Who to the glowing sky hast given
The fires that in the east are born
With gradual splendors of the morn;
Who, on the fourth day, didst reveal
The sun’s enkindled flaming wheel,
Didst set the moon her ordered ways,
And stars their ever-winding maze.37
They could also say that the word firmament is literally very appropriate for the stellar sphere and everything above the planetary orbs, which is totally still and motionless according to this arrangement. Similarly, if the earth were rotating, then, where one reads “He had not yet made the earth, nor the rivers, nor the poles of the terrestrial globe,”38 one could understand its poles literally; for there would be no point in attributing these poles to the terrestrial globe if it did not have to turn around them.
1. Reprinted from: Maurice A. Finocchiaro, trans. and ed., The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History, © 1989 by the Regents of the University of California. Published by the University of California Press.
2. For the historical background, see the Introduction, especially §0.7.
3. Galilei 1890–1909, 5: 281–88; translated by Finocchiaro (1989, 49–54). For the historical background, see the Introduction, especially §0.7.
4. Joshua 10:12–13; I quote this passage in the Introduction, §0.7.
5. In this sentence, the translation in Finocchiaro 1989, 52 has been corrected slightly.
6. Galilei 1890–1909, 5: 309–48; translated by Finocchiaro (1989, 87–118). For the historical background, see the Introduction, especially §0.7.
7. Christina of Lorraine (d. 1637), wife of Grand Duke Ferdinando I de’ Medici and mother of Cosimo II.
8. Here and elsewhere in this essay, Galileo gives references for his Latin quotations by displaying the bibliographical information in the margin to his text, whereas I insert the references in parentheses in the text. Unless indicated otherwise in a note, I have translated the Latin passages from the wording as quoted by Galileo.
9. Here and in the rest of this paragraph, Galileo makes a number of misstatements about Copernicus. For example, although Copernicus was a canon and hence a type of cleric, he was not a clergyman in the sense of being a priest. Although he sent a written report to the Fifth Lateran Council, he did not go to Rome to attend it. Although the Copernican system played a role in the reform of the calendar, the new Gregorian calendar (which was implemented in 1582 during the papacy of Gregory XIII) was based on non-Copernican ideas. Although Copernicus’ book was not officially condemned (before 1616), it was widely censured. See Rosen 1958; 1975.
10. Actually Poland.
11. Paul of Middelburg (1445–1533).
12. Cardinal Nicolaus von Schoenberg (1472–1537), archbishop of Capua.
13. Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550), Polish friend of Copernicus.
14. Here quoted from Copernicus 1976, 26–27.
15. Tertullian 1972, 47; I have made some slight emendations to Evans’ translation of this passage.
16. Here my translation of this sentence is a slight emendation of the one given in Finocchiaro 1989, 94. This improved translation results from my now taking into account the emendation in Galileo’s own wording of this sentence in the first published edition of the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (Galilei 1636, 14; cf. Motta 2000, 97–98; Finocchiaro 2005, 379–80 n. 56), as well as the scholarly discussions found in Fantoli 2003, 437–38 n. 39, and McMullin 2005b, 109, 116.
17. The term planet originally meant “wandering star,” namely, a heavenly body that appears to move relative to the fixed stars as well as to the earth, thus subsuming the sun and the moon.
18. Cesare Baronio (1538–1607), appointed cardinal in 1596.
19. Here quoted from Mourant 1964, 110. This letter is labeled number 143 in most editions of Augustine’s works.
20. Ecclesiastes 3:11 (Douay Version).
21. Flora (1953, 1019 n. 4) gives the following reference: Cicero, Academia, II, 39, 123.
22. Here quoted from Schaff and Wace 1893, 99. Galileo indicates the number of this letter as 103, but there is no doubt that his quotation is from what modern scholars and editors now designate as Letter No. 53. Further, I have slightly altered the punctuation and spelling in Schaff and Wace’s translation for the sake of uniformity and easier comprehension.
23. Antonio Santucci (d. 1613).
24. Christoph Clavius (1538–1612), a Jesuit, professor at the Collegio Romano, one of the leading mathematicians and astronomers of his time, who was on friendly terms with Galileo.
25. Both the variation in the apparent magnitudes of Mars and Venus and the phases of Venus had been previously undetected, but they became observable with the telescope soon after the publication of The Sidereal Messenger.
26. This seems to refer to Psalm 103:2 (Douay), which reads in part “Who stretchest out the heaven like a pavilion,” corresponding to Psalm 104:2 in the King James Version, which reads “who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.” Another relevant passage is Isaiah 40:22. Russo (1968, 346, nn. 1 and 2) comments that “neither St. Augustine nor Galileo seems to have understood that the hide concerned the hide of a tent,” and that “the ‘hide’ in question is not a hide stretched out flat ‘but the hide of a tent.’”
27. This presumably corresponds to Psalm 103:2 (Douay), Psalm 104:2 (King James), and Isaiah 40:22; however, I have translated the word pellem in this sentence as hide because this is how Galileo understands it here.
28. Job 26:7 (Douay).
29. In mathematical astronomy, prosthaphaeresis is “the correction necessary to find the ‘true,’ i.e., actual apparent, place of a planet, etc. from the mean place” (Oxford English Dictionary).
30. Dionysius the Areopagite was a disciple of St. Paul and bishop of Athens. Galileo is here referring to interpretations of the miracle described in Joshua 10:12–13, in which God stopped the sun in order to prolong daylight. This is discussed at great length a few pages below, where more precise references are also given.
31. Alfonso Tostado (1400–1455), professor of theology and philosophy at the University of Salamanca (Spain).
32. Paul of Burgos (d. 1435) was a Spanish Jew who converted to Christianity and became an influential scriptural theologian. The passage in question is Isaiah 38:8.
33. Of the several quotations from Augustine in this paragraph and the next, the next is the only one that comes from chapter 18; the others six quotations all come from chapter 19.
34. Joshua 10:12–13; I quote this passage in the Introduction, §0.7.
35. Thomas de Vio (1468–1534), author of a commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologiae.
36. Cosme Magalhaens (1553–1624), author of a commentary on Joshua published in 1612.
37. Here quoted from The English Hymnal with Tunes, p. 89. These are the first two of five stanzas of the hymn whose first Latin line is “Caeli Deus sanctissime,” deriving from the fourth or fifth century; cf. Julian 1892, 241.
38. Cf. Proverbs 8:26. I have translated Galileo’s Latin quotation literally in order to appreciate his point, which would certainly be lost with the King James Version and might still be with the Douay Version.
CHAPTER 51
Reply to Cardinal Bellarmine (1615)2
§5.1 Cardinal Bellarmine’s Letter to Foscarini3
[171] To the Very Reverend Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Provincial of the Carmelites in the Province of Calabria:
My Very Reverend Father,
I have read with interest the letter in Italian and the essay in Latin which Your Paternity sent me; I thank you for the one and for the other and confess that they are all full of intelligence and erudition. You ask for my opinion, and so I shall give it to you, but very briefly, since now you have little time for reading and I for writing.
First, I say that it seems to me that Your Paternity and Mr. Galileo are proceeding prudently by limiting yourselves to speaking suppositionally and not absolutely, as I have
always believed that Copernicus spoke. For there is no danger in saying that, by assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, one saves all the appearances better than by postulating eccentrics and epicycles; and that is sufficient for the mathematician. However, it is different to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth is in the third heaven4 and revolves with great speed around the sun; this is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false. For Your Paternity has well shown many ways of interpreting Holy Scripture, but has not applied them to particular cases; without a doubt you would have encountered very great difficulties if you had wanted to interpret all those passages you yourself cited.
[172] Second, I say that, as you know, the Council5 prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your Paternity wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic,” it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.
Third, I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown me. Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by assuming the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. I add that the one who wrote, “The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose,”6 was Solomon, who not only spoke inspired by God, but was a man above all others wise and learned in the human sciences and in the knowledge of created things; he received all this wisdom from God; therefore it is not likely that he was affirming something that was contrary to truth already demonstrated or capable of being demonstrated. Now, suppose you say that Solomon speaks in accordance with appearances, since it seems to us that the sun moves (while the earth does so), just as to someone who moves away from the seashore on a ship it looks like the shore is moving. I shall answer that when someone moves away from the shore, although it appears to him that the shore is moving away from him, nevertheless he knows that this is an error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the shore; but in regard to the sun and the earth, no scientist has any need to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that the eye is not in error when it judges that the sun moves, as it also is not in error when it judges that the moon and the stars move. And this is enough for now.
With this I greet dearly Your Paternity, and I pray to God to grant you all your wishes.
At home, 12 April 1615.
To Your Reverend Paternity.
As a Brother,
Cardinal Bellarmine.
§5.2 Galileo’s Considerations on the Copernican Opinion, Part I7
[351] In order to remove (as much as the blessed God allows me) the occasion to deviate from the most correct judgment about the resolution of the pending controversy, I shall try to do away with two ideas. These are notions which I believe some are attempting to impress on the minds of those persons who are charged with the deliberations, and, if I am not mistaken, they are concepts far from the truth.
The first is that no one has any reason to fear that the outcome might be scandalous; for the earth’s stability and sun’s motion are so well demonstrated in philosophy that we can be sure and indubitably certain about them; on the other hand, the contrary position is such an immense paradox and obvious foolishness that no one can doubt in any way that it cannot be demonstrated now or ever, or indeed that it can never find a place in the mind of sensible persons. The other idea which they try to spread is the following: although that contrary assumption has been used by Copernicus and other astronomers, they did this in a suppositional manner and insofar as it can account more conveniently for the appearances of celestial motions and facilitate astronomical calculations and computations, and it is not the case that the same persons who assumed it believed it to be true de facto and in nature; so the conclusion is that one can safely proceed to condemning it. However, if I am not mistaken, these ideas are fallacious and far from the truth, as I can show with the following considerations. These will only be general and suitable to be understood without much effort and labor even by someone who is not well versed in the natural and astronomical sciences. For if there were the opportunity to treat these [352] points with those who are very experienced in these studies, or at least who have the time to do the work required by the difficulty of the subject, then I should propose nothing but the reading of Copernicus’ own book; from it and from the strength of his demonstrations one could clearly see how true or false are the two ideas we are discussing.
That it is not to be disparaged as ridiculous is, therefore, clearly shown by the quality of the men, both ancient and modern, who have held and do hold it. No one can regard it as ridiculous unless he considers ridiculous and foolish Pythagoras with all his school, Philolaus (teacher of Plato), Plato himself (as Aristotle testifies in his book On the Heavens), Heraclides of Pontus, Ecphantus,8 Aristarchus of Samos, Hicetas, and Seleucus the mathematician. Seneca himself not only does not ridicule it, but he makes fun of those who do, writing in his book On Comets: “It is also important to study these questions in order to learn whether the universe goes around the motionless earth, or the earth rotates but the universe does not. For some have said that we are naturally unaware of motion, that sunrise and sunset are not due to the motion of the heavens, but that it is we ourselves who rise and set. The matter deserves consideration, so that we may know the conditions of our existence, whether we stand still or move very fast, whether God drives everything around us or drives us.”9 Regarding the moderns, Nicolaus Copernicus first accepted it and amply confirmed it in his whole book. Then there were others: William Gilbert, a distinguished physician and philosopher, who treats it at length and confirms it in his book On the Loadstone;10 Johannes Kepler, a living illustrious philosopher and mathematician in the service of the former and the current emperor, follows the same opinion; Origanus (David Tost) at the beginning of his Ephemerides11 supports the earth’s motion with a very long discussion; and there is no lack of other authors who have published their reasons on the matter. Furthermore, though they have not published anything, I could name very many followers of this doctrine living in Rome, Florence, Venice, Padua, Naples, Pisa, Parma, and other places. This doctrine is not, therefore, ridiculous, having been accepted by great men; and, though their number is small compared to the followers of the common position, this is an indication of its being difficult to understand, rather than of its absurdity.
Moreover, that it is grounded on very powerful and effective [353] reasons may be shown from the fact that all its foll
owers were previously of the contrary opinion, and indeed that for a long time they laughed at it and considered it foolish. Copernicus and I, and all others who are alive, are witnesses to this. Now, who will not believe that an opinion which is considered silly and indeed foolish, which has hardly one out of a thousand philosophers following it, and which is disapproved by the Prince12 of the prevailing philosophy, can become acceptable through anything but very firm demonstrations, very clear experiences, and very subtle observations? Certainly no one will be dissuaded of an opinion imbibed with mother’s milk from his earliest training, accepted by almost the whole world, and supported by the authority of very serious writers, unless the contrary reasons are more than effective. If we reflect carefully, we find that there is more value in the authority of a single person who follows the Copernican opinion than in that of one hundred others who hold the contrary, since those who are persuaded of the truth of the Copernican system were in the beginning all very opposed. So I argue as follows.
Either those who are to be persuaded are capable of understanding the reasons of Copernicus and others who follow him, or they are not; moreover, either these reasons are true and demonstrative, or they are fallacious. If those who are to be persuaded are incapable, then they will never be persuaded by the true or by the false reasons; those who are capable of understanding the strength of the demonstrations will likewise never be persuaded if these demonstrations are fallacious; so neither those who do nor those who do not understand will be persuaded by fallacious reasons. Therefore, given that absolutely no one can be dissuaded from the first idea by fallacious reasons, it follows as a necessary consequence that, if anyone is persuaded of the contrary of what he previously believed, the reasons are persuasive and true. But as a matter of fact there are [354] many who are already persuaded by Copernican reasons. Therefore, it is true both that these reasons are effective, and that the opinion does not deserve the label of ridiculous but the label of worthy of being very carefully considered and pondered.
The Essential Galileo Page 19