35o POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



convincing. It is the weighty expression of convictions felt, pondered 

 over and matured. It precisely expresses the attitude of the genera- 

 tions that followed Darwin. No considerable body of men ever held it 

 before that day. It delighted Castelli and a few of the more enlight- 

 ened of Galileo's circle. His enemies received it with breathless, un- 

 comprehending rage. They sought for flaws in the argument and, 

 unhappily, they had not far to seek. For, not content with these gen- 

 eral principles, Galileo went on to explain certain passages of scripture 

 in a fashion that, at the best, was weak and unconvincing, almost dis- 

 ingenuous. The famous passage in Joshua, ' The sun stood still in the 

 midst of heaven (and hasted not to go down about a whole day)' is 

 expounded by first suppressing the words in parentheses, next by a 

 wire- drawn argument to prove that Joshua's command was given when 

 the sun was near setting (which disagrees with the words purposely 

 omitted) and that 'the midst of heaven' does not mean the place 

 of the sun near noon, but its central place in space among the planets. 

 Hence, says Galileo, this passage actually demonstrates that the sun 

 occupies the center of the world, and refutes Ptolemy. The plain 

 meaning of the verse was distorted by a wilful suppression. It is said 

 in the XIX. Psalm ' The sun's going forth is from the end of the 

 heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it.' Galileo explained this to 

 mean that the sun is the nuptial bed, and the bridegroom coming out 

 of his chamber rejoicing is the light of the sun — his rays — not the 

 sun himself. There is not a shade of reason for this arbitrary inter- 

 pretation. It is not convincing to us; it was abhorrent to his adver- 

 saries. Is it any wonder that they loudly proclaimed their intention 

 to protect the words of the Bible from the profane interpretations of 

 laymen? Into the quicksand of theological interpretation Galileo had 

 no call to enter. He should have declined the controversy thrust upon 

 him by his enemies on the simple ground that he was no more fitted to 

 deal with theology than his adversaries with science. This was, how- 

 ever, not his belief, and he accepted their challenge. By so doing he 

 quite nullified the effect of his noble stand upon general principles. 

 Badical and bold as this stand was, he could have maintained it as Cre- 

 monini had maintained his own upon a similar issue. At this critical 

 point in his career two roads were open. He recklessly, even pre- 

 sumptuously, chose the wrong one. All his tribulations are the result 

 of this choice. In two letters of February 16 and March 28, 1615, 

 Galileo, writing to Mgr. Dini, regrets that he has been forced to 

 defend his system against religious scruples. In his letter to the 

 Grand Duchess Christine he had said ' the professors of theology should 

 not assume authority on subjects which they have not studied.' It 

 never so much as crossed his mind that his own interpretations of the 



