The Sleepwalkers (216 page)

Dini
also
warned
again,
in
the
same
vein:
"One
may
write
freely
as
long
as
one
keeps
out
of
the
Sacristy."
²⁸

Galileo
answered
these
admonitions
in
a
letter
to
Dini
dated
23
March.
His
answer
was
to
refuse
any
compromise
on
the
Copernican
system.
Copernicus
did
not
mean
it
to
be
understood
merely
as
a
hypothesis.
It
was
to
be
accepted
or
rejected
absolutely.
He
agreed
that
the
reinterpretation
of
Holy
Scripture
in
the
light
of
Copernicus
should
be
left
to
the
theologians,
but
he
cannot
help
it
if
he
has
been
forced
on
theological
ground,
and
since
Bellarmine
had
quoted
Psalm
19
to
Dini,
the
passage
that
the
sun
"rejoiceth
as
a
strong
man
to
run
his
course",
Galileo
"in
all
humility"
undertook
to
refute
Bellarmine's
interpretation
of
the
Psalm.
"The
running
of
the
course"
refers
to
the
light
and
heat
from
the
sun,
not
to
the
sun
itself,
etc.,
etc.
²⁹
Dini
probably
had
the
wisdom
not
to
show
this
to
the
greatest
theologian
alive.

The
next
utterance
came
from
Bellarmine
himself.
It
was
a
precise
and
authoritative
statement
of
his
attitude,
and
in
view
of
his
position
as
Consultor
of
the
Holy
Office,
Master
of
Controversial
Questions,
etc.,
it
amounted
to
an
unofficial
definition
of
the
Church's
attitude
to
Copernicus.
The
statement
was
occasioned
by
Father
Foscarini's
book
advocating
the
Copernican
system,
and
couched
in
the
form
of
a
letter
of
acknowledgement;
but
it
was
clearly
addressed
to
Galileo
as
well,
whose
name
is
expressly
mentioned.
The
letter
is
dated
4
April,
1615;
my
italics.

"My Very Reverend Father,

It has been a pleasure to me to
read the Italian letter and the Latin paper you sent me. I thank you
for both the one and the other, and I may tell you that I found them
replete with skill and learning. As you ask for my opinion, I will
give it as briefly as possible because, at the moment I have very
little time for writing.

First,
I
say
it
seems
to
me
that
your
Reverence
and
Signor
Galileo
act
prudently
when
you
content
yourselves
with
speaking
hypothetically
and
not
absolutely,
as
I
have
always
understood
that
Copernicus
spoke.
For
to
say
that
the
assumption
that
the
Earth
moves
and
the
Sun
stands
still
saves
all
the
celestial
appearances
better
than
do
eccentrics
and
epicycles
^*
is
to
speak
with
excellent
good
sense
and
to
run
no
risk
whatever.
Such
a
manner
of
speaking
suffices
for
a
mathematician.
But
to
want
to
affirm
that
the
Sun,
in
very
truth,
is
at
the
centre
of
the
universe
and
only
rotates
on
its
axis
without
travelling
from
east
to
west,
and
that
the
Earth
is
situated
in
the
third
sphere
and
revolves
very
swiftly
around
the
Sun,
is
a
very
dangerous
attitude
and
one
calculated
not
only
to
arouse
all
Scholastic
philosophers
and
theologians
but
also
to
injure
our
holy
faith
by
contradicting
the
Scriptures...

____________________

Second,
I
say
that,
as
you
know,
the
Council
of
Trent
forbids
the
interpretation
of
the
Scriptures
in
a
way
contrary
to
the
common
agreement
of
the
holy
Fathers.
Now
if
your
Reverence
will
read,
not
merely
the
Fathers,
but
modern
commentators
on
Genesis,
the
Psalms,
Ecclesiastes,
and
Joshua,
you
will
discover
that
all
agree
in
interpreting
them
literally
as
teaching
that
the
Sun
is
in
the
heavens
and
revolves
round
the
Earth
with
immense
speed
and
that
the
Earth
is
very
distant
from
the
heavens,
at
the
centre
of
the
universe,
and
motionless.
Consider,
then,
in
your
prudence,
whether
the
Church
can
support
that
the
Scriptures
should
be
interpreted
in
a
manner
contrary
to
that
of
the
holy
Fathers
and
of
all
modern
commentators,
both
Latin
and
Greek...

Third,
I
say
that,
if
there
were
a
real
proof
that
the
Sun
is
in
the
centre
of
the
universe,
that
the
Earth
is
in
the
third
sphere,
and
that
the
Sun
does
not
go
round
the
Earth
but
the
Earth
round
the
Sun,
then
we
should
have
to
proceed
with
great
circumspection
in
explaining
passages
of
Scripture
which
appear
to
teach
the
contrary,
and
we
should
rather
have
to
say
that
we
did
not
understand
them
than
declare
an
opinion
to
be
false
which
is
proved
to
be
true.
But
I
do
not
think
there
is
any
such
proof
since
none
has
been
shown
to
me
.
To
demonstrate
that
the
appearances
are
saved
by
assuming
the
sun
at
the
centre
and
the
earth
in
the
heavens
is
not
the
same
thing
as
to
demonstrate
that
in
fact
the
sun
is
in
the
centre
and
the
earth
in
the
heavens.
I
believe
that
the
first
demonstration
may
exist,
but
I
have
very
grave
doubts
about
the
second
;
and
in
case
of
doubt
one
may
not
abandon
the
Holy
Scriptures
as
expounded
by
the
holy
Fathers..."
³⁰