The Crime of Galileo, by Giorgio de Santillana

[p033] The Crime of Galileo, by Giorgio de Santillana (Heinemann, 30s.) ‘BUT still it moves’—these words whispered by the 70-year- old Galileo with bowed head after he had been forced by the Inquisition to abjure his belief in the motion of the world round the sun, signify for everyone the clash between human reason and Roman obscurantism which heralded the birth of modern science in the early seventeenth century. The new discovery, first made by Copernicus and then proved by Galileo, shattered traditional Ptolemaic-Aristotelian cosmology which had been long blessed by the Catholic Church, and brought into doubt the literal veracity of Holy Scripture. In the Catholic view science must cede to theology; to hold the contrary was heresy. The aged Galileo, the greatest scien- tist of his age, was summoned to Rome, tried by the Holy Inquisition and obliged to confess his error. The Copernican theory was outlawed and the broken old man condemned to house imprisonment for the rest of his days. For generations scientific thought in Italy perished. Galileo’s theories could only be taken up and developed out of reach of the Inquisi- tion. _ Apart from the fact that the famous words ‘Eppur si muove’ are most probably apocryphal and that even if they were spoken the Inquisitor most probably did his best not to hear them, the picture which emerges from “The Crime of Galileo’, an erudite reconstruction of the events which led to his trial, does not conflict with the popular view. But inevitably as we approach closer to the actual people who took part in these events the perspective alters. Personal ambitions, the animosities of rival factions, the intricate inner politics of the Roman Court—all these were of far more immediate importance in deciding the fate of Galileo than any ‘clash of principles’ between opposing schools of thought. To a very large extent Galileo’s actual scientific ‘exposition was ignored by his prosecutors, who were much more concerned with his significance as a potential source of danger to ‘authority’. As Giorgio de Santillana points out, this has been a feature of ‘inquisitions’ in other places and times. It applies equally to the Oppenheimer case in the USA and to the condemnation of Morgan-Mendelists in the Soviet Union. ‘ The book does, however, challenge one traditional view of the Galileo case—the view which sees the scientist as the in- novator, the ‘revolutionary’, and the Church as the conserva- tive, reactionary, anti-scientific force. There were not lacking in Galileo’s writings many revolutionary concepts. His ,view of the unity of nature, of laws of motion which applied equally to heavenly as well as earthly bodies, challenged the Aristotel- ian distinction between earth and heaven. The attempt to impose any laws on nature implied a limitation of God’s powers. Certain phenomena, the Church held, might appear to occur according to a definite scheme but God in his un- limited power could easily have them otherwise. It was no use bringing forward experiments and observations in suppoit of a law, as these counted for nothing if they contradicted Holy Writ. ’ But Galileo was no fool. He knew how far he could go without offending against Rome. His main desire was to retain freedom for himself and his work. Moreover, as a devout Catholic he had no desire to raise his theories to the level of absolute truth in opposition to established dogma. But in the scientific field in which he worked there was no dogma. The Pope had never expressed himself ex cathedra on matters of cosmology, and from the Renaissance onwards the Church 94 Book Reviews May-June-July 1958 had done nothing to discourage scientific speculation. When Galileo was working at his telescopes Copernicus was being freely discussed in Italy, not least among the Jesuits, the new watchdogs of the Church. Galileo saw himself as working in a tradition of free speculation stemming from the Renaissance, and when he first became a victim of persecution it was to the Jesuits he looked for the most enlightened support. So convinced was Galileo of the Church’s tolerance towards science that he submitted his book “The Dialogue on the Great World Systems’ for approval before having it printed. Not only that, but the book received the Papal imprimatur— a grant which caused considerable embarrassment in Rome when the forces which wanted to break Galileo seized on this work as the proof of his heresy. Mr de Santillana shows conclusively that when Galileo spoke of a conspiracy of ‘hatred, impiety, fraud and deceit’ he was expressing the literal truth. The case against Galileo as a heretic was a fabrication from start to finish and the work of an unscrupulous faction working in the upper echelons of the Church. He was what would be termed today a ‘fall guy’. The trial itself was a sordid affair in which no matters of great principle were raised by the judges. When he was found guilty it was very largely on the basis of a simple forgery against which Galileo was powerless to defend him- self. ‘The Crime of Galileo’ is a scholarly work which makes exciting and stirring reading. Much of its argument depends on the meticulous analysis of textual evidence; the reader may find some of this heavy going. But in the light it sheds on the nobility of character of the great scientist it serves a valuable purpose and should be widely studied. LOUIS MARKS Spotlight on a Science