Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/402

 GALILEI

344

GALILEI

vince such men as Tycho Brah6 (who, however, did not hve to see the telescope) and Lord Bacon, who to the end remained an unbeliever. Milton also, who visited Galileo in his old age (1638), appears to have suspended his judgment, for there are passages in his great poem which seem to favour both systems. The proof from the phenomenon of the tides, to which Galileo appealed to establish the rotation of the earth on its axis, is now universally recognized as a grave error, and he treated with scorn Kepler's suggestion, foreshadowing Newton's establishment of the true doc- trine, that a certain occult influence of the moon was in some way responsible. In regard to comets, again, he maintained no less erroneously that they were atmospheric phenomena, like meteors, though Tycho had demonstrated the falsity of such a view, which was recommended only as the solution of an anti- Copernican difficulty.

In spite of all tleficiency in his arguments, Galileo, profoundly assured of the truth of his cause, set him- self with his habitual vehemence to convince others, and so contributed in no small degree to create the troubles which greatly embit- tered the latter part of his life. In regard to their his- tory, there are two main points to be considered. It is in the first place constantly as- sumed, especially at the present day, tliat the opposi- tion which Coper- nicanism encoun- tered at the hands of ecclesiastical authority was prompted by hatred of science and a desire to keep the minds of men in the dark- ness of ignorance. To suppose that any body of men could deliberately adopt such a course is ridic- ulous, especially a body which, with whatever de- fects of method, had for so long been the only one which concerned itself with science at all. It is like- wise contradicted by the history of the very contro- versy with which we are now concerned. Accord- ing to a popular notion the point, upon which beyond all others churchmen were determined to insist, was the geocentric system of astronomy. Nevertheless it was a churchman, Nicholas Copernicus (q. v.), who first advanced the contrary doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the centre of our system, round which our planet revolves, rotating on its own axis. His great work, "De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium", was published at the earnest solicitation of two dis- tinguished churchmen. Cardinal Schorabergand Tiede- mann Giese, Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated by permission to Pope Paul III in order, as Copernicus explained, that it might be thus protected from the attacks which it was sure to encounter on the part of the "mathematicians" (i. e. philosophers) for its ap- parent contradiction of the evidence of our senses, and even of common sense. He added that he made no account of objections which might be brought by ignorant wiseacres on Scriptural grounds. Indeed, for nearly three quarters of a century no such difficvil- ties were raised on the Catholic side, although Liither and Melanchthon condemned the work of Copernicus in unmeasured terms. Neither Paul III, nor any of

Swinging Lamp, Cathedral of Pisa

From which Galileo discovered the

isochronism of the pendulum

the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm, and, as has been seen, Galileo himself in 1597, speaking of the risks he might run by an advocacy of Copernicanism, mentioned ridi- cule only and said nothing of persecution. Even when he had made his famous discoveries, no change occurred in this respect. On the contrary, coming to Rome in 1611, he was received in triumph; all the world, cleri- cal anil lay, flocked to see him, and, setting up his telescope in the Quirinal Garden belonging to Cardinal Bandini, he exhibitetl the sun-spots and other objects to an admiring throng.

It was not till four years later that trouble arose, the ecclesiastical authorities taking alarm at the persist- ence with which Galileo proclaimed the truth of the Copernican doctrine. That their opposition was grounded, as is constantly assumed, upon a fear lest men should be enlightened by the diffusion of scientific truth, it is obviously absurd to maintain. On the contrary, they were firmly convinced, with Bacon and others, that the new teaching was radically false and unscientific, while it is now truly admitted that Gali- leo himself had no sufficient proof of what he so vehemently advocated, and Professor Huxley after examining the case avowed his opinion that the oppo- nents of Galileo " had rather the best of it". But what, more than all, raised alarm was anxiety for the credit of Holy Scripture, the letter of which was then uni- versally believed to be the supreme authority in mat- ters of science, as in all others. When therefore it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Josue, or the earth as being ever immovable, it was assumed that the doctrine of Copernicus and Galileo was anti-Scriptural, and therefore heretical. It is evident that, since the days of Copernicus himself, the Reformation controversy had done much to attach suspicion to novel interpretations of Holy Writ, which was not lessened by the endeavours of Galileo and his ally Foscarini to find positive arguments for Copernicanism in the inspired volume. Foscarini, a Carmelite friar of noble lineage, who had twice ruled Calabria as provincial, and had considerable reputa- tion as a preacher and theologian, threw himself with more zeal than discretion into the controversy, as when he sought to find an argument for Copernican- ism in the seven-branched candlestick of the Old Law. Above all, he excited alarm by publishing works on the subject in the vernacular, and thus spreading the new doctrine, which was startling even for the learned, amongst the masses who were incapable of forming any sound judgment concerning it. There was at the time an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and, as Sir David Brew- ster acknowledges (Martyrs of Science), there is no doubt that this party lent Galileo all its support.

In these circumstances, Galileo, hearing that some had denounced his doctrine as anti-Scriptural, pre- sented himself at Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. He was presently interrogated before the Inquisition, which after consultation de- clared the system he upheld to be scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must re- nounce it. This he obediently did, promising to teach it no more. Then followed a decree of the Congrega- tion of the Index dated 5 March, 1616, prohibiting various heretical works to which were added any ad- vocating the Copernican system. In this decree no mention is made of Galileo, or of any of his works, neither is the name of the pope introduced, though there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided. In thus acting, it is undeniable that the ecclesiastical authorities committed a grave and deplorable error, and sanctioned an altogether false principle as to the proper use of Scripture. Galileo and Foscarini rightly urged that Holy Writ is intended to teach men to go to