136 Science Religion and Reality 



follower of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and an impartial participator 

 who is open to conviction. The demand that the Copernican 

 view be treated as a mere hypothesis is but superficially complied 

 with, and the terminal argument, though included as agreed, is 

 treated with scant respect. The tone of the work, witty and 

 biting, leaves no doubt as to Galileo's real opinions. The Aristo- 

 telian is represented as hopelessly stupid. The book claims 

 acceptance of the Copernican view. In fact, however, it passes 

 far beyond Copernicus, notably in the total rejection of the idea of 

 the stars as fixed in a crystal sphere. The stars are held to be at 

 inconceivable but varying distance from our earth, and the absence 

 of visible stellar parallax is considered as due to the vastness of this 

 interval. The actual measurement of the parallax of a fixed star 

 was, in fact, not achieved until 1838, by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel 

 (i 784-1 846). 



The Dialogue brought matters to a head. The Jesuits being 

 specially occupied with teaching were specially enraged. In 

 August 1632 the sale of the book was prohibited and its contents 

 submitted for examination to a special commission that reported 

 as follows : 



[a) " Galileo has transgressed orders in deviating from the 

 hypothetical standpoint, by maintaining decidedly that the earth 

 moves and that the sun is stationary." 



{b) " He has erroneously ascribed the phenomena of the tides 

 to the stability of the sun and the motion of the earth, which is not 

 true." 



(c) " He has been deceitfully silent about the command laid 

 upon him in 161 6, viz., to relinquish altogether the opinion that 

 the sun is the centre of the world and immovable and that the earth 

 moves, nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way 

 whatsoever, verbally or in writing." 



There rapidly followed perhaps the most dramatic event in the 

 entire history of science, the trial, condemnation, and abjuration of 

 Galileo (1633). The moving story has been often told. In 

 passing judgement on that great man, an eminent historian of science 

 has compared him disadvantageously to the Christian martyrs. 

 " Had Galileo," Sir David Brewster assures us, " but added the 

 courage of the martyr to the wisdom of the sage ; had he carried 

 the glance of his indignant eye round the circle of his judges ; had 

 he lifted his hands to Heaven and called on the living God to 



