108 §4.2 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615) 109

§4.2 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615)6

[309] To the Most Serene Ladyship the Grand Duchess Dowager:7

[§4.2.1] As Your Most Serene Highness knows very well, a few years ago I discovered in the heavens many particulars which had been invisible until our time. Because of their novelty, and because of

6. Galilei 1890-1909,5: 309-48; translated by Finocchiaro (1989, 87-118). For the historical background, see the Introduction, especially §0.7. 7. Christina of Lorraine (d. 1637), wife of Grand Duke Ferdinanda I de' Medici and mother of Cosimo II.

This text is from The Essential Galileo,

edited and translated by Maurice A.

Finocchiaro (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett

Publishing, 2008), 109-145.

NB: The subsection notations and page

numbers in square brackets throughout the

text refer to the section and page numbers

of the Italian National Edition of Galileo's

Collected Works (1890-1909). You do not need

to pay special attention to these notations.

110 Letters on Copernicanism and Scripture (1613-15)

some consequences deriving from them which contradict some phys- ical propositions commonly accepted in philosophical schools, they roused against me no small number of such professors, as if I had placed these things in heaven with my hands in order to mess up na- ture and the sciences. These people seemed to forget that a multitude of truths contribute to inquiry and to the growth and strength of dis- ciplines rather than to their diminution or destruction, and at the same time they showed greater affection for their own opinions than for the true ones; thus they proceeded to deny and to try to nullifY those novelties, about which the senses themselves could have ren- dered them certain, if they had wanted to look at those novelties care- fully. To this end they produced various matters, and they published some writings full of useless discussions and sprinkled with quotations from the Holy Scripture, taken from passages which they do not properly understand and which they inappropriately adduce. This was a very serious error, and they might not have fallen into it had they paid attention to St. Augustine's very useful advice [310] concerning how to proceed with care in reaching definite decisions about things which are obscure and difficult to understand by means of reason alone. For, speaking also about a particular physical conclusion per- taining to heavenly bodies, he writes this (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, book 2, at the end):8 "Now then, always practicing a pious and serious moderation, we ought not to believe anything lightly about an obscure subject, lest we reject (out of love for our error) something which later may be truly shown not to be in any way con- trary to the holy books of either the Old or New Testament."

Then it developed that the passage of time disclosed to everyone the truths I had first pointed out, and, along with the truth of the matter, the difference in attitude between those who sincerely and without envy did not accept these discoveries as true and those who added emotional agitation to disbelief Thus, just as those who were most competent in astrqnomical and in physical science were con- vinced by my first announcement, so gradually there has been a calm- ing down of all the others whose denials and doubts were not

8. Here and elsewhere in this essay, Galileo gives references for his Latin quo- tations by displaying the bibliographical information in the margin to his text, whereas I insert the references in parentheses in the text. Unless indi- cated otherwise in a note, I have translated the Latin passages from the word- ing as quoted by Galileo.

§4.2 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615) 111

sustained by anything other than the unexpected novelty and the lack of opportunity to see them and to experience them with the senses. However, there are those who are rendered ill-disposed, not so much toward the things as much as toward the author, by the love of their first error and by some interest which they imagine having but which escapes me. Unable to deny them any longer, these people became silent about them; but, embittered more than before by what has mel- lowed and quieted the others, they divert their thinking to other fic- tions and try to harm me in other ways. These would not really worry me any more than I was disturbed by the other oppositions, which I always laughed off, certain of the result that the business would have; I should not worry if I did not see that the new calumnies and per- secutions are not limited to matters of greater or less theoretical un- derstanding, which are relatively unimportant, but that they go further and try to damage me with stains which I do abhor and must abhor more than death. Nor can I be satisfied that these charges be known as false only by those who know me and them; their falsity must be known to every other person. These people are aware that in my [311] astronomical and philosophical studies, on the question of the constitution of the world's parts, I hold that the sun is located at the center of the revolutions of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the earth rotates on itself and moves around it. Moreover, they hear how I confirm this view not only by refuting Ptolemy's and Aristotle's arguments, but also by producing many for the other side, especially some pertaining to physical effects whose causes perhaps cannot be determined in any other way, and other as- tronomical ones dependent on many features of the new celestial dis- coveries; these discoveries clearly confute the Ptolemaic system, and they agree admirably with this other position and confirm it. Now, these people are perhaps confounded by the known truth of the other propositions different from the ordinary which I hold, and so they may lack confidence to defend themselves as long as they remain in the philosophical field. Therefore, since they persist in their original self-appointed task of beating down me and my findings by every imaginable means, they have decided to try to shield the fallacies of their arguments with the cloak of simulated religiousness and with the authority of the Holy Scriptures, unintelligently using the latter for the confutation of arguments they neither understand nor have heard.

At first, they tried on their own to spread among common people the idea that such propositions are against the Holy Scriptures, and

112 Letters on Copernicanism and Scripture (1613-15)

consequently damnable and heretical. Then they realized how by and large human nature is more inclined to join those ventures which re- sult in the oppression of other people (even if unjustly) than those which result in their just improvement, and so it was not difficult for them to find someone who with unusual confidence did preach even from the pulpit that it is damnable and heretical; and this was done with little compassion and with little consideration of the injury not only to this doctrine and its followers, but also to mathematics and all mathematicians. Thus, having acquired more confidence and with the vain hope that that seed which first took root in their insincere mind would grow into a tree and rise toward the sky, they are spreading among the people the rumor that it will shortly be declared heretical by the supreme authority. They also know that such a declaration not only would uproot these two conclusions, but also would render damnable all the other astronomical and physical observations and propositions [312 J which correspond and are necessarily connected with them; hence, they alleviate their task as much as they can by making it look, at least among common people, as if this opinion were new and especially mine, pretending not to know that Nicolaus Copernicus was its author, or rather its reformer and confirmer. Now, Copernicus was not only a Catholic, but also a clergyman9 and a canon, and he was so highly regarded that he was called to Rome from the remotest parts of Germani0 when under Leo X the Lateran Council was discussing the reform of the ecclesiastical calendar; at that time this reform remained unfinished only because there was still no exact knowledge of the precise length of the year and of the lunar month. Thus he was charged by the Bishop of Fossombrone, 11 who was then supervising this undertaking, to try by repeated studies and

9. Here and in the rest of this paragraph, Galileo makes a number of mis- statements about Copernicus. For example, although Copernicus was a canon and hence a type of cleric, he was not a clergyman in the sense of being a priest. Although he sent a written report to the Fifth Lateran Coun- cil, he did not go to Rome to attend it. Although the Copernican system played a role in the reform of the calendar, the new Gregorian calendar (which was implemented in 1582 during the papacy of Gregory XIII) was based on non-Copernican ideas. Although Copernicus' book was not offi- cially condemned (before 1616), it· was widely censured. See Rosen 1958; 1975. 10. Actually Poland. 11. Paul of Middelburg (1445-1533).

.I '

§4.2 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615) 113

efforts to acquire more understanding and certainty about those ce- lestial motions; and so he undertook this study, and, by truly Her- culean labor and by his admirable mind, he made so much progress in this science and acquired such an exact knowledge of the periods of celestial motions that he earned the title of supreme astronomer; then in accordance with his doctrine not only was the calendar regu- larized, but tables of all planetary motions were constructed. Having expounded this doctrine in six parts, he published it at the request of the Cardinal of Capua12 and of the Bishop of Kulm; 13 and since he had undertaken this task and these labors on orders from the Supreme Pontiff, he dedicated his book On Heavenly Revolutions to the succes- sor of the latter, Paul III. Once printed this book was accepted by the Holy Church, and it was read and studied all over the world, without anyone ever having had the least scruple about its doctrine. Finally, now that one is discovering how well-founded upon clear observa- tions and necessary demonstrations this doctrine is, some persons come along who, without having even seen the book, give its author the reward of so much work by trying to have him declared a heretic; this they do only in order to satisfY their special animosity, ground- lessly conceived [313] against someone else who has no greater con- nection with Copernicus than the endorsement of his doctrine.

Now, in matters of religion and of reputation I have the greatest regard for how common people judge and view me; so, because of the false aspersions my enemies so unjustly try to cast upon me, I have thought it necessary to justifY myself by discussing the details of what they produce to detest and to abolish this opinion, in short, to declare it not just false but heretical. They always shield themselves with a simulated religious zeal, and they also try to involve Holy Scripture and to make it somehow subservient to their insincere objectives; against the intention of Scripture and of the Holy Fathers (if I am not mistaken), they want to extend, not to say abuse, its authority, so that even for purely physical conclusions which are not matters of faith one must totally abandon the senses and demonstrative arguments in favor of any scriptural passage whose apparent words may contain a different indication. Here I hope to demonstrate that I proceed with much more pious and religious zeal than they when I propose not

12. Cardinal Nicolaus von Schoenberg (1472-1537), archbishop of Capua. 13. Tiedemann Giese (1480-1550), Polish friend of Copernicus.

114 Letters on Copernicanism and Scripture (1613-15)

that this book should not be condemned, but that it should not be condemned without understanding, examining, or even seeing it, as they would like. This is especially true since the author never treats of things pertaining to religion and faith, nor uses arguments dependent in any way on the authority of the Holy Scriptures, in which case he might have interpreted them incorrectly; instead, he always limits himself to physical conclusions pertaining to celestial motions, and he treats of them with astronomical and geometrical demonstrations based above all on sense experience and very accurate observations. He proceeded in this manner not because he did not pay any atten- tion to the passages of the Holy Scripture, but because he understood very well that [314] if his doctrine was demonstrated it could not contradict the properly interpreted Scripture. Hence, at the end of the dedication, speaking to the Supreme Pontiff, he says: "There may be triflers who though wholly ignorant of mathematics nevertheless abrogate the right to make judgments about it because of some pas- sage in Scripture wrongly twisted to their purpose, and will dare to criticize and censure this undertaking of mine. I waste no time on them, and indeed I despise their judgment as thoughtless. For it is known that Lactantius, a distinguished writer in other ways, but no mathematician, speaks very childishly about the shape of the Earth when he makes fun of those who reported that it has the shape of a globe. Mathematics is written for mathematicians, to whom this work of mine, if my judgment does not deceive me, will seem to be of value to the ecclesiastical Commonwealth over which Your Holiness now holds dominion."14

Of this sort are also those who try to argue that this author should be condemned, without examining him; and to show that this is not only legitimate but a good thing, they use the authority of Scripture, of experts in sacred theology, and of sacred Councils. I feel reverence for these authorities and hold them supreme, so that I should consider it most reckless to want to contradict them when they are used in ac- cordance with the purpose of the Holy Church; similarly, I do not think it is wrong to speak out when it seems that someone, out of personal interest, wants to use them in a way different from the holi- est intention of the Holy Church. Thus, while also believing that my sincerity will become self-evident, I declare not only that I intend to

14. Here quoted from Copernicus 1976, 26-27.

§4.2 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615) 115

submit freely to the correction of any errors in matters pertaining to religion which I may have committed in this essay due to my igno- rance, but I also declare that on these subjects I do not want to quar- rel with anyone, even if the points are debatable. For my purpose is nothing but the following: if these reflections, which are far from my own profession, should contain (besides errors) anything that may lead someone to advance a useful caution for the Holy Church in her deliberations about the [315] Copernican system, then let it be ac- cepted with whatever profit superiors will deem appropriate; if not, let my essay be torn up and burned, for I do not intend or pretend to gain from it any advantage that is not pious or Catholic. Moreover, although I have heard with my own ears many of the things which I mention, I freely grant to whoever said them that they did not say them, if they so wish, and I admit that I may have misunderstood them; thus what I answer should not apply to them, but to whoever holds that opinion.

So the reason they advance to condemn the opinion of the earth's mobility and sun's stability is this: since in many places in the Holy Scripture one reads that the sun moves and the earth stands still, and since Scripture can never lie or err, it follows as a necessary conse- quence that the opinion of those who want to assert the sun to be motionless and the earth moving is erroneous and damnable.

[§4.2.2] The first thing to note about this argument is the following. It is most pious to say and most prudent to take for granted that Holy Scripture can never lie, as long as its true meaning has been grasped; but I do not think one can deny that this is frequently recondite and very different from what appears to be the literal meaning of the words. From this it follows that, if in interpreting it someone were to limit himself always to the pure literal meaning, and if the latter were wrong, then he could make Scripture appear to be full not only of contradictions and false propositions, but also of serious heresies and blasphemies; for one would have to attribute to God feet, hands, eyes, and bodily sensations, as well as human feelings like anger, con- trition, and hatred, and such conditions as the forgetfulness of things past and the ignorance of future ones. Since these propositions dic- tated by the Holy Spirit were expressed by the sacred writers in such a way as to accommodate the capacities of the very unrefined and undisciplined masses, therefore for those who deserve to rise above the common people it is necessary that wise interpreters [316]

116 Letters on Copernicanism and Scripture (1613-15)

formulate the true meaning and indicate the specific reasons why it is expressed by such words. This doctrine is so commonplace and so definite among all theologians that it would be superfluous to present any testimony for it.

From this I think one can very reasonably deduce that, whenever the same Holy Scripture has seen fit to assert any physical conclusion (especially on things that are abstruse and difficult to understand), it has followed the same rule, in order not to sow confusion into the minds of the common people and make them more obstinate against dogmas involving higher mysteries. In fact, as I said and as one can clearly see, for the sole purpose of accommodating popular under- standing, Scripture has not abstained from concealing the most im- portant truths, attributing even to God characteristics that are contrary to or very far from His essence; given this, who will cate- gorically maintain that in speaking incidentally of the earth, water, sun, or other created thing Scripture has set aside such regard and has chosen to limit itself rigorously to the literal and narrow meanings of the words? This would be especially implausible when mentioning features of these created things which are very remote from popular understanding, and which are not at all pertinent to the primary pur- pose of the Holy Writ, that is, to the worship of God and the salva- tion of souls.

Therefore, I think that in disputes about natural phenomena one must begin not with the authority of scriptural passages, but with sense experiences and necessary demonstrations. For the Holy Scrip- ture and nature derive equally from the Godhead, the former as the dictation of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the most obedient ex- ecutrix of God's orders; moreover, to accommodate the understand- ing of the common people it is appropriate for Scripture to say many things that are different (in appearance and in regard to the literal meaning of the words) from the absolute truth; on the other hand, nature is inexorable and immutable, never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her, and does not care whether or not her recon- dite reasons and ways of operating are disclosed to human under- standing; [317] but not every scriptural assertion is bound to obligations as severe as every natural phenomenon; finally, God re- veals Himself to us no less excellently in the effects of nature than in the sacred words of Scripture, as Tertullian perhaps meant when he said, "We postulate that God ought first to be known by nature, and afterwards further known by doctrine-by nature through His works, I

§4.2 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615) 117

by doctrine through official teaching" (Against Marcion, !.18);15 and so it seems that a natural phenomenon which is placed before our eyes by sense experience or proved by necessary demonstrations should not be called into question, let alone condemned, on account of scriptural passages whose words appear to have a different meaning.

However, by this I do not wish to imply that one should not have the highest regard for passages of Holy Scripture; indeed, after be- coming certain of some physical conclusions, we should use these as very appropriate aids to the correct interpretation of such Scriptures and to the investigation of the truths they must contain, for they are most true and agree with demonstrated truths. That is, I would say that the authority of Holy Scripture aims chiefly at persuading men about those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human rea- son, could not be discovered by scientific research or by any other means than through the mouth of the Holy Spirit himself Moreover, even in regard to those propositions that are not articles of faith, the authority of the same Holy Writ should have priority over the au- thority of any human works composed not with the demonstrative method but with either pure narration or even probable reasons; 16

this principle should be considered appropriate and necessary inas- much as divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment and specula- tion. However, I do not think one has to believe that the same God who has given us senses, language, and intellect would want to set aside the use of these and give us by other means the information we can acquire with them, so that we would deny our senses and reason even in the case of those physical conclusions which are placed before our eyes and intellect by our sense experiences or by necessary demonstrations. This is especially implausible for those sciences dis- cussed in Scripture to a very minor extent and [318] with discon- nected statements; such is precisely the case of astronomy, so little of which is contained therein that one does not find there even the

15. Tertullian 1972, 47; I have made some slight emendations to Evans' translation of this passage. 16. Here my translation of this sentence is a slight emendation of the one given in Finocchiaro 1989, 94. This improved translation results from my now taking into account the emendation in Galileo's own wording of this sentence in the first published edition of the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (Galilei 1636, 14; cf. Motta 2000, 97-98; Finocchiaro 2005, 379-80 n. 56), as well as the scholarly discussions found in Fantoli 2003, 437-38 n. 39, and McMullin 2005b, 109, 116.

118 Letters on Copernicanism and Scripture (1613-15)

names of the planets, except for the sun, 17 the moon, and only once or twice Venus, under the name of Morning Star. Thus, if the sacred authors had had in mind to teach people about the arrangement and motions of the heavenly bodies, and consequently to have us acquire this information from Holy Scripture, then, in my opinion, they would not have discussed so little of the topic-that is to say, almost nothing in comparison with the innumerable admirable conclusions which are contained and demonstrated in this science. Indeed, it is the opinion of the holiest and most learned Fathers that the writers of Holy Scripture not only did not pretend to teach us about the struc- ture and the motions of the heavens and of the stars, and their shape, size, and distance, but that they deliberately refrained from doing it, even though they knew all these things very well. For example, one reads the following words in St. Augustine (On the Literal Interpretation

of Genesis, book 2, chapter 9): "It is also customary to ask what one should believe about the shape and arrangement of heaven according to our Scriptures. In fact, many people argue a great deal about these things, which with greater prudence our authors omitted, which are of no use for eternal life to those who study them, and (what is worse) which take up a lot of time that ought to be spent on things pertain- ing to salvation. For what does it matter to me whether heaven, like a sphere, completely surrounds the earth, which is balanced at the center of the universe, or whether like a discus it covers the earth on one side from above? However, since the issue here is the authority of Scripture, let me repeat a point I have made more than once; that is, there is a danger that someone who does not understand the divine words may find in our books or infer from them something about these topics which seems to contradict received opinions, and then he might not believe at all the other useful things contained in its pre- cepts, stories, and assertions; therefore, briefly, it should be said that our authors did know the truth about the shape of heaven, but that the Spirit of God, which was speaking through them, did not want to teach men these things which are of no use to salvation." (The same opinion is found in Peter Lombard's Book of Sentences.) The same contempt which the sacred writers had for the investigation of such properties of heavenly bodies is repeated by St. Augustine in the

17. The term planet originally meant "wandering star," namely, a heavenly body that appears to move relative to the fixed stars as well as to the earth, thus subsuming the sun and the moon.

§4.2 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615) 119

following chapter 10, in regard to the question whether heaven should be thought to be in motion or standing still. He writes: "Some brethren have also advanced a question about the motion of heaven, [319] namely, whether heaven moves or stands still. For if it moves, they say, how is it a firmament? But if it stands still, how do the stars which are thought to be fixed in it revolve from east to west, the northern ones completing shorter circuits near the pole, so that heaven seems to rotate like a sphere (if there is at the other end an- other pole invisible to us) or like a discus (if instead there is no other pole)? To them I answer that these things should be examined with very subtle and demanding arguments, to determine truly whether or not it is so; but I do not have the time to undertake and to pursue these investigations, nor should such time be available to those whom we desire to instruct for their salvation and for the needs and benefit of the Holy Church."

Let us now come down from these things to our particular point. We have seen that the Holy Spirit did not want to teach us whether heaven moves or stands still, nor whether its shape is spherical or like a discus or extended along a plane, nor whether the earth is located at its center or on one side. So it follows as a necessary consequence that the Holy Spirit also did not intend to teach us about other ques- tions of the same kind and connected to those just mentioned in such a way that without knowing the truth about the former one cannot decide the latter, such as the question of the motion or rest of the earth or sun. But, if the Holy Spirit deliberately avoided teaching us such propositions, inasmuch as they are of no relevance to His inten- tion (that is, to our salvation), how can one now say that to hold this rather than that proposition on this topic is so important that one is a principle of faith and the other erroneous? Thus, can an opinion be both heretical and irrelevant to the salvation of souls? Or can one say that the Holy Spirit chose not to teach us something relevant to our salvation? Here I would say what I heard from an ecclesiastical person in a very eminent position (Cardinal Baronio18

), namely, that the in- tention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven and not how heaven goes.

But let us go back and examine the importance of necessary demonstrations and of sense experiences in conclusions about natural phenomena, and how much weight has been assigned to them by

18. Cesare Baronio (1538-1607), appointed cardinal in 1596.

120 Letters on Copernicanism and Scripture (1613-15)

learned and holy theologians. Among hundreds of instances of such testimony we have the following. Near the beginning of his work On

Genesis Pererius asserts: [320] "In treating of Moses' doctrine, one must take diligent care to completely avoid holding and saying posi- tively and categorically anything which contradicts the decisive obser- vations and reasons of philosophy or other disciplines; in fact, since all truths always agree with one another, the truth of Holy Scripture cannot be contrary to the true reasons and observations of human doctrines." And in St. Augustine (Letter to Marcellinus, section 7), one reads: "If, against the most manifest and reliable testimony of rea- son, anything be set up claiming to have the authority of the Holy Scriptures, he who does this does it through a misapprehension of what he has read and is setting up against the truth not the real mean- ing of Scripture, which he has failed to discover, but an opinion of his own; he alleges not what he has found in the Scriptures, but what he has found in himself as their interpreter."19

Because of this, and because (as we said above) two truths cannot contradict one another, the task of a wise interpreter is to strive to fathom the true meaning of the sacred texts; this will undoubtedly agree with those physical conclusions of which we are already certain and sure through clear observations or necessary demonstrations. In- deed, besides saying (as we have) that in many places Scripture is open to interpretations far removed from the literal meaning of the words, we should add that we cannot assert with certainty that all interpreters speak with divine inspiration, since if this were so then there would be no disagreement among them about the meaning of the same pas- sages; therefore, I should think it would be very prudent not to allow anyone to commit and in a way oblige scriptural passages to have to maintain the truth of any physical conclusions whose contrary could ever be proved to us by the senses or demonstrative and necessary rea- sons. Indeed, who wants the human mind put to death? Who is going to claim that everything in the world which is observable and know- able has already been seen and discovered? Perhaps those who on other occasions admit, quite correctly, that the things we know are a very small part of the things we do not know? Indeed, we also have it from the mouth of the Holy Spirit that God "hath delivered the

19. Here quoted from Mourant 1964, 110. This letter

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Do you need an answer to this or any other questions?

Order Plagiarism Free Answer Here

About Wridemy

We are a professional paper writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework. We offer HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE Papers.

How It Works

To make an Order you only need to click on “Order Now” and we will direct you to our Order Page. Fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Are there Discounts?

All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Hire a tutor today CLICK HERE to make your first order

Related Tags

Academic APA Writing College Course Discussion Management English Finance General Graduate History Information Justify Literature MLA