The Freedom of Science Part 15

The _condemnation_ of a book never strikes at the person of the author, nor at what he has intended to express by the pa.s.sages objected to; judgment is pa.s.sed only upon what is actually expressed in them. Hence it is not necessary to give to the author himself a hearing, or a chance to explain. The reason is that the judgment is rendered on the sense of the pa.s.sages, not on the meaning of the author. In general those books and periodicals are forbidden which are likely to do serious damage to faith and morals. The isolated cases of indicting the works of Catholic authors in the nineteenth century-we may mention _Lamennais_, _Hermes_, _Guenther_, _Loisy_, and _Sch.e.l.l_-show that the Church proceeds but slowly and with consideration against the author involved.

To appreciate the Index properly, one must try to grasp without prejudice the _purpose_ the Church has in view. This purpose is to protect the faithful from error and from moral contagion, and to preserve the faith intact. "What is more precious than souls, what more precious than the faith? But both suffer damage from such reading." Such was the judgment of the Council of Ephesus when it drew up its book-decrees; such was the judgment of an _Augustine_, of _Leo the Great_, and of the Holy Fathers; such is still the judgment of the Church. Books and writings that offend against morals are a menace to her faithful. They become infected with wrong ideas; they are as a rule not in a position to distinguish by themselves the false from the true, and for the most part they are not morally strong enough to resist the allurements of error. It may also happen that certain thoughts are true in the abstract, yet for the time being would be a danger for many. Now, it is the right and duty of any social authority, beginning with the head of the family and up to the government, to protect with strong hand the precious possessions of its subjects.

The state keeps under control the sale of poison and dynamite, keeps out contagious diseases from its boundaries-it protects the possessions of its subjects. European states have for centuries claimed the right to censure books, and have used it much more rigorously than the Church ever did, to say nothing of the censures of the Protestant Church of former times (see abundant proof apud _Hilgers_, 206-402). The modern state also, despite the great freedom granted to the press, cannot entirely forego its sense of responsibility. It restricts the freedom of the press by censorship, and by preventive measures often not less drastic than the censure itself, and it always regards the confiscation of particularly dangerous writings to be a matter of course. It puts under censure school-books, political posters, and theatrical plays, and does not tolerate any socialistic literature in the soldiers' barracks. And do we not take it as a matter of course if a father forbids his child to a.s.sociate with dangerous playmates, and takes bad books from its hands? We cannot find fault with the Church if she seeks to protect her children, if she represses the promiscuous dissemination of false ideas and doctrines, and if she takes dangerous books under her control. "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep," was the command given to the Church.

The objection should therefore not be made that "such precaution is proper when dealing with children but not with men; especially since the thinking elements among the Catholics of the Germanic tongue or origin are too profound and firm in their faith to warrant a fear of the effects of unrestricted free research" (from the pet.i.tion of the so-called "Index-league" of Muenster). This perusal may become dangerous even for highly educated men, else how could Modernism break so forcefully into the Church? Manifestly only because learned theologians did not possess that firmness of Catholic faith and Catholic knowledge which would prevent them from being deceived by the misleading ideas of modern philosophy, and of the new Protestant theology. Moreover, all forbidden books may be read upon obtaining the necessary permission.

"Preserve the deposit of faith," the Church has been told. She cannot look on silently when her doctrines are being falsified and denied, when the most venerable sphere of theology is made the stamping ground for immature minds and a laboratory for all kinds of experiments. When _Zola's_ novel, "Rome," had been put on the Index, the atheistic literary critic, _Sarcey_, made the following comment: "If my own criticisms of literature are regarded by many people as highest decisions, why should a positive criticism be looked upon as monstrous just because it comes from the Pope?

It is my aim to guard good taste in literature, and it is the aim of the Pope to guard the true faith" (Allgemeine Rundschau, 1908, 828). Every social authority must interfere when its foundations are attacked. A church that tolerates false doctrines cannot be the teacher that Christ sent to the nations. As a matter of fact the Index has from the first helped in no small degree to keep the Catholic doctrine pure, to induce caution in reading certain authors, and to keep awake in the faithful that aversion against immoral and irreligious writings which is the characteristic of Catholics, and which has rescued the faith for thousands.

To judge the Index fairly one must be convinced that the preservation of true Christian doctrine is its highest aim. Then the zeal of the Catholic Church will be intelligible. Of course, he who thinks that the true weal of mankind consists in the speedy emanc.i.p.ation from all Christian dogma, he who holds the task of science to be the establishment of a new "scientific view of the world," he who no longer knows faith, will see in the Index nothing but restraint. But, whoever is of a different view will not take offence at the restriction of the freedom of writing and reading when it is productive of higher good. Freedom of science cannot be unrestricted, especially in regard to teaching; the welfare of humanity must be considered. Moreover, the Index concerns almost exclusively theology and some branches of philosophy, the rest of the profane sciences but little or not at all; the scientific works prohibited, however, are not removed from scientific perusal: only permission is necessary, and this is granted without difficulty and without cost.

It is true, an error on the part of the Church authorities is not impossible. We know of such a case, putting on the Index the writings of _Copernicus_, in 1616. But just the circ.u.mstance that history knows of but one such case of importance is a clear testimony to the Holy Ghost's direction of the teaching office even when it is rendering non-infallible decisions. Besides, the damage that might result from a few mistakes would not be so great as the damage resulting if everything were allowed to be written and read.

The Catholic scientist who appreciates the supernatural mission of his Church will _yield to her guidance in humble confidence_, he will practise this submission to the Church by requesting permission for reading forbidden books, and by this spirit he will obtain G.o.d's blessing on his work.

In doing so he may recall to mind the edifying words of _St.

Francis of Sales_, in the preface to his treatise on the errors of the Lutherans and Calvinists, where he gives the a.s.surance of having conscientiously asked for and received permission to read their writings. "We fervently request our Catholic readers,"

writes the Saint, "not to let an evil suspicion against us arise, as if we had read the forbidden books in spite of the prohibition of holy Church. We are able to a.s.sure them in all truth of having done nothing forbidden to a good Christian, and of having taken every precaution due in a matter of so vast importance, so as not to incur in any way the very just censures of the Church, nor in any manner to violate the profound reverence we owe to her." The permission granted him, dated July 16, 1608, is still extant; likewise one asked by _St. Charles Borromeo_.

The Catholic scientist also will readily ask the ecclesiastical Imprimatur for certain of his works. If a careful author before publishing a work submits the proofs to a friend of his profession, taking his comment for a guide, why should we deem it intellectual bondage if the Catholic scientist, in matters of faith and morals, submits his work to the formal approval of his Church, which to him is a higher authority than any other?

and does this willingly, as in consistency with his Catholic conviction?(5)

_Via stulti recta in oculis ejus, qui autem sapiens est audit consilia_, says the Wise Man. It is characteristic of the fool to be wise in his own eyes, and stubbornly to cling to his own judgment; but the prudent man seeks advice, and suffers his attention to be called to his mistakes.

The believing scientist, too, will submit to correction; should the rare case fall to his lot to have the Church condemn his work, he will know how to be generously obedient. Splendid examples are blazing the way for him.

"Were we to draw up a list of the scientists, who, in a similar critical position as _Fenelon_, found strength in the virtue of obedience, and on the other hand a list of all those whose subjective scientific views did not allow them to submit, then we should perceive at a glance that their proud persistence in their own opinion has been injurious to true wisdom in the same degree as humble submission proved a benefit to science"

(_Hilgers_, 412). Finally, he who is convinced that the Christian faith is the greatest heritance of truth from the past, which must be preserved in him, he will take no offence if the Church is not impressed even by names like _Kant_, _Spinoza_, _Schopenhauer_, _Strauss_, men much featured as the captains of modern science and philosophy. In the eyes of the Church nothing is genuine and true science that is contrary to the testimony of G.o.d, and errors are errors even then when their perpetrator is receiving cheers and applause. Just as the state prohibits the physician from designedly a.s.sisting any one to commit suicide, even though the physician be a noted scientist, just so the Church opposes any one who a.s.saults G.o.d's truth, be he journalist or philosopher.

Frequently the _great number of forbidden books mentioned by the Index_ is pointed out. The Index of 1900 contains about 5,000 t.i.tles belonging to the last three centuries; of these about 1,300 belong to the nineteenth century. Quite a small number, considering the immense literature of the world. Yet it will look even smaller when compared, for instance, with the censure of books by the _Prussian state_.

In the year 1845 there appeared the following catalogue: "Index _librorum prohibitorum_, Catalogue of the books forbidden in Germany during 1844-1845, first volume." The second volume was issued in 1846. The list is not complete: it does not contain, for instance, the names of prohibited newspapers and periodicals. Yet it contains 437 writings, forbidden by 570 decrees, _i.e._, two or three times as many as the entire number of German books of the nineteenth century enumerated by name in the Roman Index. The "Historisch-Politischen Blaetter" of 1840 contain an article beginning thus: "_Veritas odium parit._ In Prussia there are now prohibited nearly all Catholic journals and periodicals, and in order to begin the matter _ab ovo_ they have grasped a welcome opportunity to throw interdicts at wholesale against works not yet published, or to render their circulation difficult to a degree amounting to prohibition."

How the Prussian censorship proceeded in those days may be ill.u.s.trated by another example. "At the time of the Vatican Council a publisher, _Joseph Bachem_, came to Dr. _Westhoff_, rector of the Seminary of Cologne, a man of venerable years, and told him of his misgivings about the dogma of the infallibility.

In his youth he had been taught the maxim that that is Catholic which has been taught always, everywhere, and by everybody; yet he had until recently never found the doctrine of Papal Infallibility taught, neither in schools nor in text-books. Then the reverend old rector took the visitor by the hand and led him into the library of the seminary, where he showed him not less than sixteen catechisms that had been in use in the Archdiocese of Cologne during the eighteenth century, and which stated without exception, clearly and convincingly, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The publisher in utter astonishment then asked how it was that this doctrine was not taught in later editions. Dr. _Westhoff_ referred him to the Prussian censure, enforced until 1848, which had expunged this doctrine from all Catholic catechisms. From that moment _Bachem_ no longer wavered in his opinions" (Koelnische Volkszeitung, September 7, 1893).

One may also remember _Bismarck's_ press-campaign during the _Kulturkampf_. Professor _Friedberg_, Prussian court canonist, instigated this campaign, and in many ways devised the plan of attack. This much-praised liberalism-how tyrannically it proceeded against the Catholic press! The Frankfurter Zeitung in those days took a census of convictions due to the press law. According to the census, which "does not by far claim to be complete," there were of newspaper editors sentenced in 1875-21 in January, 35 in February, 29 in March, 24 in April; in four months 137 newspaper writers were either fined or sent to jail. During the same period 30 newspapers were confiscated (Staatslexikon, IV, 550). This is not all. "We could mention at least three instances," says _P.

Majunke_ in his History of the Kulturkampf, "where agents of the Berlin secret police have succeeded in obtaining a position on the editorial staff of Catholic papers, staying for a year or more.

Besides serving as spies these fellows had to perform the task of _agents provocateurs_, viz., to incite the editors of Catholic papers to extreme utterances, similar to the denunciations suggested to correspondents of foreign Catholic organs for their papers." This happened in a civilized state, despite its const.i.tutional freedom of the press, by order of the same liberalism which always pretends to be full of righteous indignation when the Church prohibits books and puts them on the Index.

Towards the end of the last century, again with the aid of liberalism, laws against the socialists were drawn up. After they had been pa.s.sed war was waged against socialistic literature. In the year 1886 there appeared a real Index Librorum Prohibitorum, its t.i.tle read, "Social Democratic publications and societies prohibited by the imperial law against the dangerous designs of Social Democracy," which law had then been in force eight years. A supplementary list was published two years later, in 1888.

_Hilgers_ makes this comment on it: "How many additional pamphlets have been condemned in the time from March 28, 1888, to September 30, 1890, we cannot state." According to the foregoing official statement the average is 130 a year. Hence we a.s.sume that the printed matter prohibited during the twelve years that the law was in force amounted to between 15,000 and 16,000. This number of social democratic pamphlets forbidden within twelve years exceeds by far the number of all books prohibited by the Roman Index in the course of the entire nineteenth century-books that are the products of all countries in the world and dealing with all branches; the number of these German prohibitions is ten times that of Roman prohibitions. Indeed, in the course of a year and a half the new German Empire prohibited more writings of Germans than Rome had prohibited during the entire past century. We may mention here _Goethe_. In the atheism dispute, at the end of the eighteenth century, decision was rendered upon _Goethe's_ advice against the philosopher _Fichte_; _Fichte_ was discharged in spite of pet.i.tions and mediations in his favour. The liberal Grand Duke _Karl August of Saxony Weimar_ granted in 1816, after the French conqueror had been overthrown, freedom of the press. Professor _Oken_ of Jena availed himself of this privilege, and printed in his "Isis" contributions complaining about the government.

_Goethe_ had to advise what should be done against it. He thought that the paper should have been suppressed by the police at its very first announcement; "the measure neglected at the beginning is to be taken immediately and the paper is to be prohibited. By prohibiting the 'Isis' the trouble will be stopped at once"

(Briefwechsel des Grossh. _Karl August v. Sax.-Weimar-Eisenach_ mit _Goethe_, II, 1863, 90). And this was done, in spite of the freedom granted the press.

_Frederick II._ is called the Royal Free-thinker; and yet the general introduction of the book censure into Prussia occurred precisely during his reign. The first general censure edict was issued in 1749 and remained in force till the death of the king.

All books, even those printed in foreign tongues, were subject to the censure. Even all episcopal and Papal proclamations were subjected to the royal censure. That the leaders in the Reformation and their successors were not prevented by their avowal of the principle of free research from exercising rigorous, often tyrannical, censure, not only against the Catholics but also against their fellow reformers, is well known.

_M. Lehmann_ writes in the Preuss. Jahrb. 1902: "It claims to be infallible, this Papal Church, it wants to be to the faithful everything, in science and even in nationality. It offends every nation. The Index in the shape given it in 1900 by the present Pope proscribes the 'Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sanssouci,' _Kant's_ 'Critique of Pure Reason,' _Ranke's_ 'History of the Popes,' the greatest German king, the greatest German philosopher, and the greatest German historian" (1902, no. 8).

As to _Frederick II._, his own works appeared only after his death in 1788, and even then only in part; later on there were other editions. None of these is put on the Index. On this list we find since 1760 the "Oeuvres du Philosophe de Sanssouci." Under this t.i.tle appeared at first three volumes, in but a few copies, intended for the most intimate friends of the king. The first volume he soon withdrew and had it burned of his own accord; it contained the "Palladion" an imitation of Voltaire's "Pucelle," a salacious work throughout. In 1762 a new edition was issued. It also contains a philosophical treatise denying the immortality of the soul; this treatise was also published separately and specially prohibited in 1767. A third work put on the Index is a spurious attack on the Popes published by order of King _Frederick II._, with a preface by him. Its author is said to have been the French abbe _Jean Martin De Prades_, reader to the king. These are the indicted works of _Frederick II._, all written in French and in substance French Voltairianism. Thus came the greatest German king on the Index!

_Ranke's_ "Roemische Paepste" is on the Index, because the book belittles the const.i.tutions and doctrines of the Catholic Church: not because of the true things the author says about Popes. _Von Pastor's_ "History of the Popes" is not on the Index, notwithstanding the bitter truths he writes about Popes _Alexander VI._ and _Leo X._

He who knows even the fundamental ideas of _Kant's_ "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" will see that not only the Catholic Church, but every Christian denomination, might forfeit its existence if it showed itself indifferent towards it. Heresies are especially dangerous to the uneducated when they bear the names of authors of scientific repute. But the Church willingly grants the permission to read them when there is reason for it. Moreover, it was not Rome alone that took steps against _Kant_. This was done by the Prussian king _Frederick II._ also. One may recall his cabinet order, under minister _Woellner_, against Kant's "Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft." Similarly the works of _Spinoza_ were proceeded against, whereas his indictment by Rome now calls forth protest because he has since been a.s.signed a prominent place among philosophers. _Freudenthal_ registers a list of 500 sharp prohibitions issued against _Spinoza's_ works during the years 1556-1580: they were condemned by the states of Holland, by the court, by synods and magistrates. Those judgments were pa.s.sed during a period when the competent authorities had views different from those of to-day; when the state deemed it its duty to oppose the undermining of Christianity. The state's judgment has changed in many ways, Rome's judgment has remained the same.

But the works of _Kant_ and _Spinoza_ likewise have remained the same, and so is Christianity, against which they occupy an irreconcilable position, still the same.

"In the moral world nothing can support that cannot also resist" is a truthful saying of _Treitschke_: it is also the principle of the Catholic Church. Without ever surrendering to the unchristian tendency of a time, she opposes error with unsubdued courage. If this be intolerance, it is not intolerance towards erring men but towards their errors, it is the intolerance that the gardener shows in uprooting harmful weeds, it is the intolerance of the physician towards disease. Obedience to the Index makes high moral demands upon the Catholic. But it has been characteristic of the Christian religion and of its faithful children never to shrink before any moral action where it appeared demanded. And if the preservation of moral purity exacts conscientious discipline, this is also true of the preservation of the pure faith, especially at a time when a neo-paganism in league with an uncontrolled mania for reading is threatening in many forms.

Galileo, and Other Topics.

_Galileo Galilei_-but few names have achieved equal fame. Men like _Alexander_ and _Caesar_, like _Homer_ and _Dante_, have scarcely succeeded in writing their names with a sharper pencil on the tablet of history than the astronomer of Pisa. His grand discoveries in natural science have done little to crown his temples with the wreath of immortality-it was the fate of his life that did it. And one may add: if this fate had been caused by the French government, or by a Protestant General a.s.sembly, he would never have obtained his position in history; but since this lot came to him by the human limitation of a Roman Church authority, his name is not only entered on the calendar of the anti-Roman journalist, it also stands surrounded with the halo of a Martyr in the esteem of serious scientists, who see in _Galileo_ and in the consequent condemnation of the Copernican system the proof that dogma and science cannot agree, that the Catholic Church a.s.sumes a hostile att.i.tude toward science. Whenever this theme is mentioned, _Galileo's_ ghost is paraded. For this reason we cannot pa.s.s by this fact of history. To a son of the Church they are unpleasant recollections, but this shall not keep us from looking history firmly in the eye.

There are some other charges brought forth from history, but the _Galileo_ case overshadows them all. We shall touch upon them but briefly, and then return to _Galileo_.

Attention is called to the Church's condemnation of the _doctrine of Antipodes_. The Priest _Vigilius_ was accused in Rome, in 747, of having taught that there exists another world under the earth, and other people also, or another sun and moon (_quod alius mundus et alii homines sub terra sint seu sol et luna_). Such was his doctrine as stated by Pope _Zacharias_ in his reply to _Boniface_, the Apostle of Germany, in which he said that he had cited _Vigilius_ to Rome in order that his doctrine be thoroughly investigated: if it should turn out that this had really been taught by him, he would be condemned. Further particulars of his teaching are unknown, because it is mentioned only in the above pa.s.sage. The a.s.sertion ascribed to him is that there is another world besides this one, with other inhabitants and with another sun and moon-an a.s.sertion scientifically absurd and dogmatically inadmissible, as this might call in question the common descent of mankind from one pair of parents. The anxiety and rebuke of the Pope is directed solely against the latter point. The condemnation of _Vigilius_ has never taken place, for he remained in his office, won great respect, was elevated to the bishopric of Salzburg, and later canonized by _Gregory IX._ Had a condemnation of his particular doctrine taken place, this would not have involved the condemnation of the antipodean theory, in the sense that the side of the globe opposite to us is also inhabited by human beings, a proposition which does not conflict with any doctrine of faith. The doctrine described above has another tendency. The entire case is hidden in obscurity (_Hefele_, Conc. Gesch., 2d ed., III, 557 _seq._).

Furthermore, it has been said that at the time when the universities were in close union with the Church, medical science could not advance because the Church had prohibited human _anatomy_ (Prof. _J. H. van't Hoff_, Neue Freie Presse, December 29, 1907). In amplification it was said: "_Boniface VIII._ had forbidden every anatomical dissection of a body" (_O.

Zoeckler_, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, 1877, I, 342). What is true of this a.s.sertion?

In the first place, _Boniface VIII._ did not forbid anatomy. He merely prohibited in 1299 and 1300 the hideous custom then prevailing regarding the bodies of n.o.blemen who had died away from home: they were disembowelled, dissected, and boiled, for the purpose of removing the flesh from the bones so that the latter could be transported the more easily. This process had nothing to do with anatomy. The wish to possess the bones of the dead did not seem to the Pope a sufficient reason for treating the human body in such a way (Cfr. _Michael_, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes III, 1903, 433). Nor does history know of any other prohibition of anatomy by the Church. It tells us, however, that _Frederick II._ in his excellent rules for the benefit of his Sicilian kingdom in the regulation of medical science among other things emphasizes the study of surgery: he ordered that no one be allowed to practise surgery who could not show by attestation of his professors that he had studied surgery for at least one year, especially that he had learned at school how to dissect bodies; a physician must be perfect in anatomy, else he may not undertake operations (_Michael_, l. c. 430). This was done and practised under the eyes of the Church. The accusers also seem ignorant of the fact that bodies of those executed were given to universities for dissection. In the year 1336 the medical students of Montpellier, the famous medical school under the immediate direction of the Church (see above, page 154) were granted the privilege of obtaining once a year an executed criminal's body for dissection. The same privilege was extended to the medical students of Lerida by King _Juan I._ on June 3, 1391, who decreed that the delinquent should be drowned _pro speriencia seu anatomia fienda_ (_Denifle_, Die Universitaeten des Mittelalters, I, 1885, 507).

The story is also circulated that the fourth Lateran Council in 1215 prohibited monks from studying natural sciences and medicine (Deutschoester. Lehrerzeitung 15th Dec., 1909). It will suffice to quote this particular decree of the Lateran Council: "No clergyman is allowed to p.r.o.nounce capital sentence, nor to execute it, nor to be present at its execution. No clergyman is allowed to draw up a doc.u.ment concerning a death sentence: at the courts this should be done by laymen. No clergyman is allowed to a.s.sume command of Rotarians (freebooters), of archers or any others who shed human blood; no subdeacon, deacon, or priest is allowed to practise that part of surgery by which cutting and burning is done, nor must any one p.r.o.nounce a benediction at an ordeal" (_Hefele_, Koncil.

Gesch., 2d ed., V, 1887, 887). This will thoroughly dispose of that charge.

Just as briefly may we settle the story of _Columbus_ having been excommunicated because of his intention to discover new lands. It is said that the "Spanish clergy denounced his plans as against the faith, and that the Council of Salamanca excommunicated him"

(_W. Draper_, ibid. 163). This is a fairy tale. The truth is, that King _Ferdinand_ and Queen _Isabella_ referred the plans of the bold Genoese to a council of scientists and ecclesiastical dignitaries, which was held in the Dominican Monastery of Salamanca, _Columbus_ being present. There never was a Council of Salamanca. _Weiss_ writes in his "History of the World": "Much has been surmised concerning the objections and their refutation. It is only certain that the majority rejected the plan as impossible of execution, and that _Columbus_ won over a minority of them, especially the priests, among whom the learned Dominican _Deza_ deserves mention" (Weltgesch. VII, 187). _Denthofen_, in his biography of _Columbus_, says: "The Dominican Fathers supported him during the long time the conference lasted, and even defrayed the expenses of his journey. Father _Diego de Deza_, chief professor of theology, was convinced by the reasons of _Columbus_, and in turn convinced the more learned of his confreres. The majority, however, thought the idea but a phantom, while others deemed it impracticable. The conference adjourned without coming to any definite decision" (Christof Columbus, Eine biographische Skizze ..., 1878, 21). _Columbus_ found his warmest friend in the learned Father _Juan Perez_, Guardian of the Franciscan Monastery of St. Maria de la Rabida. Within the quiet walls of this cloister _Columbus'_ plans were disclosed for the first time in Spain, and admired and resolved upon. _Perez_ spoke untiringly to Isabella in favour of the plan, and even aided _Columbus_ in gathering men for his crew. This is the fact about the anathema the Church is paid to have p.r.o.nounced on _Columbus_.

But let us return to _Galileo_.(6)

_Galileo Galilei_, the great Italian physicist, was born in 1564, at Pisa.

At first he was professor in his native town, then at Padua, where he taught the doctrine of _Ptolemy_, although at that time there was no obstacle to accepting the Copernican system. In 1611 he became mathematician at the court of _Cosimo II._ at Florence. His talents and happy discoveries soon won fame. In general he was more of a physicist than an astronomer; his astronomical discoveries were, almost without exception, of a kind that did not presuppose a thorough astronomical training. As is known, he was not the original inventor of the telescope, though with its aid he achieved some of the most important of his discoveries; for instance, that of the satellites of Jupiter. The telescope was invented in Holland.

When he went to Rome, in 1611, he was received with great honour. In one of his letters from there he wrote: "I have received marked favours from many Cardinals and prelates here, and from several princes. They wanted to hear of my inventions, and were all well pleased." The Jesuits gave a special reception in his honour at the Roman College. This shows in what esteem science was then held at Rome. But five years later _Galileo_ returned to the Eternal City under quite different circ.u.mstances. What had happened? In 1612 he had issued a treatise on "The History and Explanation of the Sun-spots," in which he declared unreservedly for the Copernican system. And this caused the change. True, _Copernicus_ himself was a Catholic Priest, and had dedicated his princ.i.p.al work to Pope _Paul III._ But it was generally supposed that he had brought forward the doctrine only as an hypothesis, only to ill.u.s.trate and facilitate calculations, not claiming for it absolute certainty. This a.s.sumption was based on the preface of the first edition of his book, containing a.s.surance to that effect. That preface, however, was not the work of _Copernicus_, but had been smuggled into the book by the Protestant publisher _Osiander_, without the author's knowledge, because _Osiander_ feared _his own_ church authorities.

_Galileo_ spoke in quite another tone. He defended the doctrine as true.

He soon aroused opposition. Men standing for the geocentric theory were opposed by others, siding with _Galileo_ for the solar system, such as the learned Benedictine, _Castelli_. _Galileo's_ great bitterness and sarcasm in dealing with his opponents aggravated the quarrel with the "partisans of _Aristotle_." Extreme irritability and love of praise were prominent traits of _Galileo's_ character.

It was the custom of that time to bring Scripture into controversies about nature. This was done also in _Galileo's_ case. Pa.s.sages were quoted against him, referring to the "rising and setting sun," to the "earth that never moves," of _Joshua's_ "commanding the sun to stand still." This prompted _Galileo_ to cross over into the field of theology himself. In a letter to _Castelli_ in 1613 he says: "Holy Writ can never lie nor err; on the contrary, its sayings are absolute and incontestable truth; but its interpreters are liable to err in various ways, and it is a fatal and very common mistake to stop always at the literal sense" (_Kepler_, even prior to _Galileo_, had interpreted the respective pa.s.sages of the Scriptures properly and with surprising skill; especially in his introduction to his "Astronomia nova." Cfr. _Anschuetz_, Johannes Kepler als Exeget.