essay 2

Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany

Galileo, 1615 [Text from the Internet Modern History Sourcebook]

To The Most Serene Grand Duchess Mother:1

Some years ago, as Your Serene H ighness well knows, I2

discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen3

before our own age. The novelty of these things, as well as some4

consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the5

physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers,6

stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had7

placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset8

nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the9

increase of known truths stimulates the investigation,10

establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution or11

destruction.12

Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth13

they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had14

cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have15

demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and16

published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they17

made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken18

from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand19

properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.20

These men would perhaps not have fallen into such error had21

they but paid attention to a most useful doctrine of St. Augustine's,22

relative to our making positive statements about things which are23

obscure and hard to understand by means of reason alone.24

Speaking of a certain physical conclusion about the heavenly25

bodies, he wrote: "Now keeping always our respect for moderation26

in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a27

dubious point, lest in favor to our error we conceive a prejudice28

against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not29

contrary in any way to the sacred books of either the Old or the30

New Testament."31

Well, the passage of time has revealed to everyone the truths32

that I previously set forth; and, together with the truth of the facts,33

there has come to light the great difference in attitude between34

those who simply and dispassionately refused to admit the35

discoveries to be true, and those who combined with their36

incredulity some reckless passion of their own. Men who were37

well grounded in astronomical and physical science were38

persuaded as soon as they received my first message. There were39

others who denied them or remained in doubt only because of their40

novel and unexpected character, and because they had not yet had41

the opportunity to see for themselves. These men have by degrees42

come to be satisfied. But some, besides allegiance to their original43

error, possess I know not what fanciful interest in remaining44

hostile not so much toward the things in question as toward their45

discoverer. No longer being able to deny them, these men now46

take refuge in obstinate silence, but being more than ever47

exasperated by that which has pacified and quieted other men, they48

divert their thoughts to other fancies and seek new ways to damage49

me.50

I should pay no more attention to them than to those who51

previously contradicted me-at whom I always laugh, being assured52

of the eventual outcome-were it not that in their new calumnies53

and persecutions I perceive that they do not stop at proving54

themselves more learned than I am (a claim which I scarcely55

contest), but go so far as to cast against me the imputations of56

crimes which must be, and are, more abhorrent to me than death57

itself. I cannot remain satisfied merely to know that the injustice of58

this is recognized by those who are acquainted with these men and59

with me, as perhaps it is not known to others.60

Persisting in their original resolve to destroy me and everything61

mine by any means they can think of, these men are aware of my62

views in astronomy and philosophy. They know that as to the63

arrangement of the parts of the universe, I hold the sun to be64

situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial65

orbs while the earth revolves about the sun. They know also that I66

support this position not only by refuting the arguments of67

Ptolemy and Aristotle, but by producing many counter-arguments;68

in particular, some which relate to physical effects whose causes69

can perhaps be assigned in no other way. In addition there are70

astronomical arguments derived from many things in my new71

celestial discoveries that plainly confute the Ptolemaic system72

while admirably agreeing with and confirming the contrary73

hypothesis. Possibly because they are disturbed by the known truth74

of other propositions of mine which differ from those commonly75

held, and therefore mistrusting their defense so long as they76

confine themselves to the field of philosophy, these men have77

resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of78

pretended religion and the authority of the Bible. These they apply79

with little judgement to the refutation of arguments that they do80

not understand and have not even listened to.81

First they have endeavored to spread the opinion that such82

propositions in general are contrary to the Bible and are83

consequently damnable and heretical. They know that it is human84

nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor,85

no matter how unjustly, rather than those from which a man may86

receive some just encouragement. Hence they have had no trouble87

in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of88

the new doctrine from their very pulpits with unwonted89

confidence, thus doing impious and inconsiderate injury not only90

to that doctrine and its followers but to all mathematics and91

mathematicians in general. Next, becoming bolder, and hoping92

(though vainly) that this seed which first took root in their93

hypocritical minds would send out branches and ascend to heaven,94

they began scattering rumors among the people that before long95

this doctrine would be condemned by the supreme authority. They96

know, too, that official condemnation would not only sup press the97

two propositions which I have mentioned, but would render98

damnable all other astronomical and physical statements and99

observations that have any necessary relation or connection with100

these.101

In order to facilitate their designs, they seek so far as possible102

(at least among the common people) to make this opinion seem103

new and to belong to me alone. They pretend not to know that its104

author, or rather its restorer and confirmer, was Nicholas105

Copernicus; and that he was not only a Catholic, but a priest and a106

canon. He was in fact so esteemed by the church that when the107

Lateran Council under Leo X took up the correction of the church108

calendar, Copernicus was called to Rome from the most remote109

parts of Germany to undertake its reform. At that time the calendar110

was defective because the true measures of the year and the lunar111

month were not exactly known. The Bishop of Culm, then112

superintendent of this matter, assigned Copernicus to seek more113

light and greater certainty concerning the celestial motions by114

means of constant study and labor. With Herculean toil he set his115

admirable mind to this task, and he made such great progress in116

this science and brought our knowledge of the heavenly motions to117

such precision that he became celebrated as an astronomer. Since118

that time not only has the calendar been regulated by his teachings,119

but tables of all the motions of the planets have been calculated as120

well.121

Having reduced his system into six books, he published these at122

the instance of the Cardinal of Capua and the Bishop of Culm. And123

since he had assumed his laborious enterprise by order of the124

supreme pontiff, he dedicated this book On the celestial125

revolutions to Pope Paul III. When printed, the book was accepted126

by the holy Church, and it has been read and studied by everyone127

without the faintest hint of any objection ever being conceived128

against its doctrines. Yet now that manifest experiences and129

necessary proofs have shown them to be well grounded, persons130

exist who would strip the author of his reward without so much as131

looking at his book, and add the shame of having him pronounced132

a heretic. All this they would do merely to satisfy their personal133

displeasure conceived without any cause against another man, who134

has no interest in Copernicus beyond approving his teachings.135

Now as to the false aspersions which they so unjustly seek to136

cast upon me, I have thought it necessary to justify myself in the137

eyes of all men, whose judgment in matters of` religion and of138

reputation I must hold in great esteem. I shall therefore discourse139

of the particulars which these men produce to make this opinion140

detested and to have it condemned not merely as false but as141

heretical. To this end they make a shield of their hypocritical zeal142

for religion. They go about invoking the B ible, which they would143

have minister to their deceitful purposes. Contrary to the sense of144

the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not145

mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even m purely146

physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us147

altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor148

of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its149

words this passage may contain a different sense.150

I hope to show that I proceed with much greater piety than they151

do, when I argue not against condemning this book, but against152

condemning it in the way they suggest-that is, without under153

standing it, weighing it, or so much as reading it. For Copernicus154

never discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use155

argument that depend in any way upon the authority of sacred156

writings which he might have interpreted erroneously. He stands157

always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial158

motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical159

demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and160

very exact observations. He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew161

very well that if` his doctrine were proved, then it could not162

contradict the Scriptures when they were rightly understood and163

thus at the end of his letter of` dedication. addressing the pope, he164

said:165

"If there should chance to be any exegetes ignorant of`166

mathematics who pretend to skill in that discipline, and dare167

to condemn and censure this hypothesis of mine upon the168

authority of some scriptural passage twisted to their169

purpose, I value them not, but disdain their unconsidered170

judgment. For it is known that Lactantius - a poor171

mathematician though in other respects a worthy author -172

writes very childishly about the shape of the earth when he173

scoffs at those who affirm it to be a globe. Hence it should174

not seem strange to the ingenious if people of that sort175

should in turn deride me. But mathematics is written for176

mathematicians, by whom, if I am not deceived, these177

labors of mine will be recognized as contributing something178

to their domain, as also to that of the Church over which179

Your Holiness now reigns."180

Such are the people who labor to persuade us that an author like181

Copernicus may be condemned without being read, and who182

produce various authorities from the Bible, from theologians, and183

from Church Councils to make us believe that this is not only184

lawful but commendable. Since I hold these to be of supreme185

authority I consider it rank temerity for anyone to contradict186

them-when employed according to the usage of the holy Church.187

Yet I do not believe it is wrong to speak out when there is reason188

to suspect that other men wish, for some personal motive, to189

produce and employ such authorities for purposes quite different190

from the sacred intention of the holy Church.191

Therefore I declare (and my sincerity will make itself manifest)192

not only that I mean to submit myself freely and renounce any193

errors into which I may fall in this discourse through ignorance of`194

matters pertaining to religion, but that I do not desire in these195

matters to engage in disputes with anyone, even on points that are196

disputable. My goal is this alone; that if, among errors that may197

abound in these considerations of a subject remote from my198

profession, there is anything that may be serviceable to the holy199

Church in making a decision concerning the Copernican system, it200

may be taken and utilized as seems best to the superiors. And if201

not, let my book be torn and burnt, as I neither intend nor pretend202

to gain from it any fruit that is not pious and Catholic. And though203

many of the things I shall reprove have been heard by my own204

ears, I shall freely grant to those who have spoken them that they205

never said them, if that is what they wish, and I shall confess206

myself to have been mistaken. Hence let whatever I reply be207

addressed not to them, but to whoever may have held such208

opinions.209

The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth210

moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may211

read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible212

cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes213

a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is214

inherently motionless and the earth movable.215

With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is216

very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can217

never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But218

I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may219

say things which are quite different from what its bare words220

signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to221

confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might;222

fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from223

true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave224

heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God225

feet, hands ans eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections,226

such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the227

forgetting of` things past and ignorance of those to come. These228

propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that229

manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the230

capacities of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For231

the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd , it is232

necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of233

such passages, together with the special reasons for which they234

were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and235

so definite with all theo logians that it would be superfluous to236

adduce evidence for it.237

Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the238

Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially239

those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has240

been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common241

people which would render them contumacious toward the higher242

mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular243

capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important244

pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities245

extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who,246

then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside,247

and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and248

restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the249

earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing?250

Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern251

the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of252

God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the253

comprehension of the common people.254

This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical255

problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural256

passages but from sensenexperiences and necessary257 demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature258

proceed alike from the divine Word the former as the dictate of the259

Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God 's260

commands. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be261

accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many262

things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the263

bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other264

hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws265

imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons266

and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that267

reason it appears that nothing physical which sensenexperience268

sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to269

us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the270

testimony of biblical passages which may have some different271

meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every272

expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all273

physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in274

Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible. Perhaps275

this is what Tertullian meant by these words:276

"We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and277

then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in H is278

works, and by doctrine in His revealed word."279

From this I do not mean to infer that we need not have an280

extraordinary esteem for the passages of holy Scripture. On the281

contrary, having arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to282

utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of283

the Bible and in the investigation of those meanings which are284

necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant with285

demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of the Bible286

was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions287

which, surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible288

by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of289

the Holy Spirit.290

Yet even in those propositions which are not matters of faith,291

this authority ought to be preferred over that of all human writings292

which are supported only by bare assertions or probable293

arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way. This I hold to294

be necessary and proper to the same extent that divine wisdom295

surpasses all human judgment and conjecture.296

But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who297

has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to298

forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge299

which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny300

sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes301

and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This302

must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest303

trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the304

Bible. Of astronomy; for instance, so little is found that none of the305

planets except Venus are so much as mentioned, and this only306

once or twice under the name of "Lucifer." If the sacred scribes307

had had any intention of teaching people certain arrangements and308

motions of the heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive309

such knowledge from the Bible, then in my opinion they would not310

have spoken of these matters so sparingly in comparison with the311

infinite number of admirable conclusions which are demonstrated312

in that science. Far from pretending to teach us the constitution313

and motions of the heavens and other stars, with their shapes,314

magnitudes, and d istances, the authors of the Bible intentionally315

forbore to speak of these things, though all were quite well known316

to them. Such is the opinion of the holiest and most learned317

Fathers, and in St. Augustine we find the following words :318

"It is likewise commonly asked what we may believe about319

the form and shape of the heavens according to the320

Scriptures, for many contend much about these matters. But321

with superior prudence our authors have forborne to speak322

of this, as in no way furthering the student with respect to a323

blessed life-and, more important still, as taking up much of324

that time which should be spent in holy exercises. What is it325

to me whether heaven, like a sphere surrounds the earth on326

all sides as a mass balanced in the center of the universe, or327

whether like a dish it merely covers and overcasts the earth?328

Belief in Scripture is urged rather for the reason we have329

often mentioned; that is, in order that no one, through330

ignorance of divine passages, finding anything in our Bibles331

or hearing anything cited from them of such a nature as may332

seem to oppose manifest conclusions, should be induced to333

suspect their truth when they teach, relate, and deliver more334

profitable matters. Hence let it be said briefly, touching the335

form of heaven, that our authors knew the truth but the Holy336

Spirit did not desire that men should learn things that are337

useful to no one for salvation."338

The same disregard of these sacred authors toward beliefs about339

the phenomena of the celestial bodies is repeated to us by St.340

Augustine in his next chapter. On the question whether we are to341

believe that the heaven moves or stands still, he writes thus:342

"Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the343

motion of heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is344

moved, they say, how is it a firmament? If it stands still,345

how do these stars which are held fixed in it go round from346

east to west, the more northerly performing shorter circuits347

near the pole, so that the heaven (if there is another po le348

unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if349

there is no other pole) may be thought to move as a discus?350

To these men I reply that it would require many subtle and351

profound reasonings to find out which of these things is352

actually so; but to undertake this and discuss it is consistent353

neither with my leisure nor with the duty of those whom I354

desire to instruct in essential matters more d irectly355

conducing to their salvation and to the benefit of the holy356

Church."357

From these things it follows as a necessary consequence that,358

since the Holy Ghost did not intend to teach us whether heaven359

moves or stands still, whether its shape is spherical or like a discus360

or extended in a plane, nor whether the earth is located at its center361

or off to one side, then so much the less was it intended to settle362

for us any other conclusion of the same kind. And the motion or363

rest of the earth and the sun is so closely linked with the things just364

named, that without a determination of the one, neither side can be365

taken in the other matters. Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely366

neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the367

highest goal (that is, to our salvation), how can anyone affirm that368

it is obligatory to take sides on them, that one belief is required by369

faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be370

heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can371

the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us372

something that does concern our salvation? I would say here373

something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent374

degree: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how375

one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."376

But let us again consider the degree to which necessary377

demonstrations and sense experiences ought to be respected in378

physical conclusions, and the authority they have enjoyed at the379

hands of holy and learned theologians. From among a hundred380

attestations I have selected the following:381

"W e must also take heed, in handling the doctrine of Moses.382

that we altogether avoid saying positively and confidently383

anything which contradicts manifest experiences and the384

reasoning of philosophy or the other sciences. For since385

every truth is in agreement with all other truth, the truth of386

Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the solid reasons and387

experiences of human knowledge."388

And in St. Augustine we read:389

"If' anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear390

and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he391

has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning392

of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather393

his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he394

has found in himself and imagines to be there."395

This granted, and it being true that two truths cannot contradict396

one another, it is the function of expositors to seek out the true397

senses of scriptural texts. These will unquestionably accord with398

the physical conclusions which manifest sense and necessary399

demonstrations have previously made certain to us. Now the Bible,400

as has been remarked, admits in many places expositions that are401

remote from the signification of the words for reasons we have402

already given. M oreover, we are unable to affirm that all403

interpreters of the Bible speak by Divine inspiration for if that404

were so there would exist no differences among them about the405

sense of a given passage. Hence I should think it would be the part406

of prudence not to permit anyone to usurp scriptural texts and407

force them in some way to maintain any physical conclusion to be408

true, when at some future time the senses and demonstrative or409

necessary reasons may show the contrary. Who indeed will set410

bounds to human ingenuity? Who will assert that everything in the411

universe capable of being perceived is already discovered and412

known? Let us rather confess quite truly that "Those truths which413

we know are very few in comparison with those which we do not414

know."415

We have it from the very mouth of the Holy Ghost that God416

delivered up the world to disputations, so that man cannot find out417

the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.418

In my opinion no one, m contradiction to that dictum, should close419

the road to free philosophizing about mundane and physical things,420

as if everything had already been discovered and revealed with421

certainty. Nor should it be considered rash not to be sa tisfied with422

those opinions which have become common. No one should be423

scorned in physical disputes for not holding to the opinions which424

happen to please other people best, especially concerning problems425

which have been debated among the greatest philosophers for426

thousands of years. One of these is the stab ility of the sun mobility427

of the earth, a doctrine believed by Pythagoras and all his428

followers, by Heracleides of Pontus (who was one of them), by429

Philolaus, the teacher of Plato, and by Plato himself according to430

Aristotle. Plutarch writes in his Life of Numa that Plato, when he431

had grown old, said it was absurd to believe otherwise. The same432

doctrine was held by Aristarchus of Samos, as Archimedes tells us;433

by Seleucus the mathematician, by Nicetas the philosopher (on the434

testimony of Cicero), and by many others. Finally this opinion has435

been amplified and confirmed with many observations and436

demonstrations by Nicholas Copernicus. And Seneca, a most437

eminent philosopher, advises us in his book on comets that we438

should more diligently seek to ascertain whether it is in the sky or439

in the earth that the diurnal rotation resides.440

Hence it would probably be wise and useful counsel if, beyond441

articles which concern salvation and the establishment of our442

Faith, against the stability of which there is no danger whatever443

that any valid and effective doctrine can ever arise, men would not444

aggregate further articles unnecessarily. And it would certainly be445

preposterous to introduce them at the request of persons, who,446

besides not being known to speak by inspiration of divine grace,447

are clearly seen to lack that understanding which is necessary in448

order to comprehend, let alone discuss, the demonstrations by449

which such conclusions are supported in the subtler sciences. If I450

may speak my opinion freely, I should say further that it would451

perhaps fit in better with the decorum and majesty of the sacred452

writings to take measures for preventing every shallow and vulgar453

writer from giving to his compositions (often grounded upon454

foolish fancies) an air of authority by inserting in them passages455

from the Bible, interpreted (or rather distorted) into senses as far456

from the right meaning of Scripture as those authors are near to457

absurdity who thus ostentatiously adorn their writings. Of such458

abuses many examples might be produced, but for the present I459

shall confine myself to two which are germane to these460

astronomical matters. The first concerns those writings which were461

published against the existence of the M edicean planets recently462

discovered by me, in which many passages of holy Scripture were463

cited. Now that everyone has seen these planets, I should like to464

know what new interpretations those same antagonists employ in465

expounding the Scripture and excusing their own simplicity. My466

other example is that of a man who has lately published, in467

defiance of astronomers and philosophers, the opinion that the468

moon does not receive its light from the sun but is brilliant by its469

own nature. He supports this fancy (or rather thinks he does) by470

sundry texts of Scripture which he believes cannot be explained471

unless his theory is true; yet that the moon is inherently dark is472

surely as p lain as daylight.473

It is obvious that such authors, not having penetrated the true474

senses of Scripture, would impose upon others an obligation to475

subscribe to conclusions that are repugnant to manifest reason and476

sense, if they had any authority to do so. God forbid that this sort477

of abuse should gain countenance and authority, for then in a short478

time it would be necessary to proscribe all the contemplative479

sciences. People who are unable to understand perfectly both the480

Bible and the science far outnumber those who do understand481

them. T he former, glancing superficially through the Bible, would482

arrogate to themselves the authority to decree upon every question483

of physics on the strength of some word which they have484

misunderstood, and which was employed by the sacred authors for485

some different purpose. And the smaller number of understanding486

men could not dam up the furious torrent of such people, who487

would gain the majority of followers simply because it is much488

more pleasant to gain a reputation for wisdom without effort or489

study than to consume oneself tirelessly in the most laborious490

disciplines. Let us therefore render thanks to Almighty God, who491

in His beneficence protects us from this danger by depriving such492

persons of all authority, reposing the power of consultation,493

decision, and decree on such important matters in the high wisdom494

and benevolence of most prudent Fathers, and in the supreme495

authority of those who cannot fail to order matters properly under496

the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Hence we need not concern497

ourselves with the shallowness of those men whom grave and holy498

authors rightly reproach, and of whom in particular St. Jerome499

said, in reference to the Bible:500

"This is ventured upon, lacerated, and taught by the501

garrulous old woman, the doting old man, and the prattling502

sophist before they have learned it. Others, led on by pride,503

weigh heavy words and philosophize amongst women504

concerning holy Scripture. Others- oh shame!-learn from505

women what they teach to men, and (as if that were not506

enough) glibly expound to others that which they507

themselves do not understand . I forebear to speak of those508

of my own profession who, attaining a knowledge of the509

holy Scriptures after mundane learning, tickle the ears of the510

people with affected and studied expressions, and declare511

that everything they say is to be taken as the law of God.512

Not bothering to learn what the prophets and the apostles513

have maintained, they wrest incongruous testimonies into514

their own senses-as if distorting passages and twisting the515

Bible to their individual and contradictory whims were the516

genuine way of teaching, and not a corrup t one."517

I do not wish to place in the number of such lay writers some518

theologians whom I consider men of profound learning and devout519

behavior, and who are therefore held by me in great esteem and520

veneration Yet I cannot deny that I feel some discomfort which I521

should like to have removed, when I hear them pretend to the522

power of constraining others by scriptural authority to follow in a523

physical dispute that opinion which they think best agrees with the524

Bible, and then believe themselves not bound to answer the525

opposing reasons and experiences. In explanation and support of526

this opinion they say that since theology is queen of all the527

sciences, she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to528

the teachings of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her;529

these others must rather be referred to her as their supreme530

empress, changing and altering their conclusions according to her531

statutes and decrees. They add further that if in the inferior532

sciences any conclusion should be taken as certain in virtue of533

demonstrations or experiences, while in the Bible another534

conclusion is found repugnant to this, then the professors of that535

science should themselves undertake to undo their proofs and536

discover the fallacies in their own experiences, without bothering537

the theologians and exegetes. For, they say, it does not become the538

dignity of theology to stoop to the investigation of fallacies in the539

subordinate sciences; it is sufficient for her merely to determine540

the truth of a given conclusion with absolute authority, secure in541

her inability to err.542

Now the physical conclusions in which they say we ought to be543

satisfied by Scripture, without glossing or expounding it in senses544

different from the literal, are those concerning which the Bible545

always speaks in the same manner and which the holy Fathers all546

receive and expound in the same way. But with regard to these547

judgments I have had occasion to consider several things, and I548

shall set them forth in order that I may be corrected by those who549

understand more than I do in these matters-for to their decisions I550

submit at all times.551

First I question whether there is not some equivocation in failing552

to specify the virtues which entitle sacred theology to the title of553

"queen." It might deserve that name by reason of including554

everything that is included from all the other sciences and555

establishing everything by better methods and with profounder556

learning. It is thus, for example, that the rules for measuring fields557

and keeping accounts are much more excellently contained in558

arithmetic and in the geometry of Euclid than in the practices of559

surveyors and accountants. Or theology might be queen because of560

being occupied with a subject which excels in dignity all the561

subjects which compose the other sciences, and because her562

teachings are divulged in more sublime ways.563

That the title and authority of queen belongs to theology in the564

first sense, I think, will not be affirmed by theologians who have565

any skill in the other sciences. None of these, I think, will say that566

geometry, astronomy, music, and medicine are much more567

excellently contained in the Bible than they are in the books of568

Archimedes, Pto lemy, Boethius, and G alen. Hence it seems likely569

that regal preeminence is given to theology in the second sense;570

that is, by reason of its subject and the miraculous communication571

of divine revelation of conclusions which could not be conceived572

by men in any other way, concerning chiefly the attainment of573

eternal blessedness.574

Let us grant then that theology is conversant with the loftiest575

divine contemplation, and occupies the regal throne among576

sciences by dignity But acquiring the highest authority in this way,577

lf she does not descend to the lower and humbler speculations of578

the subordinate sciences and has no regard for them because they579

are not concerned with blessedness, then her professors should not580

arrogate to them-selves the authority to decide on controversies in581

professions which they have neither studied nor practiced. Why,582

this would be as if an absolute despot, being neither a physician583

nor an architect but knowing himself free to command, should584

undertake to administer medicines and erect buildings according to585

his whim-at grave peril of his poor patients' lives, and the speedy586

collapse of his edifices.587

Again, to command that the very professors of astronomy588

themselves see to the refutation of their own observations and589

proofs as mere fallacies and sophisms is to enjoin something that590

lies beyond any possibility of accomplishment. For this would591

amount to commanding that they must not see what they see and592

must not understand what they know, and that in searching they593

must find the opposite of what they actually encounter. Before this594

could be done they would have to be taught how to make one595

mental faculty command another, and the inferior powers the596

superior, so that the imagination and the will might be forced to597

believe the opposite of what the intellect understands. I am598

referring at all times to merely physical propositions, and not to599

supernatural things which are matters of faith.600

I entreat those wise and prudent Fathers to consider with great601

care the difference that exists between doctrines subject to proof602

and those subject to opinion. Considering the force exerted by603

logical deductions, they may ascertain that it is not in the power604

of` the professors of demonstrative sciences to change their605

opinions at will and apply themselves first to one side and then to606

the other. There is a great difference between commanding a607

mathematician or a philosopher and influencing a lawyer or a608

merchant, for demonstrated conclusions about things in nature or609

in the heavens cannot be changed with the same facility as610

opinions about what is or is not lawful in a contract, bargain, or611

bill of exchange. This difference was well understood by the612

learned and holy Fathers, as proven by their having taken great613

pains in refuting philosophical fallacies. This may be found614

expressly in some of them; in particular, we find the following615

words of St. Augustine:616

"It is to be held as an unquestionable truth that whatever the617

sages of this world have demonstrated concerning physical618

matters is in no way contrary to our Bibles, hence whatever619

the sages teach in their books that is contrary to the holy620

Scriptures may be concluded without any hesitation to be621

quite false . And according to our ability let us make this622

evident, and let us keep the faith of our Lord, in whom are623

hidden all the treasures of wisdom so that we neither624

become seduced by the verbiage of false philosophy nor625

frightened by the superstition of counterfeit religion."626

From the above words I conceive that I may deduce this627

doctrine That in the books of the sages of this world there are628

contained some physical truths which are soundly demonstrated,629

and others that are merely stated; as to the former, it i the office of630

wise divines to show that they do not contradict the holy Scriptures631

And as to the propositions which are stated but not rigorously632

demonstrated, anything contrary to the Bible involved by them633

must be held undoubtedly false and should be proved so by every634

possible means.635

Now if truly demonstrated physical conclusions need not be636

subordinated to biblical passages, but the latter must rather be637

shown not to interfere with the former, then before a physical638

proposition is condemned it must be shown to be not rigorously639

demonstrated-and this is to be done not by those who hold the640

proposition to be true, but by those who judge it to be false. This641

seems very reasonable and natural, for those who believe an642

argument to be false may much more easily find the fallacies in it643

than men who consider it to be true and conclusive. Indeed, in the644

latter case it will happen that the more the adherents of an opinion645

turn over their pages, examine the arguments, repeat the646

observations, and compare the experiences, the more they will be647

confirmed in that belief. And Your Highness knows what648

happened to the late mathematician of the University of Pisa who649

undertook in his old age to look into the Copernican doctrine in the650

hope of` shaking its foundations and refuting it, since he651

considered it false only because he had never studied it. As it fell652

out, no sooner had he understood its grounds, procedures, and653

demonstrations than he found himself persuaded, and from an654

opponent he became a very staunch defender of it. I might also655

name other mathematicians who, moved by my latest discoveries,656

have confessed it necessary to alter the previously accepted system657

of the world, as this is simply unable to subsist any longer.658

If in order to banish the opinion in question from the world it659

were sufficient to stop the mouth of a single man-as perhaps those660

men persuade themselves who, measuring the minds of others by661

their own, think it impossible that this doctrine should be ab le to662

continue to find adherents-then that would be very easily done. But663

things stand otherwise. To carry out such a decision it would be664

necessary not only to prohibit the book of Copernicus and the665

writings of other authors who follow the same opinion, but to ban666

the whole science of astronomy. Furthermore, it would be667

necessary to forbid men to look at the heavens, in order that they668

might not see Mars and Venus sometimes quite near the earth and669

sometimes very distant, the variation being so great that Venus is670

forty times and Mars sixty times as large at one time as at another.671

And it would be necessary to prevent Venus being seen round at672

one time and forked at another, with very thin horns; as well as673

many other sensory observations which can never be reconciled674

with the Ptolemaic system in any way, but are very strong675

arguments for the Copernican. And to ban Copernicus now that his676

doctrine is daily reinforced by many new observations and by the677

learned applying themselves to the reading of his book, after this678

opinion has been allowed and tolerated for these many years679

during which it was less followed and less confirmed, would seem680

in my judgment to be a contravention of truth, and an attempt to681

hide and suppress her the more as she revealed herself the more682

clearly and plainly. Not to abolish and censure his whole book, but683

only to condemn as erroneous this particular proposition, would (if684

I am not mistaken) be a still greater detriment to the minds of men,685

since it would afford them occasion to see a proposition proved686

that it was heresy to believe. And to prohibit the whole science687

would be to censure a hundred passages of holy Scripture which688

teach us that the glory and greatness of Almighty God are689

marvelously discerned in all his works and divinely read in the690

open book of heaven. For let no one believe that reading the lofty691

concepts written in that book leads to nothing further than the mere692

seeing of the splendor of the sun and the stars and their rising and693

setting, which is as far as the eyes of brutes and of the vulgar can694

penetrate. Within its pages are couched mysteries so profound and695

concepts so sublime that the vigils, labors, and studies of hundreds696

upon hundreds of the most acute minds have still not pierced them,697

even after the continual investigations for thousands of years. The698

eyes of an idiot perceive little by beholding the external699

appearance of a human body, as compared with the wonderful700

contrivances which a careful and practiced anatomist or701

philosopher discovers in that same body when he seeks out the use702

of all those muscles, tendons, nerves, and bones; or when703

examining the functions of the heart and the other principal704

organs, he seeks the seat of the vital faculties, notes and observes705

the admirable structure of the sense organs, and (without ever706

ceasing in his amazement and delight) contemplates the707

receptacles of the imagination, the memory, and the understanding.708

Likewise, that which presents itself to mere sight is as nothing in709

comparison with the high marvels that the ingenuity of learned710

men discovers in the heavens by long and accurate observation....711

Your Highness may thus see how irregularly those persons712

proceed who in physical disputes arrange scriptural passages (and713

often those illnunderstood by them) in the front rank of their714 arguments. If these men really believe themselves to have the true715

sense of a given passage, it necessarily follows that they believe716

they have in hand the absolute truth of the conclusion they intend717

to debate. Hence they must know that they enjoy a great advantage718

over their opponents, whose lot it is to defend the false position;719

and he who maintains the truth will have many sensenexperiences720 and rigorous proofs on his side, whereas his antagonist cannot721

make use of anything but illusory appearances, quibbles, and722

fallacies. Now if these men know they have such advantages over723

the enemy even when they stay within proper bounds and produce724

no weapons other than those proper to philosophy, why do they, in725

the thick of the battle, betake themselves to a dreadful weapon726

which cannot be turned aside, and seek to vanquish the opponent727

by merely exhibiting it? If I may speak frankly, I believe they have728

themselves been vanquished, and, feeling unable to stand up729

against the assaults of the adversary, they seek ways of holding730

him off. To that end they would forbid him the use of reason,731

divine gift of Providence, and would abuse the just authority of732

holy Scripture- which, in the general opinion of theologians, can733

never oppose manifest experiences and necessary demonstrations734

when rightly understood and applied. If I am correct, it will stand735

them in no stead to go running to the Bible to cover up their736

inability to understand (let alone resolve) their opponents'737

arguments, for the opinion which they fight has never been738

condemned by the ho ly Church. If they wish to proceed in739

sincerity, they should by silence confess themselves unable to deal740

with such matters. Let them freely admit that although they may741

argue that a position is false, it is not in their power to censure a742

position as erroneous - or in the power of anynone except the743 Supreme Pontiff, or the Church Councils. Reflecting upon this,744

and knowing that a proposition canno t be both true and heretical,745

let them employ themselves in the business which is proper to746

them; namely, demonstrating its falsity. And when that is revealed,747

either there will no longer be any necessity to prohibit it (since it748

will have no followers), or else it may safely be prohibited without749

the risk of any scandal.750

Therefore let these men begin to apply themselves to an751

examination of the arguments of Copernicus and others, leaving752

condemnation of the doctrine as erroneous and heretical ' to the753

proper authorities. Among the circumspect and most wise Fathers,754

and in the absolute wisdom of one who cannot err, they may never755

hope to find the rash decisions into which they allow them selves756

to be hurried by some particular passion or personal interest. W ith757

regard to this opinion, and others which are not directly matters of758

faith, certainly no one doubts that the Supreme Pontiff has always759

an absolute power to approve or condemn; but it is not in the760

power: of any created being to make things true or false, for this761

belongs to their own nature and to the fact. Therefore in my762

judgment one should first be assured of the necessary and763

immutable truth of the fact, over which no man has power. This is764

wiser counsel than to condemn either side in the absence of such765

certainty, thus depriving oneself of continued authority and ability766

to choose by determining things which are now undetermined and767

open and still lodged in the will of supreme authority. And in brief,768

if it is impossib le for a conclusion to be declared heretical while769

we remain in doubt as to its truth, then these men are wasting their770

time clamoring for condemnation of the motion of the earth and771

stability of the sun, which they have not yet demonstrated to be772

impossible or false ….773