It is a curious fact that the very work which was destined1 to be one of the most powerful levers in obtaining general recognition for the true order of the universe originated in what we now know to be an erroneous idea. The famous book, “Dialogues on the Two Principal Systems of the World, the Ptolemaic and Copernican,”[211] arose out of the treatise2 on the tides which Galileo wrote at Rome, in 1616, at the suggestion of Cardinal3 Orsini.[212] The important influence of these “Dialogues,” both on science and the subsequent fate of the author, obliges us to discuss them more particularly.
The book contains a great deal more than is promised by the title; for the author included in it, in connection with the discussion of the two systems, nearly all the results of his researches and discoveries in science, extending over nearly fifty years. He also endeavoured to write in a style which[128] should be adapted not for the learned world alone, but which would be both intelligible4 and attractive to every educated person; and in this he attained5 complete success, for he wished by means of this book to extend as widely as possible a knowledge of the true order of nature. The form of the work was most happily chosen. The results of the researches of a lifetime were not given to the reader in a work redolent of the pedantry6 of the professor’s chair, in which scientific demonstrations7 drag on with wearisome monotony, but in the lively form of dialogue, which admitted of digressions and gave the author scope for displaying his seductive eloquence8, his rare skill in dialectics and biting sarcasm—in short, for his peculiarly brilliant style.
The dialogue is carried on by three interlocutors, two of whom adduce the scientific reasons for the double motion of the earth, while the third honestly tries to defend the opinions of the Aristotelian school with all the scientific means at his disposal, and as these did not suffice, with the arts of sophistry9 also. If he has but little success, the fault lies with the cause he advocates. Galileo gave to the defenders10 of the Copernican system the names of his two famous pupils and friends, neither of them then living, Filipo Salviati, of Florence, and Giovan Francesco Sagredo, senator of Venice, thereby11 erecting12 a better monument to them than he could have done in marble. Salviati is the special advocate of the Copernican theory. Sagredo takes the part of an educated layman13, intelligent, impartial14, and desirous to learn. The advocate of the Ptolemaic system was called briefly15 Simplicius, a pseudonym16 over which the learned have often puzzled their heads. Did he give this name of simpleton satirically to the champion of the ancient system, or was it merely an allusion17 to Simplicius, the commentator18 of Aristotle, as Galileo stated in his “Avviso al lettore?”
The selection of this name is characteristic of the ambiguous attitude which the author maintains in his “Dialogues.” The sarcastic19 vein20 is obvious throughout, but is ingeniously concealed[129] behind a mask intended to inspire confidence. Salviati conducts the arguments for the Copernican theory with such convincing force and clearness, and annihilates21 so completely all the objections of the unfortunate Simplicius, that no unbiassed reader can fail to perceive the scientific superiority of the modern theory to the old. And as Galileo conscientiously22 puts in the mouth of the Peripatetic23 philosopher every possible argument in favour of the Aristotelian cause, as well as the objections to the other side, the total defeat of its advocate is a victory all the more brilliant for the immortal24 Canon of Frauenburg.
The condition that the Copernican doctrine25 is only to be employed as a hypothesis is ostensibly fully26 complied with. If Salviati or Sagredo demonstrate to Simplicius the untenableness of some Ptolemaic axiom, or add an important stone to the Copernican structure, Galileo hastens to interpolate some remark to weaken the impression. It must be confessed, however, that the agreement of this “hypothesis” with all the phenomena27 of nature is as clear as daylight; and when, for instance, it is said that the final decision in the present controversy28 rests neither with mathematics and physics, nor with philosophy and logic29, but solely30 with a “higher insight,” or when Salviati repeatedly asserts that he does not in the least wish to maintain the truth of the Copernican doctrine, but applies the word “possibly” to it, or speaks of it as a “fantasia” or “vanissima chimera,” the reader cannot fail to perceive that these prudent31 reservations, which always occur at critical passages, are made with the sole purpose of rendering32 the publication of the work possible.
The preface and conclusion have no logical agreement with the contents of the “Dialogues,” and owe their origin to the same motive33. In the preface the ecclesiastical prohibition34 of 1616 to teach that the earth moves, is actually called a “salutary edict” (un salutifero editto)! The reader learns further, to his no small astonishment35, that the purpose of this comprehensive work is to refute the wholly unfounded opinion[130] which has gained much credit abroad, that this adverse36 judgment37 of Rome was not the result of mature deliberation, but merely of the hasty impulse of judges who were not qualified38 to decide on these questions of natural science. Galileo asserts that his zeal39 did not permit him to keep silence in face of those audacious accusations40, and that being in possession of all the circumstances connected with that prudent decision, he felt constrained41 to bear witness to the truth before all the world. In bringing forward here all his speculations42 on the Copernican doctrine, he wished to show that at Rome, where he had taken part in the consultations43, they had been fully aware of all the arguments which could be adduced in favour of the new doctrine.[213]
On the origin of this singular introduction, a point on which divergent and often unwarranted opinions prevail, we shall enter in detail in its right place.
The conclusion of the work, which is divided into four “days,” agrees no better with the rest of the contents than the preface. Although the Copernicans everywhere gain the day, Galileo takes care, for very good reasons, not to draw any conclusions from it on the fourth day. The discussion ends apparently44 without coming to any result. Salviati disclaims45 any wish to force an opinion on any one which seemed to him a “chimera” or a “paradox.” Addressing himself to Sagredo, he remarks that Sagredo had often agreed with the opinions he had expressed, but he thinks that this was often more from their originality46 than their conclusiveness47. Having therefore thanked him for his “polite indulgence,” he apologises to Simplicius for the eagerness of his language, and assures him that he had no intention of offending him, but rather of inducing him to communicate his sublime48 ideas (!), which would certainly be instructive to himself. In conclusion, they agree to meet again for a final discussion.[214]
Did Galileo really intend to add a fifth day? Martin[131] thinks it probable, “for,” he says, “Galileo might at that period still have hoped that the ecclesiastical authorities would tolerate the new system during his lifetime, especially should some new discovery, as, for instance that of a small annual parallax of the fixed49 stars, afford certain proof in favour of his system. In that case Galileo would have been at last allowed to express his opinions without reserve.”[215] We think it very possible, indeed probable, that Galileo did intend to add a fifth day at a favourable50 opportunity, in which he would have given the result of the previous discussions; but he certainly was not waiting for “some new discovery.” It was his firm conviction that none was wanted, since his telescopic observations amply proved the truth of his theory; neither would the most convincing discovery have enabled him to express his views without reserve, for they had by no means been condemned51 by the clergy52 from want of proof, but as “foolish and absurd philosophically53 and formally heretical.”
We are quite aware that certain writers who have assumed the task of defending the action of the curia against Galileo, maintain that the ecclesiastical party objected to the new system because its accordance with the phenomena of nature had not been sufficiently54 proved.[216] But even were this granted, in view of the opposition55 raised on scientific grounds and the rooted attachment56 to old opinions, every unbiassed person must demur57 to the assumption that in the attitude of Rome towards the Copernican question the interests of science had any influence whatever. It could not be an advantage to science to trammel free discussion. The subsequent harsh proceedings58 against Galileo, when seventy years of age, the hostile and peremptory59 attitude which Rome maintained towards him until his death, as well as towards[132] the new system and all discussion of it, bear ample testimony60, in our opinion, that the clergy had the interests of science very little at heart, and that their sole desire was to maintain the foundation-stone in its place on which the ingenious structure of the Christian61 Catholic philosophy was raised; namely, the doctrine that mother earth is the centre of the universe.
In December, 1629, Galileo had completed his ill-fated work on the two systems, except the introduction and a few finishing strokes. He announced this to his friends in sundry62 letters,[217] and told Prince Cesi in two letters of 24th December, 1629, and 13th January, 1630, that he intended coming to Rome to see to the printing of the “Dialogues.”[218] The prince in his reply expressed entire approval of the project, and encouraged Galileo to set out for Rome very soon, “where he would have no further trouble about the proofs than to give such orders as he pleased.”[219]
Altogether the position of affairs seemed remarkably63 favourable for the publication of the “Dialogues.” Galileo’s devoted64 adherent65, Castelli, had been summoned to Rome in 1624 by Urban VIII., and enjoyed great consideration with the powerful family of Barberini, to whose youngest scion66, Taddeo, he gave instruction in mathematics. This long-tried friend informed Galileo in a letter of 6th February,[220] that Father Riccardi, who meanwhile had been raised to the office of chief censor67 of the press (Magister Sacri Palatii) had promised his ready assistance in Galileo’s affairs. Castelli also expressed his conviction that, as far as Riccardi was concerned, he would find no difficulty. Another piece of information in the same letter, however, was not quite so satisfactory; the personage second in importance at the papal court, Urban’s brother, Cardinal Antonio Barberini, had, when Castelli told him of the completion of the “Dialogues,” said nothing particular against the theory itself, so[133] far as it was treated as a hypothesis, but had made the just remark that the earth, if it revolved68 round the sun, must be a star, an idea “which was too far opposed to theological truth.” Castelli appeased69 the cardinal by assuring him that Galileo had weighty arguments against this, and it is characteristic of the prevailing70 confusion of ideas on astronomical71 subjects, that Barberini thought this possible, and that Castelli wrote to Galileo that he would not find it hard to steer72 clear of this rock. Another instance of the trammels placed by religion on the advancement73 of science.
A second letter of Castelli’s to Galileo of 16th March, 1630, contains far more important and encouraging intelligence. According to this, Thomas Campanella[221] had told the Pope at an audience, that a short time before he had tried to convert some German nobles to the Catholic faith, that he had found them favourably74 disposed, but when they heard of the prohibition of the Copernican system, they were so indignant that he could do nothing more with them. To this Urban[134] replied: “It never was our intention; and if it had depended upon us, that decree would not have been passed.”[222] These pregnant words, coolly uttered by Urban, when repeated to Galileo were well calculated to mislead him into infringing75 the decree, in the spirit if not in the letter. They seem, however, to have been at least as incorrect as the reply reported on the same subject to Cardinal Hohenzollern in 1624. Urban entirely76 forgot that he had not interceded77 in any way in 1616 for the astronomical system threatened with condemnation78. And his conduct showed that he must have been a party to it. We need only call to mind how inexorable he had been on the question in 1624 to Galileo himself, and how sternly he afterwards allowed proceedings to be taken against him. Urban could only have acted in this way because he was convinced of the danger of the Copernican system to the Christian philosophy. And he was far too shrewd not to perceive how the modern views threatened a religion based upon ancient astronomy. His remark to Campanella, therefore, was nothing but smooth words, and this is fully confirmed by subsequent events. But they could not fail to inspire Galileo with confidence that under Urban VIII. an ingenious circumvention79 of the decree would give no offence at the Vatican. Besides this, Castelli reported in the same letter that Mgr. Ciampoli, who was also well informed, was firmly convinced that Galileo’s personal appearance at Rome would immediately remove any difficulty that might occur about publishing the “Dialogues.”[223] Another letter from Castelli of 6th April urged him to set out for the papal residence, where, to quote the words of Ciampoli, “they were longing80 for him more than for a lady love.”[224]
[135]
Full of hope from these promising81 reports, on 3rd May Galileo arrived at Rome with the MS. of his “Dialogues.” And events during his two months’ stay seemed to realise his expectations. Soon after his arrival he had a long audience of Urban VIII., and wrote on 18th May in high spirits to Florence:—“His Holiness has begun to treat my affairs in a way that permits me to hope for a favourable result.”[225] Riccardi also met Galileo, as was to be expected from Castelli’s letters, in the most obliging way. Galileo showed him his work with the express request that he would examine it closely. The papal censor, however, could not but perceive, with all his personal regard for Galileo, that in his “Dialogues” he had by no means always kept, de facto, within the limits of hypothetical treatment of the Copernican system, and in some parts had far exceeded them. He decided82, therefore, both as his official duty and in the interest of Galileo himself, to have the book altered to the hypothetical standpoint. Many corrections were to be made, and both preface and conclusion were to be altered so as to agree with them. Riccardi intrusted the first task to his official assistant, Father Rafael Visconti, who seemed well qualified for it in his capacity of professor of mathematics. He executed it with equal prudence83 and ingenuity84, improved many passages, and finally approved the work thus revised.
The middle of June had meanwhile arrived, and Galileo was anxious to leave Rome on account of the heat. But Riccardi wished to look through the “Dialogues” once more after they had been revised by Visconti, before giving them his imprimatur. Galileo represented that this second revision was not customary, and succeeded in inducing Riccardi to grant permission for the printing for Rome.[226]
[136]
On the other hand, Galileo undertook to fashion the beginning and end of the work in accordance with a plan of the supreme85 authorities of the censorship. There were also still a few passages to be personally discussed with the author; and as he was unable to stay longer at Rome without danger to his health, which was already beginning to suffer, it was agreed that he should return in the autumn, and meanwhile[227] he would prepare the index and the dedication86 to the Grand Duke, and revise the preface and conclusion. The main condition, however, under which Riccardi gave the book his imprimatur, was that after its final completion it should be submitted to him; and in order to avoid loss of time, he engaged to look it through sheet by sheet, and to send each at once to press after inspection87. As was usual in the case of members of the Accadémia dei Lincei, the work was to be published in the name of this society, and the president, Prince Cesi, was to see it through the press.
So at the end of June[228] Galileo returned to Florence with his MS. and the ecclesiastical imprimatur, which was granted bona fide for Rome without reserve. There were indeed sundry conditions attached to it, to be arranged privately88; but they seemed to present so little difficulty, that a few days after he left on 29th June, Niccolini reported to Cioli that Signor Galileo left last Wednesday, perfectly89 satisfied, and with his affairs quite settled.[229]
[137]
But events were now at hand which long deferred90 Galileo’s ardent91 desire to see the results of his unwearied researches and labours speedily given to the world, and which involved complications afterwards taken advantage of by his enemies to effect the ruin of their great opponent.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
destined
|
|
| adj.命中注定的；(for)以…为目的地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
cardinal
|
|
| n.(天主教的)红衣主教；adj.首要的，基本的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
intelligible
|
|
| adj.可理解的，明白易懂的，清楚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
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： |
|
|
|
|
6
pedantry
|
|
| n.迂腐，卖弄学问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
demonstrations
|
|
| 证明( demonstration的名词复数 )； 表明； 表达； 游行示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
sophistry
|
|
| n.诡辩 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
defenders
|
|
| n.防御者( defender的名词复数 )；守卫者；保护者；辩护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
erecting
|
|
| v.使直立，竖起( erect的现在分词 )；建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
layman
|
|
| n.俗人，门外汉，凡人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
impartial
|
|
| adj.(in,to)公正的，无偏见的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
briefly
|
|
| adv.简单地，简短地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
pseudonym
|
|
| n.假名，笔名 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
allusion
|
|
| n.暗示，间接提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
commentator
|
|
| n.注释者，解说者；实况广播评论员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
sarcastic
|
|
| adj.讥讽的，讽刺的，嘲弄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
vein
|
|
| n.血管，静脉；叶脉，纹理；情绪；vt.使成脉络 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
annihilates
|
|
| n.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的名词复数 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃v.（彻底）消灭( annihilate的第三人称单数 )；使无效；废止；彻底击溃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
conscientiously
|
|
| adv.凭良心地；认真地，负责尽职地；老老实实 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
peripatetic
|
|
| adj.漫游的，逍遥派的，巡回的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
immortal
|
|
| adj.不朽的；永生的，不死的；神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
phenomena
|
|
| n.现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
logic
|
|
| n.逻辑(学)；逻辑性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
prudent
|
|
| adj.谨慎的，有远见的，精打细算的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
rendering
|
|
| n.表现，描写 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
prohibition
|
|
| n.禁止；禁令，禁律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
astonishment
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊异 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
adverse
|
|
| adj.不利的；有害的；敌对的，不友好的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
qualified
|
|
| adj.合格的，有资格的，胜任的，有限制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
zeal
|
|
| n.热心，热情，热忱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
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： |
|
|
|
|
41
constrained
|
|
| adj.束缚的,节制的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
speculations
|
|
| n.投机买卖( speculation的名词复数 )；思考；投机活动；推断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
consultations
|
|
| n.磋商（会议）( consultation的名词复数 )；商讨会；协商会；查找 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
disclaims
|
|
| v.否认( disclaim的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
originality
|
|
| n.创造力，独创性；新颖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
conclusiveness
|
|
| n.最后； 释疑； 确定性； 结论性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
48
sublime
|
|
| adj.崇高的，伟大的；极度的，不顾后果的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
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： |
|
|
|
|
52
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
philosophically
|
|
| adv.哲学上；富有哲理性地；贤明地；冷静地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
attachment
|
|
| n.附属物，附件；依恋；依附 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
demur
|
|
| v．表示异议，反对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
peremptory
|
|
| adj.紧急的，专横的，断然的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
sundry
|
|
| adj.各式各样的，种种的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
remarkably
|
|
| ad.不同寻常地，相当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
adherent
|
|
| n.信徒，追随者，拥护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
scion
|
|
| n.嫩芽，子孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
censor
|
|
| n./vt.审查，审查员；删改 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
revolved
|
|
| v.（使）旋转( revolve的过去式和过去分词 )；细想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
appeased
|
|
| 安抚，抚慰( appease的过去式和过去分词 )； 绥靖（满足另一国的要求以避免战争） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
prevailing
|
|
| adj.盛行的；占优势的；主要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
astronomical
|
|
| adj.天文学的，（数字）极大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
steer
|
|
| vt.驾驶，为…操舵；引导；vi.驾驶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
advancement
|
|
| n.前进，促进，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
favourably
|
|
| adv. 善意地，赞成地 =favorably | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
infringing
|
|
| v.违反（规章等）( infringe的现在分词 )；侵犯（某人的权利）；侵害（某人的自由、权益等） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
interceded
|
|
| v.斡旋，调解( intercede的过去式和过去分词 )；说情 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
condemnation
|
|
| n.谴责; 定罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
circumvention
|
|
| n.陷害，欺骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
longing
|
|
| n.（for）渴望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
promising
|
|
| adj.有希望的，有前途的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
decided
|
|
| adj.决定了的，坚决的；明显的，明确的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
dedication
|
|
| n.奉献，献身，致力，题献，献辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
inspection
|
|
| n.检查，审查，检阅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
privately
|
|
| adv.以私人的身份，悄悄地，私下地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
deferred
|
|
| adj.延期的，缓召的v.拖延，延缓，推迟( defer的过去式和过去分词 )；服从某人的意愿，遵从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
ardent
|
|
| adj.热情的，热烈的，强烈的，烈性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |