Due in 48hrs 1200 words combin reading argue why we should vote Hillary

Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany

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

To Th e Mo st Serene G rand Duc hess M other:1

Som e years ago, a s Yo ur Se rene H ighnes s well kno ws, 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 co mmo nly held amo ng acad emic philoso phers,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

Show ing a gre ater fon dne ss for their own o pinio ns than fo r 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

prop erly, and which were ill-suited to their purp oses.20

These men would perhaps not have fallen into such error had21

they but paid attention to a most useful doc trine 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

Spe aking o f a certain physica l conc lusion a bou t the hea venly25

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

Ne w T estam ent."31

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

that I previously set forth; and, together w ith 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

disco veries to be true , and tho se who com bined 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

other s who denie d them or rem ained in dou bt on ly beca use o f 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 n ot so m uch to ward the things in ques tion as to ward 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

thems elves m ore le arned than I am (a claim which I scarc ely55

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

crime s which must b e, and are, m ore a bho rrent to me tha n dea th57

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 perha ps it is not known to o thers.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

orb s while the earth re volve s abo ut the sun . Th ey kno w also that I66

support this position not only by refuting the arguments of67

Ptolem y and Aristotle, but by p roduc ing many co unter-argumen ts;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

hypo thesis. P ossib ly beca use they a re distur bed by the kn own truth74

of othe r pro pos itions of m ine whic h differ fro m tho se co mm only75

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

prete nde d religio n and the auth ority of the Bib le. Th ese the y app ly79

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

receiv e som e just en cou ragem ent. H ence they hav e had no tro uble87

in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of88

the new doctrine from their very pulpits with unwonted89

con fidenc e, thus d oing im piou s and incon sidera te injury n ot on ly90

to that doctrine and its followers but to all mathematics and91

mathematicians in general. Next, becoming bolder, and hoping92

(thou gh vain ly) that this see d whic h first took roo t 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

obs ervatio ns that ha ve any n ecess ary relatio n or c onne ction w ith100

these.101

In ord er to fac ilitate their d esigns, the y seek so far as po ssible102

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

new a nd to belo ng to m e alon e. T hey pr etend not to k now 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

calen dar, C ope rnicus w as calle d to R ome from th e mo st remo te109

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

mea ns of co nstant stud y and la bor . W ith He rculea n toil he se t his115

adm irable mind to this task, a nd he mad e such great p rogre ss in116

this scienc e and bro ught o ur kno wled ge of the heave nly mo tions to117

such precision that he became celebrated as an astronomer. Since118

that time not only has the calend ar been re gulated 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 Co pernicus be yond ap proving his teach ings.135

No w as to th e false asp ersion s which they so u njustly see k 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 mu st 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 religio n. T hey go abo ut invok ing the B ible, wh ich they w ould143

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

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

mistake n, they wo uld ex tend su ch auth orities un til even m pure ly146

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

altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor148

of som e bib lical pa ssage, th ough unde r the surfa ce m eaning 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 aga inst condem ning this book, b ut 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 discusse s matters of religion or faith, nor do es 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 chanc e to b e any ex egete s ignor ant of`166

mathematics who pretend to skill in that discipline, and dare167

to condemn and censure this hypothesis of mine upon the168

autho rity of som e scrip tural pa ssage tw isted 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 tho se who affirm it to b e a glo be. H ence it should174

not seem strange to the ingenious if people of that sort175

should in turn deride me. But mathematics is written for176

mathem aticians, by whom, if I am no t deceived , these177

labors of mine will be recognized as contributing something178

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

Yo ur H oliness n ow re igns."180

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

Copernicus may be cond emned without being read, and who182

produce various authorities from the Bible, from theologians, and183

from Chu rch C ounc ils to mak e us be lieve tha t this is not on ly184

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 susp ect that o ther m en wish , for som e per sona l motive , to189

produce and em ploy such authorities for purposes quite different190

from the sacred intention of the holy Church.191

The refore I dec lare (an d my sin cerity will m ake itself m anifest)192

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

erro rs into wh ich I ma y fall in this disco urse thro ugh ign oran ce of`194

matters pertaining to religion, bu t 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

pro fession, th ere is an ything that m ay be s ervice able to the ho ly199

Chu rch in m aking a decisio n con cernin g the C ope rnican system, it200

may b e taken and u tilized as seem s best to the sup eriors . And if201

not, let my book be torn and b urnt, 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 reaso n pro duc ed fo r con dem ning the opin ion tha t the earth210

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

read that the sun mov es and the ear th stand s still. Since the Bib le212

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

a erro neo us and heretic al po sition wh o ma intains that the sun is214

inherently motionless and the earth movable.215

W ith regar d to this a rgum ent, I think in the first plac e 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. He nce in e xpo undin g the B ible if on e were always to221

con fine one self to the u nad orne d gra mm atical m eaning , one m ight;222

fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from223

true might thus be made to appea r 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 co rporea l and huma n affections,226

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

forgetting of` things past and ignora nce of those to c ome. T hese228

propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that229

manner by the sacred scribes in order to accomm odate them to the230

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

the sake of those who d eserv e to b e sep arated from th e 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 de finite with all theo logian s that it wou ld be supe rfluous to236

add uce e viden ce for it.237

Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the238

Bib le has o ccasio n to sp eak o f any ph ysical co nclusio n (esp ecially239

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 b ut 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

H ol y G ho st a nd the latter a s th e o bs er va nt ex ec utrix o f G od 's260

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

accommo dated 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 app ears that nothing physical which sensenexperience268

sets be fore o ur eyes, o r which nece ssary de mon strations pro ve 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

exp ression to co ndition s as strict as tho se whic h gov ern all273

physic al effects; no r is Go d any le ss exce llently reve aled in274

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

this is what Tertullian meant by these w ords:276

"W e conclude that God is known first through Nature, and277

then ag ain, mo re pa rticularly, b y doc trine, by N ature in H is278

work s, and b y doc trine in H is revea led wo rd."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

con trary, hav ing arriv ed at a ny certa inties in ph ysics, we o ught to282

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

the Bible and in the investigation of those meanings which are284

nece ssarily co ntained therein, fo r these m ust be c onc ord ant with285

dem onstra ted truth s. I shou ld jud ge that the autho rity of the B ible286

was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions287

which , surpa ssing all hu man reaso ning co uld no t be m ade cred ible288

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

the H oly Sp irit.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 sup por ted o nly by ba re asse rtions o r pro bab le293

argum ents, and not set fo rth in a d emo nstrative way. T his 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 en dow ed us with sense s, reaso n and intellect ha s intend ed 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 mind s by dire ct exp erienc e or n ecess ary de mon strations . Th is302

must be esp ecially true in those sciences of which b ut 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

plane ts exce pt V enus a re so m uch as mentio ned , and this o nly306

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 mo tions of the heavens an d other stars, with their shapes,314

mag nitude s, and d istance s, the auth ors o f the B ible inten tionally315

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 S t. Augustine we find the following wo rds :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 abo ut 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 w hich sho uld b e spe nt in holy e xercise s. W hat 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 op pos e ma nifest co nclusio ns, shou ld be induc ed to333

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

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

form of hea ven, tha t our au thors k new the truth bu t the H oly336

Spirit did not desire that men should learn things that are337

useful to n o on e for sa lvation."338

The same disregard of these sacred authors toward beliefs about339

the ph eno men a of the c elestial b odie s is repe ated to us by S t.340

Aug ustine in his n ext cha pter. O n the q uestion whethe r we ar e to341

believe that the heave n move s or stands still, he writes thus:342

"Some o f the brethren raise a question concerning the343

motio n of he aven , whethe r it is fixed o r mo ved . If it is344

mov ed, the y say, how is it a firmam ent? I f it stands still,345

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

east to w est, the m ore n orthe rly perfo rming shorte r circuits347

near th e po le, so tha t the hea ven (if the re is ano ther po le348

unkno wn to u s) may se em to revo lve up on so me a xis, or (if349

there is no other p ole) may b e thought to mo ve as a discus?350

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

pro found reaso nings to find ou t which o f these thing s 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 instruc t in essentia l matters m ore d irectly355

con duc ing to the ir salvatio n and to the b enefit of the holy356

Chu rch."357

From these thin gs it follow s as a ne cessa ry con sequ ence 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 o ff to one side, the n so m uch the less was it inte nde d to se ttle362

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

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

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

taken in the othe r matter s. No w if the H oly Sp irit has pu rpo sely366

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 hea ven. no t how h eave n goe s."376

But let us again consider the degree to which necessary377

dem onstra tions an d sen se exp erienc es ou ght to b e resp ected 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 he ed, in handling the d octrine of M oses.382

that we a ltogethe r avo id saying positive ly and c onfid ently383

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 W rit cannot be contrary to the solid reasons and387

exp erienc es of hu man know ledge ."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 fou nd in him self and imagin es to b e 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 scrip tural texts. T hese w ill unque stionab ly acco rd 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

alread y given. M oreo ver, we are un able to affirm that a ll403

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 op inion no on e, m contrad iction to that dictum, should close419

the road to free philosop hizing abou t mundan e and p hysical things,420

as if everyth ing had alread y been disco vered and r evea led with421

certain ty. No r shou ld it be c onsid ered rash no t 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

thousa nds o f years. O ne of the se is the stab ility of the sun m obility427

of the ea rth, a do ctrine b elieved by P ythago ras and all his428

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

Philo laus, the tea cher o f Plato , and b y Plato himself a cco rding 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 wa s held by Aristarchu s of Samo s, as Archimed es 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

demo nstrations by Nicho las Cop ernicus. 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 reside s.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 cle arly seen to lack that und erstand ing whic h is nece ssary in448

order to comprehend, let alone discuss, the demonstrations by449

which such c onc lusions a re sup por ted in the subtler s cienc es. If I450

may sp eak m y opin ion free ly, I should say further that it wou ld451

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 m eaning of Scr ipture a s those autho rs are n ear to457

absurdity who thus ostentatiously adorn their writings. Of such458

abu ses ma ny exam ples m ight be pro duc ed, b ut for the p resen t I459

shall confine myself to two which a re german e to these460

astronomical matters. The first concerns those writings which were461

pub lished a gainst the existenc e of the M edice an pla nets rec ently462

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

cited. N ow tha t everyo ne has seen the se plan ets, I sho uld like to464

know what ne w interp retation s those same antago nists emp loy in465

e xp ou nd in g th e S crip tu re an d e xc usin g th eir o wn sim plic ity. M y466

other exam ple is tha t of a ma n who has lately p ublishe d, in467

defiance of astronomers and philosophers, the opinion that the468

moo n do es no t receiv e its light from the sun b ut is brilliant b y its469

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

sundry texts of Scripture which he believes cannot be explained471

unless h is theory is tru e; yet that the moo n is inhere ntly dark is472

surely as p lain as d aylight.473

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

senses of Scr ipture, w ould impo se up on o thers an obliga tion 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 form er, glanc ing sup erficially thro ugh the Bib le, wou ld482

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

ourse lves with the shallow ness o f those m en wh om g rave a nd ho ly498

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 sp eak 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 mainta ined, the y wrest inc ongr uous testimo nies into514

their own senses-as if distorting passages and twisting the515

Bible to their individual and contradictory whims were the516

genu ine way o f teachin g, and not a c orrup 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

scienc es, she n eed not be nd in a ny way to acco mm oda te herse lf 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 o f a given c onc lusion w ith abso lute autho rity, 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

differen t from the literal, are tho se co ncern ing whic h the B ible545

always sp eaks in th e sam e ma nner a nd wh ich the h oly Fa thers all546

receive and expou nd in the same w ay. 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 ma tters-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 keep ing acc ounts a re mu ch mo re exc ellently co ntained 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 divu lged in mor e sublime wa ys.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

Arch imed es, Pto lemy, B oethiu s, and G alen. H ence it seems like ly569

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 blessedn ess.574

Let us grant then that theology is conv ersant with the loftiest575

divine contemplation, and occupies the regal throne among576

scienc es by d ignity B ut acq uiring the highest a uthor ity 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

arro gate to them-se lves the a uthor ity to dec ide o n con trove rsies in581

pro fessions which th ey have neither stu died nor p ractice d. W hy,582

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

nor a n arch itect but k now ing him self free to com man d, sho uld584

unde rtake to adm inister me dicine s and erect b uildings acco rding to585

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

collapse o f 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 beyo nd an y poss ibility of acc omp lishmen t. For this w ould591

amount to command ing that they must not see what they see and592

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

must find the op pos ite of wha t they actua lly enco unter. B efore this594

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

mental faculty command ano ther, and the inferior powers the596

supe rior, so that the im aginatio n and the will mig ht be fo rced to597

believe the opposite of what the intellect understands. I am598

referring at all times to mere ly physica l prop osition s, and n ot 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 p rofesso rs of de mon strative sc ience s to cha nge the ir605

opin ions at w ill and ap ply them selves first to one sid e 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 sage s teach in their bo oks tha t is contra ry to the h oly620

Scriptures may be concluded without any hesitation to be621

quite false . And acco rding to our ability let us m ake 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

frightene d by the supe rstition o f coun terfeit religio n."626

From the ab ove word s I con ceive that I ma y ded uce 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 pro pos itions wh ich are stated b ut not rigo rously632

demonstrated, anything contrary to the Bible involved by them633

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

possible m eans.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

pro pos ition is co nde mne d it mus t be sho wn to b e not rig oro usly639

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

pro pos ition to b e true, b ut by tho se who judg e it to be false. T his641

seems very reasonable and natural, for those who believe an642

argum ent to b e false m ay muc h mo re eas ily find the fallac ies 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

con sidere d it false o nly bec ause h e 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

opp onent he b ecame a very staunch de fender of it. I might also655

name o ther mathem aticians who, mo ved by m y 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 orde r to ba nish the o pinio n in que stion fro m the w orld it659

were sufficient to stop the mo uth of a single man-as pe rhaps those660

men persuade themselves who, measuring the minds of others by661

their ow n, think it imp ossib le that this d octrine 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

som etimes very d istant, the va riation b eing so great tha t Ven us 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

argum ents for th e Co pern ican. A nd to ban C ope rnicus n ow tha t his676

doctrine is daily reinforced by many new observations and by the677

learne d ap plying the mselv es to the read ing of his b ook , 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 jud gme nt to be a con traven tion of tru th, and an attem pt 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 c ond emn as erro neo us this pa rticular p rop osition , 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

ope n bo ok o f heave n. Fo r let no o ne be lieve tha t read ing the lo fty691

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 bo dy, as compared with the wonderful700

contrivances which a careful and practiced anatomist or701

philosop her discove rs in that same bod y when he seek s 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

Likew ise, that wh ich pre sents itself to m ere sigh t is as nothin g in709

comparison with the high marvels that the ingenuity of learned710

men disco vers in the heave ns by lo ng and accu rate o bserv ation....711

Your Highness may thus see how irregularly those persons712

proceed who in physical disputes arrange scriptural passages (and713

often tho se illnunde rstoo d by the m) in the front ran k 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 w ho maintains the truth will have ma ny 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 we apo ns othe r than tho se pro per to philos oph y, 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 ma nifest experiences and necessary demonstrations734

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

them in no stea d to go running to the B ible to c ove r up the ir736

inability to understand (let alone re solve) their opp onents'737

arguments, for the opinion which they fight has never been738

con dem ned by the ho ly Chur ch. If they w ish to pr oce ed 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 Suprem e Po ntiff, or the Church Co uncils. Reflecting upon this,744

and know ing that a p rop osition canno t be b oth true and h eretica l,745

let them emp loy them selves in th e bus iness wh ich is pro per to746

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

either the re will no longe r be a ny nece ssity to pro hibit it (since it748

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

the risk o f any scan dal.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

prop er authorities. Amo ng the circumsp ect and m ost 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 som e par ticular p assion or pe rsona l interest. W ith757

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

faith, certa inly no o ne do ubts tha t the Sup reme Po ntiff has alwa ys759

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

pow er: of an y create d be ing to m ake thin gs true o r 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

immu table tru th of the fac t, over w hich no man h as po wer. T his is764

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

certain ty, thus dep riving o neself o f continu ed au thority an d ab ility766

to choose by determining things which are now undetermined and767

ope n and still lodge d in the w ill of supre me a uthor ity. And in brief,768

if it is impossib le for a c onc lusion to be d eclare d her etical wh ile769

we rem ain in do ubt as to its truth, then the se me n are w asting the ir770

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