The Essential Galileo

by Galilei, Galileo, Finocchiaro, Maurice A.

  From this and other places it seems to me, if I am not mistaken, the intention of the Holy Fathers is that in questions about natural phenomena which do not involve articles of faith one must first consider whether they are demonstrated with certainty or known by sense experience, or whether it is possible to have such knowledge and demonstration. When one is in possession of this, since it too is a gift from God, one must apply it to the investigation of the true meanings of the Holy Writ at those places which apparently seem to read differently. These meanings will undoubtedly be grasped by wise theologians, along with the reasons why the Holy Spirit has sometimes wanted to hide them under words with a different literal meaning, whether in order to test us or for some other reason unknown to me.

  Returning to the preceding argument, if we keep in mind the primary aim of the Holy Writ, I do not think that its always saying the same thing should make us disregard this rule; for if to accommodate popular understanding Scripture finds it necessary once to express a proposition with words whose meaning differs from the essence of the proposition, why should it not follow the same practice for the same reason every time it has to say the same thing? On the contrary, I think that to do otherwise would increase popular confusion and diminish the propensity to believe on the part of the people. Furthermore, in regard to the rest or motion of the sun and of the earth, experience clearly shows that to accommodate popular understanding it is indeed necessary to assert what the words of Scripture say; for even in our age when people are more refined, they are kept in the same opinion by reasons which, when carefully examined and pondered, will be found to be most frivolous and by observations which are either completely false or totally irrelevant; nor can one try to move them since they are not capable of understanding the contrary reasons, which are dependent on extremely delicate observations and on subtle demonstrations [333] supported by abstractions whose understanding requires a very vivid imagination. Therefore, even if the sun’s rest and the earth’s motion were more than certain and demonstrated among the experts, it would still be necessary to utter the contrary in order to maintain credibility with large numbers of people; for among a thousand laymen who might be asked about these details, perhaps not even one will be found who would not answer that he firmly believes that the sun moves and the earth stands still. However, no one should take this very common popular consensus as an argument for the truth of what is being asserted; for if we ask the same men about the reasons and motives why they believe that way, and if on the other hand we listen to the observations and demonstrations which induce those other few to believe the opposite, we shall find that the latter are convinced by very solid reasons and the former by the simplest appearances and by empty and ridiculous considerations.

  It is therefore clear that it was necessary to attribute motion to the sun and rest to the earth in order not to confuse the meager understanding of the people, and not to make them obstinately reluctant to give assent to the principal dogmas which are absolutely articles of faith; but if it was necessary to do this, it is no wonder that this was most prudently done in divine Scripture. Indeed I shall say further that it was not only respect for popular inability, but also the current opinion of those times, that made the sacred writers accommodate themselves to received usage rather than to the essence of the matter in regard to subjects which are not necessary for eternal bliss. In fact, speaking of this St. Jerome writes: “As if in the Holy Scriptures many things were not said in accordance with the opinion of the time when the facts are being reported, and not in accordance with the truth of the matter” (Commentary on chapter 28 of Jeremiah). Elsewhere the same saint says: “In Scripture it is customary for the historian to report many opinions as they were accepted by everyone at that time” (Commentary on chapter 13 of Matthew). Finally, on the words in chapter 27 of Job, “He stretched out the north [334] over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing,”28 St. Thomas notes that Scripture calls empty and nothing the space which embraces and surrounds the earth, and which we know is not empty but full of air; nevertheless, he says that Scripture calls it empty and nothing in order to accommodate the belief of the people, who think there is nothing in this space. Here are St. Thomas’ words: “The upper hemisphere of the heavens seems to us nothing but a space full of air, though common people consider it empty; thus it speaks in accordance with the judgment of common people, as is the custom in Holy Scripture.” Now from this I think one can obviously argue that analogously the Holy Scripture had a much greater reason to call the sun moving and the earth motionless. For if we test the understanding of common people, we shall find them much more incapable of becoming convinced of the sun’s rest and earth’s motion than of the fact that the space surrounding us is full of air; therefore, if the sacred authors refrained from attempting to persuade the people about this point, which was not that difficult for their understanding, it seems very reasonable to think that they followed the same style in regard to other propositions which are much more recondite.

  Indeed, Copernicus himself knew how much our imagination is dominated by an old habit and by a way of conceiving things which is already familiar to us since infancy, and so he did not want to increase the confusion and difficulty of his abstraction. Thus, after first demonstrating that the motions which appear to us as belonging to the sun or the firmament [335] really belong to the earth, then, in the process of compiling their tables and applying them in practice, he speaks of them as belonging to the sun and to the part of heaven above the planets; for example, he speaks of the rising and setting of the sun and of the stars, of changes in the obliquity of the zodiac and in the equinoctial points, of the mean motion and the anomaly and the prosthaphaeresis29 of the sun, and other similar things, which really belong to the earth. We call facts these things which appear to us as facts because, being attached to the earth, we are part of all its motions, and consequently we cannot directly detect these things in it but find it useful to consider it in relation to the heavenly bodies in which they appear to us. Therefore, note how appropriate it is to accommodate our usual manner of thinking.

  Next consider the principle that the collective consensus of the Fathers, when they all accept in the same sense a physical proposition from Scripture, should authenticate it in such a way that it becomes an article of faith to hold it. I should think that at most this ought to apply only to those conclusions which the Fathers discussed and inspected with great diligence and debated on both sides of the issue and for which then they all agreed to reject one side and hold the other. However, the earth’s motion and sun’s rest are not of this sort, given that in those times this opinion was totally forgotten and far from academic dispute, and was not examined, let alone followed, by anyone; thus one may believe that the Fathers did not even think of discussing it, since the scriptural passages, their own opinion, and popular consensus were all in agreement, and no [336] contradiction by anyone was heard. Therefore, it is not enough to say that all the Fathers accept the earth’s rest, etc., and so it is an article of faith to hold it; rather one would have to prove that they condemned the contrary opinion. For I can always say that their failure to reflect upon it and to discuss it made them leave it and allow it as the current opinion, but not as something resolved and established. I think I can say this with very good reason: for either the Fathers reflected upon this conclusion as if it were controversial or they did not; if not, then they could not have decided anything about it, even in their minds, nor should their failure oblige us to accept those principles which they did not, even in intention, impose; whereas if they examined it with care, then they would have condemned it had they judged it to be erroneous; but there is no record of their having done this. Indeed, after some theologians began to examine it, one sees that they did not deem it to be erroneous, as one can read in Diego de Zúñiga’s Commentaries on Job, in regard to the words “Who shaketh the earth out of her place, etc.” in chapter 9, verse 6; he discusses the Copernican position at length and conc
ludes that the earth’s motion is not against Scripture.

  Furthermore, I would have doubts about the truth of this prescription, namely, whether it is true that the Church obliges one to hold as articles of faith such conclusions about natural phenomena, which are characterized only by the unanimous interpretation of all the Fathers. I believe it may be that those who think in this manner may want to amplify the decrees of the Councils in favor of their own opinion. For I do not see that in this regard they prohibit anything but tampering, in ways contrary to the interpretation of the Holy Church or of the collective consensus of the Fathers, with those propositions which are articles of faith, or which involve morals and pertain [337] to edification according to Christian doctrine; so speaks the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent. However, the motion or rest of the earth or the sun are not articles of faith and are not against morals; nor does anyone want to twist scriptural passages to contradict the Holy Church or the Fathers. Indeed, those who put forth this doctrine have never used scriptural passages, for it always remains the prerogative of serious and wise theologians to interpret the said passages in accordance with their true meaning. Moreover, it is very obvious that the decrees of the Councils agree with the Holy Fathers in regard to these details; for they are very far from wanting to accept as articles of faith similar physical conclusions or to reject as erroneous the contrary opinions, so much so that they prefer to pay attention to the primary intention of the Holy Church and consider it useless to spend time trying to ascertain those conclusions. Let me tell Your Most Serene Highness what St. Augustine (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, book 2, chapter 10) answers to those brethren who ask whether it is true that the heavens move or stand still: “To them I answer that these things should be examined with very subtle and demanding arguments, to determine truly whether or not it is so; but I do not have the time to undertake and to pursue these investigations, nor should such time be available to those whom we desire to instruct for their salvation and for the needs and benefit of the Holy Church.”

  However, suppose one were to decide that, even in the case of propositions about natural phenomena, they should be condemned or accepted on the basis of scriptural passages which are unanimously interpreted in the same way by all the Fathers; even then I do not see that this rule would apply in our case, given that one can read in the Fathers different interpretations of the same passages. For example, Dionysius the Areopagite says that it was not the sun but the Prime Mobile which stopped;30 St. Augustine thinks the same thing, namely, that all heavenly bodies stopped; and the bishop of Avila31 is of the same opinion. Moreover, among the Jewish authors whom Josephus endorses, some thought that the sun did not really stop, but that it appeared so for the short time during which the Israelites defeated their enemies. Similarly, in the miracle at the time of Hezekiah, Paul of Burgos thinks that it did not take place in the sun but in the clock.32 [338] At any rate, I shall demonstrate further below that, regardless of the world system one assumes, it is in fact necessary to gloss and to interpret the words of the text in Joshua.

  [§4.2.5] Finally, let us grant these gentlemen more than they ask— namely, let us submit entirely to the opinion of wise theologians. Since this particular determination was not made by the ancient Fathers, it could be made by the wise ones of our age. The controversy concerns questions of natural phenomena and dilemmas whose answers are necessary and cannot be otherwise than in one of the two controversial ways; so they should first hear the experiments, observations, reasons, and demonstrations of philosophers and astronomers on both sides of the question, and then they would be able to determine with certainty whatever divine inspiration will communicate to them. No one should hope or fear that they would reach such an important decision without inspecting and discussing very minutely all the reasons for one side and for the other, and without ascertaining the facts: this cannot be hoped for by those who would pay no attention to risking the majesty and dignity of the Holy Writ to support their self-righteous creations; nor is this to be feared by those who seek nothing but the examination of the foundations of this doctrine with the greatest care, and who do this only out of zeal for the truth and for the majesty, dignity, and authority of the Holy Writ, which every Christian must strive to uphold. No one can fail to see that this dignity is desired and upheld with much greater zeal by one group than by the other—by those who submit in every way to the Holy Church and who do not ask for the prohibition of this or that opinion, but only that they be allowed to present things whereby she could more reliably be sure of making the safest choice; and not by those who, blinded by their own interests or incited by malicious suggestions, preach that she immediately flash the sword since she has the power to do it, without considering that it is not always useful to do all that one can do. This opinion was not held by the holiest Fathers. Indeed, they knew how harmful and how contrary to the primary function of the Catholic Church it would be to want to use scriptural passages to establish conclusions about nature, when by means of observations and of necessary demonstrations one could at some point demonstrate the contrary of what [339] the words literally say; thus, not only were they very circumspect, but they left precepts for the edification of others. From St. Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, book 1, chapters 18 and 19,33 we have the following: “In obscure subjects very far removed from our eyes, it may happen that even in the divine writings we read things that can be interpreted in different ways by different people, all consistent with the faith we have; in such a case, let us not rush into any one of these interpretations with such precipitous commitment that we are ruined if it is rightly undermined by a more diligent and truthful investigation; such recklessness would mean that we were struggling for our opinions and not for those of Scripture, and that we wanted to make scriptural opinion conform to ours, when we ought to want to make ours conform to that of Scripture.” A little further, to teach us how no proposition can be against the faith unless it is first shown to be false, he adds: “It is not against the faith as long as it is not refuted by an unquestionable truth; if this happens, then it was not contained in the divine Scripture but originated from human ignorance.” From this, one sees the falsehood of any meanings given to scriptural passages which do not agree with demonstrated truths; and so one must search for the correct meaning of Scripture with the help of demonstrated truth, rather than taking the literal meaning of the words, which may seem to be the truth to our weak understanding, and trying somehow to force nature and to deny observations and necessary demonstrations.

  Your Highness should also note with how much circumspection this very holy man proceeds before deciding to assert that some scriptural interpretation is so certain and sure that there is no fear of encountering disturbing difficulties; not satisfied with just any scriptural meaning which might agree with some demonstration, he adds: “But if this were proved to be true by an unquestionable argument, it would be still uncertain whether by these words the writer of the holy books meant this or something else no less true; for if the rest of the context of the passage showed that he did not intend this, then what he did intend would not thereby be falsified but would still be true and more beneficial to know.” Now, what increases our amazement about the circumspection with which this author proceeds is the fact that he is still not completely sure upon seeing that demonstrative reasons, as well as the literal scriptural meaning and the preceding and subsequent text, [340] all point in the same direction, and so he adds the following words: “If the context of Scripture did not disprove that the writer meant this, one could still ask whether he might not have meant the other.” Still he does not decide to accept this meaning or exclude that one, but rather he does not think he can ever be sufficiently cautious, and so he continues: “If we found that he could have meant the other, then it would be uncertain which of the two he intended; and if both interpretations were supported by solid documentation, it would not be implausible to believe that he meant both.” Next, he seems
to want to give the rationale for his procedure by showing to us the dangers to which certain people would expose themselves, Scripture, and the Church; these are people who, concerned more with the preservation of their own errors than with the dignity of Scripture, would want to extend its authority beyond the limits which it prescribes for itself. And so he adds the following words, which by themselves should suffice to repress and to temper the excessive license which some people arrogantly take: “In fact, it often happens that even a non-Christian has views based on very conclusive reasons or observations about the earth, heaven, the other elements of this world, the motion and revolutions or the size and distances of the stars, the eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of years and epochs, the nature of animals, of plants, of rocks, and similar things. Now, it is very scandalous, as well as harmful and to be avoided at all costs, that any infidel should hear a Christian speak about these things as if he were doing so in accordance with the Christian Scriptures and should see him err so deliriously as to be forced into laughter. The distressing thing is not so much that an erring man should be laughed at, but that our authors should be thought by outsiders to believe such things, and should be criticized and rejected as ignorant, to the great detriment of those whose salvation we care about. For how can they believe our books in regard to the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they catch a Christian committing an error about something they know very well, when they declare false his opinion taken from those books, and when they find these full of fallacies in regard to things they have already been able to observe or to establish by unquestionable argument?” Finally, we can see how offended are the truly wise and prudent Fathers by these people who, in order to support propositions they do not [341] understand, constrain scriptural passages in certain ways and then compound their first error by producing other passages which they understand even less than the former ones. This is explained by the same saint with the following words: “It is impossible to express sufficiently well how much harm and sorrow those who are reckless and presumptuous cause to prudent brethren. This happens when they begin to be rebuked and refuted for their distorted and false opinions by those who do not accept the authority of our books, and so they put forth those same books to prove and to defend what they had said with very superficial recklessness and very obvious falsity, and they even quote many of their passages from memory, considering them supporting testimony, but without understanding either what they say or what they are talking about.”