The Essential Galileo (30 page)

8. One is not asking that in case of doubt the interpretation of the Fathers should be abandoned, but only that an attempt be made to gain certainty regarding what is in doubt, and that therefore no one disparage what attracts and has attracted very great philosophers and astronomers. Then, after all necessary care has been taken, the decision may be made.

9. We believe that Solomon, Moses, and all other sacred writers knew perfectly the constitution of the world, as they also knew that God has no hands, no feet, and no experience of anger, forgetfulness, or regret; nor will we ever doubt this. But we say what the Holy Fathers and in particular St. Augustine say about these matters, namely, that the Holy Spirit inspired them to write what they wrote for various reasons, etc.

10. The error of the apparent movement of the shore and stability of the ship is known by us after having many times observed the motion of boats from the shore, and many other times observed the shore from a boat; and so, if we could now stay on earth and now go to the sun [370] or other star, perhaps we would acquire sensible and certain knowledge of which one of them moves. To be sure, if we looked only at these two bodies, it would always seem to us that the one we were on was standing still, just as looking only at the water and the boat always gives the appearance that the water is flowing and the boat is standing still. Moreover, the two situations are very different: there is great disparity between a small boat, separable from its environment, and the immense shore, known by us through thousands of experiences to be motionless, that is, motionless in relation to the water and the boat; but the other comparison is between two bodies both of which are substantial and equally inclined toward motion and toward rest. Thus it would be more relevant to compare between themselves two boats, in which case it is absolutely certain that the one we were on would always appear to us as motionless, as long as we could not consider any other relationship but that which holds between these two ships.

There is, therefore, a very great need to correct the error about observing whether the earth or else the sun moves, for it is clear that to someone on the moon or any other planet it would always appear that it was standing still and the other stars were moving. But these and many other more plausible reasons of the followers of the common opinion are the ones that must be untied very openly, before one can pretend even to be heard, let alone approved; unfortunately we have not done a very detailed examination of what is produced against us. Moreover, neither Copernicus nor his followers will ever use this phenomenon of the shore and the boat to prove that the earth is in motion and the sun at rest. They only adduce it as an example that serves to show, not the truth of their position, but the absence of contradiction between the appearance of a stable earth and moving sun to our simple sense experience, and the reality of the contrary. For, if this were one of Copernicus' demonstrations, or if his others did not argue more effectively, I really think that no one would agree with him.

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, 12: 171–72; translated by Finocchiaro (1989, 67–69).

4.
“In the third heaven” just means in the third orbit around the sun.

5.
The Council of Trent (1545–63).

6.
Ecclesiastes 1:5 (King James Version).

7.
Galilei 1890–1909, 5: 351–63; translated by Finocchiaro (1989, 70–80).

8.
Ecphantus was an ancient Greek who lived in Syracuse at the beginning of the fifth century B.C.

9.
Galileo gives no exact reference for this passage, which he leaves in Latin; it is here translated directly from his quotation. Cf. Seneca,
Quaestiones natu-rales
, book vii, chapter 2.

10.
William Gilbert (1540–1603),
De Magnete magneticisque corporibus et de magno magnete Tellure physiologia nova
(London, 1600); the full title translates as:
New Physics of the Loadstone, of Magnetic Bodies, and of the Great Loadstone the Earth;
published as
On the Loadstone and Magnetic Bodies
, Mottelay translation (New York, 1893).

11.
I.e.,
Origani novae coelestium motuum ephemerides
(Frankfurt, 1609);
ephemerides
(plural of
ephemeris
) are astronomical tables showing in a systematic way the positions of heavenly bodies at various times.

12.
This is probably a reference to Aristotle.

13.
Here the translation in Finocchiaro 1989, 73, has been corrected by inserting “much.”

14.
Cardinal Nicolaus von Schoenberg (1472–1537), archbishop of Capua.

15.
Tiedemann Giese (1480–1550), Polish friend of Copernicus.

16.
Here quoted from Copernicus 1976, 79; I have emended this text, as translated by Duncan, by using quotation marks rather than displaying the last two clauses.

17.
Here the translation in Finocchiaro 1989, 78, has been made more literal by replacing “account for the phenomena” with “save the appearances.”

18.
This preface was in fact written by Andreas Osiander (1498–1552), a Lutheran theologian who supervised the last phase of the printing of Copernicus' book at Nuremberg. The action was soon discovered by Copernicus' friends and followers, causing a controversy, but it did not become generally known for some time, perhaps not until Kepler announced it in his book on Mars of 1609.

19.
Here the translation in Finocchiaro 1989, 79, has been corrected by inserting “more than.”

20.
Here the translation in Finocchiaro 1989, 80, has been corrected by replacing “from the viewpoint of ” with “in conformity with.”

21.
Galilei 1890–1909, 5: 364–66; translated by Finocchiaro (1989, 80–83).

22.
Begging the question is the fallacy of assuming, in the course of a dispute, the truth of what is being questioned; thus, for example, if part of the dispute is about what is the correct meaning of a particular scriptural passage, then to argue against the earth's motion on the basis of a given meaning of that passage would be to beg the question.

23.
This statement is literally correct, but Copernicus' book came close to being prohibited immediately after its publication. This did not happen then because of the death of the persons involved: Giovanni Maria Tolosani, a Florentine Dominican theologian and astronomer, and Bartolomeo Spina, the Master of the Sacred Palace, or chief censor, in Rome. See Garin (1971; 1975); Rosen 1975; Westman 1986; Granada 1997; Beltrán Marí 2006, 124–30.

24.
The Council of Trent (1545–63).

25.
Galilei 1890–1909, 5: 367–70; translated by Finocchiaro (1989, 83–86).

26.
The translation of this sentence has been revised from the one in Finocchiaro 1989, 84.

CHAPTER 6
¹

From the Earlier Trial-Documents (1615–16)
²

§6.1 Lorini's Complaint (7 February 1615)
³

[297] Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:
⁴

Besides the common duty of every good Christian, there is a limitless obligation that binds all Dominican friars, since they were designated by the Holy Father the black and white hounds of the Holy Office. This applies in particular to all theologians and preachers, and hence to me, lowest of all and most devoted to Your Most Illustrious Lordship. I have come across a letter
⁵
that is passing through everybody's hands here, originating among those known as “Galileists,” who, following the views of Copernicus, affirm that the earth moves and the heavens stand still. In the judgment of all our Fathers at this very religious convent of St. Mark, it contains many propositions which to us seem either suspect or rash: for example, that certain ways of speaking in the Holy Scripture are inappropriate; that in disputes about natural effects the same Scripture holds the last place; that its expositors are often wrong in their interpretations; that the same Scripture must not meddle with anything else but articles concerning faith; and that, in questions about natural phenomena, philosophical or astronomical argument has more force than the sacred and the divine one. Your Most Illustrious Lordship can see these propositions underlined by me in the above-mentioned letter, of which I send you a faithful copy.
⁶
Finally, it claims that when Joshua ordered the sun to stop one must understand that the order was given to the Prime Mobile and not to the sun itself. Besides this letter passing through everybody's hands, without being stopped by any of the authorities, it seems to me that some want to expound Holy Scripture in their own way and against the common exposition of the Holy Fathers and to defend [298] an opinion apparently wholly contrary to Holy Scripture. Moreover, I hear that they speak disrespectfully of the ancient Holy Fathers and St. Thomas; that they trample underfoot all of Aristotle's philosophy, which is so useful to scholastic theology; and that to appear clever they utter and spread a thousand impertinences around our whole city, kept so Catholic by its own good nature and by the vigilance of our Most Serene Princes. For these reasons I resolved, as I said, to send it to Your Most Illustrious Lordship, who is filled with the most holy zeal and who, for the position that you occupy, is responsible, together with your most illustrious colleagues, for keeping your eyes open in such matters; thus if it seems to you that there is any need for correction, you may find those remedies that you judge necessary, in order that a small error at the beginning does not become great at the end. Though perhaps I could have sent you a copy of some notes on the said letter made at this convent, nevertheless, out of modesty I refrained since I was writing to you who know so much and to Rome where, as St. Bernard said, the holy faith has lynx eyes. I declare that I regard all those who are called Galileists as men of goodwill and good Christians, but a little conceited and fixed in their opinions; similarly, I state that in taking this action I am moved by nothing but zeal. I also beg Your Most Illustrious Lordship that this letter of mine (I am not referring to the other letter mentioned above) be kept secret by you, as I am sure you will, and that it be regarded not as a judicial deposition but only as a friendly notice between you and me, like between a servant and a special patron. And I also inform you that the occasion of my writing was one or two public sermons given in our church of Santa Maria Novella by Father Tommaso Caccini, commenting on the book of Joshua and chapter 10 of the said book. So I close by asking for your holy blessing, kissing your garment, and asking for a particle of your holy prayers.

§6.2 Caccini's Deposition (20 March 1615)
⁷

[307] Friday, 20 March 1615.

There appeared personally and of his own accord at Rome in the great hall of examinations in the palace of the Holy Office, in the presence of the Reverend Father Michelangelo Segizzi, O.P., Master of Sacred Theology and Commissary General of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, etc., the Reverend Father Tommaso Caccini, son of the late Giovanni Caccini, Florentine, a professed priest of the Order of Preachers, Master and Bachelor from the convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, about thirty-nine years of age. Having been administered the oath to tell the truth, he declared as follows:

I had spoken with the Most Illustrious Lord Cardinal Aracoeli about some things taking place in Florence, and yesterday he sent for me and told me that I should come here and tell everything to you. Since I was told that a legal deposition is needed, I am here for this purpose. I say then that on the fourth Sunday of Advent of this past year I was preaching at the church of Santa Maria Novella in Florence, where I had been assigned by superiors this year as a reader of Holy Scripture, and I continued with the story of Joshua begun earlier. Precisely on this Sunday I happened to read the passage of the tenth chapter of that book where the sacred writer relates the great miracle which God made in answer to Joshua's prayers by stopping the sun, namely “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon,”
⁸
etc. After interpreting this passage first in a literal sense and then in accordance with its spiritual intention for the salvation of souls, I took the opportunity to criticize, with that modesty which befits the office I held, a certain view once proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus and nowadays held and taught by Mr. Galileo Galilei, mathematician, according to public opinion very widespread in the city of Florence. This is the view that the sun, being [308] for him the center of the world, is immovable as regards progressive local motion, that is, motion from one place to another. I said that such a view is regarded as discordant with Catholic faith by very serious writers since it contradicts many passages of the divine Scripture whose literal sense, as given unanimously by the Holy Fathers, sounds and means the opposite; for example, the passage of the eighteenth Psalm, of the first chapter of Ecclesiastes, of Isaiah 38, besides the Joshua passage cited. And in order to impress upon the audience that such a teaching of mine did not originate from my whim, I read them Nicolaus Serarius'
⁹
doctrine (fourteenth question on chapter 10 of Joshua): after saying that such a position of Copernicus is contrary to the common account of almost all philosophers, all scholastic theologians, and all the Holy Fathers, he added that he could not see how such an opinion is not almost heretical, due to the above-mentioned passages of Scripture. After this discussion I cautioned them that no one was allowed to interpret divine Scripture in a way contrary to the sense on which all the Holy Fathers agree, since this was prohibited both by the Lateran Council under Leo X and by the Council of Trent.

Although this charitable warning of mine greatly pleased many educated and devout gentlemen, it displeased certain disciples of the above-mentioned Galilei beyond measure; thus some of them approached the preacher at the cathedral so that he would preach on this topic against the doctrine I expounded. Having heard so many rumors, out of zeal for the truth, I reported to the very reverend Father Inquisitor of Florence what my conscience had led me to discuss concerning the Joshua passage; I also suggested to him that it would be good to restrain certain petulant minds, disciples of the said Galilei, of whom the reverend Father Fra Ferdinando Ximenes,
¹⁰
regent of Santa Maria Novella, had told me that from some of them he had heard these three propositions: “God is not otherwise a substance, but an accident”; “God is sensuous because there are in him divine senses”; and, “in truth the miracles said to have been made by the saints are not real miracles.”

After these events Father Master Fra Niccolò Lorini showed me a copy of a letter written by the above-mentioned Mr. Galileo Galilei to Father Benedetto Castelli, Benedictine monk and professor of mathematics at Pisa, in which it seemed to me are contained questionable doctrines in the domain of theology. Since a copy of it was sent to the Lord Cardinal of Santa Cecilia,
¹¹
I have nothing else to add to that.

Thus I declare to this Holy Office that it is a widespread opinion that the above-mentioned Galilei holds these two propositions: the earth moves as a whole as well as with diurnal motion; the sun is motionless. These are propositions which, according to my [309] conscience and understanding, are repugnant to the divine Scriptures expounded by the Holy Fathers and consequently to the faith, which teaches that we must believe as true what is contained in Scripture. And for now I have nothing else to say.

He was asked:
How he knows that Galileo teaches and holds the sun to be motionless and the earth to move, and whether he learned this expressly from others.

He answered:
Aside from public notoriety, as I said before, I also heard from Monsignor Filippo de' Bardi, Bishop of Cortona, at the time I stayed there and then in Florence, that Galilei holds the abovementioned propositions as true; he added that this seemed to him very strange, as not agreeing with Scripture. I also heard it from a certain Florentine gentleman
¹²
of the Attavanti family, a follower of the same Galilei, who said to me that Galilei interpreted Scripture in such a way as not to conflict with his opinion. I do not recall this gentleman's name, nor do I know where his house is in Florence; I am sure that he often comes to service at Santa Maria Novella in Florence, that he wears priest's clothes, and that he is twenty-eight or thirty years of age perhaps, of olive complexion, chestnut beard, average height, and sharply delineated face. He told it to me this past summer, about the month of August, in Father Ferdinando Ximenes' room, the occasion being that Father Ximenes was telling me that I should not take too long discussing the miracle of the stopping of the sun when he (Ximenes) was around. I have also read this doctrine in a book printed in Rome, dealing with sunspots, published under the name of the said Galileo, and lent to me by the said Father Ximenes.

Q:
¹³
Who the preacher at the cathedral is, to whom Galileo's disciples went in order to have a public sermon against the doctrine taught equally publicly by the plaintiff himself, and who those disciples are who made such a request to the said preacher.

A: The preacher at the Florence cathedral whom Galileo's disciples approached about preaching against the doctrine I taught is a Jesuit Father from Naples, whose name I do not know. Nor have I learned these things from the said preacher, since I did not even speak with him. Rather they have been told me by Father Emanuele Ximenes,
¹⁴
a Jesuit, whom the said preacher had asked for advice, and who dissuaded him. Nor do I know who were the disciples of Galilei who contacted the preacher about the above-mentioned matters.

Q: Whether he has ever talked to the said Galileo.

A: I do not even know what he looks like.

Q: What the reputation of the said Galileo is in the city of Florence regarding matters of faith.

A: By many he is regarded as a good Catholic. By others he is regarded with suspicion in matters of faith because they say he is very close to Fra Paolo,
¹⁵
of the Servite order, so [310] famous in Venice for his impieties; and they say that letters are exchanged between them even now.

Q: Whether he remembers from which person or persons he learned about these matters.

A: I heard these things from Father Master Niccolò Lorini and from another Mr. Ximenes,
¹⁶
Prior of the Knights of Santo Stefano. They told me the above-mentioned things. That is, Father Niccolò Lorini has repeated to me several times and even written to me here in Rome that between Galileo and Master Paolo there is an exchange of letters and great friendship, and that the latter is a suspect in matters of faith. And Prior Ximenes did not tell me anything different about the closeness between Master Paolo and Galileo, but only that Galilei is a suspect and that, while being in Rome once, he learned how the Holy Office was trying to seize him, on account of which he ran away. This was told me in the room of the above-mentioned Father Ferdinando, his cousin, though I do not remember exactly if the said Father was present there.

Q: Whether he learned from the above-mentioned Father Lorini and the Knight Ximenes why they regarded the said Galileo to be suspect in matters of faith.

A: They did not say anything else to me, except that they regarded him as suspect on account of the propositions he held concerning the immobility of the sun and the motion of the earth, and because this man wants to interpret Holy Scripture against the common meaning of the Holy Fathers.

He added on his own:
This man, together with others, belongs to an academy—I do not know whether they organized it themselves— which has the title of “Lincean.” And they correspond with others in Germany, at least Galileo does, as one sees from that book of his on sunspots.

Q: Whether he had been told himself in detail by Father Ferdinando Ximenes the persons from whom he learned about those propositions: that God is not a substance but an accident, that God is sensuous, and that the miracles of the Saints are not true miracles.

A: I seem to remember that he gave the name of Attavanti, whom I have described as one of those who uttered the said propositions. I do not remember any others.

Q: Where, when, in the presence of whom, and on what occasion Father Ferdinando related that Galilei's disciples had mentioned to him the said propositions.

A: It was on several occasions (sometimes in the cloister, sometimes in the dormitory, sometimes in his cell) that Father Ferdinando told me he had heard the said propositions from Galileo's disciples; he did this after I had preached that sermon, the occasion being that of telling me that he had defended me against these people. And I do not remember that there ever was anyone else present.