While the storm which was to burst over Galileo’s head was thus slowly gathering8, he was making important progress in the departments of physics and mechanics.
His treatise on the motion of floating bodies led to very important results.[82] In it he again took the field against the Peripatetic9 philosophers, and refuted the assertion of Aristotle that the floating or partial immersion10 of bodies in water depended chiefly on their form, for by his approved method of studying the open book of nature he clearly showed the error of that opinion. In this work Galileo laid the foundations of hydrostatics as mostly held to this day. The old school rose up once more to refute him, as a matter of course; but their polemics12 cut a pitiful figure, for the champions of antiquated13 wisdom had in their impotence mostly to content themselves with wretched sophisms as opposed to Galileo’s hard facts, and as a last resort to insist on the authority of Aristotle.
The combatants who took the field with various writings to[43] defend the Peripatetic school against these fresh attacks of Galileo were the professors Giorgio Corressio, Tommaso Palmerini, Lodovico delle Colombo, in 1612, and in 1613 Vincenzo di Grazia. Corressio was answered by Benedetto Castelli; but the work, which is preserved in MS. in the National Library at Florence, was not published, out of pity for his opponent who, in the meantime, had been overtaken by severe misfortune. Although professing14 to be a Roman Catholic, he was discovered to belong to the Greek Non-Uniat church, which entailed15 the loss of his professorship at the University of Pisa. Galileo intended himself to answer Palmerini, but while he was doing so Palmerini died, and not wishing to fight a dead man, he laid his reply aside. The lame16 objections of the other two received a brilliant refutation in a work published in 1615 by Castelli. From the original MS., however, in the National Library at Florence, which is mostly in Galileo’s handwriting, it is evident that he was the real author.[83]
During the same year in which he had so alarmed the Peripatetics by the treatise on floating bodies, he was much occupied with the controversy with the Jesuit father, Scheiner, before mentioned, professor of mathematics at Ingolstadt, about the solar spots and the priority of their discovery. In three letters to Welser of Augsburg (published there in 1612) he had claimed for himself, under the pseudonym17 of “Apelles,” the earliest observation of these appearances, and explained them conformably to the traditional opinions. He propounded18 the ingenious idea that these spots were a multitude of little planets, passing over the sun’s disk as they revolved19 round the earth. By this clever explanation he secured the applause of all the Peripatetic school, and proclaimed himself the decided21 foe22 of Galileo. Challenged to do so by Welser, Galileo replied in three letters addressed to him, in which “Apelles” came off but poorly.[84] Galileo convincingly[44] refuted his opponent’s explanation of the spots, and brilliantly defended his own right to the priority of their discovery by appealing to witnesses to whom he had made it known in 1610. These letters, together with Scheiner’s, were published in March, 1613, under the title “History and Explanation of the Solar Spots,”[85] with a fine portrait of Galileo, and a dedication23 to his illustrious friend Salviati, of the “Accadémia dei Lincei.”
The publication of this work was of especial significance, because it was the first in which Galileo decidedly takes the side of the Copernican system. This accounts for the extraordinary sensation made by these essays. The controversy on the two systems came more and more to the front. And yet, notwithstanding all this, no theological scruples24 seem at first to have been felt at Rome, even in the highest ecclesiastical circles. On the contrary, we find the cardinals26 Maffeo Barberini[86] (afterwards Pope Urban VIII.), and Federigo Borromeo,[87] thanking Galileo in the most friendly terms for sending them his work, and expressing their sincere admiration27 for the researches described in it. And Battista Agucchia, then one of the first officials at the court of Rome, and afterwards secretary of Pope Gregory XV., in a similar letter of thanks,[88] not only fully28 endorsed29 these opinions, but expressed his firm belief that they would in time be universally acknowledged, although now they had many opponents, partly from their novelty and remarkable30 character, and partly from the envy and obstinacy31 of those who had from the first maintained the contrary view.
The scientific circles of the university town of Pisa were far less friendly to the Copernican ideas than the higher ecclesiastics32 at the papal residence. Father Castelli, who in[45] October of the same year was called to the chair of mathematics at this university, reports in a letter of 6th November,[89] in which he tells Galileo what reception he had met with from the heads of the college, that the proveditor of the university, Mgr. d’Elci, had expressly forbidden him at his first interview to treat in his lectures of the double motion of the earth, or even to take occasion in any digression to mention it as probable!
An accidental circumstance, however, was the immediate33 cause of turning the controversy into the channel which proved so fatal to Galileo. One day in December, 1613, Castelli and several other learned men were guests at the Grand Duke’s table at Pisa, where the court was then staying. The conversation turned chiefly on the remarkable phenomena34 of the Medicean stars, whose veritable existence in the heavens Boscaglia, professor of physics at the university, was constrained35 with a heavy heart to confirm, in answer to a question of the Grand Duke’s mother, Christine. Castelli eagerly seized the opportunity of applauding Galileo’s splendid discovery. Boscaglia, a Peripatetic of the purest water, could not master his displeasure, and whispered meanwhile to the Grand Ducal mother that all Galileo’s telescopic discoveries were in accord with the truth, only the double motion of the earth seemed incredible, nay37 impossible, as the Holy Scriptures39 were clearly opposed to it. The repast was then over, and Castelli took leave; but he had scarcely left the palace when he saw Christine’s porter hastening after him and calling him back. He obeyed, and found the whole company still assembled in the Grand Duke’s apartments. Christine now began, after a few introductory remarks, to attack the Copernican doctrines41, appealing to Holy Scripture38. Castelli at first made some humble42 attempts to avoid bringing the Bible into the controversy; but as this was of no avail he resolutely43 took the theological standpoint, and defended the modern views of the universe so impressively and convincingly[46] that nearly all present, even the Grand Duke and his consort44, took his side, and the Duchess dowager alone made any opposition45. Boscaglia, however, who had been the cause of the unedifying scene, took no part whatever in the discussion.
Castelli hastened to apprise46 Galileo of this incident, but remarked expressly in his striking letter that it appeared to him that the Grand Duchess Christine had merely persisted in opposition, in order to hear his replies.[90]
This then was the provocation48 to that famous letter of Galileo’s to his friend and pupil Castelli, in which for the first time theological digressions occur, and which therefore, although by no means intended for publication, was to be eagerly turned to account by his opponents, and to form the groundwork of the subsequent trial. From what has been related it will be seen that the reproach often brought against Galileo that it was he who first introduced the theological question into the scientific controversy about the two systems is entirely49 unwarranted. On the contrary, these explanations to Castelli, of 21st December, bear telling testimony to the indignation which Galileo felt in seeing the Scriptures involved in a purely50 scientific discussion, and that the right of deciding the question should even be accorded to them. He sharply defines the relation in which the Bible stands to natural science, marking the limits which it can only pass at the expense of the healthy understanding of mankind. As a good Catholic he fully admits that the Scriptures cannot lie or err11, but thinks that this does not hold good of all their expositors. They will involve themselves in sad contradictions, nay, even in heresies51 and blasphemy52, if they always interpret the Bible in an absolutely literal sense. Thus, for instance, they must attribute to God hands, feet, and ears, human feelings such as anger, repentance53, hatred54, and make Him capable of forgetfulness and ignorance of the future.
“As therefore,” continues Galileo, “the Holy Scriptures in[47] many places not only admit but actually require a different explanation from what seems to be the literal one, it seems to me that they ought to be reserved for the last place in mathematical discussions. For they, like nature, owe their origin to the Divine Word; the former as inspired by the Holy Spirit, the latter as the fulfilment of the Divine commands; it was necessary, however, in Holy Scripture, in order to accommodate itself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which apparently55 differ from the precise meaning. Nature, on the contrary, is inexorable and unchangeable, and cares not whether her hidden causes and modes of working are intelligible56 to the human understanding or not, and never deviates58 on that account from her prescribed laws. It appears to me therefore that no effect of nature, which experience places before our eyes, or is the necessary conclusion derived59 from evidence, should be rendered doubtful by passages of Scripture which contain thousands of words admitting of various interpretations61, for every sentence of Scripture is not bound by such rigid62 laws as is every effect of nature.”
Galileo goes on to ask: if the Bible, in order to make itself intelligible to uneducated persons, has not refrained from placing even its main doctrines in a distorted light, by attributing qualities to God which are unlike His character and even opposed to it, who will maintain that in speaking incidentally of the earth or the sun it professes63 to clothe its real meaning in words literally64 true? Proceeding65 on the principle that the Bible and nature are both irrefragable truths, Galileo goes on to draw the following conclusions.
“Since two truths can obviously never contradict each other, it is the part of wise interpreters of Holy Scripture to take the pains to find out the real meaning of its statements, in accordance with the conclusions regarding nature which are quite certain, either from the clear evidence of sense or from necessary demonstration66. As therefore the Bible, although dictated67 by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons given above, in many passages of an interpretation60 other than the[48] literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with certainty that all interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of our senses or by necessary demonstration. Who will set bounds to man’s understanding? Who can assure us that everything that can be known in the world is known already? It would therefore perhaps be best not to add, without necessity, to the articles of faith which refer to salvation68 and the defence of holy religion, and which are so strong that they are in no danger of having at any time cogent69 reasons brought against them, especially when the desire to add to them proceeds from persons who, although quite enlightened when they speak under Divine guidance, are obviously destitute71 of those faculties72 which are needed, I will not say for the refutation, but even for the understanding of the demonstrations73 by which the higher sciences enforce their conclusions.
I am inclined to think that the authority of Holy Scripture is intended to convince men of those truths which are necessary for their salvation, and which being far above man’s understanding cannot be made credible36 by any learning, or any other means than revelation by the Holy Spirit. But that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and understanding, does not permit us to use them, and desires to acquaint us in any other way with such knowledge as we are in a position to acquire for ourselves by means of those faculties, that it seems to me I am not bound to believe, especially concerning those sciences about which the Holy Scriptures contain only small fragments and varying conclusions; and this is precisely74 the case with astronomy, of which there is so little that the planets are not even all enumerated75.”
Having emphatically declared that thus dragging the Bible into a scientific controversy was only a subterfuge77 of his[49] opponents, who, feeling that they could not successfully fight him on his own ground, had entrenched78 themselves behind an unassailable bulwark79, Galileo proceeds to discuss the well known passage in Joshua which the Aristotelians were fond of adducing to demonstrate the contradictions between the modern views and Holy Scripture. His object is to beat his adversaries80 with their own weapons, by showing that if this passage is taken literally, and God really arrested the sun in his course in answer to Joshua’s prayer, and thus prolonged the day, it makes the incorrectness, nay the impossibility, of the Ptolemaic system quite clear, while the Copernican agrees with it very well. According to the Ptolemaic ideas, Galileo goes on, the sun has two motions, the annual one from west to east, and the daily one from east to west. Being diametrically opposed to each other, they cannot both be the sun’s own motions. The annual motion is the one which belongs to it; the other originates in the primum mobile, which carries the sun round the earth in twenty-four hours and occasions day and night. If therefore God desired to prolong the day (supposing the Ptolemaic system to be the right one) He must have commanded, not the sun but the primum mobile, to stand still. Now, as it is stated in the Bible that God arrested the sun in its course, either the motions of the heavenly bodies must be different from what Ptolemy maintained them to be, or the literal meaning must be departed from, and we must conclude that the Holy Scriptures, in stating that God commanded the sun to stand still, meant the primum mobile, but, accommodating themselves to the comprehension of those who are scarcely able to understand the rising and setting of the sun, said just the opposite of what they would have said to scientifically educated people. Galileo also says that it was highly improbable that God should have commanded the sun alone to stand still, and have allowed the other stars to pursue their course, as all nature would have been deranged81 by it without any occasion, and his belief was that God had enjoined82 a temporary rest on the[50] whole system of the universe, at the expiration83 of which all the heavenly bodies, undisturbed in their mutual84 relations, could have begun to revolve20 again in perfect order: doubtless his inmost conviction, although to us it sounds like irony85.
At the close of this long letter he explains how the literal sense of the passage accords with the Copernican system. By his discovery of the solar spots the revolution of the sun on its axis86 is demonstrated; moreover it is also very probable that the sun is the chief instrument of nature, the heart of the universe so to speak, and not only, as is known with certainty, is the source of light to the planets revolving87 round it, but also lends them their motion. If, further, we accept with Copernicus a revolution of the earth, at any rate a diurnal88 motion on its own axis, it would certainly suffice merely to stop the sun in his course, in order to bring the whole system to a standstill, and thus to prolong the day without disordering nature.[91]
Castelli saw nothing ominous89 in this exhaustive reply to the Grand Duchess Christine’s objections, and took care to give it a wide circulation by means of numerous copies. Galileo’s enemies, however, eagerly grasped the dangerous weapon thus guilelessly placed in their hands by his friend. They ingeniously gave a meaning to the epistle which exactly adapted it to their purpose. They turned Galileo’s emphatic76 opinion that the Scriptures had no business in a scientific controversy into the reproach that he assailed90 the universal authority of the Bible; by making Joshua’s miracle the subject of his disquisitions he laid himself open to the cutting remark that the statements of Holy Scripture must be protected from the arbitrary interpretations of profane91 laymen92.
Gherardini, the worthy93 bishop4 of Fiesole, who was apparently entirely unaware94 of the existence of Copernicus, was so enraged95 about the system that Galileo had defended that he publicly insulted him, and threatened to bring the matter[51] before the Grand Duke. He could only be pacified96 by being informed that the founder97 of that system was not any man then living in Tuscany, but a German who had died seventy years before, and that his work had been dedicated98 to Pope Paul III., and had been graciously accepted by him.
Meanwhile, the league formed in Florence against Galileo had found in Father Caccini, a Dominican monk99, the right tool for setting on foot the long-desired scandal. He had had some experience in misuse100 of the pulpit, for he had before this got up a scene in church at Bologna. And as the favourable moment for action had now arrived, Caccini appeared as Galileo’s first public accuser by thundering out a fierce sermon against the astronomer101 and his system on the fourth Sunday after Advent102, 1614, in the church of Santa Maria Novella, at Florence. He showed his wit by selecting as the two texts for his philippic the tenth chapter of Joshua and the first chapter of Acts. He began with the words: Viri Galil?i quid statis aspicientes in c?lum: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?” Astronomy was thus happily introduced into the pulpit. The furious preacher asserted that the doctrine40 taught by Galileo in Florence, of the earth’s revolution round the sun, was quite irreconcilable103 with the Catholic religion, since it glaringly contradicted several statements in Holy Scripture, the literal meaning of which, as adopted by the fathers, was opposed to it. And, as he further asserted that no one was permitted to interpret the Bible in any other sense than that adopted by the fathers, he as good as denounced the doctrine as heretical. The sermon ended with a coarse attack on mathematicians104 in general, whose science he called an invention of the devil; and with a wish that they should be banished105 from all Christian106 states, since all heresies proceeded from them.
As was to be expected, the affair caused a great sensation. Father Luigi Maraffi, a Dominican monk distinguished107 for his learning, who was all his life an admirer of Galileo, told[52] him in a letter of 10th January, 1615,[92] how heartily108 he regretted this miserable109 exhibition. He said, among other things: “I have been extremely annoyed at the scandal which has taken place, and the more so because the author of it is a brother of my order; for, unfortunately, I have to answer for all the stupidities (tutte le bestialità) which thirty or forty thousand brothers may and do actually commit.” This sentence has caused all Galileo’s biographers who mention this letter, with the exception of Nelli,[93] to conclude that Maraffi was the general of the order of Dominicans; yet a glance at the Scriptores Ordinis Pr?dicatorum, etc., edited by the Fathers Quetif and Echard, would have shown them that from 1612 to 1629 Father Seraphin Secco, of Pavia, was general, and was succeeded by Nicholas Ridolfi.[94] Perhaps, however, Father Maraffi bore the title of a preacher of the Dominican order, which fully explains his letter to Galileo.[95]
Galileo thought of complaining to the ecclesiastical authorities of the insult which had been offered him, and of demanding satisfaction. But Prince Cesi, whom he consulted about it, strongly advised him, if any steps were taken against Caccini, to keep himself entirely out of the affair and to avoid all mention of the Copernican theory; for Cardinal25 Bellarmine, the first authority of the sacred college, had told him (Cesi) that he held the opinion to be heretical, and that the principle of the earth’s double motion was undoubtedly110 contrary to Holy Scripture. In this complicated state of affairs the prince recommended that several mathematicians should complain of the public insults to the science of mathematics and its disciples112. But he gave another express warning to leave the Copernican system entirely alone, or they might take occasion at Rome to consult whether the further spread of this opinion was to be permitted or condemned113.[53] Cesi added that in that case it would very likely be condemned, as the Peripatetic school was in the majority there, and its opponents were generally hated; besides, it was very easy to prohibit and suspend.[96]
Although Galileo took this hint, and the affair of Caccini was prudently114 allowed to drop, it must be regarded as the first impetus115 to all the later persecutions of Galileo.
The questionable116 merit of having brought Galileo’s affairs before the tribunal of the Inquisition belongs to Father Lorini, a friend of Caccini, and brother of the same order. Galileo’s fatal letter to Castelli had fallen into his hands; and when, later on, thanks to Caccini’s zeal117, a great ferment118 began about it in monkish119 circles at Florence, Lorini was moved to send a denunciation of the letter and a copy of it secretly to the Holy Office at Rome. The whole statement, which was addressed to Cardinal Mellini, President of the Congregation of the Index, is couched in a most artful and miserable style. The denunciator, too cowardly and too cunning to mention Galileo by name (for he still had powerful friends even among the highest dignitaries of the Church), only speaks of the “Galileists” in general, “who maintain, agreeably to the doctrine of Copernicus, that the earth moves and the heavens stand still.” He even ascribes the enclosed letter to Copernicus, in order to leave the honoured philosopher quite out of the question. Lorini goes on to say: “all the fathers of this (his own) devout120 convent of St. Mark find many passages in this letter which are suspicious, or presumptuous121, as when it says that many expressions of Holy Scripture are indefinite; that in discussions about natural phenomena the lowest place must be assigned to them; that the commentators122 have often been mistaken in their interpretations; that the Holy Scriptures should not be mixed up with anything but matters of religion; that in nature philosophical123 and astronomical124 evidence is of more value than holy and Divine (which passages[54] your reverence125[97] will find underlined by me in the said letter, of which I send an exact copy); and, finally, that when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, we must only understand that the command was addressed to the primum mobile, as this itself is the sun.” In these statements Lorini perceives great peril126 for the Church; he is indignant “that they (the Galileists) should explain the Holy Scriptures after their own fashion, and differently from the usual interpretation of the fathers, and should defend an opinion which the Holy Scriptures appear to be entirely opposed to.... They tread the entire philosophy of Aristotle, of which scholastic127 philosophy has made so much use, under foot,” he exclaims: “in short, to show how clever they are, they (the Galileists) say a thousand shameless things and scatter128 them abroad in our city, which holds fast to the Catholic faith, both from its own good spirit and the watchfulness129 of our august rulers.” He feels moved to inform the cardinal of all this, that he may keep an eye on it, and that if any remedy seems called for he may take the necessary measures. After this ominous hint he hypocritically adds: “I, who hold that all those who call themselves Galileists are orderly men and good Christians130, but a little over wise and self conceited131 in their opinions, declare that I am actuated by nothing in this business but zeal for the sacred cause.” After this assurance he begs that this letter of his, (“I do not say the enclosed letter,”) he hastens to add in a parenthesis132, “may be kept secret and considered merely a friendly exchange of opinion between servant and master,” and not as a legal deposition133.[98] In conclusion, he expressly mentions the celebrated134 sermon of Caccini, probably in order that he might be called as a[55] witness against Galileo, an object which, as we shall see, was attained135.
In consequence of this denunciation the Holy Office felt itself called upon at once to institute a secret inquiry137 about the astronomer. As Lorini had only been able to show a copy of Galileo’s letter to Castelli in confirmation138 of his accusations, it appeared to the Inquisition to be of great importance to obtain possession of the original, written and signed by Galileo. To attain136 this end the worthy gentlemen acted on the principle that “the end sanctifies the means.” Cardinal Mellini, under date of 26th February, ordered the secretary of the Holy Congregation to write to the Archbishop of Pisa and the Inquisitor there, that they were to procure139 that document “in a skilful140 manner.” On the very next day the order was despatched.[99]
It happened that a few days later Castelli, who had returned from a short stay at Florence to Pisa, paid a visit to the archbishop, Francesco Bonciani. He seized the opportunity of executing his commission. With this end in view he began by adjuring141 the father, who was quite taken aback by such an exhortation142, to give up certain extravagant143 opinions, particularly that of the revolution of the earth, adding that it would be to his salvation, while to hold them would be to his ruin, for those opinions (to say nothing of their folly144) were dangerous, repulsive145, and mischievous146, for they were directly opposed to Holy Scripture. The philosophical arguments with which the archbishop tried to convert Castelli to orthodox astronomy rose to a climax147 in the profound remark that as all things (creatura) had been created for the use and benefit of man, it was obvious that the earth could not move like a star.[100] After giving this affectionate counsel to Castelli he offered the same for Galileo, and declared himself ready to demonstrate to all the world the folly of that[56] opinion. But, in order to do it successfully, he must first acquaint himself thoroughly148 with Galileo’s arguments; and, therefore (and now comes the gist149 of the matter) he urgently begs Castelli to let him see Galileo’s apologetic letter.
Fortunately it was no longer in Castelli’s possession, for he had returned it to the author. For not only did he not in the least perceive the trap that was laid for him, but was so innocent as to inform Galileo of the request and warmly to second it.[101] But Galileo had suspicions, and delayed to reply. The archbishop was annoyed, and reported in two letters to Rome, of 8th and 28th of March,[102] that Castelli was convinced that he only wanted to see the letter out of curiosity, and as the common friend of both had written to Galileo; still Galileo had not sent it. Bonciani therefore asks “whether he shall be more open with Castelli?” But this time cunning did not attain its end; at the repeated urgency of Castelli,[103] Galileo at last sent him a mere47 copy without signature, and with the express reservation that he was not to let it go out of his hands. From a letter of Castelli’s[104] to Galileo we learn that in obedience150 to this injunction Castelli read it to the archbishop in presence of several canons, and that he diplomatically concealed151 his annoyance152 at the failure of his intrigue153, and put a good face on it, for Castelli adds with great satisfaction that the archbishop had highly praised Galileo’s demonstrations, and lauded154 to the ecclesiastics present the modesty155 and reverence for Holy Scripture therein displayed.
So Cardinal Mellini had to content himself with a copy of Galileo’s criminated epistle, to lay before the consultor of the Holy Office for his opinion. He pronounced that some words and phrases occurred in the document that were unsuitable; but, although at first sight they looked ill, they were capable[57] of being taken in a good sense, and were not of that nature that they could be said to deviate57 from Catholic doctrine.[105]
Meanwhile a papal mandate156 had been issued, under date of 19th March, to summon Caccini as a witness, as being specially70 well informed about Galileo’s errors.[106] He appeared before the holy tribunal the very next day, and eloquently157 poured forth158 his accusations; but, although upon oath, he did not adhere very strictly159 to truth. For not only did he denounce the opinion of Copernicus as quasi heretical, being opposed to all scholastic theology and to the customary interpretation of many passages of Scripture, and assert that these doctrines were to be found both in the letter to Castelli and in the purely scientific treatise on the solar spots, but added the far more serious charge that he had heard that Galileo maintained the three following propositions: “God is not a self existent being, but an accident; God is sentient160 because the Divine sentiments reside in Him; the miracles said to be performed by the saints are not real miracles.” He further says that Galileo is at any rate “suspicious in religious matters,” because he belongs to “a certain Accadémia dei Lincei,” and corresponds with the godless Fra Paolo Sarpi at Venice, and with many dissolute Germans. More absurd deductions161 from real facts can hardly be conceived. To make a hotbed of heresy162 out of an academy founded by Prince Cesi, a man of known piety163, and to place Galileo’s religion in doubt on account of his scientific correspondence with magnates of science like Sarpi, Welser, Kepler, etc., was almost like madness.[107]
In confirmation of his damaging statements Caccini appealed to the testimony of a Dominican, Ferdinand Ximenes, and a young nobleman, Attavanti. Both of them were afterwards called in November of the same year. It then came out that Caccini was not only an eavesdropper164 but a bad listener.[58] Attavanti, who moreover was far more a disciple111 of the Dominicans than of Galileo, had once had a discussion with Ximenes, in their convent of Santa Maria Novella, about the proposition concerning the nature of the Godhead, but it originated entirely in scholasticism and had nothing to do with Galileo. Caccini, listening behind a partition, caught something of the conversation; and, thinking that Attavanti was a well instructed follower165 of Galileo, and was merely repeating what he had taught him, explained the fragments of the disputation in his own fashion, and formed them into these stupid accusations. It also appeared from the evidence of Ximenes and Attavanti that neither of them knew of anything suspicious about Galileo, except that he propounded the doctrine of the double motion of the earth.[108]
After the favourable testimony of Ximenes and Attavanti the evidence of Caccini was only so far of importance that it gave rise to an inquiry into the “History and Explanation of the Solar Spots.”[109] This, and the oft discussed letter to Father Castelli then, were the grounds upon which Galileo’s enemies based the accusation5 of philosophical and theological error.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
accusations
|
|
| n.指责( accusation的名词复数 )；指控；控告；（被告发、控告的）罪名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
gathering
|
|
| n.集会，聚会，聚集 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
peripatetic
|
|
| adj.漫游的，逍遥派的，巡回的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
immersion
|
|
| n.沉浸；专心 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
err
|
|
| vi.犯错误，出差错 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
polemics
|
|
| n.辩论术，辩论法；争论( polemic的名词复数 )；辩论；辩论术；辩论法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
antiquated
|
|
| adj.陈旧的，过时的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
professing
|
|
| 声称( profess的现在分词 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
entailed
|
|
| 使…成为必要( entail的过去式和过去分词 )； 需要； 限定继承； 使必需 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
lame
|
|
| adj.跛的，(辩解、论据等)无说服力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
pseudonym
|
|
| n.假名，笔名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
propounded
|
|
| v.提出（问题、计划等）供考虑[讨论]，提议( propound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
revolved
|
|
| v.（使）旋转( revolve的过去式和过去分词 )；细想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
revolve
|
|
| vi.(使)旋转；循环出现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
foe
|
|
| n.敌人，仇敌 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
dedication
|
|
| n.奉献，献身，致力，题献，献辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
scruples
|
|
| n.良心上的不安( scruple的名词复数 )；顾虑，顾忌v.感到于心不安，有顾忌( scruple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
cardinals
|
|
| 红衣主教( cardinal的名词复数 )； 红衣凤头鸟（见于北美，雄鸟为鲜红色）； 基数 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
admiration
|
|
| n.钦佩，赞美，羡慕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
endorsed
|
|
| vt.& vi.endorse的过去式或过去分词形式v.赞同( endorse的过去式和过去分词 )；在（尤指支票的）背面签字；在（文件的）背面写评论；在广告上说本人使用并赞同某产品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
obstinacy
|
|
| n.顽固；（病痛等）难治 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
ecclesiastics
|
|
| n.神职者，教会，牧师( ecclesiastic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
33
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
credible
|
|
| adj.可信任的，可靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
scripture
|
|
| n.经文，圣书，手稿；Scripture:(常用复数)《圣经》，《圣经》中的一段 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
scriptures
|
|
| 经文，圣典( scripture的名词复数 )； 经典 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
humble
|
|
| adj.谦卑的，恭顺的；地位低下的；v.降低，贬低 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
resolutely
|
|
| adj.坚决地，果断地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
consort
|
|
| v.相伴；结交 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
apprise
|
|
| vt.通知，告知 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
provocation
|
|
| n.激怒，刺激，挑拨，挑衅的事物，激怒的原因 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
heresies
|
|
| n.异端邪说，异教( heresy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
blasphemy
|
|
| n.亵渎，渎神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
repentance
|
|
| n.懊悔 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
deviate
|
|
| v.(from)背离，偏离 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
deviates
|
|
| v.偏离，越轨( deviate的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
interpretation
|
|
| n.解释，说明，描述；艺术处理 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
interpretations
|
|
| n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 )；表演；演绎；理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
rigid
|
|
| adj.严格的，死板的；刚硬的，僵硬的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
professes
|
|
| 声称( profess的第三人称单数 )； 宣称； 公开表明； 信奉 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
literally
|
|
| adv.照字面意义，逐字地；确实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
dictated
|
|
| v.大声讲或读( dictate的过去式和过去分词 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
salvation
|
|
| n.（尤指基督）救世，超度，拯救，解困 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
cogent
|
|
| adj.强有力的，有说服力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
destitute
|
|
| adj.缺乏的；穷困的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
faculties
|
|
| n.能力( faculty的名词复数 )；全体教职员；技巧；院 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
enumerated
|
|
| v.列举，枚举，数( enumerate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
emphatic
|
|
| adj.强调的，着重的；无可置疑的，明显的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
subterfuge
|
|
| n.诡计；藉口 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
entrenched
|
|
| adj.确立的，不容易改的(风俗习惯) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
bulwark
|
|
| n.堡垒，保障，防御 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
deranged
|
|
| adj.疯狂的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
enjoined
|
|
| v.命令( enjoin的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
expiration
|
|
| n.终结，期满，呼气，呼出物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
irony
|
|
| n.反语，冷嘲；具有讽刺意味的事，嘲弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
axis
|
|
| n.轴，轴线，中心线；坐标轴，基准线 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
revolving
|
|
| adj.旋转的，轮转式的；循环的v.（使）旋转( revolve的现在分词 )；细想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
diurnal
|
|
| adj.白天的，每日的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
ominous
|
|
| adj.不祥的，不吉的，预兆的，预示的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
assailed
|
|
| v.攻击( assail的过去式和过去分词 )；困扰；质问；毅然应对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
profane
|
|
| adj.亵神的，亵渎的；vt.亵渎，玷污 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
laymen
|
|
| 门外汉，外行人( layman的名词复数 )； 普通教徒（有别于神职人员） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
unaware
|
|
| a.不知道的，未意识到的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
enraged
|
|
| 使暴怒( enrage的过去式和过去分词 )； 歜； 激愤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
pacified
|
|
| 使（某人）安静( pacify的过去式和过去分词 )； 息怒； 抚慰； 在（有战争的地区、国家等）实现和平 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
Founder
|
|
| n.创始者，缔造者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
dedicated
|
|
| adj.一心一意的；献身的；热诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
monk
|
|
| n.和尚，僧侣，修道士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
misuse
|
|
| n.误用，滥用；vt.误用，滥用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
astronomer
|
|
| n.天文学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
advent
|
|
| n.(重要事件等的)到来，来临 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
irreconcilable
|
|
| adj.（指人）难和解的，势不两立的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
mathematicians
|
|
| 数学家( mathematician的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
banished
|
|
| v.放逐，驱逐( banish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
heartily
|
|
| adv.衷心地，诚恳地，十分，很 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
disciple
|
|
| n.信徒，门徒，追随者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
disciples
|
|
| n.信徒( disciple的名词复数 )；门徒；耶稣的信徒；（尤指）耶稣十二门徒之一 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
prudently
|
|
| adv. 谨慎地，慎重地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
impetus
|
|
| n.推动，促进，刺激；推动力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
questionable
|
|
| adj.可疑的，有问题的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
ferment
|
|
| vt.使发酵；n./vt.（使）激动，（使）动乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
monkish
|
|
| adj.僧侣的，修道士的，禁欲的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
devout
|
|
| adj.虔诚的，虔敬的，衷心的 (n.devoutness) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
presumptuous
|
|
| adj.胆大妄为的，放肆的，冒昧的，冒失的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
commentators
|
|
| n.评论员( commentator的名词复数 )；时事评论员；注释者；实况广播员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
astronomical
|
|
| adj.天文学的，（数字）极大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
scholastic
|
|
| adj.学校的，学院的，学术上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
scatter
|
|
| vt.撒，驱散，散开；散布/播；vi.分散，消散 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
watchfulness
|
|
| 警惕，留心； 警觉（性） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
conceited
|
|
| adj.自负的，骄傲自满的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
parenthesis
|
|
| n.圆括号，插入语，插曲，间歇，停歇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
deposition
|
|
| n.免职，罢官；作证；沉淀；沉淀物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
celebrated
|
|
| adj.有名的，声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
attained
|
|
| （通常经过努力）实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 )； 达到； 获得； 达到（某年龄、水平、状况） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
attain
|
|
| vt.达到，获得，完成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
inquiry
|
|
| n.打听，询问，调查，查问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
confirmation
|
|
| n.证实，确认，批准 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
adjuring
|
|
| v.（以起誓或诅咒等形式）命令要求( adjure的现在分词 )；祈求；恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
142
exhortation
|
|
| n.劝告，规劝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
extravagant
|
|
| adj.奢侈的；过分的；(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
repulsive
|
|
| adj.排斥的，使人反感的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
climax
|
|
| n.顶点；高潮；v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
thoroughly
|
|
| adv.完全地，彻底地，十足地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
gist
|
|
| n.要旨；梗概 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
annoyance
|
|
| n.恼怒，生气，烦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
intrigue
|
|
| vt.激起兴趣，迷住；vi.耍阴谋；n.阴谋，密谋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
lauded
|
|
| v.称赞，赞美( laud的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
modesty
|
|
| n.谦逊，虚心，端庄，稳重，羞怯，朴素 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
mandate
|
|
| n.托管地；命令，指示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
eloquently
|
|
| adv. 雄辩地(有口才地, 富于表情地) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
sentient
|
|
| adj.有知觉的，知悉的；adv.有感觉能力地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
deductions
|
|
| 扣除( deduction的名词复数 )； 结论； 扣除的量； 推演 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
heresy
|
|
| n.异端邪说；异教 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
piety
|
|
| n.虔诚，虔敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
eavesdropper
|
|
| 偷听者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
follower
|
|
| n.跟随者；随员；门徒；信徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |