GALILEO. 73 



based on piety, religion, on a knowledge of divine omnipotence and the 

 weakness of the human understanding. It is the opinion of good 

 authorities that the foregoing introduction was first written by Galileo, 

 then revised by the censor at Kome — perhaps by the Pope himself — 

 and finally returned to the author with permission to make such verbal 

 changes as would not alter the sense of the Roman revision. 



In the Dialogues the three interlocutors proceed to construct a 

 scheme of the universe, step by step. The construction is made by 

 Simplicius, and the system proposed by Copernicus and demonstrated 

 by Galileo emerges triumphant. All the glory is for Copernicus and his 

 advocate, Galileo. No credit is assigned to Kepler for his discoveries 

 which had done away with the whole apparatus of epicycles retained 

 by Copernicus. Kepler is not mentioned here or elsewhere with praise. 

 Simplicius objects to some mathematical reasoning because Aristotle 

 recommended his disciples to abstain from geometry. Salviati thinks 

 Aristotle wise ; for geometry is the art by which his errors and deceits 

 are discovered. As to the empty spaces beyond Saturn: who are we 

 to judge of the greatness of the universe? Can we say that these 

 spaces are useless because we see no planet there? May they not be 

 peopled with invisible planets? Who suspected the existence of the 

 moons of Jupiter? Who tells us that all the heavenly bodies were 

 created for us? Certain authors — Kepler, for one — assert that tides 

 are caused by the moon. Galileo will not waste his time in refuting 

 such assertions. Nothing is so astonishing to Galileo as that Kepler, 

 a free and penetrating spirit, should have assented to such ' ineptitudes.' 

 Simplicius on his part declares that the tides are miracles. In all the 

 book there is no discussion of Scriptural texts. 



It is not necessary to carry the analysis of these famous dialogues 

 further. The arguments employed are so familiar to us that we forget 

 they were once fresh and novel. They were accepted by Galileo's con- 

 temporaries as witty and brilliant, and even now Italians admire their 

 style, though most English readers find them, as a whole, prolix, not 

 to say dull. The Copernican doctrine is enforced in every possible 

 way. Every argument for the Aristotelian theory is brought forward, 

 in turn, by Simplicius only to be utterly refuted. Sarcasm is un- 

 sparingly employed. Simplicius is not only wrong, but ludicrously 

 so. After each unusually convincing passage Salviati is careful to add 

 that, after all, the Copernican doctrine is a ' fantasy ' or a ' vain 

 chimera.' At the termination of the dialogues, which extend over 

 four days, no general summing-up is made. The reader is left to 

 draw his own conclusions. Salviati apologizes to Simplicius for the 

 ardor of his language and assures him that he had no intention to 

 offend him, but wished rather to stimulate him to communicate his 

 1 sublime ' ideas — ideas which have been utterly refuted in the course 



