Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/403

 GALILEI

345

GALILEI

heaven, not how the heavens go. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that, while there was as yet no sufficient proof of the Copernican system, no objection was niailo to its being taught as an hypothesis which explained all jihenomena in a simpler manner than the Ptolemaic, and might for all practical purposes be adopted by astronomers. What was objected to was the assertion that Copernicanism was in fact true, " which appears to contradict Scripture ". It is clear, moreover, that the authors of the judgment them- selves did not consider it to be absolutely final and irreversible, for Cardinal BoIIannine, the most influen- tial member of the Sacred College, writing to Foscar- ini, after urging that he and (lalileo shoiihl be content to show that their system explains all celestial phe- nomena — an unexceptional proposition, and one suffi- cient for all practical purposes — but should not cate- gorically assert what seemed to contradict the Bible, thus continued: "I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explana- tion of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, ami we should rather say that we have mis- understood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated."

By this decree the work of Copernicus was for the first time prohibited, as well as the "Epitome" of Kepler, but in each instance only donee corrigatur, the corrections prescribed being such as were necessary to exhibit the Copernican system as an hypothesis, not as an established fact. We learn further that with per- mission these works might be read in their entirety, by "the learned and skilful in the science" (Renms to Kepler). Galileo seems, .says von Gebler, to have treated the decree of the Inquisition pretty coolly, speaking with satisfaction of the trifling changes pre- scribed in the work of Copernicus. He left Rome, however, with the evident intention of violating the promise extracted from him, and, while he pursued unmolested his searches in other branches of science, he lost no opportunity of manifesting his contempt for the astronomical system which he had promi.sed to embrace. Nevertheless, when in 1624 he again visited Rome, he met with what is rightly described as " a noble and generous reception". The pope now reign- ing, Urban VIII, had, as Cardinal Barberini, been his friend and had opposed his condemnation in 1616. He conferred on his visitor a pension, to which as a foreigner in Rome Galileo had no claim, and which, says Brewster, must be regarded as an endowment of Science itself. But to Galileo's disappointment Urban would not annul the former judgment of the Inquisi- tion. After his return to Florence, Galileo set himself to compose the work which revived and aggravated all former animosities, namely a dialogue in which a Ptolemist is utterly routed and confounded by two Copernicans. This was published in 1632, and, being plainly inconsistent with his former promise, was taken by the Roman authorities as a direct challenge. He was therefore again cited before the Inquisition, and again failed to display the courage of his opinions, declaring that since his former trial in 1616 he had never held the Copernican theory. Such a declara- tion, naturally, was not taken very seriously, and in spite of it he was condemned as "vehemently sus- pected of heresy" to incarceration at the pleasure of the tribunal and to recite the Seven Penitential Psalms once a week for three years.

Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo re- mained till his death in 1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a "prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, " One glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the buildings of the Holy Office (i. e. the Inquisition), and even then

not in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he was — as is constantly stated — either tortured or blinded by his persecutors — though in 1637, five years before his death, he became totally blind — or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence. Finally, the famous " E pur si muove ", supposed to have been uttered by Galileo, as he rose from his knees after

Tomb of Galileo Foggini, Santa Croce, Florence

renouncing the motion of the earth, is an acknowl- edged fiction, of which no mention can be found till more than a century after his death, which took place 8 January, 1642, the year in which Newton was born.

Such in brief is the history of this famous conflict between ecclesiastical authority and science, to which special theological importance has been attached in connexion with the question of papal infallibility. Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentricism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no diffi- culty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being ab- solutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope ap- proved the Congregation's decision in forma comnuini, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose in- tended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings