was not safe to reject it4 ,but it is clear that he was not speaking of such decrees as took place in the ,galileo case1 but only of those which bear on them the marks of ,papal authority in the strict sense4 ,his own words are pretty plain proof of this4 ,they are extracted from his work1 8,de ,divina ,traditione et ,scriptura10 and follow the other words to which ,i have alluded3 ,coroll4 ,d4 ,auctoritas infallibilitatis et supremum magisterium ,pontificis definientis omnino nihil unquam pertinuit ad causam ,galilei ,galilei1 et ad ejurationem opinionis ipsi injunctam4 ,non solum enim nulla vel umbra definitionis ,pontifici ibi intercessit1 sed in toto illo decreto ,cardinalium ,s4 ,officii1 et in formula ejurationis ne nomen quidem ,pontificis unquam sive directe sive indirecte pronuntiatum reperitur444 pertinebat omnino ad auctoritatem providenti ecclesiastic cavere1 ne quid detrimenti caperet interpretatio ,scriptur per conjecturas et hypotheses plerisque tum temporis visas minime verisimiles4 ,we are not1 however1 ,i think1 obliged to endorse the opinion conveyed in the last sentence that ,i have quoted1 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 knowledge4 ,i shall hereafter state why ,i feel it difficult to follow their judgment4 ,but the words ,i have quoted from ,cardinal ,franzelin show plainly that the decrees he had in his mind1 when he wrote that they were infallibly safe1 were of a nature quite different from anything that took place in the processes connected with ,galileo2 and although he alludes principally to that which passed in #afcc before the ,inquisition1 he appears to include the whole affair in the judgment he passes upon it2 indeed1 the sentence of the tribunal in #afcc1 and the abjuration enjoined upon ,galileo at that time1 were made to depend on the decree of the ,index in #afaf1 and the admonition then given to ,galileo by ,cardinal ,bellarmine4 ,cardinal ,franzelin's opinion1 then1 whatever weight we may give to it1 is clear enough4 ,i give one more extract from the work of this learned author on the subject of the ,pope's infallibility1 showing that he was of opinion that doctrinal definitions must be clearly and unmistakably intended as such1 and must carry with them some manifest signs to that effect4 ,extract from the same on the subject of the ,pope's infallibility1 pp4 #ajh and #aji3 ,neque enim ,cathedra ,apostolica aliud est1 quam supremum authenticum magisterium1 cujus definitiva sententia doctrinalis obligat universam ,ecclesiam ad consensum4 ,intentio hc definiendi doctrinam seu docendi definitiv sententi et auctoritate obligante universam ,ecclesiam ad consensum debet esse manifesta et cognoscibilis claris indiciis4 ,in the case we have before us1 ,i should say that the 8clara indicia0 were all the other way2 and indeed1 were it not for the dust which controversialists have tried to throw in our eyes1 ,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 definition1 such as ,catholics are bound by their principles to admit as infallible1 given against the ,copernican doctrine4 ,it is right1 however1 to notice one or two other arguments urged by ,mr4 ,roberts4 ,some of these consist in bringing forward supposed parallel cases1 in which the ,pope has insisted on a full and complete assent being given to the decision of some ,roman ,congregation4 ,one case is that of a 8distinguished theologian and philosopher1 ,gnther10 whose works were condemned by a decree of the ,index1 having1 however1 the notice that the ,pope had ratified the decision and ordered its publication4 ,this was in #aheg4 ,gnther and many of his followers submitted1 but others contended that a merely disciplinary decree was not conclusive4 ,on this ,pope ,pius ,,ix4 addressed a brief to the ,archbishop of ,cologne1 in which he intimated that a decree sanctioned by his authority and published by his order should have been sufficient to close the question1 that the doctrine taught by ,gnther could not be held to be true1 and that it was not permitted to any one to defend it from that time forward4 ,i extract the words as given by ,mr4 ,roberts3 ,quod quidem ,decretum that of the ,index ,nostra ,auctoritate sancitum ,nostroque jussu vulgatum1 sufficere plane debebat1 ut questio omnis penitus dirempta censeretur1 et omnes qui ,catholico gloriantur nomine clare aperteque intelligerent sibi esse omnino obtemperandum1 et sinceram haberi non posse doctrinam ,gntharianis libris contentam1 ac nemini deinceps fas esse doctrinam iis libris traditam tueri ac propugnare1 et illos libros sine debita facultate legere ac retinere4 ,mr4 ,roberts1 it must be remembered1 is not simply investigating the history of ,galileo1 but is contending1 for other reasons1 against certain opinions on the subject of ,papal infallibility held by an able foreign theologian1 ,m4 ,bouix1 and by ,dr4 ,ward1 and he uses ,galileo as a weapon 7and1 in his estimation1 a most formidable weapon7 in the controversy4 ,now1 in the capacity ,i have assumed of a lay theologian1 ,i do not feel bound to discuss whether the decree in ,gnther's case was merely disciplinary1 or whether it was dogmatic2 whether it came within the category of strictly infallible pronouncements1 or whether it did not2 and supposing the former alternative1 whether it was infallible in virtue of the ,pope's sanction and command to publish in the first instance1 or whether it only became so in virtue of the brief addressed to the ,archbishop of ,cologne4 ,all these questions1 interesting in themselves1 ,i feel myself at liberty to pass over1 and to leave them1 with the most profound respect1 to be sifted by professed theologians2 ,i merely venture to remark1 without attempting to argue the matter1 that1 to my uninstructed intelligence1 the whole thing1 including the ,pope's brief1 appears to have a disciplinary character rather than anything else4 ,what1 however1 ,i would say is this--the questions above mentioned1 which in the ,gnther case are doubtful1 are in that of ,galileo clear enough2 the clause stating that the ,pope had sanctioned the decree1 and ordered it to be published1 on which the doubt alluded to is founded1 did not appear in the decree against the ,copernican books2 nor did the ,popes of that day issue any brief1 such as ,pius ,,ix4 addressed to the ,archbishop of ,cologne4 ,mr4 ,roberts1 it is true1 thinks he has a clenching argument in a ,bull of ,pope ,alexander ,,vii41 of which ,i will speak hereafter1 and which in my humble judgment has the least force of any that he has adduced4 ,the case of ,professor ,ubaghs1 of the ,university of ,louvain1 which ,mr4 ,roberts thinks still more to the point1 seems1 ,i confess1 to me even weaker than the other for our present purpose4 ,here1 again1 ,i leave it to theologians to decide whether the decree was or was not infallible2 but it undoubtedly appears1 in point of form1 to be a doctrinal one1 and emanated from the ,united ,congregations of the ,index and ,inquisition1 to whom the ,pope had expressly entrusted the examination of the subject1 and it was as follows3 8,wherefore the most eminent cardinals have arrived at this opinion3 that in the philosophical works1 hitherto published by ,g4 ,c4 ,ubaghs1 and especially in his ,logic and ,theodicea1 doctrines or opinions are found that cannot be taught without danger0 7inveniri doctrinas seu opiniones1 qu absque periculo tradi non possunt74 8,which judgment our most ,holy ,lord ,pope ,pius ,,ix4 has ratified and confirmed by his supreme authority40 ,even then some persons maintained that the decree was disciplinary and not doctrinal4 ,cardinal ,patrizi1 however1 writing in the ,pope's name to the ,primate of ,belgium 7if ,i mistake not71 intimated that the dissentients must acquiesce ex animo in the judgment of the ,apostolic ,see4 ,consequently all the professors who had committed themselves to the proscribed opinions were required to make an act of submission to the effect just mentioned4 ,the decree was treated as strictly doctrinal1 and if so was1 ,i maintain1 essentially different from the one we have now before us4 ,in the case of ,galileo1 it is true that the opinion given in #afaf by the ,qualifiers of the ,inquisition was a doctrinal one2 the action taken upon the strength of that opinion by the ,pope in desiring ,cardinal ,bellarmine to admonish ,galileo1 as well as by the ,congregation of the ,index in prohibiting certain books1 was simply disciplinary4#e ,it remains for us to inquire what was the value of the decree of the ,index on certain works1 written in favour of the new astronomical doctrines1 as appreciated by contemporary feeling and opinion4 ,we naturally find that there were two views on the subject3 one of those who wished to magnify the effect of the decision1 and one of those who desired to minimise it4 ,galileo himself said that his opinion had not been accepted by the ,church1 which1 however1 had only declared that it was not in conformity with ,holy ,scripture2 from which it followed that only books attempting ex professo to prove that the opinion is not contrary to ,scripture were prohibited4 ,whether ,galileo was right or wrong in his estimate of the scope of the decree1 it seems evident that he considered the whole matter as a question merely of discipline4 ,it is said that ,father ,melchior ,inchofer1 ,s4,j4 7afterwards one of the ,consultors of the ,holy ,office71 endeavoured to prove that the decision proceeded from the ,pope speaking ex cathedr4 ,mr4 ,roberts gives a quotation to that effect from a work of ,professor ,berti2 the original1 however1 does not appear1 and is probably not now extant4 ,mr4 ,roberts also quotes ,caramuel1 8the acute casuist10 who1 in answer to the supposed objection that the ,copernican theory might hereafter be shown to be true1 says that it is impossible that the ,earth should hereafter be proved demonstratively to be in motion2 if such an impossibility be admitted1 other impossible and absurd things would follow4 ,caramuel1 however great as a theologian1 was evidently not endowed with much scientific foresight4 ,but he is not wholly wrong1 for it has never yet been possible to prove by absolute demonstration the motion of the ,earth4 ,one of the most important witnesses on the point we are here considering is ,cardinal ,bellarmine1 who was a very zealous anti-,copernican1 and had probably a great share 7perhaps the principal share7 in bringing about the practical condemnation of ,galileo's opinions in #afaf4 ,so far as ,i know1 the only explicit statement bearing on the question that we have of ,bellarmine's1 is a letter to the ,carmelite ,father ,foscarini1 dated ,april #a1 #afae1 though he has been quoted as if he had expressed the opinion stated in the letter at a later date4 ,mr4 ,roberts takes exception to the inference drawn from this letter because it was written before the decree of the ,index1 and we may add1 about seven months before the referring of ,galileo's writings to the ,consultors of the ,inquisition4 ,now we may admit that there would be some force in this argument if ,cardinal ,bellarmine1 instead of being what he was1 had been a private individual1 having nothing to do but to listen submissively to what his ecclesiastical superiors decided1 whether in doctrine or discipline4 ,he was1 however1 one of the most trusted advisers of the ,pope2 he had no small share in bringing about the censure of the ,copernican theory1 such as it was2 and it is almost certain that at the time when he wrote the letter he foresaw that some proceedings of that nature would follow1 if indeed the proceedings had not already begun4 ,we have no sort of intimation that he ever afterwards changed his opinion1 and the way in which he was quoted by subsequent writers points to this conclusion4 ,i have thought it better to answer the objection made by ,mr4 ,roberts before stating what ,bellarmine's letter contains4 ,i must leave my readers to judge the value of the argument4 ,all ,i say is1 that my own belief is that ,cardinal ,bellarmine's opinion1 as recorded in this letter to ,father ,foscarini1 represents his permanent judgment4 ,it is a most curious letter1 and is a singular illustration of the danger that a man1 however able and learned1 may incur by attempting to grapple with subjects of which he knows absolutely nothing4 ,bellarmine1 when writing on theological or controversial subjects1 though he might make an occasional mistake1 was one of the clearest1 ablest1 and 7may one not add87 fairest of writers2 but on a subject such as this1 some of his reasoning strikes us as very curious4 ,the substance of it is as follows3 ,after admitting that so long as the ,copernican doctrine is stated hypothetically1 8ex suppositione10 there is no objection whatever to it1 he goes on to say that to state it positively and as a reality is contrary to the principle laid down by the ,council 7i4e4 of ,trent71 that ,scripture should not be interpreted contrary to the common consent of the ,fathers2 and1 he added1 not only that1 but the universal opinions of modern commentators4 ,in answer to the objection that it is not a matter of faith1 he says3 8if it is not so ex parte objecti1 it is so ex parte dicentis10 meaning apparently that a man who impugned the truth of the ,scriptural narrative in any respect would be heretical4 ,then follows the paragraph which has given occasion to quote the letter1 and it is to this effect3#f ,when there shall be a real demonstration that the ,sun stands in the centre of the universe1 and that the ,earth revolves round it1 it will then be necessary to proceed with great consideration in explaining those passages of ,scripture which seem to be contrary to it1 and rather to say that we do not understand them1 than say that a thing which is demonstrated is false4 ,but for his own part1 until it had been shown to him1 he would not believe there could be any such demonstration1 for it was one thing to prove that if the hypothesis were true all things would appear as they actually do1 and another thing to prove that such is actually the fact2 and in case of doubt one ought not to leave the interpretation of ,scripture as given by the ,fathers4 ,then comes what is really an extraordinary argument1 as we modern thinkers would view it4 ,the text1 8,the sun arises and sets1 and returns to his own place10 was written by ,solomon1 who was not only inspired by ,god1 but was also the wisest and most learned of mankind in human sciences1 and in the knowledge of created things1 and it was not likely he could be wrong4 ,nor was it sufficient to say that ,solomon speaks according to appearances2 for though in some cases erroneous impressions1 arising from appearances1 can be corrected by observation and experience1 it is quite otherwise as regards the motion of the ,earth4 ,it is certainly remarkable that it does not appear to strike ,bellarmine that the ,fathers and commentators1 not having this question before them1 naturally interpreted ,scripture according to the ideas generally entertained in their day4 ,while to suppose that1 because ,solomon wrote certain inspired works1 and1 moreover1 was a great naturalist--the greatest of his day--he was1 therefore1 infallible in his personal views on astronomy1 shows a state of mind so different from what we find amongst even non-scientific men in our own day1 that we are almost startled and bewildered when we meet with it4 ,the truth1 however1 is that ,bellarmine was a sort of link between the medival and modern thinkers2 in theology and controversy1 and in appreciation of the change that had taken place in ,europe owing to the religious revolution of the preceding century1 in all that1 he was1 ,i imagine1 in advance of his age2 in physical science he was a simple medivalist4 ,but it was not for some time that even able men came to recognise the principle that in the search for truth1 so far as the works of ,nature are concerned1 the opinions of the ancients and the traditions of forefathers count but for little2 and observation and experiment are the true and only key to knowledge4 ,it is otherwise1 of course1 with theology and kindred studies2 and it required some mental grasp1 or in default of that it required a long1 very long1 experience before the human mind drew the distinction between the two4 ,but this is a digression4 ,i have quoted ,bellarmine to show what he thought of the necessity1 from an ecclesiastical standpoint1 of putting down ,copernicanism1 at least until it should be proved to demonstration4 ,he did not appear to contemplate a dogmatic decision against it1 but what he did desire1 and succeeded in obtaining1 was a disciplinary prohibition of the obnoxious doctrine4 ,as a theologian he well knew that such a prohibition would not be an irrevocable act2 it might be withdrawn when the conclusive proof of the forbidden opinion should be established4 ,he probably thought that the certain demonstration of the opinion would only take place1 as mathematicians would say1 at an infinitely distant date2 nor was he wholly wrong1 as has already been remarked1 for the absolute demonstration of the ,copernican doctrine is not1 from the very nature of the case1 a thing to be achieved4 ,yet1 if he had lived at a later period1 ,i do not doubt that he would have been satisfied with the moral evidence1 the mass of indirect proof1 on which ,copernicanism rests4 ,many years later1 the ,jesuit ,father ,fabri1 who appears to have held the office of ,canon ,penitentiary of ,st4 ,peter's1 expresses himself in much the same way as ,bellarmine4 ,he was replying to the arguments of some ,copernican correspondent1 possibly an ,englishman1 since his reply was inserted in the ,acts of the ,english ,royal ,society in #affe1 and he says3 8,there is no reason why the ,church should not understand those texts in their literal sense1 and declare that they should be so understood so long as there is no demonstration to prove the contrary4 ,but if any such demonstration hereafter be devised by your party 7which ,i do not at all expect71 in that case the ,church will not at all hesitate to set forth that those texts are to be understood in an improper--i4e41 non-literal--and figurative sense1 according to the words of the poet1 #8terrque urbesque recedunt4'0 ,as a further illustration of the position thus taken by ,bellarmine and others as to the interpretation of ,scripture1 ,i may here mention that some few years after the prohibition of ,copernican works by the ,index 7probably about #afbc71 it is said that ,guidacci had an interview with ,father ,grassi1 at the suggestion of the ,jesuit ,father ,tarquinio ,galluzzi1 and that ,f4 ,grassi's words were as follows3 8,when a demonstration of this movement that of the ,earth shall be discovered1 it will be fitting to interpret ,scripture otherwise than has hitherto been done3 this is the opinion of ,cardinal ,bellarmine40 ,it is not intended to deny that there were those who magnified the effect of the decree of the ,index2 the devotees of ,aristotle1 who had gained what was to them a great triumph1 were sure to make the most of it4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,we will now return to the narrative2 and in due course discuss the condemnation of ,galileo by the ,inquisition sixteen years after the events just described4 ,it may be mentioned1 as illustrating the feeling in ,rome towards ,galileo personally1 that on the #aath ,march1 #afaf1 he had an audience1 lasting three-quarters of an hour1 of ,pope ,paul ,v4 ,he assured the ,pope of the rectitude of his intentions1 and complained of the persecutions of his adversaries4 ,paul ,v4 answered very kindly1 saying that both himself and the ,cardinals of the ,index had formed a high personal opinion of him1 and did not believe his calumniators4 ,in the year #afbj there appeared a monitum of the ,congregation of the ,index1 permitting the reading of the great work of ,copernicus after certain specified corrections had been made4 ,not long after this1 in #afbb1 if ,i mistake not1 ,pope ,paul ,v4 died1 and ,galileo's friend1 ,cardinal ,barberini1 succeeded him1 taking the name of ,urban ,,viii4 ,another of his friends1 ,monsignor ,ciampoli1 became secretary of briefs to the new ,pope4 ,our philosopher having ascertained that he would be well received1 went to ,rome in ,april1 #afbd1 and was treated by the new ,pope with all possible consideration4 ,he had1 in fact1 several conversations with him2 and we may well conjecture it was on these occasions that ,urban ,,viii41 discussing the ,copernican theory1 used some of those arguments which ,galileo afterwards put in the mouth of ,simplicio in his celebrated ,dialogue1 thereby deeply offending the ,pope4 ,but there was1 about this time1 a sort of moderate reaction in favour of ,galileo among the authorities at ,rome4 ,for instance1 a work of his published since the decree of the ,index1 and entitled 8,il ,saggiatore10 in which he had favoured the theory of the ,earth's motion1 was attacked1 and an attempt was made to have it prohibited or at least corrected1 but the attempt was a failure4 ,the reports of casual or unofficial conversations are always to be received with caution and with some qualification2 yet at least they are 8straws which show how the wind blows40 ,thus we are told that ,cardinal ,hohen-,zollern1 in a conversation with the ,pope 7,urban ,,viii47 on the subject of ,copernicus1 endeavoured to show the necessity of proceeding with great circumspection on that point1 to which it is said the ,pope replied that the ,church had not condemned and would not condemn that opinion as heretical1 but only as temerarious4 ,so again the ,master of the ,sacred ,palace1 himself resting neutral between ,ptolemy and ,copernicus1 is reported to have said that there was no matter of faith in question1 the great point being that one must not in any way mix up the ,holy ,scriptures with it4 ,we may suppose that when the ,pope spoke of the opinion having been condemned as temerarious1 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 been1 but that the general effect of the prohibition issued by the ,index was to stamp the mark of rashness upon it4 ,this1 ,i may observe1 if it be the right interpretation1 is quite consistent with the theory that the prohibition was of a disciplinary and a provisional character4 ,we have also another reputed conversation of the ,pope with ,campanella--resting on the authority of ,prince ,cesi1 who related it to ,father ,castelli--and it is important if true4 ,campanella had said that certain ,germans1 ready to embrace the ,catholic faith1 had hesitated on account of the condemnation of ,copernicus1 to which ,pope ,urban ,,viii4 had replied that this was not his intention1 and if he had had the arrangement of matters the decree would never have been made4 8,non fu mai nostra intenzione1 e se fosse toccato a noi1 non si sarebbe fatto quel decreto40 ,as already remarked1 we must not attach too great weight to reports of private conversations2 but it is probable that some such scene took place as here represented1 and1 if it did1 it is surely wholly incompatible with the idea that the decree was a decision in matters of faith4 ,no ,pope1 no well-informed ecclesiastic of any rank1 would express himself so in such a case2 but it is quite consistent with what we might expect in a question of simple discipline4 ,it will now be convenient1 before discussing the matter further1 to resume the narrative1 and to touch upon the questions connected with the condemnation of ,galileo by the ,inquisition1 and his enforced abjuration4 ,it is1 indeed1 these latter proceedings that have left so deep an impression upon the popular mind1 though1 strictly speaking1 they were of less importance than the decree of the ,index--of less importance1 that is1 to all others besides ,galileo himself4 ,it seems that our philosopher overrated the effect of the reaction that had taken place in his favour1 real though it was so far as it went4 ,he thought he might now safely publish the work on which he had been labouring1 and on which he probably relied as likely to influence the minds of learned men1 ecclesiastical as well as lay1 in the direction of ,copernicanism4 ,he came in ,may in the year #afcj to ,rome1 and had a very long audience with the ,pope1 who treated him with great kindness and even increased a pension he had already bestowed upon him2 but we do not know what passed as to other matters on this occasion4 ,he had also an interview with ,father ,riccardi1 who had now become ,master of the ,sacred ,palace1 with a view of obtaining authority to print his book4 ,father ,riccardi upon this engaged ,father ,visconti1 who was a professor of mathematics1 to read the work and mark such passages as he thought necessary4 ,father ,visconti reported that there were some passages which required correction1 and many points that he would like to discuss with the author4 ,however1 the ,master of the ,sacred ,palace gave leave for the printing of the work1 expressing at the same time a wish to see it once more himself2 consequently it was arranged that ,galileo should return to ,rome in the autumn1 in order to add the preface1 and to insert in the body of the work certain passages1 calculated to show that the question was being treated purely as a hypothesis4 ,two untoward events1 however1 now occurred3 one was the death of ,prince ,cesi1 a powerful and devoted friend of ,galileo1 which took place on the #ast ,may2 and the other was the outbreak of the plague at ,florence1 a circumstance which interrupted communications1 and caused delays resulting in mistakes and misunderstandings4 ,with a view of having the ,dialogue printed at ,florence1 it was arranged that the revision required by the ecclesiastical authorities should take place there instead of at ,rome4 ,father ,hyacinthe ,stephani1 a ,dominican1 who acted as reviser1 marked several passages in the work1 thinking that they should be explained before the final permission for publication was conceded4 ,then followed mutual delays3 the author was tardy in sending to ,rome the corrections to which he had in principle agreed1 and the ,master of the ,sacred ,palace was late in sending to ,florence the preface and the conclusion1 so the impatient philosopher began to print his book4 ,the plague still continued1 and the result was that communications were still interrupted4 ,the ,inquisitor of ,florence however received from ,rome the power to approve officially the copy of ,galileo's work that would be submitted to him1 with instructions specially added by ,father ,riccardi that he must bear in mind the wishes of the ,pope to the following effect3 ,the title of the work must indicate that it dealt only with the mathematical question connected with ,copernicanism1 also that the ,copernican opinion must not be put forward as a positive truth1 but merely as a hypothesis1 and this without alluding to the interpretation of ,scripture2 moreover1 that it should be stated that the work was only written to show that if the decree 7i4e4 of #afaf7 was made at ,rome1 nevertheless the authorities knew all the reasons against it that could be urged1 and were not ignorant of one of them--an idea conformable to the words of the preface and the conclusion1 which he would send from ,rome corrected4 ,with this precaution1 it was intimated the book would meet with no obstacle at ,rome1 and thus satisfaction might be given to the author1 and also to the ,grand ,duke of ,tuscany1 who had shown himself to be so eager in the matter4 ,this remarkable letter points towards a conclusion which has been drawn by some writers1 that the preface to the ,dialogue was written for ,galileo by ,father ,riccardi or some other person1 and was not his own composition2 for the above is precisely what was said in the preface as it afterwards appeared1 and it seems to me almost incredible that ,galileo should have spontaneously written any such words1 exposing him to the charge1 which has really been made against him1 of transparent irony1 thereby giving offence in the very quarters where conciliation was desirable4 ,and it must be remarked that when ,father ,riccardi on the #aith ,july of this year sent the preface to ,florence1 he allowed ,galileo the liberty of making verbal alterations only2 so that whether he composed it or only revised it1 it is ,father ,riccardi rather than the author of the ,dialogue who must be held responsible for the contents1 and the same remark applies at least partially to the conclusion also1 it having been specially revised by the same hand4 ,the preface is addressed to the discreet reader1 and the words to which ,i have just alluded are as follows3 8,some years ago1 a wholesome edict was promulgated in ,rome which1 in order to check the dangerous scandals of the present age1 imposed an opportune silence upon the ,pythagorean opinion of the motion of the earth4 ,there were not wanting some who rashly asserted that that decree resulted1 not from judicious examination1 but from ill-informed passion2 and there were heard complaints that ,consultors1 wholly inexperienced in astronomical observations1 ought not to be allowed1 with a hasty prohibition1 to clip the wings of speculative intellects4 ,my zeal could not keep silence on hearing the temerity of the complaints so made4 ,as one fully informed of that most prudent decision1 ,i judged it right to appear publicly in the theatre of the world1 as a witness of pure truth4 ,i happened then to be present in ,rome2 ,i had not only audiences1 but approbations from the most eminent prelates of that ,court1 and it was not without my own previous information that the publication of that decree then followed40 ,the author goes on to say that he wished to show to foreign nations how much was known in ,italy1 and particularly in ,rome1 on this subject2 and that from this climate there proceed not only dogmas for the salvation of the soul1 but ingenious devices for the delight of the mind4 ,this last clause certainly savours of bitter irony1 and probably did not proceed from ,father ,riccardi's pen4 ,he then states that for the purpose in hand he had taken the ,copernican part in the ,dialogue as a pure mathematical hypothesis1 endeavouring by every artifice to represent it as superior1 not to that of the stability of the ,earth absolutely speaking1 but to the doctrine as defended by the ,peripatetics1 to whom he alludes with some contempt4 ,he adds that he will treat of three principal heads3 under the first he would show that all our experience was insufficient to prove conclusively the motion of the ,earth1 but that it adapted itself equally to either theory2 he hoped also to produce many observations unknown to antiquity4 ,in the second place1 the celestial phenomena would be examined1 by which the ,copernican hypothesis would be so reinforced as if it ought to come out of the contest absolutely victorious4 ,in the third place he would propound his theory about the tides3 8proporr una fantasia ingegnosa10 he says4 ,he had long been of opinion that the unknown problem of the tides would receive some light on the assumption of the ,earth's motion4 ,other persons had adopted his statement on this point as if it had been their own2 he therefore thought it desirable to expound it himself4 ,he hints1 too1 that the willingness to admit the stability of the ,earth1 and to take the contrary side solely for mathematical caprice1 is partly based on piety1 religion1 the knowledge of the ,divine omnipotence1 and the consciousness of human weakness4 ,he had thought it well to cast these thoughts into the form of a dialogue1 which gave a certain amount of freedom to digressions4 ,he then introduces the personages who sustain the discussion1 and who are supposed to meet at ,venice at the palace of one of their number1 ,sagredo by name4 ,this preface1 if one may judge by internal evidence1 was probably the joint composition of ,galileo and ,father ,riccardi1 the former having written the original draft1 the latter having altered the draft and supplemented it with important additions4 ,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 portions1 each being supposed to be one day's dialogue4 ,the interlocutors are ,salviati1 ,sagredo1 and ,simplicio4 ,great offence was taken at the rle attributed to this last-named personage--the true doctrine put into the mouth of a simpleton6 ,it has been said that ,pope ,urban ,,viii4 considered it as an insult directed against himself1 because1 in conversation with ,galileo1 he had used some of the very arguments employed by ,simplicio4 ,this1 however1 may have happened without the author intending thereby to offer any personal affront to ,his ,holiness2 some character was bound to appear on the anti-,copernican side1 and it was inevitable that the arguments that ,galileo had heard1 whether from ignorant or enlightened antagonists1 should be put into the mouth of such character4 ,the name ,simplicio is of course not meant as a compliment2 moreover1 he is made to say some very unwise things1 and is occasionally treated with a sort of polite contempt by the scientific and mathematical ,salviati2 and yet he is not at all a simpleton in our sense of the word1 he is a devoted follower of ,aristotle1 whom he constantly quotes1 and is in fact a type--probably exaggerated--of the school of the ,peripatetics1 as they were1 and still are1 called2 he does not know much of geometry or arithmetic1 and so is at no small disadvantage when arguing with ,salviati1 but he is far from being a mere fool4 ,our author1 in his preface1 introduces ,salviati and ,sagredo--the former a ,florentine1 the latter a ,venetian--as real personages1 deceased friends of his own1 though this may be a mere conventional form of expression2 but he expressly states that ,simplicio is not the true name of the 8buon ,peripatetico40 ,the friends are supposed to meet in the palace of ,sagredo1 at ,venice1 as before stated4 ,the first day's dialogue deals with a good deal of what one may term preliminary matter3 that bodies have three dimensions and no more2 that circular motion is the most perfect and the most natural2 showing by this that ,galileo had not at that time arrived at a true comprehension of the first law of motion1 as we now hold it4 ,the motion of weights on an inclined plane finds also a place in the discussion2 and so does what we now term the law of accelerating force1 which ,galileo had grasped so well as to be able to explain how the velocity increases by infinitely small steps gradually1 and not1 as it were1 by sudden jumps4 ,much of the matter disputed on--as1 for example1 whether the heavenly bodies being incorruptible differ in that respect from the ,earth1 liable as it is to corruption and decay--which seems to us either erroneous in conception or irrelevant to the question at issue1 or both--arose out of the old ,aristotelian philosophy2 and in those days a dissertation which neglected points of this kind would have been looked upon probably with contempt1 as evading subjects that it ought to have grappled with4 ,the distinction between natural and artificial motion1 which occurs repeatedly in the ,dialogue1 is an instance of an utterly mistaken notion1 having its origin in ,aristotle1 who1 great philosopher though he was in other ways1 failed in his investigations of physical science1 partly from being misled by verbal fallacies4#g ,another point that our author endeavours to establish in the first day's dialogue is that the ,moon is not a polished surface1 as ,simplicio and others thought1 but much like our own ,earth1 with mountains and plains and seas--this last being a mistake1 as subsequent observation has shown4 ,the solar spots are also discussed1 and so1 incidentally1 is the question whether the heavenly bodies are inhabited1 the affirmative opinion finding little favour with any one4 ,during the second day the great subject is the revolution of the ,earth on its axis2 and ,salviati urges forcibly the improbability of the motion of the whole celestial sphere round the ,earth in twenty-four hours1 including such a number of vast bodies1 and with such an immense velocity1 while one single body 7the ,earth71 turning round on itself1 would produce the same effect4 ,he argues also that if you believe in this motion of the celestial sphere1 you must suppose the planets to be moving in two opposite directions at the same time1 the diurnal one from east to west1 and the annual one from west to east--using the word annual in its extended sense1 as applied to the periodical revolutions of all the planets4 ,to this ,simplicio makes the sapient answer that ,aristotle proves that circular motions are not contrary to each other2 upon which the third interlocutor1 ,sagredo1 asks him whether when two knights meet one another in the open field1 or two fleets at sea--in the latter case sinking each other--such motions can be called contrary8 ,this ,simplicio is obliged to admit2 he uses1 however1 another argument1 which did not seem so absurd in the then existing state of science1 namely1 that there may be another sphere beyond that of the stars1 and itself starless1 to which belongs the property of the diurnal revolution1 and that this sphere may carry along with it the inferior spheres1 these latter participating in its movement4 ,ideas such as these were part of the pre-telescopic notions of astronomy4 ,simplicio's argument is in reply to some powerful reasons drawn from the motions of the planets1 the nearer revolving in a shorter1 and the more remote in a longer period2 it being extremely unlikely that they would be all whirled round the ,earth in one day2 and also from considerations connected with the stars4 ,it took a long time to disabuse the human mind of the antiquated opinion that the stars and planets were set in vast movable spheres1 as lamps might be set in a large revolving cupola4 ,one of the objections made at that time against the axial rotation of the ,earth was that1 if it were really the case1 any weight dropped from a high tower would fall some way to the west of the tower1 on account of the latter having been carried on eastward by the revolution of the ,earth during the few seconds the weight takes in falling1#h and that such a result was contrary to experience4 ,in those days1 when even the first law of motion had been barely guessed at1 the second law1 that of the action of combined forces on any body1 was of course not generally understood2 and a considerable debate as to this point occurs in this same day's dialogue4 ,simplicio has the hardihood to assert that if a stone be let fall from the mast of a vessel1 the vessel being in motion1 it falls behind the mast4 ,salviati1 after making a foolish distinction--in accordance1 however1 with the philosophical ideas then prevalent--between the natural motion of the ,earth on its axis1 and the artificial motion of the vessel1 asks ,simplicio if he has ever tried the experiment1 which1 of course1 he had not4 ,he then tells him1 and most truly so1 that the experiment1 if made1 would show a very different result1 and that the stone would fall at the foot of the mast1 whether the vessel were in motion or not4 ,further on1 ,simplicio maintained that a projectile thrown from the hand1 according to ,aristotle's argument1 is carried on by the air1 itself set in motion by the hand of the projector2 and if the stone let fall from the mast of a ship falls at the foot of the mast1 it must be the effect of the air4 ,so again he imagines that a ball dropped from the hand of a man1 riding fast on horseback1 falls some way behind1 and does not partake of the horse's speed4 ,salviati1 however1 tells him that he deceives himself1 and that experience would teach him the contrary4 ,various difficulties are discussed in this dialogue well known to the disputants of that day4 ,it being questioned why a projectile shot from a gun point-blank towards the east does not fall above the mark aimed at2 or shot westwards fall below it8 ,how it is that birds1 when flying1 are not left behind by the revolving ,earth1 since they at any rate are completely detached from the ground above which they are soaring8 ,why it is that light objects do not fly off at a tangent8 ,one sees throughout the power of the master-mind of ,galileo4 ,he knew many things in mechanics which no subsequent research or experiment has ever corrected2 but here and there1 as may naturally be supposed1 he is at fault4 ,it must ever be remembered that a dialogue1 though a convenient form of argument in some respects1 does not always give one a clear insight into the author's real convictions4 ,you are not sure whether he quite agrees with any of the spokesmen1 and1 indeed1 ,galileo1 in his defence before the ,inquisition1 practically assumes that he did not so agree4 ,it is1 however1 a good form of discussion for a man whose opinions are intended to be expressed in a tentative shape1 and perhaps ,galileo's mind was in a state congenial to such expression4 ,but1 at any rate1 it makes it rather more difficult to do justice to the author1 as one is never sure what he intends to be taken as the expression of his own deliberate belief2 indeed1 whatever may have been the amount of indecision in which in this case our author's mind was involved1 it is scarcely possible1 notwithstanding his disclaimer1 to ignore the fact of his strong ,copernican opinions4 ,i think one may say that ,galileo did not1 at the time when he wrote the dialogue1 know the gravity of the air4 ,i say at that time1 because it is quite possible that he knew it before his death1 since he lived some ten or twelve years after writing this work4 ,it is maintained that he knew it because there is extant a letter from ,baliani1 the date of which ,i believe to be about #afca1 in which the latter expresses his acknowledgments to ,galileo for having taught him this truth4 ,may it not1 however1 be that what is here meant is the pressure of the air8 ,if any one thinks ,galileo understood at that time the principle of the gravity of the atmosphere1 ,i refer him to the second day's dialogue4 ,he was aware1 no doubt1 that the air was carried round by the ,earth in its diurnal motion1 but why it was so carried round ,i do not think he quite understood2 indeed1 as may well be supposed1 he did not clearly understand what gravity was2 it was a mysterious force1 drawing heavy bodies towards the centre of the ,earth1 a force to which we1 indeed1 give the name of gravity1 but of the essence of which we know nothing1 as1 in fact1 we know nothing of the nature of the force that moves the heavenly bodies4 ,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 ,earth4 ,if he really had arrived at such a conclusion1 he would have anticipated the great discovery made thirty or forty years later4 ,i think1 however1 that he only wished to illustrate the one by the other1 and that the allusion means no more4 ,i give1 however1 the passage in a note1#i so that any reader may form his own judgment2 and ,i may add that according to an opinion commonly held by the ,copernican school of that age1 the adherence of the atmosphere to the ,earth as it revolved was the effect of friction4 ,our philosopher1 wise as he was1 had not freed himself from the antiquated notion that some bodies were essentially heavy and others light1 which latter had no tendency to descend2 not thereby meaning comparatively light substances1 but such as were absolutely free from the action of gravity2 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-shot4 ,another mistake into which he falls is that of maintaining1 in answer to the argument that the diurnal rotation of the ,earth would cause objects to fly off from the surface at a tangent1 that no amount of velocity of rotation would be sufficient for such a result to follow2 whereas1 it is well known to modern students of mechanics that if a certain very high velocity of rotation were reached1 the centrifugal force would overcome that of gravity1 and objects would be projected from the surface of the ,earth in the direction of the tangent at that point4 ,some irrelevant arguments occur1 of which1 no doubt1 many were employed at that time on both sides2 ,i think it was the late ,professor de ,morgan who 7in an article written for a popular periodical7 made a list of these2 and it must in all fairness be said1 that this circumstance ought to be taken into account1 as palliating the apparent obstinacy of the anti-,copernican party in denying the motion of the ,earth4 ,the argument drawn from the tides is1 of course1 the most striking instance of these scientific fallacies2 but it was by no means the only one2 in this particular dialogue there is another1 which is worth noticing because it confirms what ,i have just said as to ,galileo knowing nothing of the doctrine of universal gravitation4 ,he puts into the mouth of ,salviati the argument that bodies which emit light1 as do the ,sun and fixed stars1 are essentially different from those which1 like the ,earth and planets1 have no such property--a distinction which modern astronomy does not endorse--and that1 as the ,earth in this respect resembles the planets1 and the planets are undoubtedly moving1 so probably the ,earth also is like them in motion1 whilst the ,sun and the stars remain at rest4 ,it is obvious that ideas of this kind1 however plausible they may seem1 are utterly at variance with the theory of universal gravitation1 according to which1 even if the ,sun were a dark1 cold body and the ,earth glowing with heat and light1 the ,earth would revolve about the ,sun just as it does now1 provided the mass of the two bodies remained the same as at present4 ,another suggestion1 and a rather amusing one1 on the opposition side1 was that all things in motion require occasional rest1 as we see to be the fact with animals2 therefore the ,earth1 if it were constantly moving1 would stand in need of rest--an argument1 ,i suppose1 which needs no very elaborate answer4 ,in the third day's dialogue a question is raised1 and sifted at great length1 as to whether a certain newly observed star in the constellation ,cassiopeia was in the firmament among the distant fixed stars1 or 8sublunar10 i4e4 nearer to the ,earth than the ,moon4 ,this star was probably the same as the very remarkable one first observed by ,tycho ,brah in #aegb1 which attained a brilliancy so extraordinary1 that it is said to have been equal to the planet ,venus1 and to have been visible to good eyes in full daylight2 in about a month's time it appeared to grow smaller1 and gradually faded away until it disappeared entirely--about six months after it was first discovered4 ,this was some years before the invention of the telescope1 and the observations were deprived of any assistance they might have gained from that source4 ,the star was one of the most noteworthy of all the variable stars on record4 ,there followed upon the mention of this star1 a dissertation on the method of finding the distances of the heavenly bodies by parallax4 ,the principle of this method was1 as we may suppose1 well known to ,galileo2 but he probably did not allow sufficiently for the great difficulty in taking accurate observations1 especially with the imperfect instruments then in use2 ,i say sufficiently1 because that there were such errors he knew1 and he insists on the fact in the ,dialogue4 ,much discourse is spent on the distance of this new star2 the apparent reason of which is that it had created some sensation among the astronomers of that day1 and therefore the subject received an attention out of proportion to its real importance--,i mean importance so far as the ,copernican controversy was concerned4 ,the conversation is then brought back to the objections made by contemporary philosophers to the ,copernican system4 ,aristotle's idea of the universe was that of a vast sphere1 or number of concentric hollow spheres1 with the ,earth in the centre2 if that were shown to be probably untrue1 his system broke down4#aj ,coming1 however1 to our own immediate portion of the universe1 the question is now raised whether the ,earth or the ,sun is the centre of revolution4 ,galileo1 by the mouth of ,salviati1 explains forcibly the argument for the ,sun being so4 ,that ,mercury and ,venus revolve round the ,sun he takes for certain2 the phases of ,venus1 which he had himself observed1 proved it as regards that planet2 and the fact of neither of these bodies ever being seen far apart from the ,sun1 greatly strengthened the conclusion in respect of both of them4 ,a transit of ,mercury over the ,sun's disc had1 in fact1 been observed in the year #afca1 by ,gassendi2 but ,galileo was doubtless not aware of it when he wrote the ,dialogue4 ,it being clear then that ,venus and ,mercury revolve round the ,sun1 ,galileo shows what strong ground there is for inferring that the superior planets1 ,mars1 ,jupiter1 and ,saturn 7the others not being then known71 do so also2 this he judges from the greater size of these latter1 and particularly of ,mars1 when in opposition than when in conjunction2 whence we may conclude that the ,earth1 which as well as the ,sun is contained within their orbits1 is not in the centre of them1 or nearly so4 ,it is remarkable that ,galileo treats all the planets as revolving in circles1 though one would think he must at that time have been aware of ,kepler's discovery--that they move in ellipses4 ,he makes ,simplicio grant these last-mentioned points1 which is curious2 and he also explains how the telescope showed phenomena1 such as the phases of ,venus1 which were unknown to ,copernicus4 ,simplicio has hitherto had no confidence in this new instrument1 and following in the footsteps of his friends the ,peripatetic philosophers1 has supposed the appearances in question to be optical illusions arising from the lenses used2 he will1 however1 gladly be corrected if in error4 ,simplicio's mathematical acquirements are not very great1 and it is necessary to explain to him that the areas of circles vary in proportion1 not to their diameters simply but to the squares of the diameters1 a point which arises in reference to the false judgment formed by the naked eye as to the size of the celestial bodies1 an error which is corrected by the telescope4 ,then to those who made it a difficulty that the ,earth should move round the ,sun1 not alone1 but accompanied by the ,moon1 ,salviati is made to reply that ,jupiter revolves round the ,sun accompanied by four moons4 ,again the greater simplicity of the ,copernican theory1 in accounting for the planetary motions1 as they appear to us1 is expounded by the same personage4 ,galileo occasionally makes the interlocutors allude to himself as 8il nostro amico comune10 8il nostro ,accademico ,linceo10 etc41 and thus claims credit for having been the first to discover the solar spots1 a credit which ought not to belong exclusively to him1 as ,fabricius and the ,jesuit ,father ,scheiner saw the spots at about the same time4 ,an argument is here attempted to be drawn in favour of the ,earth's annual motion from the apparent course of the ,sun-spots1 and the curves they sometimes describe 7as viewed from hence71 owing to the inclination of the ,sun's axis to an axis perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic--an inclination of about #g2 there is nothing1 however1 at all conclusive in such argument1 because the appearances in question result from the different relative positions of the ,earth and ,sun at different seasons of the year1 and would be the same whichever of the two bodies were in motion4 ,there follows some conversation arising from one of the anti-,copernican books of that day2 one of the difficulties suggested1 being the vast distance at which you must suppose the fixed stars to be placed1 if ,copernicus be right4 ,we who are accustomed to the idea of these immense distances1 can scarcely understand the prejudices of the philosophers of that age against admitting them4 ,and it is worth noting that ,galileo takes for granted1 while answering these theoretical objections1 the calculation of his predecessors--that the distance of the ,sun is that of #a1bjh semi-diameters of the ,earth1 that is something more than #d1hjj1jjj miles1 about one-nineteenth part of what we now know it to be4 ,so also he supposes the size of the ,sun to be much less than what is really the case4 ,he was also under the erroneous impression1 arising doubtless from the imperfection of the instruments he used1 that the stars really had an apparent diameter1 though less than ,tycho ,brah and other astronomers had supposed1 and estimates the angular diameter of a star of the first magnitude at about #e2 consequently he imagined the stars to be much nearer than is actually the fact4 ,it is well known to modern observers1 that the apparent size of a star is the effect of an optical illusion1 and that greatly as the stars vary in brightness1 they present no appreciable diameter at all to the eye2 not even those classed as being of the first magnitude4 ,another and more weighty objection to ,copernicus is1 however1 urged by the mouth of ,simplicio1 and it is this--if the ,earth really makes an annual revolution round the ,sun1 why do not the fixed stars1 viewed as they must be at different seasons of the year from points so widely distant1 change their apparent positions in the heavens8 ,we have just seen that the true distance of the ,sun was not known at that time2--if it had been known1 and if the men of that age had been aware that the diameter of the ,earth's orbit was about #ahd1jjj1jjj miles in length1 the objection would have been still more forcible4 ,but the modern answer to it is conclusive3 the stars1 or rather a certain number of them1 do actually undergo a small displacement in their apparent position every year1 or in the technical language of astronomy1 they have an annual parallax1 a fact which not merely disposes of the objection1 but actually confirms the truth of the ,copernican theory4 ,galileo's reply 7by the mouth of ,salviati7 is to the effect that the followers of ,ptolemy admit that it takes #cf1jjj years to effect a complete revolution of the starry sphere2 then1 judging from the planets1 the length of time required for the orbit is in proportion to the distance1 and we suppose the distance of the starry sphere to be1 on such assumption1 #aj1hjj semi-diameters of the ,earth's orbit 7or ,sun's orbit1 as they called it74 ,at so great a distance as that1 the change of position caused by the ,earth's annual motion round the ,sun would not be appreciable4 ,the principle of this reply is of course quite sound1 and we1 who know the stars to be considerably farther from us than the above estimate supposes1 can well understand that the vast majority of them have no annual parallax whatever1 that the finest instruments can discover4 ,to further objections drawn from the enormous distances of the stars1 and the difficulty of perceiving the use which such remote bodies can be to the ,earth1 it is replied that such speculations are useless and presumptuous1 and also that words like small1 very small1 immense1 etc41 are relative rather than absolute4 ,some pains are taken in the course of the dialogue to explain how the stars1 according to their different positions1 would be affected by annual parallax1 supposing such to be discoverable1 and assuming the motion of the ,earth4 ,and a minute explanation is also given1 on this latter assumption1 of the length of day and night varying in different latitudes according to the seasons2 illustrating the fact that details which appear to us elementary and are taught to schoolboys1 were strange to the minds even of educated and learned men in those days4 ,one remark1 arising from the questions connected with stellar parallax1 is most striking1 as showing how far ,galileo was advanced in his knowledge of pure mathematics as well as of mechanics and astronomy4 ,salviati is made to say that the circumference of an infinite circle is identical with a straight line3 8sono l'istessa cosa40 ,this idea1 familiar though it be to modern mathematicians1 is one that we should not have expected to find enunciated in the early part of the seventeenth century2 even the intelligent ,sagredo cannot understand or believe it1 and it is not further discussed2 but the fact of its being here stated is especially noteworthy4#aa ,another 7less felicitous7 guess is hazarded by the same interlocutor ,salviati1 who1 as ,i have already remarked1 appears to be the one that most nearly represents the author's own mind1--to account for the ,earth keeping her axis pointed 7approximately1 that is to say7 in the same direction during each annual revolution round the ,sun4 ,salviati suggests that it may be due to some magnetic influence1 and that the interior of the ,earth may be a vast loadstone4 ,this is strange1 because it is evident from what immediately preceded1 that the author was aware of the true reason1 which in fact he illustrates by the well-known experiment of a light ball floating in a bucket of water1 to which a revolving motion is imparted4 ,it seems1 however1 that a work by ,william ,gilbert on the subject of magnetism had had some influence on the scientific thought of the period1 and that ,galileo had considered it worthy of his attention4 ,the writer had maintained the probability of this theory1 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 hypothesis4 ,magnetism was attracting the notice of the philosophers of that day1 and the property of the needle1 which is termed the dip1 had been recently discovered4 ,there is not much else worthy of special mention in the third day's dialogue2 which in fact1 as a whole1 is not equal to that of the second day4 ,the fourth day is mainly devoted to the argument drawn from the tides4 ,it was in handling this branch of the subject that ,galileo's great sagacity and power of discernment seem to have deserted him4 ,it is a curious thing that the inhabitant of a ,mediterranean country1 who1 for all that one knows1 never saw a really great tide in his life1 should have seized upon this topic1 and so utterly misused and perverted it4 ,if1 instead of living in ,italy1 he had resided at an ,english seaport1 he would probably have never fallen into the mistakes he thus made4 ,in the ,mediterranean there are currents1 arising from other causes1 which he1 however1 attributed to tidal action2 but for the most part there is little1 if any1 appreciable ebb and flow of the tides1 scarcely any perceptible rise and fall of the sea1 a fact which he particularly notices4 ,but in some few places1 and notably at ,venice1 there is a sensible tide1 so it is said1 causing a difference of a few feet between high and low water4 ,now ,galileo was under the impression that the ebb and flow took each about six hours1 following the ordinary solar day2 whereas1 if he had observed the phenomenon on the shores of any sea1 where the tidal wave of the ocean made its full force to be felt1 or again1 at the mouth of a great tidal river1 he never could have failed to perceive that the rise and fall of the water follow approximately the lunar1 and not the solar day1 the former being fifty minutes longer than the latter4 ,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 gravitation2 and ,galileo1 who lived half a century earlier1 may well be excused for not having grasped it4 ,but it had long been known that the ,sun and ,moon had an influence upon the tides1 and as ,i have just stated1 any one who watched the movements of the sea from day to day1 and from week to week1 at a place where there is a great rise and fall--as for instance1 in the ,bristol ,channel--could not fail to perceive that the ,moon had the principal share in the work1 however unable he might be to comprehend the theory4 ,besides which1 the theory1 however obvious to us 7at least in its main outlines71 was not by any means so intelligible to the men of ,galileo's age4 ,they might just guess that the ,sun exercised some attractive influence over the ,earth1 and the ,earth again over the ,moon1 but they did not know that the ,moon attracted the ,earth exactly in the same way1 though with far inferior potency1 owing to her much smaller mass2 and consequently they were not aware of the ,moon's power to raise the great tidal wave in the ocean1 to which are due the remarkable phenomena so familiar to the inhabitants of the ,english coasts4 ,galileo would have been wise if he had not touched on a point which he neither understood in theory1 nor had properly acquainted himself with by practical observation4 ,good causes are often damaged by bad arguments1 and such was the case on this occasion4#ab ,there was1 however1 something ingenious in his argument4 ,if you take a basin of water1 and move it along quite smoothly and evenly1 no great commotion in the water takes place2 but suppose some stoppage or jerk to occur1 the result will be1 as we know1 very different4 ,now the ,earth has two motions1 one round its axis in twenty-four hours1 and the other round the ,sun in one year2 every point1 then1 on the ,earth's surface moves through space more rapidly while on that side of the globe which is turned away from the ,sun1 than on that side which by the diurnal revolution is turned round in the contrary direction4 ,here1 then1 with the sea lying in its vast basin1 and revolving with other things on the surface of the ,earth from west to east every day1 and thus accelerated in its motion through space during twelve hours and retarded during the other twelve hours1 you have on a large scale the same result that a basin1 half full of water1 held in your hands and checked by some retarding obstacle1 gives you on a very small and minute scale4 ,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 vehicle1 partook of the motion of the latter and followed its course 7so long as it remained within the vehicle7 just as if the whole were at rest--that he should have failed to perceive that the ocean1 lying in its bed in that mighty vehicle the ,earth1 would be carried round in the daily rotation with an uniform velocity1 unless interfered with by the attraction of other bodies4 ,simplicio1 who for once is right1 puts the difficulty1 that if the sea behaved in the way supposed1 the air would do so in the same way3 the reply to which is that the air being thin and light is less adherent to the ,earth than the water which is heavier1 and does not accommodate itself to the ,earth's movements as water does2 further1 that where the air is not hemmed in1 as it were1 by mountains and other inequalities on the ,earth's surface1 it really is partially left behind by the diurnal rotation1 and in the neighbourhood of the tropics1 where the effect is chiefly felt1 a constant wind blows accordingly from east to west4 ,our philosopher had evidently heard of the trade winds1 though he had not acquired an accurate knowledge of their course or of their origin4 ,it is undoubtedly true that they do help strongly to prove the revolution of the ,earth1 because they arise from cold currents of air flowing in from the north and from the south respectively towards the tropics1 to supply the place of the atmosphere rarefied by the sun's heat1 and consequently ascending1 as is the case in those regions4 ,then these cold currents1 coming from latitudes where there is a less velocity of rotation1 tend to preserve that velocity and lag behind the ,earth as it revolves1 so that they have the effect of north-easterly winds in the northern hemisphere1 and south-easterly in the southern hemisphere4 ,galileo's imperfect information prevented him from using this important argument4 ,however1 to return to the tides4 ,he had to account for other phenomena1 besides the daily rise and fall1 namely1 for the much greater rise and fall which take place soon after new and full moon1 and which are known as the spring-tides4 ,unable to deny that these were in some way due to lunar influence1 he took refuge in the supposition that the ,moon1 when at the full1 retarded the motion of the ,earth in its orbit1 since as the two travel together round the ,sun at those particular times1 they form1 as it were1 a lengthened pendulum1 longer than at other times by the semi-diameter of the lunar orbit2 and therefore 7like any other pendulum7 must vibrate more slowly4 ,i should say that he does not appear to have been aware of the existence of two spring-tides in each lunation1 and therefore only tries to account for one2 and it is obvious that this method of explaining them is not only utterly inadequate1 but even absurd4 ,the ,moon truly enough exercises a certain disturbing influence on the orbital motion of the ,earth1 but that has nothing to do with the spring-tides4 ,there remained the necessity of accounting for the annual1 or1 more properly1 semi-annual increase of the ebb and flow of the sea4 ,galileo suggests that this arises from the angle made by the plane of the equator with the ecliptic at the equinoxes1 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 solstices4 ,but it seems that this would rather tend to diminish the tides than to increase them1 as1 indeed1 would be the case as regards the last-mentioned explanation with respect to the ordinary spring-tides4 ,what really does happen at the equinoxes is1 that the ,sun and the full or new ,moon being at those times vertical to the equator 7or nearly so71 they have a greater attractive force than at other spring-tides over the vast expanse of the ocean1 and the tides are consequently greater4 ,there is also another increase which sometimes occurs when the ,moon happens to be at its least distance from the ,earth at the time of spring-tides1 but that was unknown to ,galileo4 ,he touches1 however1 and very properly so1 on the great modifications in the tides caused by various gulfs1 by the forms of the great continents1 and the shapes of different seas--modifications1 in fact1 which are well known to be almost innumerable1 and have been learnt only by careful observation and experience4 ,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 own2 and it is difficult to suppress a feeling of disgust when he alludes in this way to ,kepler1 who had partly guessed the true cause of the tides1 and of whom he otherwise speaks in terms of respect4#ac ,if a man of science1 when he wishes to publish to the world a discovery or a hypothesis1 adopts the form of a dialogue as a method of stating his case1 he ought in all reason to do full justice to the antagonistic side1 and state his opponent's case as well as his own4 ,i fear that ,galileo failed to do this1 not only in this particular dialogue1 but also to some extent in those of the three preceding days4 ,simplicio1 as ,i said above1 is not a fool1 but as a personage in a scientific argument he is lamentably deficient4 ,simplicio at the end of the ,dialogue urges that ,god could1 in ,his infinite power1 cause the tides by some other means than those suggested by ,salviati1 to which true and pious 7though1 perhaps1 rather irrelevant7 argument the latter respectfully and devoutly assents4 ,the concluding sentences are said1 as ,i have remarked elsewhere1 to have been recast or retouched by ,father ,riccardi4 ,it is worth noticing that there is a passage in the fourth day's dialogue1 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 equinox1 than in passing from the autumnal to the vernal2 that is to say1 of the northern hemisphere having so much longer summer than winter1 and he treats it as one of the recondite problems of astronomy not as yet understood4 ,this is an additional proof that for some reason or another he had not made himself acquainted with ,kepler's researches2 for as soon as it became known that the planets move1 not in circles1 but in ellipses1 with the ,sun in one of the foci1 it was obvious that there would be in every case 7though in some more than others7 this inequality to which allusion has been made1 and the ,earth1 if a planet1 would be subject to the same rule as the rest4 ,such1 then1 is a somewhat imperfect prcis of this famous work of ,galileo1 which owes its importance to the historical circumstances connected with its publication quite as much1 to say the least of it1 as to its own intrinsic merit4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,resuming the history of events1 we find that early in the year #afcb the printing of the ,dialogue was completed4 ,the author caused some copies to be bound and gilt and sent to ,rome4 ,it was not easy to pass them1 on account of the quarantine2 yet some amongst them found their way1 and great was the sensation caused in the ecclesiastical world by their appearance4 ,there were a few admirers of ,galileo who approved warmly2 but there was the ,school of ,aristotle1 as in these enlightened days there is the ,school of ,darwin1#ad and they could not bear that anything should be published reflecting on the scientific infallibility of their great philosopher4 ,thus we find that ,father ,scheiner1 writing to ,gassendi1 observed that ,galileo had written his work 8contra communem ,peripateticorum ,scholam40 ,the agitation against the book was successful1 and a report arose forthwith that it would be condemned4 ,the report was no mere canard1 as the subsequent proceedings soon showed4 ,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 copies1 and he also sent for those which had been brought to ,rome4 ,nor was this all4 ,in the following month the ,pope ordered that a letter should be written to the ,inquisitor of ,florence1 enjoining him to direct ,galileo to present himself in ,rome in the month of ,october1 in order to explain his conduct4 ,the book had already been examined by special ,commission--a step taken with the view of pleasing the ,grand ,duke of ,tuscany1 so as to avoid bringing the affair before the ,inquisition4 ,the ,pope1 from whatever cause1 was much displeased4 ,this appeared in a conversation with ,niccolini1 the ,tuscan ,ambassador1 in which ,his ,holiness said that ,galileo had entered on ground which he ought not to have touched1 and that both ,ciampoli and the ,master of the ,sacred ,palace had been deceived4 ,still it seemed that1 so far1 there was no intention to do more than censure the book and demand a retractation4 ,the special ,commission1 of which mention has just been made1 after a month's interval1 reported that ,galileo had been disobedient to orders in the following respects3 ,affirming as an absolute truth the movement of the ,earth instead of stating it as a hypothesis2 attributing the tides to this cause--i4e4 to the revolution and movement of the ,earth2 deceitfully keeping silence as to the order given him in #afaf to abandon the opinion that the ,earth revolved1 and that the ,sun was the centre of the universe4 ,another memorial 7drawn up about the same time71 after enumerating the facts of the case1 stated eight heads of accusation against the philosopher3 #a4--;,having1 without leave1 placed at the beginning of his work the permission for printing1 delivered at ,rome4 #b4--;,having1 in the body of the work1 put the true doctrine in the mouth of a fool1 and having approved it but feebly by the argument of another interlocutor4 #c4--;,having quitted the region of hypothesis by affirming1 in an absolute manner1 the mobility of the ,earth and the stability of the ,sun1 etc4 #d4--;,having treated the subject as one that was not already decided1 and in the attitude of a person waiting for a definition1 and supposing it to have not been yet promulgated4 #e4--;,having despised the authors who were opposed to the above-mentioned opinion1 though the ,church uses them in preference to others4 #f4--;,having affirmed 7untruly7 the equality supposed to exist1 for understanding geometrical matters1 between the divine and human intellect4 #g4--;,having stated1 as a truth1 that the partisans of ,ptolemy ought to range themselves with those of ,copernicus1 and denied the converse4 #h4--;,having wrongly attributed the tides to the stability of the ,sun and mobility of the ,earth1 which things do not exist4 ,it must be observed that all this was merely of the nature of an accusation1 and was in no way an ecclesiastical decision4 ,it appears1 too1 that some apprehensions were entertained in ,rome that false philosophical and theological doctrines might be drawn out of the opinion put forth by ,galileo4 ,no4 #f of the above-mentioned accusations points in that direction4 ,at any rate1 no time was lost in summoning the philosopher to ,rome1 there to answer for his offences4 ,a message to that effect was communicated to him by the ,inquisitor at ,florence1 on the #ast ,october4 ,upon this1 ,galileo1 anxious to gain time1 and to excuse himself from going to ,rome1 if it were possible to do so1 wrote to ,cardinal ,barberini1 and sought the powerful advocacy of the ,grand ,duke of ,tuscany2 he urged his infirm health1 and advanced age1 nearly seventy years1 as grounds for consideration4 ,it was intimated to him1 however1 that although some little time would be allowed him on the ground of health1 yet to ,rome he must come2 and a threat was added1 through the ,inquisitor at ,florence1 of bringing him fettered as a prisoner if it turned out that his health was not really such as he represented it to be4 ,so at last he yielded1 and started for ,rome on the #bjth ,january1 #afcc1 and1 travelling very slowly1 arrived on the #acth ,february1 when the ,tuscan ,ambassador1 ,niccolini1 who had sent his litter for him1 received him at his ,palace4 ,this1 with all the freedom it implied1 was indeed an unusual indulgence to persons situated as he was4 ,after a short time1 during which no official steps were taken1 he was conveyed to the office of the ,inquisition1 and lodged there1 but well and commodiously1 by the ,pope's order4 ,on the #abth ,april he appeared for the first time before the ,court2 he admitted the authorship of the ,dialogue2 he admitted1 too1 that the decree of the ,index had been notified to him2 but stated that ,cardinal ,bellarmine had informed him that it was allowable to hold the ,copernican doctrine as a hypothesis4 ,he maintained further that he had not contravened the order given him1 that he should not defend or support this doctrine2 and he declared that he did not remember having been forbidden in any way to teach it4 ,it would seem that this latter prohibition was meant to include teaching by implication1 such as one may do through the medium of an interlocutor in a dialogue4 ,it is startling that ,galileo should have said among other things on this occasion1 that he had not embraced or defended in his book the opinion that the ,earth is in motion and the ,sun stationary2 but1 on the contrary1 had shown that the reasons produced by ,copernicus were feeble and inconclusive4 ,after this examination he was well lodged1 though treated as a prisoner1 being placed in the apartments of the 8,fiscal of the ,holy ,office10 instead of in the ordinary chambers appropriated to accused persons2 moreover1 he had leave to walk in the garden1 and was attended by his own servant4 ,he said himself1 in a letter to his friend ,bocchineri1 that his health was good1 and that he had every attention shown to him by the ,tuscan ,ambassador and ,ambassadress4 ,it is well to note these things1 because they dispose of the popular accusations of cruelty which have been made by ignorant or malicious controversialists1 although the antagonists with whom ,i am dealing are too well informed to resort to them4 ,a slight indisposition from which our philosopher suffered about this time1 illustrated still further the desire which existed to treat him with personal kindness2 the ,commissary and the ,fiscal charged with the process1 both visited him and spoke encouragingly to him4 ,as soon as he had recovered he requested to have a further hearing4 ,this took place on the #cjth ,april2 but meanwhile1 three theologians1 who had been consulted1 ,augustin ,orezzi1 ,melchior ,inchofer1 and ,zacharias ,pasqualigo1 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 ,sun4 ,at the hearing on the #cjth ,april1 being asked to say whatever occurred to him1 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--8se contro alla mia purissima intenzione1 per mia inavertenza0--by which he had been at all disobedient to the order imposed on him in #afaf2 and he had found there were some arguments1 notably about the solar spots and the tides1 which he had put too forcibly1 and which he thought could be refuted4 ,as regards the latter of these two points we may1 ,i think1 cordially agree with him in his retractation3 but it had been a favourite argument with him4 ,he also stated on this occasion--not having1 ,i fear1 the courage of his convictions--that he had not held as true the condemned opinion as to the ,earth's motion1 and was ready to write something fresh in order to refute it1 if the time to do so were allowed him4 ,on this same day 7#cjth ,april7 the ,commissary-,general of the ,inquisition1 with the ,pope's sanction1 allowed ,galileo to be imprisoned1 under certain conditions1 at the ,palace of the ,tuscan ,ambassador1 this favour being conceded on account of his age and health4 ,he was again called before the ,court on the #ajth ,may1 and he then presented a written statement1 to which was appended the original of ,cardinal ,bellarmine's injunction1 laid on him in #afaf4 ,it contained certain prohibitions1 but not the word 8teach40 ,he pleaded also that he had done his best to avoid all fault in his book1 which he had himself submitted to the ,grand ,inquisitor4 ,now follows what seems like more severe treatment1 whether because he had not impressed his judges with a belief in his candour and sincerity1 or from other reasons4 ,however1 the ,pope1 on the #afth ,june1 gave orders that he should be questioned as to his intention2 then1 after he had been threatened with torture 7apparently without any view of putting the threat into execution71 and made to pronounce an abjuration full and entire1 that he should be condemned to prison according to the discretion of the ,inquisition2 also that his treatise should be prohibited1 and himself forbidden to treat1 either by word or writing1 on the subject of the ,sun and the ,earth4 ,yet1 with all this1 the ,pope1 two days afterwards1 said to ,niccolini1 the ,tuscan ,ambassador1 that it was impossible not to prohibit this opinion 7,copernicanism7 as it was contrary to the ,holy ,scriptures1 and that ,galileo must remain a prisoner for some time for having contravened the orders given him in #afaf1 but that he 7the ,pope7 would see if the condemnation could be mitigated4 ,it appears that he was thinking of sentencing him to a temporary seclusion in the ,monastery of ,santa ,croce1 at ,florence4 ,when1 in pursuance of the ,pope's order1 ,galileo was questioned 7#bast ,june71 he was asked how long it was since he had held the opinion that the ,sun1 and not the ,earth1 was the centre of the universe2 to which he replied that long before the decree of #afaf he held that the two opinions could equally be sustained2 but that since the decree1 convinced as he was of the prudence of the superior authorities1 all uncertainty in his mind had ceased1 that he had then adopted1 and still held1 the opinion of ,ptolemy on the mobility of the ,sun as true and indubitable4 ,certain passages in his book were then put to him as being irreconcilable with the statements he was making2 and yet he maintained that1 though he had stated the case pro and con in his work1 he did not1 in his heart1 hold the condemned opinion4 8,concludo dunque dentro di me medesimo ne tenere ne haver tenuto dopo la determinazione delli ,superiori la dannata opinione40 ,threatened with torture if he did not tell the truth1 he persevered in his answer as already given2 upon which the tribunal1 after making him sign his deposition1 dismissed him4 ,on the next day1 the #bbnd ,june1 he was taken to ,santa ,maria ,sopra ,minerva1 and brought before the ,cardinals and ,prelates of the ,congregation1 that he might hear his sentence and pronounce his abjuration4 ,the accusation was that he had openly violated the order given him not to maintain ,copernicanism2 that he had unfairly extorted permission to print his book1 without showing the prohibition received in #afaf2 that he had maintained the condemned opinion1 although he alleged that he had left it undecided and as simply probable--which1 however1 was still a grave error1 since an opinion declared contrary to ,scripture could not in any way be probable4 ,his sentence was to the effect that he had rendered himself strongly suspected of heresy in believing and maintaining a doctrine false and opposed to ,holy ,scripture in respect of the motion of the ,sun and the ,earth1 and in believing that one might maintain and defend any opinion after it had been declared to be contrary to ,holy ,scripture4 ,he had1 therefore1 incurred the censures in force against those who offend in such ways2 from which1 however1 he would be absolved provided that1 with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith1 he would abjure the said errors and heresies2 but1 as a penance and as a warning to others1 he was to undergo certain inflictions4 ,the book was henceforth to be prohibited1 he himself was to be condemned to the ordinary prison of the ,holy ,office for a time the ,holy ,office would itself limit1 and he was to recite the seven ,penitential ,psalms once a week for three years4 ,the ,holy ,office reserved to itself the power to remit or change part or all of the above-named penances4 ,galileo abjured1 accordingly1 as directed4 ,the well-known legend that after his abjuration he stamped on the ground with his foot1 saying3 8,e pur si muove0 7,and yet it1 i4e4 the ,earth1 does move71 is not found in any contemporary author1 and first appears towards the end of the eighteenth century4 ,it is also to the last degree improbable2 ,galileo was in far too great dread of his judges to provoke them by openly perpetrating such an action2 and if he did it sotto voce1 who heard it1 and who testified to it8 ,the late ,dr4 ,whewell in his 8,history of the ,inductive ,sciences10 suggests that it was 8uttered as a playful epigram in the ear of a ,cardinal's secretary1 with a full knowledge that it would be immediately repeated to his master40 ,this writer is eminently fair1 though naturally he writes from a ,protestant point of view2 but he takes the extraordinary line of maintaining what ,i think no one who knows all the facts could possibly suppose1 namely1 that the whole thing was a kind of solemn farce1 and that the ,inquisitors did not believe ,galileo's abjuration to be sincere1 or even wish it to be so2 thus he says3 8though we may acquit the ,popes and ,cardinals of ,galileo's time of stupidity and perverseness in rejecting manifest scientific truths1 ,i do not see how we can acquit them of dissimulation and duplicity40 ,that is1 he thinks the process was a piece of decorous solemnity1 adopted to hoodwink the ecclesiastical public4 ,i do not think it necessary to discuss so improbable a theory4 ,and the story of 8,e pur si muove10 as also that of bodily torture or any personal cruelty being inflicted on ,galileo1 may1 ,i venture to think1 be dismissed into the realm of fable4 ,the ,pope1 without delay1 commuted the sentence of imprisonment to one of seclusion in the ,palace of the ,tuscan ,ambassador1 on the ,monte ,pincio1 after which ,galileo was allowed to retire to ,sienna1 to the ,palace of the ,archbishop of that place1 ,piccolomini1 one of his warmest friends1 from whom he received every possible attention4 ,indeed1 the ,archbishop seems to have gone beyond the limits of prudence1 considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the temper of the times1 in the enthusiasm of his admiration for the great astronomer1 and to have hinted to various persons that1 in his opinion1 he had been unjustly condemned1 that he was the greatest man in the world and would always live in his writings1 even those that had been prohibited2 such1 at least1 was the report that found its way to ,rome1 and it caused great prejudice to ,galileo4 ,he had received permission to go to his country house at ,arcetri1 near ,florence1 on condition that he lived there quietly1 receiving only the visits of his friends and relatives1 in such a way as not to give umbrage2 and the report1 to which allusion has just been made1 coupled with the accusation that1 under the encouragement of his host the ,archbishop1 he had spread opinions that were not soundly ,catholic in the city of ,sienna1 caused some additional strictness to be enforced as to the manner of his seclusion4 ,thus he was detained for four years in his villa1 and was refused permission to go to ,florence for medical treatment1 it being1 however1 apparent that the villa was sufficiently near to the city to enable physicians and surgeons to go to him when required4 ,later on1 in #afch1 when his sufferings had increased1 and he had become 7wholly or partially7 blind1 permission was given him to reside in ,florence1 on condition that he should not speak to his visitors on the subject of the movement of the ,earth4 ,of this concession he availed himself1 and lived for his few remaining years in ,florence1 occupying himself with scientific pursuits4 ,in this same year he published at ,leyden a work entitled1 8,dialoghi delle ,nuove ,scienze02 this1 in fact1 was his last work of importance1 and he died on the #hth ,january1 #afdb1 in his seventy-eighth year4 ,it is not easy to form an accurate estimate of the character of ,galileo1 so far1 at least1 as affected by the proceedings just related4 ,by some he has been called a 8,martyr of ,science02 but a martyr1 unless the word be used in a loose and inaccurate sense1 ought1 above all things1 to have the courage of his convictions1 and as we have seen1 that was hardly the case with ,galileo4 ,i will here again quote ,dr4 ,whewell's work on the 8,history of the ,inductive ,sciences10 and this time in agreement with his words3 8,i do not see with what propriety ,galileo can be looked upon as a martyr of science4 ,undoubtedly he was very desirous of promoting what he conceived to be the cause of philosophical truth2 but it would seem that1 while he was restless and eager in urging his opinions1 he was always ready to make such submissions as the spiritual tribunals required4444 ,but in this case 7i4e4 the case of his refusing to abjure7 he would have been a martyr to a cause of which the merit was of a mingled character2 for his own special and favourite share in the reasonings by which the ,copernican system was supported1 was the argument drawn from the flux and reflux of the sea1 which argument is altogether false40 ,yet though we deny him the credit of having been a hero or a martyr1 we must not be too severe in condemning him4 ,he was old and enfeebled by bad health2 moreover1 his friends had advised him to submit fully and unreservedly to the tribunal of the ,inquisition4 ,and to this we may add the following considerations4 ,there can be little doubt that he held the ,copernican theory as a very probable opinion2 how1 indeed1 with his knowledge of astronomy1 and with his own discoveries before his eyes1 could it be otherwise8 ,but it is very possible that he had no fixed1 absolute conviction on the subject2 he was a sincere ,catholic1 and had a deep respect for the ,pope and for the ,church1 and1 unlike modern scientific men1 he probably allowed some weight to the decisions of ecclesiastical authorities4 ,remembering all this1 we may well admit that there is much to palliate his conduct1 though not fully to justify it4 ,but his want of candour evidently prejudiced his judges against him4 ,they accepted his reiterated denials of belief1 even a qualified belief1 in ,copernicanism1 but they did not credit them as being true4 ,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 this3 that he could not help believing ,copernicanism to be a probable hypothesis on purely scientific grounds1 and more than this1 the then-existing state of astronomical knowledge would not have justified him in saying3 that he left to the ecclesiastical authorities henceforth the entire question of reconciling the theory with ,holy ,scripture1 and that he would not in future teach it even as a hypothesis1 or publish any work so teaching it1 without permission4 ,a statement of this nature1 coupled with an apology for any indiscretion connected with the publication of the ,dialogue1 might have availed him better than the line he adopted1 and would at least have had the merit of candour4 ,a few words may here be added on the scientific character of ,galileo2 in this respect he was1 with the exception of ,kepler1 the first man of his age4 ,he has the credit of being the discoverer of the first law of motion2 but whether he fully realised this all-important law1 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 discoverers1 but who do not perceive the full scope and the ultimate bearing of the truths on which they have lighted1 ,i need not here discuss4 ,he did1 however1 state the law in a ,dialogue on mechanics1 published in #afch1 in these words3 8,i imagine a movable body projected in a horizontal plane1 all impediments to motion being removed2 it is then manifest from what has been said more fully elsewhere1 that its 7the body's7 motion will be uniform and perpetual upon the plane1 if the plane be extended to infinity40 ,this of course involves the principle of the first of the three laws of motion1 the ,newtonian laws1 as they are frequently called1 because the man whose name they bear was the one who used them clearly and consistently as the basis of a great astronomical theory4 ,the law1 as now usually stated1 is fuller and more explicit than that given by ,galileo1 and may be enunciated thus3 8,every body perseveres in its state of rest1 or of uniform motion in a straight line1 unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed on it40 ,it is1 however1 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 uniform1 and should have stated in the language just quoted the true mechanical doctrine1 unknown to his predecessors1 unknown even to ,kepler1 a doctrine which involved nothing less than a revolution in the conception of the laws of motion4 ,nor was this his only contribution to the science of mechanics2 he it was who first understood the law that regulates the velocity of falling bodies2 he perceived that they were acted upon by an uniformly accelerating force1 that of terrestrial gravity1 and that the velocity at any given point is proportional to the time of descent4 ,the principle of virtual velocities is said by some persons to have been discovered by ,galileo1 and it appears that he stated it fully and clearly2 but he can scarcely be said to be the discoverer of it1 as it had been known to others1 and had even--at least as exemplified in the case of the lever--been noticed by ,aristotle4 ,there is1 however1 no doubt that ,galileo was the greatest man of his day in mechanical knowledge1 whether we attribute more or less weight to the light he threw on particular details4 ,in astronomy he was necessarily a discoverer1 for the all-important reason that1 as already stated1 he was the first man that ever used the telescope for investigating the phenomena of the heavens4 ,he thus saw what no one previously had seen1#ae the satellites of ,jupiter1 the spots on the ,sun1 and the moon-like phases of the planet ,venus1 besides the greatly increased number of stars1 so many of which are invisible to the naked eye4 ,the first-mentioned of these discoveries1 that of the satellites of ,jupiter1 seems to have created an immense sensation among the savants of that day4 ,it suggested that the theories of ,ptolemy were anything but complete or correct1 and yet it proved nothing1 excepting against those priori reasoners1 who would not believe that a body round which a moon circulated could itself be in motion2 but the phases of ,venus were simply conclusive against the ,ptolemaic system1 and for this reason3 ,according to that system ,venus was a planet revolving round the ,earth in an orbit outside that of ,mercury1 but within that of the ,sun4 ,now the phases of ,venus did not correspond with any supposed period of her revolution round the ,earth1 as the phases of the ,moon obviously do1 nor did any one ever imagine that the ,earth went round ,venus4 ,they did1 however1 correspond with the time of a probable orbit in which either ,venus revolved round the ,sun or the ,sun round ,venus2 and here again this latter alternative was inadmissible4 ,there remained1 therefore1 the one only reasonable solution of the phenomenon1 namely1 that ,venus travelled in an orbit round the ,sun4 ,this was further confirmed when1 in ,december1 #afci1 our own countryman1 ,horrox1 at that time a young curate residing in the north of ,england1 but gifted with a knowledge of astronomy which would have done credit to a man of double his age and experience1 observed a transit of the planet across the ,sun's disc4 ,this occurred some few years after ,galileo's condemnation2 but it may be remarked that ,gassendi had already1 in ,november1 #afca1 witnessed a transit of ,mercury4 ,thus it appeared that these two planets revolved round the ,sun1 contrary to what ,ptolemy had supposed4 ,and yet this was not conclusive in favour of ,copernicanism1 for the theory of ,tycho ,brah was precisely to this effect3 that the planets revolved round the ,sun1 and that the ,sun in his turn circulated round the ,earth4 ,this hypothesis was of the nature of a compromise1 and it has been said that ,tycho was led to it by his interpretation of ,scripture rather than of ,nature2 yet he was one of the best astronomers and best observers of his age1 and had ,kepler for one of his pupils4 ,he had a reason1 too1 for rejecting ,copernicanism which in his time seemed to have considerable weight1 namely1 the incredible distances at which the fixed stars must be supposed to be placed if the theory were true1 since no sensible motion could be detected among them--apparent motion1 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 planets4 ,we know now how futile this objection is1 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 distances4 ,if ,tycho had lived longer1 we may well doubt whether he would have adhered to his system4 ,kepler saw its weakness1 and was the first to discover the true nature of the curves which both the ,earth and the planets describe in their respective orbits2 and this1 although he did not know the first law of motion4 ,his books1 published in #afai and #afbb1 stated not only the elliptic form of the orbits1 which no one previously had found out1 but also the important law connecting the distances of the planets with their periods of revolution4 ,it is necessary to bear in mind how gradually these various items of knowledge dawned upon the scientific world1 and how imperfect was the state in which the study of astronomy remained until the discovery of that great law of gravitation1 which binds together and regulates the physical universe4 ,men of mature years had not then learnt the lesson now taught to youths at college1 that in natural science we must discard priori arguments1 and trust to the experimental method for guidance4 ,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 7which was inevitable71 but even of that of their own day4 ,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 embryo1 we may readily grant it4 ,we may allow also that some of the recent discoveries of ,galileo1 as1 for instance1 that of the phases of ,venus1 were not at first fully appreciated1 nor their bearing on the controversy perfectly understood1 excepting by professed astronomers4 ,it required careful observation to perceive that this planet's phases were only to be explained on the theory of her revolving round the ,sun4 ,on the other hand1 if these ecclesiastics were wise enough to see the futility of ,galileo's argument drawn from the tides1 it is certainly not for us to blame them2 the tides have nothing to do with the questions then at issue4 ,and it is only fair to remember that supposing ,ptolemy completely overthrown1 as in reality he assuredly was1 by the observations on ,venus and ,mercury1 there remained the system of ,tycho ,brah1 as has been remarked already1 and this system partly met the case of those phenomena that ,ptolemy failed in accounting for2 and although we can easily see now that it was something of the nature of a makeshift1 at that time there was no clear or conclusive evidence against it4 ,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 books1 and that of the ,inquisition punishing ,galileo individually1 and forcing him to abjure his real or imputed opinions on the ,copernican system of astronomy4 ,i trust ,i shall not lose sight of my position as a lay theologian 7in the sense ,i have defined the term71 or trespass upon strictly ecclesiastical preserves2 but ,i may surely say at once1 that it is evident no decision was pronounced on any matter of faith4 ,the first case1 that of the ,index in #afaf1 ,i have already discussed2 and as for the latter one1 that of the ,inquisition1 it seems hardly credible that any one should maintain that the sentence of a ,roman tribunal on an individual1 however eminent1 could constitute an ex cathedr decision on a question of faith4 ,mr4 ,roberts1 however1 seems to maintain something very like this2 but he does so by taking some strong1 and perhaps extreme1 statements made by theologians1 such as ,m4 ,bouix and ,dr4 ,ward1 when writing on some totally different point1 and by urging that if these things are true1 then ,galileo's condemnation was tantamount to a definition de fide4 ,i do not feel called upon to answer arguments of this kind4 ,but there is another which is more relevant1 drawn from the ,brief addressed by ,pope ,pius ,,ix4 to the ,archbishop of ,munich1 about twenty-five years ago1 when the congress of philosophers1 of whom ,dr4 ,dllinger was the leading spirit1 had been held in that city4 ,in that ,brief1 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 ,congregations2 and also to such heads of doctrine as are held to be theological truths by the common consent of ,catholics1 even when the denial of these does not involve heresy1 but deserves some other censure4 ,theologians1 ,i believe1 are not agreed as to whether this ,brief is strictly ex cathedr1 and therefore to be treated as infallible4 ,but let us assume that it is so4 ,does the expression1 8subject themselves in conscience10 mean necessarily anything more than a respectful acquiescence1 as distinguished from a full interior assent8 ,and1 allowing that it does even mean this latter1 it is for doctrinal decisions that such authority is claimed2 and what ,i am maintaining is1 that the decrees in the case of ,galileo were purely disciplinary4 ,i do not of course deny that the line of demarcation between doctrinal and disciplinary is sometimes hard to define4 ,but surely the putting of books on the 8,index ,librorum ,prohibitorum10 whatever be the reasons stated for doing so1 is essentially an act of discipline2 and so also is the condemnation of any individual man for having disobeyed injunctions laid upon him by authority1 or for having disregarded the principles laid down by the same authority for the regulation of its practical conduct1 so long as they were in force1 and not repealed by any subsequent act4 ,and this leads me to touch upon another argument of ,mr4 ,roberts1 who says1 truly enough1 that the authority of ,rome is greater than that of individual theologians1 and that ,rome must know her own mind4 ,and because the decision of the ,inquisition in #afcc1 condemning ,galileo personally1 referred in strong and marked language to the decree of the ,index in #afaf1 therefore he infers that the latter is thereby proved to have been1 in the judgment of ,rome herself1 a doctrinal decision in the strict sense of the words4 ,it is quite true that the ,inquisition said that ,galileo had done wrong in treating ,copernicanism as a probable opinion1 since by no means could an opinion be probable that had been declared and defined to be contrary to ,holy ,scripture2 they also said in allusion to the decree of the ,index that the books treating of the doctrine had been prohibited1 and the doctrine--i4e4 ,copernicanism--had been declared false and altogether contrary to sacred and ,divine ,scripture4 ,but a stream cannot rise higher than its source2 and the ,inquisition itself1 having no other powers but those entrusted to it by the ,pope1 had no authority to put any more stringent interpretation on the decree of #afaf than what it already bore4 ,so far as its actual wording goes1 it is palpably a disciplinary decree1 though founded on a doctrinal reason2 and when the ,inquisition cited it as if it were more than this1 their language must be interpreted in accordance with the facts of the case2 that is1 as meaning that for the purposes of discipline1 and for all practical intents and purposes1 it had been defined that such a theory as that of ,copernicus was inadmissible1 and on the ground that it was contrary to ,scripture as hitherto understood4 ,but a decision of that nature is not irrevocable2 it holds good as long as the ecclesiastical authorities determine it should do so1 and no longer4 ,rome must know her own mind1 ,mr4 ,roberts says2 and she has shown her own mind1 and borne out the construction ,i am putting on her acts1 by further and subsequent action2 for1 after suspending the prohibitions against ,copernicanism--or modifying them--in #ageg1 a distinct permission was given in #ahbj to teach the theory of the ,earth's movement2 and again1 in #ahbb1 the permission was repeated in a more formal manner1 and with the express sanction of the ,pope1 ,leo ,,xii4 ,now we know that doctrinal decrees1 once fully sanctioned and promulgated by the ,holy ,see1 are irreversible2 but disciplinary enactments are changed according to the needs of the time and the circumstances of the ,christian world4#af ,if1 then1 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 existence1 it is certain that ,rome1 who knows her own mind as well after the lapse of two hundred years as after that of seventeen years1 considered them as appertaining to the province of discipline and not to that of dogma4 ,moreover1 ,pius ,,ix41 when addressing the ,archbishop of ,munich1 must have been well aware of the above-named facts1 and when he enunciated the simple rule that good ,catholics ought to submit in conscience to the doctrinal decrees of the ,roman ,congregations--indeed1 how can any one imagine the rule to be anything else8--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 ,copernicus4 ,it must1 nevertheless1 be observed that an argument has been adduced by ,mr4 ,roberts1 and repeated even by so eminent a writer as ,mr4 ,mivart1 as if it were something that threw a new and important light on the subject4 ,it is that ,pope ,alexander ,,vii41 on the #eth ,march1 #affd1 published a ,bull--known as the ,bull 8,speculatores0--approving a new and authentic edition of the ,index of prohibited books1 which ,index contained the decree of #afaf1 and also the monitum of #afbj1 ordering certain corrections in the work of ,copernicus1 so that the theory he advocated should be stated merely as a hypothesis--in the preamble of which monitum1 however1 it is stated that the principles of ,copernicus1 relating to the movement of the ,earth1 were contrary to the true and ,catholic interpretation of ,holy ,scripture--and contained also an edict1 signed by ,bellarmine1 prohibiting and condemning ,kepler's work1 8,epitome ,astronomi ,copernican20 an edict of ,august1 #afcd1 prohibiting ,galileo's ,dialogue2 and in fine1 a prohibition of all books teaching the movement of the ,earth and the immobility of the ,sun4 ,in the year following this ,bull another ,index was also published1 in which the following words occur1 under the head ,libri1 as being forbidden to the faithful3 8,libri omnes1 et quicumque libelli1 commentarii1 compositiones1 consulta1 epistol1 gloss1 opuscula1 orationes1 responsa1 tractatus1 tam typis editi1 quam manuscripti1 continentes et tractantes infrascriptas materias1 seu de infrascriptis materiis444 ,de mobilitate terr1 et immobilitate ,solis40 ,this1 of course1 is very sweeping1 as it includes all pamphlets and letters1 and even writings in manuscript1 advocating ,copernicanism4 ,now1 in reply to all this1 ,i think ,i may remark that even lay theologians know1 or ought to know1 that ,papal ,bulls are divided into two distinct classes--dogmatic and disciplinary4 ,the first1 according to the doctrine of the ,catholic ,church1 are held to be infallible1 but still only as regards the decisions on faith or morals therein laid down1 and not in respect of the reasons alleged2 the second stand in a totally different position1 and are not considered1 as a general rule1 to be in any way infallible--in fact1 they are liable at any time to be modified or recalled1 as in the instance before us has actually happened4 ,the ,bull 8,speculatores0 is plainly a disciplinary one4 ,but ,i may perhaps be allowed to quote one who is professedly a theologian--the ,reverend ,jeremiah ,murphy1 an ,irish ecclesiastic of learning and ability--who1 replying to ,mr4 ,mivart in ,the ,nineteenth ,century of ,may1 #ahhf1 explains1 at some length1 the real nature of this ,bull4 ,he says3 8,this ,bull1 so far from being a special approbation of each decree contained in the ,index to which it is prefixed1 is not a special approbation of even one of them4444 ,it is a re-issue1 by public authority1 of all these decrees 7those of the ,index71 but it leaves each decree just as it was4444 ,the ,pope1 after referring to the origin of the ,index1 says that at that time there was no catalogue1 issued by public authority1 embracing the prohibited books and condemned authors1 on which account great confusion has arisen4 ,accordingly1 with the advice of the ,cardinals1 the ,pope1 as he states1 has decreed to issue a new ,index4 ,this was done in order that people should #8have a clear knowledge of all that was done from the beginning in this matter1' also to facilitate references for readers and especially for booksellers4 ,the ,pope goes on to say that he #8confirmed and approved this same general ,index as aforesaid1 composed and revised by our order1 and printed at our apostolic press4'0 ,mr4 ,murphy adds3 8,no new decree is issued1 no new obligation imposed1 no change in the character of any of the decrees is made by this ,bull4444 ,no ,catholic theologian would for a moment regard this ,bull as equivalent to an approbation1 by special mandate1 of any decree contained in the volume to which it is prefixed4444 ,the ,bull is a purely disciplinary act1 perfectly valid until it is cancelled by an authority equal to that which issued it1 but it condemns no new error1 and defines no new truth40 ,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--that1 in fact1 it was all the work of the ,cardinals4 ,the ,bull 8,speculatores0 is a good argumentum ad hominem addressed to such persons1 but no one who knows the facts of the case can take up or ought to take up such a position4 ,as a matter of discipline1 the ,popes did give their sanction to the condemnation in question4 ,the ,congregations of the ,index and of the ,inquisition have no authority at all except so far as the ,pope confers it on them2 and whether he gives them the authority beforehand1 or confirms their acts by subsequent approval1 the principle is essentially the same4 ,he delegates to them certain disciplinary powers1 but he does not delegate1 and has not the power to delegate1 his prerogative of defining dogma1 and enforcing its belief on the whole ,catholic world4 ,i should not have dwelt at so much length on this particular point had it not been urged1 with what ,i fear ,i must call much perverted ingenuity1 by ,mr4 ,roberts that the ,copernican theory was condemned ex cathedr1 as if it were a heresy1 by the ,pope himself2 nor1 again1 is it willingly that ,i quote so frequently the same author's arguments with a view to their refutation4 ,he has1 however1 stated the anti-,roman case with ability1 and without descending to vulgar claptrap4 ,if1 then1 his arguments are satisfactorily answered1 there is no need of combating other antagonists4 ,but ,i do not at all shrink from considering another and most important question4 ,i have shown clearly and conclusively that the decrees against ,copernicanism were not definitions of faith2 but ,i am bound to state now what ,i believe to have been the effect of them in their own undoubted sphere1 that of ecclesiastical discipline4 ,and here there are two distinct questions to deal with1 which are perhaps sometimes mixed up together1 but which ought to be kept separate4 ,one is this3 ,what should have been the conduct of contemporary ,catholics1 supposed to be scientific men1 during the period that the decrees were in force8 ,the other3 ,what opinion ought we now to form upon the whole transaction1 viewing it retrospectively8 ,to begin with the first of these two4 ,i have little doubt as to what ought to have been the conduct of such ,catholics--viz41 implicit obedience to the disciplinary rules of the ,church so long as the superior authorities thought fit to enforce them4 ,thus no good ,catholic could have read the forbidden books1 whether by ,galileo or by any other author1 without obtaining the requisite permission--a permission which in these days1 at any rate1 is given with great readiness to well-educated persons4 ,still less could a conscientious ,catholic publish a work advocating the ,copernican theory as the true one1 or as most probably the true one4 ,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 hypothesis1 and1 at the same time1 professing his entire submission to the ecclesiastical authorities1 and explicitly disclaiming any attempt to meddle with the interpretation of ,scripture4 ,a protest of some such nature as this was inserted in an edition of the 8,principia0 which was allowed to be published by two ,fathers of the order of ,minims1 ,le ,seur and ,jacquier1 in the year #agdb1 when the decrees were still in force4 ,but the first step1 and that the most fitting and becoming1 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 question4 ,no one has a right to infer from the instance of ,galileo1 whose arguments were not all of them sound or convincing1 that such an astronomer as ,i have imagined would have been treated with contempt or neglect1 especially if he made it evident that he was wholly submissive to the decrees of the ,index1 or other ,roman ,congregations4 ,some writers1 and notably the late ,dr4 ,ward1 have maintained that besides outward submission1 a certain 8interior assent0 was due to the decision of the ,congregation of the ,index--such assent1 however1 being different in kind from that given to an article of ,faith4 ,i submit1 however1 that although the fact of a book being placed on the forbidden list requires from all good ,catholics a respectful assent to the principle that the ,church has a right to enact these rules of discipline1 it does not require an interior act of intellectual approval4 ,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 it4 ,did he think it necessary to make an interior act of assent to the decree8 ,it is true that in the case of the works of ,copernicus and others1 the grounds for prohibiting them were stated2 but ,i would ask1 are we obliged to assent interiorly to the grounds alleged for such acts8 ,in saying this1 ,i do not wish to contradict the opinion of those theologians who hold that the non-scientific ,catholics of ,galileo's age were bound1 by what is termed 8the piety of ,faith10 to give a certain interior assent to the pronouncements of the ,roman ,congregations2 and that on the ground that such persons had no better evidence to act upon4 ,their assent then would be very much like that given by dutiful sons1 not yet of age1 to the opinions of their father2 similar in kind though stronger in degree4 ,i am of course assuming the contemporary ,catholics1 whose case ,i am considering1 to be men of an obedient and dutiful disposition4 ,i have confined myself so far to the decrees of the ,index4 ,the sentence of the ,inquisition on ,galileo affected himself alone4 ,it was no doubt held up as an example in terrorem for the benefit of others2 but strictly and immediately it concerned ,galileo alone1 and when he died1 it died with him4 ,i now pass to the all-important question1 what ought we to think of the whole proceeding1 with all the light that has been thrown on it by the two centuries and a half that have since elapsed8 ,here1 then1 ,i have to steer a middle course between what ,i hold to be extreme opinions on opposite sides1 each held by men of note1 and men whose principles and character demand that they should be heard with respect4 ,one opinion is that of the late ,dr4 ,ward1 whom ,i take as a representative man on his side1 though he is not the only writer who has taken the view to which ,i allude1 and it is to the effect that the ,roman ,congregations acted not only fully within their rights1 not only within their legitimate sphere1 but that1 considering all the circumstances of their time1 they acted wisely and prudently2 that the fault was on the side of ,galileo and his followers1 and the ,cardinals could not have done otherwise than they did4 ,the other and opposite opinion has been stated by no ,catholic writer with greater force than by ,mr4 ,mivart2 and it amounts1 so far as ,i understand it1 to this3 that the ,church has no authority to interfere in matters relating to physical science1 and that the issue of the ,galileo case has proved the fallacy of her attempting to do so2 that without entering into the discussion of what ought or what ought not to have been done in former times1 we of the present generation have evidence sufficient to show us that scientific investigations should by right be free from the control of ecclesiastical authority4 ,the distinguished author to whom ,i allude has somewhat modified his original statements1 and so ,i am in some danger of misrepresenting him1 but ,i think the above is a fair epitome of his views on the subject2 and at any rate ,i feel myself justified in dealing with him as he appeared in the widely circulated periodical in which he first enunciated his opinions1 excepting so far as he may have explicitly retracted what he then said 7which ,i do not believe to be the fact74 ,i regret that it is my lot to differ from both these able writers4 ,as against ,mr4 ,mivart1 ,i venture to maintain that the ,church has a full right to control the study of physical science2 as against the late ,dr4 ,ward1 that we are not called upon to defend the action of the ,congregation of the ,index or of the ,inquisition in this particular instance4 ,i take ,mr4 ,mivart first1 and ,i may be permitted to say that had it not been for his somewhat aggressive article1 ,i should not have ventured to publish my own views on the subject4 ,i call it aggressive because1 though the writer would doubtless disclaim such intention1 it seemed as though he were determined1 so to speak1 to drive the ecclesiastical authorities into a corner1 and leave them no honourable mode of exit2 letting his readers infer that1 because certain untenable decisions were once promulgated1 it results that no further respect need now be paid to the same authorities when touching on similar questions4 ,now1 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 way2 and if any one practically did so1 the executive of the country where it occurred1 unless it had fallen into a condition of hopeless impotence1 would speedily vindicate the rights of the courts so impugned4 ,but if it should be urged that the two cases are not parallel1 ,i prefer to confine my argument to ecclesiastical tribunals only4 ,i maintain1 then1 that--always assuming the truth of the ,catholic standpoint1 which1 with ,mr4 ,mivart1 ,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 theories4 ,it would be more consistent and more intelligible to deny the right of the ,church to proscribe any theories whatever1 or to forbid the reading of any books1 however profane1 than to admit it in all other matters1 but deny it in the one case of physical science4 ,i yield to no one in feeling a deep interest in science generally1 and especially astronomy1 the ,queen of ,sciences1 as it is sometimes called2 many sciences1 and astronomy in particular1 well deserve to be studied for their own sake1 and for the intellectual profit and pleasure they convey to the mind1 putting aside all questions of practical utility4 ,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 us1 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 infinite4 ,if you do not believe ,religion1 or at least revealed ,religion1 to be true1 then ,i understand your worshipping science1 or like the ,positivists worshipping ,humanity1 or any idol you choose to constitute2 but ,i do not understand a ,christian's doing so1 that is1 a ,christian in the strict and legitimate sense of the word4 ,pursue science by all means1 as you pursue literature1 art1 or any other innocent human study1 but do not make it such an idol as to obscure your perception of spiritual truths4 ,and to take the ,copernican theory in particular3 profoundly interesting as it is1 let us ask ourselves not merely whether it is so important as to require that all religious considerations should give way before it1 but whether the knowledge of its truth1 which we now possess1 adds very materially to the sum total of human happiness4 ,let us then1 for a moment1 think how many men among the millions that people this ,earth1 or if we please to limit our inquiry1 how many among the civilised nations of the ,earth understand anything whatever about the motions of the heavenly bodies4 ,no doubt1 in ,england1 and probably many other countries1 the elementary books that are taught to children state in a rough general way that the ,earth1 like other planets1 goes round the ,sun in the space of one year1 and revolves on its axis in twenty-four hours4 ,so far1 so good4 ,suppose you asked those1 who as children have learned these facts1 a few ordinary questions in astronomy--,i do not mean things relating to celestial distances1 or anything that can be learnt by heart1 but questions requiring thought--how many would be able to answer you8 ,how many1 for example1 could explain such a familiar phenomenon as the harvest moon8--though that has nothing to do with the ,copernican theory4 ,how many could explain the precession of the equinoxes8 ,suppose yourself in a room full of educated persons1 but not specially instructed in science1 how many could state correctly the first law of motion8#ag ,it is unnecessary to multiply instances2 astronomy is obviously a science adapted not to the multitude of mankind1 but to the comparatively few1 who reflect and think4 ,if1 then1 some check were given in the seventeenth century1 by the action of the ecclesiastical authorities in ,rome1 to the progress of physical astronomy1 we must surely allow that the injury to human welfare and human happiness was so small that we need not dwell upon it4 ,mr4 ,mivart tells us that ,descartes was deterred for some time from publishing his work4 ,now ,descartes1 as a pure mathematician1 stands in the highest rank4 ,the method which he invented of applying algebraical analysis to geometry has facilitated calculation to an extent impossible to over-estimate2 notwithstanding the discovery and adoption of other and rival methods1 that of ,descartes still holds its own1 and will probably do so as long as the science of mathematics is cultivated4 ,but as an astronomer1 ,descartes can be allowed no such pre-eminence2 his work on ,vortices was actually a retrograde step1 and in ,france it even hindered for a considerable time the reception of the true doctrine of universal gravitation4 ,so that we may well say if ,descartes had never published his book at all1 physical astronomy would have been the gainer rather than the loser4 ,mr4 ,mivart writes as if he were under some apprehension that the ,church would interfere with his favourite study of biology4 ,i believe his fears are unfounded4 ,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 day4 ,the means that were adapted for contending against error1 real or supposed1 two hundred and fifty years ago1 are inapplicable in the present age4 ,experience has shown that false scientific theories are pretty sure to be demolished1 time enough being allowed1 either by the internal dissensions of their own supporters1 or by the sharp criticism of the supporters of some antagonistic theory2 or1 perhaps1 the triumphant progress of new discoveries4 ,works of a particularly offensive or irreligious character may from time to time be put on the ,index of prohibited books2 but the ,church will probably leave purely scientific hypotheses of all kinds to find their own level1 and to stand or fall1 as the case may be4 ,there remains one objection1 brought forward by ,mr4 ,roberts1 which ,i may notice4 ,it is one of the condemned propositions recited in the well-known 8,syllabus10 that the decrees of the ,apostolic ,see and the ,roman ,congregations hinder the free progress of science4 ,but can any one honestly say that they do8 ,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 science2 another1 to accuse her of generally and systematically hindering the progress of knowledge2 for be it observed that the ,latin word1 scientia1 from which the above is translated1 does not merely mean physical science4 ,the ,catholic ,church has put strong restrictions on the use of vernacular translations of ,holy ,scripture--restrictions which1 though greatly modified in practice1 are not yet abolished--but a proposition stating broadly that the ,church was opposed to the study of ,scripture would be condemned1 and very justly so4 ,i now come to deal with the other extreme opinion1 if ,i may venture so to call it--that maintained by the late ,dr4 ,ward1 and others--to the effect that not only has the ,church a right to condemn this or that scientific theory1 but that the exercise of such right1 as practically exemplified in the prohibition of certain ,copernican works1 and in the condemnation of ,galileo1 was sound and prudent1 and what might reasonably have been expected4 ,i am not sure whether ,dr4 ,ward goes quite so far as regards the condemnation of ,galileo by the ,inquisition2 but he does so in respect of the previous decree of #afaf4 ,his ground is that at that period the ,copernican doctrine was1 even scientifically speaking1 improbable2 while it gave a shock to those who venerated the traditional interpretation of ,holy ,scripture4 ,few men have a greater respect than myself for the memory of the able writer whose views ,i am about to criticise2 but physical science was not his strong point4 ,his knowledge of metaphysical philosophy was great2 so1 too1 was his knowledge of dogmatic theology2 but he does not appear to have been well versed in natural science1 and with that modesty which is a characteristic of sound and solid learning1 he was careful never to pretend acquaintance with any particular branch of knowledge1 unless he really possessed it4 ,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 studies2 as also in admitting an error if he felt really guilty of one2 showing therein a candour and honesty of purpose that we do not always meet with4 ,so much ,i say in tribute to an honoured memory4 ,i now proceed to state why ,i cannot follow his views4 ,it is surely paradoxical1 to say the least of it1 to maintain that an opinion is theologically false but scientifically true2 or to state the case more accurately1 to maintain that it was right to condemn as contrary to ,scripture what has since turned out to be true--assuming1 of course1 this latter to be the fact1 which ,dr4 ,ward fully admitted4 ,it may doubtless be pleaded in mitigation that the ,cardinals only meant that the opinion was contrary to the traditional interpretation of ,scripture1 and that it was just conceivable that the method of interpretation would have to be revised hereafter2 and we have seen that ,bellarmine's letter to ,foscarini points decidedly in that direction4 ,nevertheless1 the decree on the face of it appears to imply more than this1 and when coupled with the subsequent condemnation of ,galileo1 and strengthened by the repeated prohibition1 even in more stringent terms1 of all works favouring the ,copernican theory1 it obviously dealt as heavy a blow at the doctrine of the ,earth's diurnal and annual movement1 as could well have been done1 short of a dogmatic decision4 ,it may be quite true that if ,galileo had been more prudent and judicious1 much of this would have been averted1 and possibly the decree of #afaf might have been modified or suspended a century earlier than it actually was so4 ,but without discussing imaginary possibilities1 we take the facts as they stand4 ,now to give one or two specimens of ,dr4 ,ward's mode of writing on this subject4 ,he says 7after stating correctly the ,catholic principle that books theologically unsound should be kept from persons who are not specially qualified to read them without injury73 8,in ,galileo's time all books which advocated the truth of ,copernicanism were theologically unsound4 ,and a most important service was done by preserving the ,catholic flock free from the plague2 free from a most false1 proud1 irreverent1 and dangerous principle of ,scriptural interpretation40--,dublin ,review1 ,october1 #ahfe4 ,i have already said that ,galileo would have been wiser if he had entirely left alone the question of the interpretation of ,scripture2 but it must always be remembered that it was not he but his opponents who commenced the discussion on that particular head4 ,they were weak in the astronomical argument2 and they tried to damage their opponent by attacking him on ,scriptural grounds4 ,it is difficult to understand what ,dr4 ,ward means by the forcible language ,i have just quoted1 nor how a principle of ,scriptural interpretation1 adopted at the present day by every one1 could have been in ,galileo's time false1 proud1 irreverent1 and dangerous4#ah ,dr4 ,ward grounds his argument1 however1 on an idea that he had1 to the effect that the ,copernican system in ,galileo's day was 8scientifically unlikely30 this1 however1 is just the reverse of the truth4 ,it was unproved2 and1 as ,i have repeatedly said1 it is not even now proved to absolute demonstration4 ,it is also true that certain most powerful arguments for it were not then available1 as ,i shall hereafter have occasion to show at more length2 but it was not scientifically unlikely4 ,galileo had indirectly damaged the cause by using a certain erroneous argument in its favour2 but then his discoveries had simply pulverised the great rival system of ,ptolemy1 and no astronomer1 who knew what he was about1 could do otherwise than choose between ,copernicus and ,tycho ,brah1 each of these being of course somewhat modified in detail4 ,now the theory of ,tycho ,brah was a new one1 still newer than that of ,copernicus1 and had all the appearance of a temporary makeshift2 it was not probable that it would receive much approbation in the long run1 as in fact it never did4 ,probability 7,i mean1 of course1 in a purely scientific sense7 pointed strongly to the ,copernican theory even in ,galileo's time2 and after ,kepler's celebrated laws had been published1 far more strongly still than before4 ,of course1 as ,dr4 ,ward points out1 there may be other reasons of so cogent a nature as to outweigh scientific probability2 but that is not now the question3 he denies even the existence of this latter at the period we are treating of2 and on this point he was evidently misinformed4 ,it is said that the ,cardinals of the ,index or ,inquisition consulted some astronomers before formulating their decrees1 and this is likely enough2 as there is odium medicum in these days1 there was doubtless odium astronomicum in those days4 ,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 ,galileo4 ,if people once persuade themselves that physical science is to be learnt merely from tradition1 or from priori arguments1 they will naturally have an antipathy to the discoveries made by actual observation and experiment4 ,if men such as these were called in to advise the ,cardinals1 we may well admit it as a mitigating circumstance1 forbidding us to pass a severe judgment on the conduct of the ecclesiastical tribunals4 ,it is no part of my contention1 and indeed the very reverse1 to lay excessive blame on the ,congregations of the ,index and ,inquisition2 but neither1 on the other hand1 do ,i understand why we should give them our unqualified approval4 ,i feel that the opinion ,i have expressed above1 and which might otherwise be considered by some persons as presumptuous towards the ecclesiastical authorities1 receives great confirmation1 and at the same time what is tantamount to an acquittal from all disrespect to the ,church and her authority1 by the following extract which ,i give from the article entitled1 8,dr4 ,mivart on ,faith and ,science10 published in the ,october number of ,the ,dublin ,review 7#ahhg71 by the ,bishop of ,newport and ,menevia1 the ,right ,rev4 ,j4 ,c4 ,hedley4 ,not only does the high character of the author1 both as a theologian and a man of scientific knowledge1 give a sanction to all that is contained in the article1 but the ,review in which it appears1 having for its proprietor another ,bishop and an able ecclesiastic for its acting editor1 carries with it a stamp of ,catholic authority such as few periodicals possess4 ,after some other remarks the ,bishop of ,newport proceeds thus3 ,i do not by any means wish to deny that the case of ,galileo has had an important effect on the action of ,church authorities4 ,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 phenomena4 ,the reason of this is not so much the fact that science has proved authority wrong in one case1 as because that case1 taking it with all its circumstances1 was one the like of which can never happen again4 ,the ,galilean controversy marked the close of a period and the opening of a new one4 ,the heliocentric view was the first step in modern scientific expression4 ,before the days of ,galileo men spoke of what they saw with the naked eye1 and on the surface of things2 thenceforth they were to use the telescope and the microscope2 they investigated the bowels of the earth and the distances of the heavens4 ,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 8nature0 were merely a very few of the most obvious aspects of a vast organisation1 which could be1 and which must be1 searched into by observation4 ,at once a multitude of familiar phrases lost their meaning1 and many accepted truths had to be dethroned4 ,and the effect of the discussion in the days of ,galileo was not only to make men revise their formularies about the earth's motion1 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 things4 ,the prevailing views were held by the ,church authorities as by every one else4 ,they were not really a part of the ,divine revelation4 ,some people thought they were1 and 7we may admit it was a misfortune7 the very authorities who had to pronounce1 used language which was to some extent mistaken in the same direction4 ,on the other hand1 it is clear now that men of mark and standing asserted over and over again1 that the new theories need not in any point contradict ,holy ,scripture4 ,it was a matter which was not clear all at once4 ,it is often not immediately evident that novel scientific views do or do not contradict ,revelation4 ,they have to be made precise1 to be qualified1 to be analysed1 and that by fallible men4 ,during the process many ,catholics will naturally make mistakes1 and there is no reason why1 now and then1 ,church authority itself should not make a mistake in this particular matter4 ,when the requisite reflection has had time to be made1 then it is seen1 as it was in the case of the views under discussion1 that what was held by ,catholic persons was something quite apart from ,catholic faith4 ,and we have no objection to admit that reflection was quickened1 and caution was deepened by the case of ,galileo4 ,in this sense1 and not in any other1 that case may be called 8emancipatory40 ,if the ,church authorities ever feel themselves called upon to pronounce on the dates or the authorship of the ,hexateuch1 or on the formation of ,adam's body1 they will proceed--we may say it without suspicion of undutifulness--with more enlightened minds than the ,congregations which condemned ,galileo4 ,the teaching ,church is composed of fallible men1 who must sometimes1 in certain departments1 make mistakes1 and who must learn by experience as other men learn4 ,the part of a dutiful ,catholic is to lessen the effect of mistaken decisions by prudent silence or respectful remonstrance in the proper quarter1 and not to make scandal worse by inept generalisations and unnecessary bitterness4 ,further on1 the ,bishop says3 ,i do not decline to face the difficulty of ,galileo's compulsory retractation4 ,it seems to me that either ,galileo had sufficiently strong reasons to prevent his mind from making the retractation or not4 ,i think it possible he had not4 ,it does not seem that he had anything like evidence that the earth moved4 ,if he had not1 there was no reason why he should not assent to a strong expression of authority1 that authority being one to which he owed filial obedience4444 ,still1 if ,galileo had present to his mind strong proof of the correctness of his own teachings1 ,i do not hesitate to say that he was wrong1 and1 indeed1 committed sin1 in making the retractation demanded4 ,on the purely astronomical question whether ,galileo had evidence that the ,earth moved1 ,i presume that the ,bishop means conclusive evidence2 for evidence of some kind he surely had2 not conclusive1 it is true1 but good as far as it went4 ,long before ,galileo was tried by the tribunal of the ,inquisition1 his contemporary1 ,kepler1 had published those important astronomical laws which still bear his name1 and which tended powerfully to corroborate the theory of the ,earth's motion4 ,apart1 however1 from this1 as ,i have already intimated1 ,i think there was good ground for the opinion in question4 ,this1 however1 is to some extent a digression4 ,i have quoted the ,bishop principally in order to strengthen1 by his high authority1 the line of argument ,i have ventured to pursue1 which1 in effect1 is this3 that the principle on which the ,roman ,congregations acted in ,galileo's case was sound1 but the application of it in the particular instance mistaken and injudicious4 ,i may also be permitted to cite1 as confirming my own opinion1 the words of the distinguished writer to whom1 in common with all students of the ,galileo case1 ,i am so much indebted1 ,m4 ,henri de l'pinois4 ,they do not1 of course1 possess the same theological authority as that of the prelate ,i have just quoted1 but1 coming from a learned ,catholic layman1 they are well worthy of attention4 ,these are his words3 ,galile1 en tablissant les principes de mcanique qui sont ses titres de gloire1 comme en soutenant la doctrine de ,copernic1 a rencontr pour adversaires dclars les partisans de la philosophie d',aristote1 qui combattaient aussi bien ,kpler ,tubingue1 et ,descartes en ,hollande4 ,ils appelrent leur aide des textes de l'criture1 les opposrent aux affirmations de ,galile4 ,pour se dfendre celui-ci voulut expliquer ces textes4 ,ds lors1 il changeait l'interprtation jusque-l admise par l'glise et veillait les justes susceptibilits des ,catholiques4 ,avait-il raison8 ,avait-il tort8 ,il avait tort dans plusieurs de ses propositions1 et sa conduite manqua souvent de prudence2 il avait videmment raison dans sa doctrine fondamentale4 ,en fait le tribunal s'est tromp en condamnant comme fausse et contraire l'criture une doctrine vraie et qui pouvait s'accorder avec les textes sacrs4 ,il a manqu de prudence en se montrant trop circonspect1 et a ainsi dpass le but4 ,il faut toutefois le remarquer4 ,aujourd'hui il est facile de dire3 le tribunal a eu tort2 mais en #afaf1 en #afcc1 la plupart des savants1 les ,universits et les ,acadmies disaient3 il a raison4444 ,tous les tmoignages contemporains nous montrent que deux penses1 deux opinions1 deux influences taient en prsence3 d'un ct les ,aristotliciens acharns contre ,galile1 dtestant ses principes1 voulant les anantir2 de l'autre les papes1 les cardinaux1 pleins d'estime pour ,galile1 mais qui voulaient prvenir les fcheuses consquences de sa doctrine4 ,selon que l'une ou l'autre de ces influences domina dans les conseils1 on tint une conduite diffrente3 tantt svre et rigoureuse1 tantt douce et indulgente4 ,mais il n'y eut point l1 comme on le prtend encore1 de lutte entre la science et le ,catholicisme3 la question fut dbattue entre la science et l',aristotlisme4#ai ,it was not till the year #ageg that any authoritative step was taken to relax the prohibitions imposed by the ,index on the works advocating the ,copernican system4 ,this was more than a century after the condemnation of ,galileo1 seventy years after the publication of the 8,principia10 and thirty years after the discovery of the aberration of light4 ,even ,dr4 ,ward allows that it might have been more prudent to remove the prohibitions some forty or fifty years sooner than was actually the case4 ,no one1 he observes1 supposes the ,church to be infallible in mere matters of prudence1 and ,i think that in making this statement1 which1 ,i presume1 every theologian would at once endorse1 he half admits the principle for which ,i contend2 for if the ,roman authorities could err in point of prudence in leaving the censure so long in force1 might they not err--,i mean1 of course1 as to the prudent administration of discipline--in inflicting those censures at all1 or at any rate in applying them so rigorously in practice as was done in the instance of ,galileo8 ,however1 be this as it may1 in the year #ageg the relaxation of the censures took place2 in #ahbj1 on the #afth ,august1 a distinct permission was given for teaching the movement of the ,earth2 and again on the #agth ,september1 #ahbb1 a re-examination of the whole subject having taken place1 a decree appeared1 sanctioned by the ,pope1 ,leo ,,xii41 in which the ,inquisitors ,general1 in conformity with the decrees of #ageg and #ahbj1 declared that the printing and publishing at ,rome of works treating of the movement of the ,earth and the immobility of the ,sun1 according to the opinion of modern astronomers1 was henceforth permitted4 ,thus the decree of #afaf was practically abrogated4 ,mr4 ,mivart1 among other remarks on the proceedings in ,galileo's case1 says that no amends were ever made by the authorities of the ,church for the injustice done to the philosopher1 but he does not state what kind of amends or what sort of apology he expected4 ,if he means that no personal reparation was made to ,galileo1 that is doubtless true2 nor was any sacrifice ever offered to his ,manes4 ,indeed1 it must be allowed that the ecclesiastical authorities hindered the erection1 after his decease1 of a monument in his honour4 ,nor is this a matter for surprise2 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 unjustly2 and that was precisely what the ,pope and ,cardinals of that age would not for a moment admit4 ,no personal amends1 then1 were made to ,galileo in life or in death2 but ,i think this was not the point to which ,mr4 ,mivart intended to allude4 ,i believe he had in his mind a different sort of reparation--that1 namely1 supposed to be owing to the injured cause of ,science4 ,if that be so1 then ,i can only say that he must have been unaware of the facts above mentioned1 of the proceedings taken in ,rome in #ageg1 in #ahbj1 and in #ahbb4 ,the adjustment of the relations of revealed ,religion with physical ,science is often perplexing1 owing partly to mistaken zeal in insisting on particular interpretations of certain passages in ,holy ,scripture1 and partly to the prevalence1 at different times1 of doubtful scientific theories1 which flourish for a time1 and then fade away because they fail to stand the test of continued and rigorous investigation4 ,instances of both these will readily occur to the mind1 and the ,copernican theory in the seventeenth century will be a prominent one1 as coming under the first of the two heads4 ,but it is not fair1 as ,i have already argued1 to be too severe upon the men who clung with tenacity to the old traditional interpretation of ,scripture4 ,it is1 in fact1 only right so to cling until some just reason is shown for introducing a fresh interpretation4 ,in this case there were some good reasons1 no doubt2 but there were also bad reasons alleged1 and1 as we have seen1 ,galileo1 with all his great ability and mechanical knowledge so far beyond his age1 could yet damage his cause with unsound arguments4 ,such being the case1 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 misled4 ,the antipathy to adopting a new system of the universe--a system which demolished many cherished ideas and traditional opinions--was overwhelmingly strong2 the reasons uncertain1 or1 at least1 inconclusive4 ,the discoveries of ,galileo had1 no doubt1 overthrown the system of ,ptolemy1 but they had not established that of ,copernicus1 so long as there remained what may be called the tentative theory of ,tycho ,brah1 who was one of the greatest observers of his day4 ,though he did not unravel the true cause of the motions of the heavenly bodies1 and went1 in fact1 in a wrong direction1 we must never forget the important services he rendered to science4 ,he was the first to employ refraction as a correction to the apparent positions of the celestial bodies2 his collection of instruments1 on which he had expended the whole of his private fortune1 was the finest that had ever yet been seen2 and1 in fact1 his observations1 utilised by others1 had a great share in leading to the discovery of the real nature of the planetary movements4#bj ,small blame1 then1 must be meted out to those who held on for a time to the system excogitated by so enlightened a man4 ,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 others1 and those who condemned ,galileo1 were unable1 astronomically speaking1 to read the signs of the times4 ,all ,i am asserting is that there was much1 even from a scientific point of view1 to excuse their inability4 ,they put forward as their main objection that the new theory contradicted ,holy ,scripture1 and adhered to that rigidly literal interpretation of it1 which has since then been necessarily given up1 and which seems somewhat strange to us1 accustomed as we now are to a far greater latitude of interpretation than they even dreamed of4 ,we who have learned that the six days of ,creation are not to be taken in their strict sense2#ba who have sound reason for holding that the ,deluge was only universal in the sense of covering that part of the earth then inhabited by the human race2 and who are told by some people1 including learned ecclesiastics1 that it was more restricted in its operation even than this2 and who finally hear it said by men of undoubted orthodoxy that the evolution of man from some lower animal1 so far as his body is concerned and so long as you do not include his soul and his rational faculties1 is consistent with the ,christian faith--we1 ,i say1 who are familiar with these non-literal interpretations of ,scripture1 find it difficult to comprehend the standpoint adopted and maintained with such tenacity by the ,cardinals of the seventeenth century4 ,there were1 moreover1 other very cogent reasons which1 though not put prominently forward1 may well have worked upon their minds2 reasons1 indeed1 which must strike the really thoughtful man4 ,let us consider this one point4 ,in old times1 when the ,earth was believed to be the actual centre of the physical universe1 it was easy to suppose that it was the sole abode of life4 ,but if you believe that the ,earth1 far from being such a centre1 is only one amongst many planets revolving round the ,sun2 and1 further1 that the ,sun himself is only one of a mighty host of stars1 some of which may have planets revolving round them1 you naturally ask yourself immediately1 are none of these worlds inhabited except our ,earth8 ,truly ,scripture says nothing to contradict the opinion that there are inhabitants and rational creatures to be found elsewhere2 but1 nevertheless1 the history of the ,creation and ,redemption of the human race reads as if such creatures1 intelligent beings like ourselves1 lived upon this ,earth1 and nowhere besides4 ,i know not how far thoughts and speculations of this nature passed through the minds of the ecclesiastics1 and other men of religious feeling1 in the age of ,galileo4 ,they have since then been sifted more or less by scientific men1 and various opinions have been suggested4 ,some went so far as to think it possible that the ,sun was inhabited4 ,so able an astronomer as ,arago1 to say nothing of others1 thought such might be the fact4 ,no one thinks so now4 ,the tendency of modern thought1 strictly speaking modern 7that is1 the most recent71 is rather to discredit such imaginations4 ,the various observations made upon the ,sun1 including those made by the use of the spectroscope1 have shown that the supposition of his being inhabited is simply incredible4 ,for other reasons the same result has been reached with regard to the ,moon4 ,then as to the planets1 although there are no such cogent reasons1 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 man4 ,some persons would make an exception in favour of ,mars1 where a recent ,french observer imagines he has detected signs of work as if by human hands--a stretch indeed of imagination4 ,but the planets are probably not all in the same stage of what may be termed geological history4 ,some may very possibly be in the same state in which the ,earth was a few millions of years ago1 long before it was fitted for the reception of man on its surface1 or1 indeed1 for that of any of the higher mammalia4 ,the ,earth had had a long history1 and had undergone vast changes1 ranging perhaps over many millions of years1 before man appeared on the scene2 and the period that has elapsed since that event1 whatever the date of it may be1 is simply nothing in comparison of the ages that had previously rolled by since the first moment when the darkness gave way1 and the light appeared4 ,it is1 then1 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 man1 or creatures resembling him4#bb ,passing then from our own system1 we come to the myriads of suns1 some1 we may well believe1 far greater than our ,sun1 which are spread through the realms of space4#bc ,many of these we may reasonably suppose are surrounded by planets1 and in one or two cases there are special reasons for thinking that some opaque body intervenes occasionally between the star and ourselves4 ,but the conditions under which several of the stars 7we know not how many7 exist1 is very different from that to which we are accustomed here with our own ,sun4 ,there are double stars which appear to revolve round a common centre of gravity1 a system of two suns4 ,have each of them1 or have both of them in common1 a set of planets moving round them8 ,who can tell8 ,and where there are stars with planets accompanying them1 does any one know in what state those planets are8 ,the whole subject1 however interesting as a speculation1 is shrouded in impenetrable mystery4 ,from all this it follows that although there certainly may be rational and intellectual inhabitants on some or other of these distant worlds1 yet1 on the other hand1 there may not be4 ,and it is perfectly possible that our ,earth1 minute little object as it is1 comparatively speaking1 may still be the great and favoured life-house of the universe1 the moral1 though not material1 centre4 ,that the ,earth is not the physical centre of the universe we now are well aware2 nor is the ,sun the centre2 nor1 indeed1 do we know whether there is any such centre at all4 ,there is good reason for thinking that the ,sun1 with his attendant planets1 is in motion in a certain direction in space2 and ,i may observe that this direction is not in the plane of the ,earth's orbit1 or anything near it2 so that though the ,earth describes an elliptical orbit with regard to the ,sun1 its path in space is some kind of spiral curve1 that is as it would appear to a being poised for a time in some point of space far away outside our orbit1 having the necessary powers of vision1 and having a plane of reference from which he could take his observations4 ,what else this gifted being might see--whether he would observe some great central body round which the whole of the heavenly bodies revolve1 or1 as seems more probable1 would detect1 instead of one1 many centres1 each with its own group--all this we do not and cannot know1 and we must be content1 at least so long as our life here below continues1 to remain in profound ignorance4 ,seeing1 then1 how wide in extent and how difficult of solution are some of the speculative problems1 originating in the ,copernican theory1 it can be no matter of surprise that the ecclesiastics of the seventeenth century recoiled from it with more than common aversion4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,as a sequel to the story of ,galileo1 ,i think it may be interesting to inquire what the evidence1 as we now have it1 proves with regard to the truth of the ,copernican theory1 there being two opposite and contradictory errors on this subject1 and these not merely popular errors1 but shared to some extent by educated and otherwise learned men4 ,but ,i must1 before proceeding1 remind my readers that ,i use the word ,copernican simply to signify the system of modern astronomy1 that in which the ,sun is the centre round which the ,earth and the other planets revolve1 and not as meaning the precise theory of ,copernicus1 which 7as ,i have said7 was overthrown by ,kepler1 when he discovered that the planetary orbits were not circular but elliptical1 the ,sun1 moreover1 not being strictly in the centre1 but in one of the foci of the orbit4 ,now it is a plain fact1 which all persons must perceive1 that either the ,earth revolves on its axis in twenty-four hours 7more accurately #bc hours #ef mins4 #e secs471 or else that the whole of the celestial bodies are carried round the ,earth in that same time4 ,it is also a fact no less perceptible to careful observers1 that either the ,sun goes round the ,earth in the course of a year1 or else that the ,earth goes round the ,sun4 ,the question is how these facts are to be accounted for4 ,the first of the two errors ,i have just mentioned is that which supposes the ,copernican theory to have been directly and conclusively proved4 ,this ,i imagine to be very common1 and to arise from the elementary books learnt by schoolboys1 which state 7naturally enough7 the modern theory of astronomy without the reasons that support it4 ,we need not dwell long on this point4 ,persons who have got this erroneous impression misunderstand the nature of the evidence4 ,some things in astronomy can be positively proved from observation1 as1 for instance1 the existence of sun-spots4 ,many things in mechanics1 chemistry1 optics1 and other branches of physical study can be demonstrated by experiment4 ,the motion of the ,earth round the ,sun cannot1 however1 be so treated4 ,it is inferred1 and very rightly so1 from the fact that it explains completely and easily all the observed phenomena1 while1 on the other hand1 there are certain things which1 as far as our present knowledge goes1 cannot be explained in any other way2 and the same argument applies to the rotation of the ,earth on its axis4 ,but though all this is perfectly clear so far1 who can possibly say that as science progresses some explanation may not be hereafter found consistent with the antagonistic theory--consistent1 let us say1 with the system of ,tycho ,brah1 or some modification of it8 ,i need not add that ,i consider the future discovery of such explanation as so improbable1 that one may practically dismiss the idea1 but ,i should be sorry to deny it as being conceivably possible4 ,the other1 and opposite1 error is that of certain well-meaning but ill-informed persons1 who imagine that the ,copernican theory is even now doubtful and liable to be overthrown--liable1 ,i mean1 in a real and practical sense1 and not by distant contingencies1 such as those at which ,i have just hinted1 and which may be considered as shadowy and intangible4 ,i do not suppose that amongst educated men there are many such scientific recusants2 but at any rate it may be useful to give a short summary of the evidence on which the ,copernican conclusion is based4 ,in doing this ,i fear ,i shall tire the patience of my readers by partly repeating ,galileo's own arguments1 which ,i have already quoted in discussing the ,dialogue4 ,this cannot easily be avoided1 for much of his reasoning is so sound and so forcible1 that after the lapse of more than two centuries we can add but little to it4 ,on the other hand1 there are grave mistakes that must be shunned2 and1 moreover1 there have been discoveries made since the day when the ,dialogue was written1 of inestimable importance4 ,the best way of treating the question is to resume the history of astronomical research from the point where we dropped it2 that is1 at the time when ,galileo first made known to the world the result of his observations4 ,it ought to be clearly understood that from the moment the telescope was turned on the heavens1 the old system of astronomy was doomed1 and nothing could finally have saved it4 ,for a time prejudice and other more creditable feelings kept it floating on the sea of speculation1 but such a state of things could not last2 and the startling information that men like ,galileo1 ,fabricius1 and ,scheiner imparted to the scientific world1 could not fail to expel the old theory of the universe from the minds of men--at least1 men of intellectual capacity--gradually and slowly1 but yet most surely4 ,now we have seen what the revelations were which the telescope at once displayed1 even in its comparatively rude and imperfect state4 ,there were the spots on the ,sun1 the satellites of ,jupiter1 the phases of ,venus1 the greater apparent size of the superior planets 7,mars and the rest7 when on the opposite side of the ,earth from the ,sun1 this last phenomenon being quite inconsistent with the system of ,ptolemy4 ,one consequence of all this was that the less enlightened men of the old school indulged in a violent antipathy to the new-fangled instrument1 which threatened to overthrow their time-honoured traditions1 and simply refused to believe in the telescope and its results4 ,thus the principal professor of philosophy at ,padua1 when invited by ,galileo to look through his glass at the ,moon and the planets1 pertinaciously refused to do so4 ,simplicio1 who1 of course1 represents in the ,dialogue the prejudices of men of this stamp1 admits 7as we have seen7 his feelings on this subject1 and his suspicions that the new discoveries were to be attributed to optical errors4 ,he was willing to be corrected if mistaken1 but such had hitherto been his opinion4 ,it was not1 however1 to be expected that men of sound sense would allow themselves to be misled for any length of time by fallacies such as these4 ,continued observations carefully made are sure to correct mere optical errors1 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 ignored4 ,thus1 when it was found that the planet ,venus presented to the eye phases such as the ,moon does1 instead of always appearing like a round body1 it became evident that she revolved1 not as ,ptolemy supposed1 round the ,earth1 but round the ,sun1 an inference subsequently confirmed by the observation of her transits over the ,sun's disc4 ,this being so1 the adherents of ,ptolemy had to meet this difficulty3 here was a planet much nearer to the ,earth than to the ,sun1#bd and yet revolving round the latter in preference to the former4 ,there was clearly1 then1 some attractive force belonging to the ,sun 7whatever its nature might be71 greater than that of the ,earth1 which ,venus obeyed2 the same was true of ,mercury1 with the difference that this planet was much nearer to the ,sun4 ,then as regards the superior planets1 ,mars1 ,jupiter1 ,saturn1 the probability that the ,sun was the great central power that controlled their movements was a very strong one4 ,there is but little to add on these topics to ,galileo's own forcible argument in the third day's dialogue2 he is1 however1 inaccurate in his figures1 and states that ,mars appears sixty times as large when in opposition to the ,sun1 as at conjunction4 ,more recent observations have shown that he appears rather more than thirty times as large when at his nearest point to the ,earth1 than he does when near his conjunction with the ,sun1 and consequently at his farthest point from the ,earth2 but this variation is quite sufficient for the argument1 and proves incontestably that if ,mars revolves round the ,earth as in any way the centre of his orbit1 it must be in an ellipse of so great eccentricity as no one could reasonably imagine him to do2 indeed1 the anti-,copernicans of ,galileo's day knew nothing of the elliptic motions of the planets2 neither1 as we have seen1 did ,galileo himself4 ,the same argument1 drawn from the apparent size of the planet at different periods1 applies also to ,jupiter and ,saturn--the other exterior planets were discovered much later--only not so strikingly as in the case of ,mars4 ,the improbability1 if we once admit that all the planets revolve round the ,sun1 that the ,earth1 occupying the position it does1 should be at rest1 while the ,sun1 controlling the motions of the planets 7vast bodies1 some of them71 circled1 nevertheless1 round the ,earth2 the improbability1 ,i say1 of this is so great as to be almost overwhelming2 at any rate1 unless the difficulties of the counter hypothesis were shown to be insurmountable1 which1 as we know1 is far from being the case4 ,it was of course possible1 without going the lengths of the ,paduan professor1 and setting oneself against the telescope altogether1 to admit the facts but deny the inferences2 to grant1 for instance1 that ,mars appeared to have a diameter more than six times as great in one position as in another1 and to attribute it1 as ,i hinted just now1 to some extraordinary eccentricity in his orbit round the ,earth2 but it is not wise to look through a telescope with the eyes of the body open and the eyes of the mind closed2 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 speaking4 ,it must be borne in mind distinctly that the discovery of the moon-like phases of ,venus1 showing her to revolve round the ,sun1 was simply conclusive as against the old system of ,ptolemy1 which had so long been the received system of astronomy4 ,the theory of ,tycho ,brah1 or some modification of it1 was the only one that could henceforth be adopted4 ,but when you dethrone an ancient theory which has for centuries held an almost undisputed sway1 you have to reconsider your whole position1 and compromises such as that of ,tycho are not always adequate to the emergency4 ,but these considerations formed only a part of this complicated controversy4 ,the anti-,copernicans of the seventeenth century would not even admit the revolution of the ,earth on its own axis1 and were consequently forced to hold that the whole of the heavenly bodies were carried round this our globe in twenty-four hours4 ,in ancient times1 when men knew little or nothing of the sizes and distances of the ,sun1 the planets1 or the stars1 such a belief was quite reasonable and natural2 they thought the stars were set as if they were jewels in a hollow sphere1 which was turned round its poles each day4 ,but the astronomers of ,galileo's day knew something far more accurate than this2 he himself1 as we observed in the ,dialogue1 greatly under-estimated the distance and the size of the ,sun1 and had but a very imperfect idea of the enormous interval that separates us from the stars2 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 hours4 ,and what must be our judgment on such a subject1 seeing that we know the ,sun's mean distance to be about #ib1jjj1jjj miles1 more than nineteen times as much as ,galileo's estimate8 ,and yet some of the planets are farther and much farther from us than the ,sun4 ,then as regards the stars1 ,centauri1 the nearest of them1 is calculated to be more than #bj1jjj1jjj1jjj1jjj miles distant2 but this calculation supposes the truth of the ,copernican theory1 and that we may not seem to argue in a circle1 we will not use it1 but content ourselves with saying that1 from certain reasons about which there can be no mistake1 we are sure that the distance of the stars is very considerably greater than even the remotest planet in our own system1 which is ,neptune4 ,now1 this planet's distance from the ,sun is computed at #b1gge1jjj1jjj miles1 and if1 indeed1 he is carried daily round the ,earth in a circle1 it must be with a velocity exceeding that of light2 the stars1 therefore1 with a velocity far greater still4 ,now1 nothing with which we are acquainted moves with so great a speed as light--or1 as some men call it1 radiant energy1 meaning thereby to include heat as well as light in the term--a speed estimated at #ahf1jjj miles in a second of time4 ,are we then to believe that the stars are carried in a circle round the ,earth every day at a velocity much exceeding even this8 ,it seems almost enough to ask such a question without pausing for the answer4 ,the simple rotation of the ,earth on its own axis explains all the phenomena without resorting to such extreme suppositions as those just mentioned4 ,it is remarkable that no one of any note--at least1 in modern times1 for ,i am not so sure about the ancients--ever appears to have suggested the intermediate theory of the ,earth revolving on its axis1 and yet remaining stationary as regards any motion of translation4 ,with our present knowledge of astronomy we could not entertain such an opinion1 though in the early part of the seventeenth century it might have been considered plausible4 ,since1 however1 it has not been maintained by any noteworthy author1 we need not further discuss it4 ,the reader will bear in mind what has already been said on this branch of the subject in the second day's dialogue1#be and it is not necessary to repeat it in detail4 ,it may1 however1 be useful to mention a few experiments of a later date1 which have tended to confirm the truth of the ,earth's diurnal revolution4 ,before the close of the seventeenth century it was observed that a diminution of gravity occurred at1 and near1 the equator4 ,this was proved by the vibration of the pendulum1 an experiment associated chiefly with the name of ,richer2 and it has1 if ,i mistake not1 been since then carefully tested by spring balances4 ,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 equator1 from the higher velocity of rotation4 ,i have already alluded to the trade winds1 and the argument to be drawn from them1 which ,i think a sound and strong one2 but ,i need not dwell on it further4 ,it is1 however1 well worth remembering that in our own day another proof has been given1 which has been generally allowed to be an important one4 ,it is the result of an experiment of ,foucault1 and is simply this3 if a pendulum1 with a heavy weight attached to it1 be made to oscillate in a plane due north and south1 say in the latitude of ,paris1 the pendulum1 after a time1 and supposing it to continue in movement long enough for the purpose of observation1 will oscillate in a direction slightly north-east and south-west4 ,now the pendulum moves naturally always in the same direction1 backwards and forwards1 as originally started1 and if the ,earth were shaped like a cylinder no change would be detected2 but the spherical form of the ,earth1 as it rotates on its axis1 here makes the whole difference2 the floor of the room where the pendulum vibrates is carried round the axis of rotation1 as everything else is1 but the plane of oscillation remaining the same--or parallel to the original one--it no longer points north and south4 ,at the equator this phenomenon would disappear1 and in the southern hemisphere it would be the other way3 that is1 the pendulum would vibrate north-west and south-east4 ,the same thing is exemplified by the small machine called the gyroscope1 where a heavy disc1 so adjusted as to revolve freely in any given direction1 independently of the frame in which it is placed1 will continue1 when once set in rapid motion1 to spin in the same plane1 directed1 for instance1 to any one star that happens at the time to be due north or due south of us1 while the frame moves round it with the rotation of the ,earth4 ,i think1 then1 on the whole1 we may say that those persons who1 in the present state of our knowledge on the subject1 are not convinced that the ,earth revolves on its own axis1 would not be satisfied by any evidence whatever4 ,returning now to the general question of ,copernicanism1 we find that for some time after the trial of ,galileo1 things remained much in statu quo2 unless we except the observation of the transit of ,venus1 in #afci2 but1 as that eventful seventeenth century was drawing to its close1 there came on the scene some thoughtful and able astronomers1 who could not only utilise the knowledge of their predecessors1 but could also guess1 with more or less accuracy1 what that law--hitherto unknown--might be1 which governed the planets and our own ,earth in their movements4 ,it was about this time that the ,royal ,society was founded in ,london1 and a stimulus was thus given to investigation and to experiment4 ,the third law of ,kepler1 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 distance1 suggested the existence of another law1 not yet discovered1 a law of attraction1 on which this itself depended4 ,among the astronomers of that day three names deserve special mention1 ,wren1 ,hooke1 and ,halley1 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 distance4 ,hooke1 in particular1 deserves the credit of having applied this law to the path of a projectile1 under certain circumstances1 as well as to the planetary orbits2 but though he thus lighted upon true conclusions1 he appears to have been deficient in mathematical skill1 and therefore unable to verify his results4 ,it is1 however1 only just to the memory of ,horrox1 who was carried off by an early death1 to mention that the true theory of the identity of terrestrial and astronomical gravity had occurred to his mind2 if he had lived twenty or thirty years longer1 he might have survived in history as the discoverer of the great problem4 ,be this as it may1 there now arose another man greater than his predecessors1 and greater than all his contemporaries2 he also was an ,englishman1 by name ,isaac ,newton4 ,what others guessed1 or concluded on insufficient evidence1 became1 in his powerful hands1 clear and well-grounded truths1 proved1 so far as such things could be proved1 by rigid mathematical reasoning1 and established on a solid basis1 which time has not shaken1 and which subsequent investigation has confirmed4 ,others had supposed the existence of the law of attraction by which the ,sun acted on the planets2 many persons had understood the existence of terrestrial gravitation4 ,newton showed that these two are identical2 and1 moreover1 that every particle of matter attracts every other particle mutually1 and according to the one universal law1 that of the inverse square of the distance2 so that a vast planet revolving round the ,sun obeys the same law as a pebble dropped from one's hand to the ,earth4 ,the popular story of his having been suddenly led to this conclusion by the sight of an apple falling is apparently fabulous2 and what really occurred is this3 he sat alone one day in a garden1 and fell into a speculation 7as men of scientific mind are apt to do7 on the power of gravity1 that is1 of gravity as we feel it here on the ,earth4 ,then it struck him that however high you ascend1 even on the loftiest mountains1 no sensible diminution in this remarkable force takes place2 so1 he said to himself3 why not as high as the ,moon8 ,if so1 perhaps she is retained in her orbit by this very power4 ,and again if so1 what then8 ,to which question his active mind gave the just and true answer1 that it was probably one and the same force that acted at the surface of the ,earth1 at the distance of the ,moon1 and finally1 as regulating the action of the ,sun on the planets4 ,it seems that there was an error1 which it is unnecessary to explain in detail1 in ,newton's first calculations2 but that when1 after a lapse of time and with the error corrected1 he again returned to them1 he found the motion of the ,moon to be exactly accounted for by his theory4 ,again1 in dealing with the complicated problem of the action of the heavenly bodies one upon the other1 that is1 when the disturbing force1 for instance1 of a third body is brought to bear on the motions of two others1 although ,hooke and others had as a conjecture put forth the existence of such mutual action1 yet ,newton was the first who thoroughly grappled with it4 ,the mutual attraction of matter1 so far as things terrestrial are concerned1 had occurred to the inquiring intellect of ,francis ,bacon2 but it was left for ,newton to propound it as the great principle that governs the physical universe4 ,now let us see how all this bears on the truth of the ,copernican system4 ,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 ellipse1 or indeed1 in one of the other conic sections1 the law of force1 tending to the focus1 is that of the inverse square of the distance4#bf ,conversely1 he proved that a body under the action of a central force1 varying in intensity as the inverse square of the distance1 will move in a conic section4 ,then if the ,moon moved in an ellipse1 as it was easy to perceive that she did1 and if her motion corresponded precisely with what it would be on the theory of universal gravitation2 if also1 as seemed evident1 the planets revolved in ellipses1 then the inference that the law of gravitation1 as stated by ,newton1 was true became irresistible2 not susceptible1 as before stated1 of direct and absolute proof1 but established conclusively by a sound and legitimate induction4 ,what ,i have just stated shows that ,kepler's first law corresponds with ,newton's discovery2 but the same is true of the two other laws4 ,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 gravitation4 ,i may briefly state that all of ,kepler's laws are simply explicable by that hypothesis1 and that the evidence derives additional confirmation from the following curious fact3 observation shows that ,kepler's laws1 though approximately true1 are not strictly and accurately so2 if the planets were mere particles revolving round the ,sun1 they would then be quite rigidly true1 but the planets have a certain mass 7though very small compared to the ,sun7 and so do in some measure attract the ,sun as well as being attracted by him1 and they1 moreover1 exercise a disturbing influence on each other4 ,these perturbations1 however1 have been calculated1 and the result is that they agree with what ought reasonably to be expected1 supposing the theory of universal gravitation to be true4 ,this confirmatory proof has been acquired1 ,i need not add1 since the time of ,newton by the labours of astronomers1 ,laplace and others1 who have succeeded him1 and who have had the advantage of that more manageable method of mathematical calculation to which ,i have just alluded4 ,supposing then the law of gravitation to be established by sufficient proof1 we may now ask what must become of the old systems of astronomy8 ,what must befall ,ptolemy and even ,tycho ,brah8 ,it is obvious that they could do nothing but collapse4 ,if the law of gravitation were once admitted to be true1 the idea of the ,sun revolving round the ,earth must be dismissed as impossible4 ,here it is right to remark that 7assuming the law of universal gravitation7 it is not1 strictly and scientifically speaking1 correct to say that any one heavenly body revolves round another1 but that they both revolve round their common centre of gravity4 ,in the case of the ,earth and the ,sun1 so vastly superior is the mass of the latter that the centre of gravity is far away within his volume1 and the disturbance exercised on him by the ,earth is scarcely appreciable2 so also1 in the case of the ,moon and the ,earth1 the centre of gravity is within the latter1 but at a considerable distance from its own centre2 and here there is a distinctly appreciable oscillation of the ,earth1 arising from this very cause1 during each revolution of the ,moon in her orbit4 ,when two bodies are more nearly equal in mass1 as is probably the case with the double stars that have been observed in recent times1 then the two revolve round a centre of gravity lying between them1 exterior to both of them4 ,it is believed that this is actually the fact in the instance ,i am here alluding to of the double stars1 and there is some reason for supposing that the curve in which they revolve is an ellipse4 ,this1 if true1 would clearly indicate that the law of gravitation1 as stated by ,newton1 extends not only through our own solar system1 but over the whole material universe4 ,and there is one remarkable property of this mysterious agency which we term gravitation1 and that is its instantaneous action even at the greatest distances4 ,light travels with an enormous and yet a finite velocity1 so that it takes a few years to arrive at the ,earth from even the nearest stars4 ,the force of gravity knows no such limit1 nor is its action retarded by even the minutest fraction of time4 ,nor1 again1 is it impeded1 as in the case of light1 by any screen or obstacle of whatever nature4 ,furthermore1 it does not lose anything of its intensity1 as light does1 by being diffused over a larger surface2 it varies as the mass of the bodies concerned1 but not in the least according to the extent of their surfaces4 ,given the same distance1 no diffusion weakens its force4 ,great as was the evidence adduced by ,newton for the truth of his theory1 there were some real difficulties in the way of its reception4 ,i need not allude to these in detail2 they are explained in treatises on physical astronomy for the benefit of those who are interested in the subject4 ,briefly1 ,i may say that subsequent research and careful calculations have removed the difficulties1 and thereby confirmed the already existing evidence4 ,then1 as regards terrestrial gravity1 experiments have been made--notably at the mountain ,schehallion1 in ,scotland--throwing additional light upon it1 and indicating that not merely the ,earth as a whole1 but any great mass1 such as a mountain1 exercises an appreciable attractive force4 ,newton seems to have expected that some further discovery would take place1 at no distant period1 as to the nature of this occult agency which operates so powerfully in the heavens and on the ,earth4 ,in one of his letters he strongly disclaims the opinion that gravity is essential to matter and inherent in it2 he thinks it is 8inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should1 without the mediation of something else which is not material1 operate on and affect other matter without mutual contact444 that gravity should be innate1 inherent1 and essential to matter1 so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum1 without the mediation of anything else by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another1 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 it40 ,and yet we see that what he thought absurd is still apparently true1 and that1 great as was ,newton's sagacity in discovering and proving the effects of this great cosmical law1 he failed when he came to speculate on the more remote causes of it4 ,since his time1 other ingenious theorists have imagined hypotheses in the hopes of accounting for it2 but their efforts have not met with any great success1 and the last word of science on the subject is that the cause of gravitation remains undiscovered4 ,but if the attempt to trace the ultimate cause of the law of gravitation has been a failure1 the proof of its operation in the physical universe has been a marvellous success1 and that not only in the present day1 when difficulties have been removed and fresh evidence has been added1 but1 to a certain extent1 even in ,newton's own time1 and especially here in his own country4 ,indeed1 we cannot suppress a feeling of admiration when we contemplate the revolution in astronomy brought about by this quiet1 unobtrusive man1 who is said to have spent thirty-five years of his long life within the walls of ,trinity ,college1 ,cambridge1 of which he was a ,fellow1 and who1 though twice elected to represent the ,university in ,parliament1 never opened his lips in the ,house of ,commons4 ,i may1 perhaps1 be here permitted to insert a passage from a work to which ,i have previously alluded1 ,whewell's 8,history of the ,inductive ,sciences10 well worth quoting both for its eloquence and its truth4 ,after recounting1 with some detail1 the circumstances of this great epoch in astronomical knowledge1 he proceeds3 ,such1 then1 is the great ,newtonian induction of universal gravitation1 and such its history4 ,it is indisputably and incomparably the greatest scientific discovery ever made1 whether we look at the advance which it involved1 the extent of the truth disclosed1 or the fundamental and satisfactory nature of this truth4 ,as to the first point1 we may observe that any one of the five steps into which we have separated the doctrine these were1 #ast1 that the force attracting different planets to the sun1 and1 #bnd1 the force attracting the same planet in different parts of its orbit1 is as the inverse square of the distances2 #crd1 that the earth exerts such a force on the moon1 and that this is identical with terrestrial gravity2 #dth1 that there is a mutual attraction of the heavenly bodies on one another2 #eth1 that there exists a mutual attraction of all particles of matter throughout the universe would of itself have been considered as an important advance1 would have conferred distinction on the persons who made it1 and the time to which it belonged4 ,all the five steps made at once formed not a leap1 but a flight2 not an improvement merely1 but a metamorphosis2 not an epoch1 but a termination4 ,astronomy passed at once from its boyhood to mature manhood4 ,again1 with regard to the extent of the truth1 we obtain as wide a generalisation as our physical knowledge admits when we learn that every particle of matter1 in all times1 places1 and circumstances1 attracts every other particle in the universe by one common law of action4 ,and by saying that the truth was of a fundamental and satisfactory nature1 ,i mean that it assigned1 not a rule merely1 but a cause1 for the heavenly motions2 and that kind of cause which most eminently and peculiarly we distinctly and thoroughly conceive1 namely1 mechanical force4 ,kepler's laws were merely formal rules1 governing the celestial motions according to the relations of space1 time1 and number2 ,newton's was a causal law1 referring these motions to mechanical reasons4 ,it is no doubt conceivable that future discoveries may both extend and further explain ,newton's doctrines2 may make gravitation a case of some wider law1 and may disclose something of the way in which it operates--questions with which ,newton himself struggled4 ,but1 in the meantime1 few persons will dispute that1 both in generality and profundity1 both in width and depth1 ,newton's theory is without a rival or neighbour4#bg ,the effect of all this on the ,copernican system and the evidence on which it rested1 was to raise that system from a simple though strong probability1 a question on which at any rate something might be said for and against it1 to a probability of almost overwhelming force2 for it not only showed how the heavenly bodies moved1 but it explained the cause of their motions1 and in a word furnished the key that unlocked the arcana of ,nature4 ,when you came to know not only how the ,moon and the planets moved1 but the law which regulated their movements1 and when you found that all fitted into one harmonious whole 7at least with some minor exceptions71 it was not easy to refuse assent to a theory supported by such powerful evidence4 ,yet in saying this we are perhaps rather viewing the question from our present standpoint1 than as a contemporary would have done4 ,as a matter of fact1 ,newton's hypothesis1 though eagerly received in ,england1 met with a long opposition on the ,continent1 and particularly in ,france1 where ,descartes' theory of vortices reigned supreme for many years4 ,it must not be supposed that these ,cartesian philosophers were anti-,copernicans2 far otherwise1 only they accounted for the celestial motions in a different way from ,newton1 and1 as every one now admits1 in a wrong way4 ,i have already remarked that there were some apparent difficulties in the application of the law of universal gravitation to all the heavenly bodies1 and that these have been removed by subsequent calculation4 ,one of these difficulties1 if indeed it could be so called 7for it hardly amounted to that71 has been solved within living memory4 ,it was noticed that the planet ,uranus showed signs of perturbation from some unknown reason2 and even the work ,i have just quoted1 8,whewell's ,history of the ,inductive ,sciences10 published in #ahdg1 contains the following sentence3 8,uranus still deviates from his tabular place1 and the cause remains yet to be discovered40 ,two astronomers1 one ,french and one ,english1 ,le ,verrier and ,adams1 found out the cause by discovering the existence1 each independently of the other1 of an exterior planet revolving in an orbit more distant by far than that of ,uranus2 to this planet the name of ,neptune has been given1 and his existence is one more confirmatory proof of the theory of gravitation4 ,the ,copernican system had been built up and consolidated by ,newton's great discovery2 but another piece of evidence1 of a most important character1 was added by the investigations of ,bradley1 ,professor of ,astronomy at ,oxford1 and afterwards ,astronomer ,royal2 this careful observer1 while engaged in endeavouring to detect such an apparent motion of the fixed stars 7so called7 as would indicate an annual parallax1 noticed that another motion existed different from that which the annual parallax would produce1 and for which he could not account2 the apparent orbits described by the stars observed depended on the distance of the stars from the pole of the ecliptic2 the phenomenon was different from anything hitherto discovered1 and one or two modes of explanation were tried in vain4 ,accident1 however1 turned ,bradley's thoughts in the right direction2 he was one day in a boat on the ,thames1 and observed that the vane on the mast gave a different apparent direction to the wind1 according as the boat sailed in different courses4 ,here1 then1 was the solution of the difficulty3 it was already known from ,rmer's investigations that light moved with a finite velocity1 and if so it would naturally produce the same effect as that observed in the boat1 or to take an illustration very commonly given1 like that which any one finds when moving along rapidly in a shower of rain1 in which latter case the rain seems to fall not in the direction it has when one is at rest1 but in a direction compounded of that and the one opposite to the person's line of motion4 ,bradley soon drew the correct conclusion1 that light acted in precisely the same way upon the ,earth as it moved in its orbit1 and that the apparent annual displacement of the stars1 as detected by him1 arose from this sole cause4 ,all the great astronomers who followed him have agreed with his conclusions1 and the phenomenon in question1 which is called the aberration of light1 has conferred a lasting fame on its discoverer4 ,and the remarkable point about it is this1 that not only does it give a fresh illustration to the ,copernican theory1 but it is one of the very few scientific facts that cannot 7so far as our knowledge of the subject goes7 be explained in any other way4 ,it is1 therefore1 generally considered as a critical test of the truth of the system4 ,there are two other phenomena1 on which however ,i do not propose to dwell at any length1 known as precession and nutation1 which it is not easy to explain otherwise than by the modern theory of astronomy and the principle of gravitation2 the latter of these two owed its discovery to ,bradley1 and the former to ,hipparchus1 who could not have been aware of its real cause1 though he had observed the fact of its occurrence4 ,but passing on from these1 ,i may call attention to one most remarkable result of modern scientific research1 connected with the stars4 ,in ,galileo's day1 it was a drawback to the ,copernican theory that none of the stars showed the smallest annual parallax2 in popular language1 none of them seemed to undergo any change of place1 however small1 when observed at opposite points of the ,earth's orbit1 or as the opponents would have said1 the ,earth's imagined orbit4 ,a displacement of this kind1 ,i need hardly repeat1 must not be confounded with that other motion which ,bradley observed and explained4 ,this was one of ,tycho ,brah's reasons for rejecting the ,copernican system1 and it was one of the best arguments used by the opponents of ,galileo4 ,as the enormous distance of the stars from the ,earth was1 as we have already seen1 at that time unknown1 the celestial distances generally being under-estimated even by the best astronomers1 the argument had an apparent force1 which no one now would attribute to it4 ,galileo himself had some hope of overcoming the difficulty by discovering some annual displacement in certain stars1 but it is needless to add that his instruments were unequal to such a task4 ,subsequent observers tried various methods1 but without any real success until the present century1 when ,bessel and other observers found that a star called #fa ,cygni had a certain annual parallax2 and not long afterwards1 ,henderson1 making his observations at the ,cape of ,good ,hope on a conspicuous star in the constellation of the ,centaur1 a constellation belonging to the southern hemisphere1 found at length that this star1 which in fact is a double star1 and known as ,centauri1 had a parallax of nearly #a2 subsequent calculations show it to be probably rather less1 that is to say about #jia4 ,this means that it is more than twenty billions of miles distant1 and that light takes more than three years to travel from ,centauri to the earth4 ,it is1 however1 believed to be much the nearest of all the stars1 no other coming within double of the distance4 ,now it is difficult to evade the conclusion which naturally follows from these results1 that the ,earth really does move in an annual orbit round the ,sun4 ,it is no part of my present task to give a list of the stars of which the parallax has been found1 but ,i may say there are several others besides the two ,i have named2 and ,i know of no method of accounting for the fact in any way but by the annual motion of the ,earth1 unless we suppose some instrumental error to have occurred4 ,there have been so many of these in times past that it may seem rash to exclude such a possibility1 but1 considering the perfection of modern scientific instruments1 it is in the highest degree improbable2 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 which1 as we have seen1 was1 from a purely scientific point of view1 very probable in the days of ,galileo1 overwhelmingly probable after the great discovery of ,newton1 and at the present time1 with all the light that subsequent research and observation have thrown on it1 scarcely short of a moral certainty4 ,i may repeat once more that it has not1 indeed1 that absolute physical certainty1 arising from direct experiment1 which has been obtained in other scientific investigations2 but1 allowing for this faint element of instability1 we may fairly say that no truth of natural philosophy stands on a firmer basis4 ,and for ,galileo1 who lived before the day when1 as ,whewell says1 8,astronomy passed from boyhood to mature manhood10 we may fairly say that1 after we have censured his faults and his errors1 after we have ascertained that he was not a hero or a 8martyr of science10 we must still recognise the fact that he was one of the greatest natural philosophers of his day1 pre-eminent in astronomy1 in mechanics1 in mathematics4 ,to his honour also be it added1 that his religious faith1 and his respect for the ,church and her authority1 so far as we can judge1 never failed4 ,whatever his defects may have been--want of prudence1 want of candour1 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 ,science4 ,in the present age1 unhappily1 there have been men who have taken the other course1 and have contributed their share towards exciting antagonism1 heedless of the consequences4 ,some have done this unwittingly1 arguing on the side of religion1 but without a proper supply of sound scientific information2 others1 on the opposite side1 have shown so bitterly hostile a spirit to ,revelation1 if not even to ,natural ,religion1 as to render it more than ever difficult to re-establish that concord between the two studies1 that of the supernatural and that of the physical1 which should never have been interrupted4 ,this1 however1 is so wide a subject that ,i must not be led into it4 ,yet ,i may briefly remark that two of the greatest lights of the ,catholic ,church1 men whose teaching and whose writings have exercised an undying influence1 have both1 either by words explicitly1 or implicitly by their example1 contributed to encourage a sound knowledge of natural philosophy1 and in harmony with ,christian theology4 ,they both lived when physical science was in its infancy1 though at intervals of nearly #hjj years apart4 ,st4 ,augustine1 who flourished towards the latter part of that period dominated by the corrupt civilisation of ancient ,rome1 amongst his voluminous works devoted one treatise to the interpretation of the ,book of ,genesis1 8,de ,genesi ad ,litteram20 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 ,scripture4 ,he was1 ,i believe1 one of the first that interpreted the six days of ,creation in the non-literal sense1 though his particular theory is not one in accordance with modern scientific opinion4 ,i allude to him not for the details of natural philosophy1 but as enunciating a principle1 which some subsequent authors have not followed as they might have done4 ,st4 ,thomas ,aquinas lived in those middle ages of which he was one of the most brilliant ornaments4 ,the power of his intellect is admitted by those who have little sympathy with his teaching2 his literary industry is a standing marvel2 and ,i have already observed that besides the theological and metaphysical works on which he expended so much labour1 he wrote a treatise on the astronomy of ,aristotle4 ,it may be said this is no very great matter1 but ,i mention it as illustrating the breadth of mind of this great saint and theologian1 who could spare time for a study of physical science without neglecting the more solemn duties of his calling4 ,his active mind was alive to every source from whence wisdom and learning could be imbibed2 and if he had lived in the age of ,galileo1 ,i have sometimes fancied that he would have thrown some oil on the troubled waters1 would have counselled prudence to the adventurous astronomer1 patience and forbearance to his antagonists4 ,but it is of no avail to indulge in speculations such as these4 ,each age of the world has its difficulties1 moral and intellectual1 and we can neither hurry the stream of human thought onwards nor drive it backwards4 ,so again it is with the dispositions of individuals2 if ,galileo had been gifted with the calm1 dignified reserve of ,newton1 instead of being the vivacious1 loquacious ,italian that he in fact was1 he might have lived and died in peace4 ,and now1 if ,i may be permitted to recur once more to the subject of gravitation1 ,i have a word to say as to the lesson which this great all-pervading law seems to teach4 ,it has nothing to do with any question of revealed ,religion2 but does it not bear the unmistakable signs of the action of an all-wise1 an all-powerful ,creator8 ,it may possibly be the result of some other1 though unknown1 law2 and even then it brings us back to the same point4 ,the result in nature remains the same1 and that result is written in characters that cannot be ignored4 ,mathematicians have occupied themselves in making suppositions as to the effects of imaginary laws of gravity1 some of which might1 no doubt1 ensure sufficient order and regularity to maintain this world1 and the countless worlds that people space1 while others would cause hopeless confusion4 ,the striking thing is that the existing law perfectly answers its purpose4 ,only let us imagine that no law of attraction acted upon matter at all1 nor any force of whatever kind--what would be the result8 ,there would be no coherence1 no abode for human or animal life--nothing but chaos and anarchy4 ,if1 then1 we contrast this imagined picture with the one actually before us1 we are1 ,i think1 forcibly led to the conclusion that the physical universe owes its origin1 its existence1 its harmony to an ,omnipotent ,being1 unseen1 yet not unknown1 intangible to the senses1 ever present to the intelligence4 ,and now1 in order to avoid misapprehension1 ,i venture to restate briefly the propositions ,i have sought to establish4 ,i have maintained that the ,catholic ,church has a right to lay her restraining hand on the speculations of ,natural ,science1 just as much as she has in the case of other speculative inquiries4 ,those who do not believe in her prerogatives will1 of course1 deny such right in toto2 but ,i contend that if you grant the existence of this right at all1 you cannot exclude ,physical ,science from its operation4 ,on the other hand1 in the particular case of ,galileo1 ,i have not attempted to defend all the proceedings of the ,cardinals of the ,index and the ,cardinals of the ,inquisition4 ,for it must be remembered it was no gentle rebuke with which the ,copernican system and the individual ,galileo were visited2 no such light condemnation as that of placing on the ,index of prohibited books all ,copernican works as being inopportune1 or again1 that of a caution to ,galileo to be more prudent1 was deemed adequate to the emergency--if1 indeed1 any one even thought of them4 ,so with the facts of the history before us1 ,i think any sweeping defence of the proceedings in question would be unnecessary from an ecclesiastical point of view1 and from a scientific point of view untenable4 ,moreover1 ,i must add1 as an indispensable premiss to the conclusion just stated1 ,i have also maintained that the censures pronounced by the ,cardinals on both occasions were not dogmatic decisions1 such as ,catholic theologians hold to be infallible2 but disciplinary enactments1 varying with the changing characters of different ages4 ,then again1 referring to the scientific questions involved1 we may see that ,astronomy1 considered historically1 is divided into three periods--the ancient one before the invention of the telescope1 that is1 up to the time of ,galileo2 the intermediate one1 when the telescope was in use but the law of universal gravitation as yet unknown--from ,galileo until the publication of the 8,principia0 of ,newton2 and the modern one1 from ,newton downwards4 ,during the first period it seemed highly probable to the whole world1 with the exception of a few gifted intellects1 that this ,earth was the centre of the ,universe1 and that all the heavenly bodies revolved round it2 during the second period1 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 wished1 the balance of probability passed into the opposite scale1 and the more intelligent men of science guessed at the truth1 however indistinctly4 ,but some elements of uncertainty remained2 and this circumstance1 taken in connection with the irrelevant arguments so much in vogue at that time1 must in all fairness be allowed as an excuse for the many good men1 ecclesiastics and others1 who opposed the ,copernican doctrine4 ,after the great step made by ,newton it was no longer a question of balancing probabilities1 for the weights were almost all transferred to one scale1 and the probabilities of the truth of the ,heliocentric ,system 7to give it for once its accurate name7 became overwhelming4 ,the subsequent investigations of ,bradley and others have gone further still1 and have converted this strong1 overpowering probability into something approaching indefinitely near to a moral certainty4 ,beyond this we cannot reasonably expect to go2 physical certainty is not to be attained when we have to traverse the vast distances of celestial space1 and human infirmity must be content to recognise the boundary beyond which it may not pass1 the limit imposed on finite minds by the ,infinite4 ,,the ,,end4 ,,charles ,,dickens ,,and ,,evans1 ,,crystal ,,palace ,,press ,,footnotes #a ,nicetas of ,syracuse 7whose date ,i am not able to give7 seems to have been aware of the diurnal movement of the earth round its axis4 #b ,m4 de l'pinois has1 since then1 published a still more complete collection of the various documents he had obtained permission to inspect at ,rome2 but this work is1 unfortunately1 out of print4 #c 8,principium #gm4--,sancta ,sedes ,apostolica cui divinitus commissa est custodia depositi1 potestas pascendi universam ,ecclesiam ad salutem animarum1 potest sententias theologicas vel quatenus cum theologicis nectuntur proscribere ut sequendas vel proscribere ut non sequendas1 non unice ex intentione definitiv sententi infallibiliter decidendi veritatem1 sed etiam absque ilia ex necessitate et intentione vel simpliciter vel pro determinatis adjunctis prospiciendi securitati#d doctrin ,catholic4 ,in hujusmodi declarationibus licet non sit doctrin veritas infallibilis1 quia hanc decidendi ex hypothesi non est intentio2 est tamen infallibilis securitas4 ,securitatem dico tum objectivam doctrin declarat vel simplicitea vel pro talibus adjunctis1 tum subjectivam quatenus omnibus tutum est eam amplecti1 et tutum non est1 nec absque violatione debit submissionis erga magisterium divinitus constitutum fieri potest1 ut eam amplecti recusent4 8,coroll4 ,c4 ,falsum est1 auctoritatem propter quam debeatur assensus intellectus1 solam esse auctoritatem ,dei revelantis seu ,ecclesi vel ,pontificis infallibiliter definientis2 sunt enim gradus assensus religiosi multiplices4 ,in prsenti distinguendus est assensus fidei proprie et immediate divin propter auctoritatem ,dei revelantis2 assensus fidei quam supra diximus mediate divinam propter auctoritatem infallibilitur definientis doctrinam ut veram non tamen ut revelatam2 assensus religiosus propter auctoritatem universalis providenti ecclesiastic in sensu declarato40--,de ,divina ,traditione et ,scriptura1 p4 #aaf1 et seq4 ,ed4 #ahgj4 #d 8,non coincidere hc duo1 infallibilem veritatem et securitatem1 manifestum est vel ab eo1 quod secus nulla doctrina probabilis aut probabilior posset dici sana et secura40 #e ,it happens1 curiously enough1 that the doctrine of the perfect immobility of the ,sun1 which so shocked the ,qualifiers of the ,inquisition1 is simply discarded by modern astronomers4 ,no one now holds that the ,sun is the centre of the whole universe1 or that he is immovable4 ,it is generally supposed that he travels in space1 though not round any known centre1 and the ,earth and ,planets with him4 #f 8,dico1 che quando ci fosse vera dimostratione che il ,sole stia nel centro del mondo1 e la terra nel #c cielo1 e che il ,sole non circonda la terra1 ma la terra circonda il ,sole1 allora bisogneria andar con molta consideratione in esplicare le ,scritture che paiono contrarie1 e pi sotto dire che non l' intendiamo1 che dira che sia falso quello che si dimostra4 ,ma io non creder che ci sia tale dimostratione fin che non mi sia mostrata1 etc40--,extract from ,cardinal ,bellarmine's ,letter to ,f4 ,foscarini4 #g ,a brief but interesting rsum of the ,aristotelian physics is given in ,whewell's 8,history of the ,inductive ,sciences10 a work to which ,i shall have occasion to refer more than once4 #h ,it is said that a weight dropped from the top of a very high tower falls slightly to the east1 because the velocity of the axial rotation is greater at the summit of the tower than at its foot1 and the stone or ball dropped partakes of the motion of the highest part of the tower from which it falls2 this is perfectly true in theory2 and experiments1 made not only from the summits of towers but also in mines1 tend to confirm it4 #i ,simplicio having said that the cause why parts of the earth are carried downwards was gravity1 ,salviati answers3 8,voi errate1 ,signor ,simplicio1 voi dovevate dire1 che ciaschedun sa1 ch' ella si chiama gravit2 ma io non vi domando il nome1 ma dell' essenza della cosa3 della quale essenza voi non sapete punto pi di quello1 che voi sappiate dell' essenza del movente le ,stelle in giro2 eccetuatone il nome1 che a questa stato posto1 e fatto familiare1 e domestico per la frequente esperienza1 che mille volte il giorno noi ne veggiamo2 ma non 1 che realmente noi intentiamo pi1 che principio1 o che virt sia quella1 che muove la pietra in gi1 di quel noi sappiamo chi la muova in s1 separata del proiciente2 o chi muova la ,luna in giro1 eccettoch 7come ho detto7 il nome1 che pi singolare e proprio gli abbiamo assegnato di gravit2 dovech a quello con termine pi generico assegniamo virt impressa1 a quello diamo intelligenza o assistente1 o informante2 e a infiniti altri moti diamo loro per cagione la natura40 #aj ,it is curious that the notion of the universe being shaped as a curve returning into itself has been started by some modern ,german philosophers1 founders of what has been called 8non-,euclidian geometry40 ,the investigations of astronomers1 however1 rather point to the conclusion that the stellar universe has no centre1 no symmetrical figure1 though speculations such as these must always be uncertain4 #aa ,to speak of the circumference of a circle of infinite radius as being identical with a straight line 7though practically true enough7 is not rigidly accurate4 ,we should say that they approximate infinitely to one another1 or in mathematical phraseology1 they are equal to each other in the limit4 #ab ,it is not intended here to deny what some writers state--that the friction caused by the ,earth's rotation does in some degree act upon the tidal wave4 ,it is remarkable1 so far as can be ascertained from observations taken at some small island at a distance from any continent1 that the tidal wave of the ,ocean only rises1 even at the spring1 about five or six feet4 ,the enormous rise of water at some places arises from the tidal wave being driven into estuaries1 mouths of rivers1 and other narrow channels4 #ac ,these are the author's words1 spoken by ,salviati3 8,tra tutti gli nomini grandi1 che sopra tal mirabile effetto di natura hanno filosofato1 pi mi maraviglio del ,keplero1 che di altri1 il quale d'ingegno libero1 e acuto1 e che aveva in mano i moti attribuiti alla terra1 abbia poi dato l'orecchio1 e assenso a predominii della ,luna sopra l'acqua1 e a propriet occulte1 e simili fanciullezze40 #ad ,it is not intended to imply that these two ,schools of thought stand on anything like the same scientific level4 #ae ,the spots on the ,sun were seen at about the same period of time by ,fabricius and by ,father ,scheiner1 a ,jesuit1 as already mentioned4 #af ,i must not be understood as implying that even doctrinal decisions promulgated by the ,roman ,congregations in their own name are considered by theologians to be infallible2 such character belonging only to decisions addressed by the ,pope himself to the ,church4 #ag ,a curious instance of popular unacquaintance with astronomy was afforded some months ago1 when the planet ,venus1 which one would think was a well-known object to most people1 was mistaken for 8the ,star of ,bethlehem20 and this mistake was by no means confined to the ignorant1 but was shared by persons of education4 ,the planet was at the time a brilliant 8morning star20 and the effect on the eye is more striking in these circumstances than when it is seen1 as is very commonly the case1 in the evening1 shortly after sunset4 ,i suppose this would account in some measure for the delusion4 ,in clearer and finer skies than those of ,england1 ,venus is sometimes so brilliant in the early morning as to startle an unaccustomed observer4 #ah ,dr4 ,ward makes a curious mistake in one point2 he speaks in one of the articles of ,the ,dublin ,review 7which he then edited7 of ,copernicanism as destroying the old ideas as to above and below2 that is to say1 for instance1 your idea of ascending on high towards heaven was thereby nullified1 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 moment4 ,but ,dr4 ,ward1 who was doubtless thinking of the very old and exploded notion that the earth was a flat surface1 does not seem to have been aware that this objection applies in principle to the ,ptolemaic system also2 ,ptolemy knew that the earth was spherical in its shape1 and consequently that what would be above a person in the eastern parts of ,india1 to take an example1 would be widely different from that which would be so at the westernmost point of ,africa4 ,it may1 however1 be admitted that an additional cause for bewilderment was presented by the diurnal rotation of the ,earth1 since it then appeared that the same point in space above you at noon would be far away below you at midnight4 #ai ,quoted from an article in the 8,revue des ,questions ,historiques10 #ahfg1 8,galile1 son ,procs1 sa ,condemnation1 d'aprs des documents indits10 by ,m4 ,henri de l'pinois4 #bj ,tycho ,brah discovered two out of the principal inequalities in the ,moon's motion--known to astronomers as the ,variation and the ,annual ,equation2 the third1 which is the most obvious of all and is called the ,evection1 was discovered by ,ptolemy4 #ba ,the figurative interpretation1 however1 in this instance is as old as ,st4 ,augustine1 though his speculations lead him to a different conclusion from that of modern scientific men2 namely1 that of supposing the actual creation to be the work of one moment4 #bb ,it is1 ,i think1 ,mr4 ,proctor who uses this argument in one of his works1 to prove how very doubtful a thing is the existence of highly organised and rational beings on the other planets4 #bc ,it is quite possible1 as ,mr4 ,lockyer has recently argued1 that many objects that appear to us as stars1 are in reality nebul in a more or less advanced stage of condensation4 #bd ,the relative distances could be computed geometrically1 even before the absolute distances were known1 and in fact were so2 ,kepler's third law affords a simple rule for calculating them1 but they were known even previously4 #be ,i may1 perhaps1 be permitted to recall to the reader's mind1 in a note1 one or two of the main objections urged by the anti-,copernicans4 ,one of these was that it would leave the atmosphere behind1 the true answer to which is that the atmosphere itself is attracted by the force of gravity to the earth1 and is carried round by the rotation1 as everything else is2 this ,galileo did not perfectly understand1 as may be seen by his remarks1 both in the second and the fourth day's dialogue4 ,another was this--and it was put forward by no less a man than ,tycho ,brah--a stone dropped from a high tower ought to fall to the westward of the tower1 because the tower would be carried on to the east by the earth's rotation1 and the stone would not2 this1 however1 being contrary to experience4 ,the real fact is that the stone partakes of the rotatory movement as much as the tower does1 the two forces of rotation and gravity being combined according to the second law of motion1 while the stone is falling2 this ,galileo did know4 ,supposing a very high tower1 the stone ought to fall slightly to the east1 on account of the superior velocity of rotation at the top of the tower to that at the bottom4 ,it is said this experiment has been successfully tried1 as stated in note1 page #ee4 #bf ,there are other laws1 besides that of the inverse square of the distance1 which would cause a body to move in an ellipse1 at least if the force acting on it were placed1 not in the focus1 but in the centre of the orbit4 ,the question has been discussed with reference to some of the binary stars which appear to move round one another in ellipses4 ,no doubt is thereby raised as to the prevalence of the law of the inverse square in our own solar system1 where it has been verified by long and careful observation2 the doubt 7,i think we may say a comparatively slight one7 is whether the same law extends to the whole stellar universe1 where1 of course1 accurate observation is impracticable4 #bg ,i do not think the truth of this is affected by any of the great modern discoveries2 though that of the ,conservation of ,energy approaches more nearly than others to ,universal ,gravitation in its importance4 ,transcriber's ,notes ,punctuation1 hyphenation1 and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in the original book2 otherwise they were not changed4 ,simple typographical errors were corrected2 unbalanced quotation marks were remedied when the change was obvious1 and otherwise left unbalanced4 ,original text uses 8loadstone01 not 8lodestone04 ,footnotes1 originally at the bottoms of pages1 have been collected and moved to the end of this e,book4 ,page #bb3 ,the symbol in 8,locus sigilli0 is a version of a ,maltese cross4 ,footnote #d1 originally on page #bg1 is a sub-note of footnote #c4