GALILEO

 GALILEO

    Image: brittanica.com

Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaluti de’ Galilei was born on 15th February 1564 and died on 8th January 1642. I have taken his story from an essay by Donald de Marco in which the dispute regarding heliocentrism between Galileo and the Church is analysed. (1)

As De Marco observed: “The dispute between Galileo and the Catholic Church is both complex and controversial. It is complex because it involves a host of issues and a multitude of volatile personalities. It is controversial because its interpreters invariably attach deeply felt positive or negative evaluations to these issues.

“Bertold Brecht’s play, Galileo, whose cast calls for a ‘fat prelate’, a ‘Furious Monk’ and an ‘Old Cardinal; paintings that depict the subjection of Galileo to various forms of humiliation that never took place; and certain television dramatisations that pander to popular prejudice, are typical one-sided representations that take the part of Galileo against a presumed authoritarian hierarchy. We find this same tendency to be commonplace even among certain books that pass for scholarly studies. In a book entitled, “Man on Trial’, for example, the author views the trial of Galileo as ‘the climax of the onslaught of organised religion against scientific progress.’ Another author erroneously contends that ‘Galileo rigorously demonstrated the Copernican system.”

“In Carl Sagan’s popular book on astronomy, Cosmos, the author tells us that Galileo was unable to convince the Catholic hierarchy that there are mountains on the moon and that Jupiter has moons of its own."

The historical fact is the polar opposite of Sagan’s contentions: In 1610 Galileo embarked upon empirical observations of the planets with the use of a telescope (invented two years before). He published a booklet in which he recorded his observations. The Church rallied to his support.

The Jesuits of the Roman College confirmed Galileo’s telescopic observations and subsequently honoured him with a full day of ceremonies. Pope Paul V received him in a long audience. And while Galileo was in Rome for these plaudits, he was given a hero’s welcome by cardinals, prelates and other dignitaries of the Church; Cardinal Francesco Mari del Monte, one of Galileo’s patrons, commented in a letter: ‘If I were still living under the ancient Republic of Rome, I verily believe there would be a column on the Capital erected in Galileo’s honour.’ (4).

The elite of Jesuit astronomers in various parts of Europe not only confirmed Galileo’s empirical discoveries, but they improved on them.

So, how does a person writing a book miss those facts? Is it accidental? Are they incapable of basic research? De Marco observed that, “[i]t has been known for quite some time that the majority of Church intellectuals supported Galileo and that the clearest and strongest opposition to him came from secular agencies.” (2).

Galileo adopted and espoused the Pythagorean view of the universe – the heliocentric model. This was postulated in opposition to the Ptolemaic model, in which the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo’s Pythagoreanism relied upon three fundamental assumptions:

The sun is the centre of the universe which is organised in the most simple and harmonious way possible;

The planets move in circular paths, (the circle being the form of perfection);

The truth of things is to be found in numbers and therefore the truth of nature is revealed in mathematics.(3).

With the accolades and fame showered upon him, Galileo was victorious – he began denigrating anyone who opposed his theory, that is, his scientific colleagues, referring to them as ‘pygmies,’ ‘dumb mooncalves,’ and ‘hardly deserving to be described as human beings.’ (5). In doing this, he made a few enemies.

Contemporaneous scholarship brought forward two alternative explanations of the planetary alignment; the great Danish astronomer, Tycho de Brahe, introduced a theory that was an intermediate step between Ptolemy and Pythagoras which, from a mathematical standpoint, was just as satisfactory as the Copernican system, in which the planets revolved around the sun and, together with the sun revolved around a stationary earth. The general tendency amongst astronomers from 1630 to 1687 was to accept de Brahe’s theory.

Galileo, however, demanded that they accept that the planets moved in circles as a physical reality. While the modern mind accepts this proposition as correct, it presented a conundrum to the 17th century scientist, as it brought with it a host of unanswered issues and empirically unestablished intermediate steps. In this regard, while the Copernican paradigm was mathematically available as a possibility, it nevertheless presented a major problem to astronomers in a physical sense: If the earth did travel round the sun, as Copernicus claimed, the fixed stars ought to reveal an annual parallax, (stellar displacement), due to the change of the earth's position every six months. This issue was not settled until Bessel’s discovery of such a parallax in 1838.(6).

Further, the study of the heavens brought with it a philosophical dimension that was initially avoided by the Church but was sought to be exploited by Galileo's many (by now) enemies.

Galileo’s main enemies were a group led by Lodovico delle Colombe, (called, hilariously, “the Pigeon League”, by Galileo), who sought to engage Galileo in conflict between science and Scripture. De Marco says that “they endeavoured to create a scandal surrounding the person of Galileo and thus compel the Roman authorities, who were reluctant to act on the grounds of theory, to act in the interest of restoring the good of public order. Colombe, who knew that he was no match for Galileo on an intellectual level and who had already been embarrassed in a dual of wits with him, was intent on defaming Galileo any way he could.” (7).

“Colombe had been the first to use the Bible as a weapon directly against Galileo. He circulated a manuscript from his treatise, “Against the Motion of the Earth”, in which he cited texts from Scripture that apparently contradicted the Copernican system. One such text, Joshua 10:12-13 (used time and time again, also by Calvin, Luther and Melanchthon), became closely identified with the controversy. Joshua, after defeating the Philistines, commanded the sun to stand still, which implied that the sun usually moves. Colombe prevailed upon a Dominican priest, Tommaso Caccini, to join the fray. Goaded on by Colombe’s ‘Pigeon League’, Caccini delivered a sermon on 20th December 1614 in Santa Maria Novella in Florence in which he strongly denounced Galileo and his followers and condemned the idea of a moving earth. He cited the Joshua passage to illustrate the contradiction that he believed existed between Scripture and Copernicanism. (7A)

Caccini’s behaviour, as scholars have pointed out ‘stands out in contrast to that of nearly all the other churchmen involved’ in the Galileo controversy.”

De Marco said: “Moreover, it was excessive and irrational. He had called for banishing ‘mathematicians’ …from Christian states. Father Maraffi, a Preacher-General of the Dominicans – and a fervent promoter of the Copernican cause- wrote a letter of apology to Galileo. ‘Unfortunately,’ he wrote’ I have to answer for all the idiocies [bestialita] that thirty or forty thousand brothers may and actually do commit.’ He also made it clear to his Dominican subjects that he would not tolerate this kind of barbarity. ‘We should not open the door for every impertinent individual to come out with what is dictated to him by the rage of others and by his own madness and ignorance.’ But perhaps the severest rebuke came from Caccini’s own brother, Mattheo. In letters addressed to his brother, Mattheo writes: ’It was a silly thing [for Tommaso] to get himself embroiled in this business by these pigeons [Colombil]…what idiocy is this of being set abellowing at the prompting of those nasty pigeons…This performance of yours makes no sense in heaven and earth…I who am no theologian can tell you what I am telling you, that you have behaved like a dreadful fool.” (9).

De Marco commented that “Caccini’s sermon brought the controversy between Scripture, Copernicanism and Galileo out into the open for the first time.”

However, the first opposition to the heliocentric theory on theological grounds had already come from Luther and Melanchthon and other Protestant theologians. They produced scathing condemnations of Copernicus’ work. Luther called Copernicus, “an ass who wants to pervert the whole of astronomy and deny what is said in the Book of Joshua, only to make a show of ingenuity and attract attention.’” He had summarily dismissed Copernicus as ‘that fool’ and Melanchthon had condemned Copernicus as ‘dishonest’ and ‘pernicious’. (10).

Galileo, (a very devout Catholic– even though he had a mistress and fathered three children to her out of wedlock), responded by writing a letter in which he argued that nothing he held was in conflict with Scripture. He reasoned that Scripture deals with natural matters in such a cursive and allusive way that it appears as though it wants to remind us that its proper concern is not about them but about the soul of man. It is willing to adjust its language about nature to the simple minds of ordinary people. He argued that it is not the place of Scripture to validate science, and defended this point by quoting Cardinal Baronius who had remarked that, “The Holy Ghost intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.’” (11).

However, as de Marco pointed out, “Galileo then insisted that the Copernican system had been proved beyond doubt and that the Church must reinterpret scriptural passages that contradicted it. This set the stage for a confrontation with Rome, although the Church did everything it could to prevent it. “(12).

“The position of the Church was one by which proof of Galileo’s theory had to be established – in the words of Cardinal Bellarmine, in circumstances where such proof was absent, to speak of the Copernican system as an established truth ‘is a very dangerous thing’.“ [as to which, see my post on Copernicus, footnote for text of letter from Cardinal Bellarmine in which he stated the position of the Church. Cardinal Bellarmine was the theological expert at the time.]

De Marco observed that this caution “not only represented the views of the Church, but also that of the responsible body of empirical scientists of the day” (13).

He commented however, “To be fair, it should also be pointed out that Bellarmine erred when he required proof of the Copernican system as a condition for interpreting Scriptural passages- such as the Joshua text-in an allusive or non-literal manner. It is a curious paradox, as a scholar on the life and work of Bellarmine has remarked: “As a piece of Scriptural exegesis Galileo’s theological letters are much superior to Bellarmine’s, while as an essay on scientific method Bellarmine’s letter is far sounder and more modern in its views than Galileo’s.” (14).

"As a result of Galileo’s importunity, the Holy Office finally issued a decree in 1616 declaring ‘the Pythagorean doctrine of the motion of the earth to be false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture’. Galileo’s name was not mentioned in the decree, nor were his works prohibited. The incident ended on a decorous note with Pope Paul V gracefully receiving Galileo in a long audience in which the Pope assured Galileo that any rumours and calumny directed against him would be ignored by the Vatican."

"Protestantism had not been so gracious towards Keppler when this great astronomer professed his intellectual sympathies for the Copernican system. Having been persecuted by the Protestant Faculty at Tubingen, Kepler actually took refuge with the Jesuits in 1596."(15).

Galileo’s conflict with the Church, however, was to flare up 17 years later. He was encouraged to write his theory by many people, including significant Church officials and the Pope himself. However, in the days before desktop publishing, the very act of publication of a scientific theory served as a representation of the Imprematur of the Church. Moreover, publication itself was, (and still is), a serious exercise. For this reason, presentation of the theory required precision - it was untenable that an unproven theory be put forward as though it was established. Scientific rigour also required that opposing theories be tested and accommodated. It was not enough to simply state a proposition and expect everyone to agree with it, (even if it was a good one).

“Pope Urban suggested a line of reasoning that would allow Galileo to postulate his theory without claiming it to be true, (that is- proved, which it was not). The reasoning is logically impeccable and asserts in effect, that if a given theory is consistent with certain facts, it is possible that a totally different theory, perhaps known only to God, could be consistent with the same facts. In other words, one cannot affirm the antecedent of a hypothetical proposition by affirming the consequent. The fact that the ground is wet can be accounted for by rain or by someone watering the lawn. The Pope’s reasoning was one that provided its epistemological basis by the principles of Robert Grosseteste in the 13th century.” (15A).

Galileo produced the Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems in which he contrasted the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems.

The dialogue was just that – a dialogue between proponents of the two systems. The problem was, the theory according to Ptolemy was placed in the words of Simplicio – a layman, who was portrayed as a complete dunce, and who was modelled on – Ludovico delle Colombe, (the pigeon). So Galileo set up the Ptolemaic theory as Straw Man argument – and a postulate that, at the time was worthy of measured deliberation and required refutation, was unfairly portrayed as a theory that was not worthy of intelligent consideration. This portrayal of the contending theory was accompanied by a failure to address the new theories postulated by Kepler and de Brahe. Instead he juxtaposed expositions with hollow rhetoric and falsification of facts.

Furthermore, his own theories contained inherent errors:

“First, rejecting Kepler’s correct notion that the moon causes the alternation of the tides, Galileo argued that the seas ‘swapped over’ once a day as a direct consequence of the earth’s motion. Accordingly, the tides were effectively caused by the shaking of the vessel that contained them. This was patently wrong, but importantly, Galileo submitted it as a proof of the earth’s motion. (16).

But, worst of all, Galileo had the temerity or impudence to place the words which had been commended to him by the Pope, (set out above), in the mouth of Simplicio, the dunce, thus not only disowning the content, but ridiculing the Pope and rejecting his hand of assistance.

Pope Urban was personally hurt by Galileo’s actions, regarding them as a betrayal. He seems to have been as hot-headed as Galileo and a good hater, quite able to hold a grudge, as even after Galileo’s death he balked at allowing a monument to be erected in his honour. (17). The Pope was described by de Marco as a Florentine, like Galileo, and, “like his compatriot, he was outgoing, ambitious, fiery and impatient of opposition.” He was also described as vain. (18).

Galileo had already alienated the Jesuits, who were his major supporters, constantly levelling personal insults at the Jesuit astronomers. Astronomer, Christopher Scheiner had said that he had observed sun-spots at a time prior to that claimed by Galileo. So Galileo made a public comment that Scheiner interpreted to be a personal swipe against him, saying:

“Others, not wanting to agree with my ideas, advance ridiculous and impossible opinions against me; and some, overwhelmed and convinced of my arguments, attempted to rob me of that glory which was mine, pretending not to have seen my writings…”

The Inquisition summoned Galileo to Rome in 1632, the year of publication of the Dialogue. The Inquisition, it might be useful to point out, was an adversarial process in which matters of doctrine were debated, in which the essential elements were advocated by a “Devil’s Advocate” and to which a response was made in rebuttal – it was essentially a method of testing doctrine in an objective and rational environment, with rules similar to those operating in modern courts of law. Notions of torture by mean monks were largely a product of protestant propaganda of the Elizabethan era, (ironically), drawn from fictional representations based on the Spanish Inquisition, which was a secular process, instituted by the Spanish monarchy and directed to the eradication of Islamic power in Spain. The Inquisition, however, was simply a verbal debate, albeit in a jurisdiction that, similar to the English system, did possess the power to inflict coercive punishment such as torture and to execute.

The Inquisition, in Galileo’s case, was conducted in 1633. De Marco commented that “he was well treated. He never spent a day of his life in a prison cell, nor was he tortured or ever in fear of being tortured. While the proceedings continued, he and his valet occupied a five room apartment in the Holy Office overlooking the Vatican Gardens, while the Tuscan Ambassador’s Major Domo looked after his food and wine.”

It was the intention of the Inquisition to make Galileo recant and to show that not even such an illustrious person as Galileo could mock the Pope and his theologians with impunity. I might comment here that "mocking" was not a lack of reverence at a personal level only; while the personal feelings of Pope Urban no doubt influenced the climate, the institution of the Church has its centre in the Chair of Peter - a position which is sacredly founded. Further, the scientific process, by the frivolous treatment given by Galileo, and in which the Church was invested by reason of the publication of the thesis, had been disrespected -such cavalier disregard would not be tolerated in peer review professional journals today. That is, it was not the content of the treatise but the disdain with which it was presented. The explosive situation was completely a result of Galileo's temperament.

So, the outcome of the proceedings: At the command of the Inquisition, Galileo recited a prepared statement clearing himself from suspicion of heresy and denouncing the doctrine of the earth’s motion.(19). He wasn’t free of repercussion though- publication of his work was suppressed until 1838 and he had to say the Penitential Psalms as daily penance. His daughter, however, who adored him, requested of the Cardinals that she could pray the Psalms in his stead, which request was granted.

De Marco observed that “There followed a peaceful period of ten years during which time Galileo wrote his masterpiece Dialogue Concerning Two New Sciences, which summed up his life’s work on motion, acceleration and gravity and which furnished the basis for the laws of gravity and motion laid by Isaac Newton in 1687. “(20).

"Galileo’s Pythagorean model asserted that planets made perfect circles around the sun. However he was willing to go further and affirmed a Pythagorean philosophy of nature. In it he expounded upon knowledge of the universe residing in mathematical symbols. That is, his world was of pure quantity. It was not the world of Aristotle, who saw quantity as merely one factor, nor was it compatible with the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. It was a world of matter in motion, knowable to the mathematician and alien to the man of ordinary sensual perception. As to the world of the senses, he observed:

‘Hence I think that tastes, odours, colours and so on are no more than mere names as far as the object in which we place them is concerned and that they reside only in the consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be wiped out and annihilated.’” (21).

One could almost characterise this interpretation as a gnostic view of the world, by which his theory was infused with a philosophical dimension based on an idealised form of mathematics, to the exclusion of the Christian view affirming unity of mind and matter, form and substance. (22). The Inquisition left this alone.

Whitehead commented that: “The worst that happened to men of science in that age was that Galileo suffered an honourable detention and a mild reproof before dying peacefully in his bed.’ Another commenter has remarked that, ‘It is probably true that no-one has been treated so gently.’ (23).

Galileo was so sarcastic that he made many enemies. De Santillana said that Galileo’s marginal jottings on his copy of a work by Father Grassi were so violent that, ‘The expletives alone would make a vocabulary of good Tuscan abuse.” (24).

De Marco summed up the Galileo affair as a ‘human drama played out by a cast of flawed and finite characters. It has the plausible pretext of being a loftier dispute involving science, philosophy, theology and society. But, in the main, it is a clash of souls, some less noble than others. There is a subtle irony that Galileo and Shakespeare were born in the same year. The world’s pre-eminent playwright would have found the Galileo dispute much to his liking, and had he given it a script would doubtlessly have assigned the impersonal ideals a place of secondary significance. (25).

The Wikipedia entry provides as follows:

“The Galileo affair was largely forgotten after Galileo's death, and the controversy subsided. The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence.... In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV authorised the publication of an edition of Galileo's complete scientific works, which included a mildly censored version of the Dialogue. In 1758, the general prohibition against works advocating heliocentrism was removed from the Index of Prohibited Books, although the specific ban on uncensored versions of the Dialogue and Copernicus's De Revolutionibus remained. All traces of official opposition to heliocentrism by the church disappeared in 1835 when these works were finally dropped from the Index.

"Interest in the Galileo affair was revived in the early 19th century, when Protestant polemicists used it (and other events such as the Spanish Inquisition and the myth of the flat earth to attack Roman Catholicism. Interest in it has waxed and waned ever since. In 1939, Pope Pius XII, in his first speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, within a few months of his election to the papacy, described Galileo as being among the "most audacious heroes of research... not afraid of the stumbling blocks and the risks on the way, nor fearful of the funereal monuments". His close advisor of 40 years, Professor Robert Leiber, wrote: "Pius XII was very careful not to close any doors (to science) prematurely. He was energetic on this point and regretted that in the case of Galileo."

“On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at The Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today". Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying: "The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune."

(1) Donald De Marco, The Dispute Between Galileo and the Catholic Church, “Catholic Controversies”, Stephen Gabriel, (Ed), Moorings Press, Virginia, (2010).

(2) Ibid., at p. 155.

(3) Ibid., at p. 157.

(4) Ibid., at p. 162.

(5) Ibid., at p. 163.

(6) Ibid., at pp. 163-4.

(7) Ibid. at p. 165.

(7A) Ibid.

(9) Ibid. at pp. 165-166.

(10) Ibid., at p. 169, fn 40.

(11) Ibid., at p. 166.

(12) Ibid., at pp. 166-167.

(13) Ibid., at p. 167.

(14) Ibid., at pp. 167-168.

(15) Ibid., at p. 168.

(15A) Ibid., at p. 172.

(16) Ibid., at p. 169.

(17) Ibid., at p. 173.

(18) Ibid., at p. 173.

(19) Ibid., at p. 174.

(20) Ibid.

(21) Ibid., at p. 158.

(22) Ibid., at pp. 157-158.

(23) Ibid., at p. 174.

(24) Ibid., at p. 175.

(25) Ibid.