Calculations for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology

Frank Harold Stephenson - PDF Download (2025)

https://ebookultra.com/download/calculations-for-molecular-
biology-and-biotechnology-frank-harold-stephenson/

Visit ebookultra.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookultra.com
to discover even more!

Molecular Biology and Biotechnology 5ed Edition Walker

J.M.

https://ebookultra.com/download/molecular-biology-and-
biotechnology-5ed-edition-walker-j-m/

Biotechnology and Biology of Trichoderma 1st Edition Vijai

K. Gupta

https://ebookultra.com/download/biotechnology-and-biology-of-
trichoderma-1st-edition-vijai-k-gupta/

Molecular Carcinogenesis and the Molecular Biology of

Human Cancer 1st Edition David Warshawsky

https://ebookultra.com/download/molecular-carcinogenesis-and-the-
molecular-biology-of-human-cancer-1st-edition-david-warshawsky/

Molecular and cell biology of pain First Edition Dussor

https://ebookultra.com/download/molecular-and-cell-biology-of-pain-
first-edition-dussor/
Yersinia Molecular and Cellular Biology 1st Edition E.
Carniel

https://ebookultra.com/download/yersinia-molecular-and-cellular-
biology-1st-edition-e-carniel/

Microarrays for an Integrative Genomics 3rd edition

Computational Molecular Biology Isaac S. Kohane

https://ebookultra.com/download/microarrays-for-an-integrative-
genomics-3rd-edition-computational-molecular-biology-isaac-s-kohane/

Molecular Chaperones Methods and Protocols Methods in

Molecular Biology v787 2011th Edition Stuart K. Calderwood

https://ebookultra.com/download/molecular-chaperones-methods-and-
protocols-methods-in-molecular-biology-v787-2011th-edition-stuart-k-
calderwood/

Bacteriophage Genetics and Molecular Biology 1st Edition

Stephen Mcgrath (Editor)

https://ebookultra.com/download/bacteriophage-genetics-and-molecular-
biology-1st-edition-stephen-mcgrath-editor/

Brucella Molecular and Cellular Biology 1st Edition I.

Lopez-Goni

https://ebookultra.com/download/brucella-molecular-and-cellular-
biology-1st-edition-i-lopez-goni/
Calculations for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology
Frank Harold Stephenson Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Frank Harold Stephenson
ISBN(s): 9780123756909, 0123756901
Edition: Kindle
File Details: PDF, 12.80 MB
Year: 2010
Language: english
Calculations for Molecular Biology
and Biotechnology
To my parents Mary and Dude and to my wife Laurie
and my beautiful daughter Myla.
Calculations for Molecular Biology
and Biotechnology
A Guide to Mathematics in the Laboratory

Second Edition

Frank H. Stephenson

AMSTERDAM • BOSTON • HEIDELBERG • LONDON • NEW YORK • OXFORD • PARIS

SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SINGAPORE • SYDNEY • TOKYO
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
To my parents Mary and Dude and to my wife Laurie
and my beautiful daughter Myla.
Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier
32 Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY, UK
30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA
525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA

First edition 2003

Second edition 2010

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the
prior written permission of the publisher

Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in
Oxford, UK: phone (⫹44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (⫹44) (0) 1865 853333; email: [email protected].
Alternatively, visit the Science and Technology Books website at www.elsevierdirect.com/rights for further information

Notice
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a
matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions or ideas contained in the material herein.

Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and
drug dosages should be made

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN : 978-0-12-375690-9

For information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at www.elsevierdirect.com

Typeset by MPS Limited, a Macmillan Company, Chennai, India

www.macmillansolutions.com

Printed and bound in the United States of America

10 11 12 13 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
 Scientific notation and metric prefixes
Chapter
1
■ Introduction
There are some 3 000 000 000 base pairs (bp) making up human genomic
DNA within a haploid cell. If that DNA is isolated from such a cell, it will
weigh approximately 0.000 000 000 003 5 grams (g). To amplify a specific
segment of that purified DNA using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR),
0.000 000 000 01 moles (M) of each of two primers can be added to a reaction
that can produce, following some 30 cycles of the PCR, over 1 000 000 000
copies of the target gene.
On a day-to-day basis, molecular biologists work with extremes of num-
bers far outside the experience of conventional life. To allow them to more
easily cope with calculations involving extraordinary values, two shorthand
methods have been adopted that bring both enormous and infinitesimal
quantities back into the realm of manageability. These methods use scien-
tific notation and metric prefixes. They require the use of exponents and an
understanding of significant digits.

1.1 Significant digits

Certain techniques in molecular biology, as in other disciplines of science,
rely on types of instrumentation capable of providing precise measure-
ments. An indication of the level of precision is given by the number of dig-
its expressed in the instrument’s readout. The numerals of a measurement
representing actual limits of precision are referred to as significant digits.
Although a zero can be as legitimate a value as the integers one through
nine, significant digits are usually nonzero numerals. Without information
on how a measurement was made or on the precision of the instrument
used to make it, zeros to the left of the decimal point trailing one or more
nonzero numerals are assumed not to be significant. For example, in stating
that the human genome is 3 000 000 000 bp in length, the only significant
digit in the number is the 3. The nine zeros are not significant. Likewise,
zeros to the right of the decimal point preceding a set of nonzero numerals
are assumed not to be significant. If we determine that the DNA within a
Calculations for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-375690-9.00001-2
© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 
 CHAPTER 1 Scientific notation and metric prefixes

sperm cell weighs 0.000 000 000 003 5 g, only the 3 and the 5 are significant
digits. The 11 zeros preceding these numerals are not significant.

Problem 1.1 How many significant digits are there in each of the
following measurements?
a) 3 001 000 000 bp
b) 0.003 04 g
c) 0.000 210 liters (L) (volume delivered with a calibrated micropipettor).

Solution 1.1
a) Number of significant digits: 4; they are: 3001
b) Number of significant digits: 3; they are: 304
c) Number of significant digits: 3; they are: 210

1.1.1 Rounding off significant digits in calculations

When two or more measurements are used in a calculation, the result can
only be as accurate as the least precise value. To accommodate this neces-
sity, the number obtained as solution to a computation should be rounded
off to reflect the weakest level of precision. The guidelines in the following
box will help determine the extent to which a numerical result should be
rounded off.

Guidelines for rounding off significant digits

1. When adding or subtracting numbers, the result should be rounded
off so that it has the same number of significant digits to the right of
the decimal as the number used in the computation with the fewest
significant digits to the right of the decimal.
2. When multiplying or dividing numbers, the result should be rounded off
so that it contains only as many significant digits as the number in the
calculation with the fewest significant digits.

Problem 1.2 Perform the following calculations, and express the

answer using the guidelines for rounding off significant digits described
in the preceding box
a) 0.2884 g  28.3 g
b) 3.4 cm  8.115 cm
c) 1.2 L  0.155 L
 1.2 Exponents and scientific notation 

Solution 1.2
a) 0.2884 g  28.3 g  28.5884 g
The sum is rounded off to show the same number of significant digits
to the right of the decimal point as the number in the equation with the
fewest significant digits to the right of the decimal point. (In this case,
the value 28.3 has one significant digit to the right of the decimal point.)

28.5884 g is rounded off to 28.6 g

b) 3.4 cm  8.115 cm  27.591 cm2

The answer is rounded off to two significant digits since there are as
few as two significant digits in one of the multiplied numbers (3.4 cm).

27.591 cm2 is rounded off to 28 cm2

c) 1.2 L ÷ 0.155 L  7.742 L

The quotient is rounded off to two significant digits since there are
as few as two significant digits in one of the values (1.2 L) used in the
equation.
7.742 L is rounded off to 7.7 L

1.2 Exponents and scientific notation

An exponent is a number written above and to the right of (and smaller
than) another number (called the base) to indicate the power to which the
base is to be raised. Exponents of base 10 are used in scientific notation to
express very large or very small numbers in a shorthand form. For exam-
ple, for the value 103, 10 is the base and 3 is the exponent. This means that
10 is multiplied by itself three times (103  10  10  10  1000). For
numbers less than 1.0, a negative exponent is used to express values as a
reciprocal of base 10. For example,

1 1 1
103  3
   0.001
10 10  10  10 1000

1.2.1 Expressing numbers in scientific notation

To express a number in scientific notation:
1. Move the decimal point to the right of the leftmost nonzero digit.
Count the number of places the decimal has been moved from its
original position.
 CHAPTER 1 Scientific notation and metric prefixes

2. Write the new number to include all numbers between the leftmost and
rightmost significant (nonzero) figures. Drop all zeros lying outside
these integers.
3. Place a multiplication sign and the number 10 to the right of the
significant integers. Use an exponent to indicate the number of places
the decimal point has been moved.
a. For numbers greater than 10 (where the decimal was moved to the
left), use a positive exponent.
b. For numbers less than one (where the decimal was moved to the
right), use a negative exponent.

Problem 1.3 Write the following numbers in scientific notation

a) 3 001 000 000
b) 78
c) 60.23  1022

Solution 1.3
a) Move the decimal to the left nine places so that it is positioned to the
right of the leftmost nonzero digit.

3.001000 000

Write the new number to include all nonzero significant figures, and
drop all zeros outside of these numerals. Multiply the new number
by 10, and use a positive 9 as the exponent since the given number is
greater than 10 and the decimal was moved to the left nine positions.

3 001000 000  3.001 109

b) Move the decimal to the left one place so that it is positioned to the
right of the leftmost nonzero digit. Multiply the new number by 10,
and use a positive 1 as an exponent since the given number is greater
than 10 and the decimal was moved to the left one position.

78  7.8  101
c) 60.23  1022
Move the decimal to the left one place so that it is positioned to the right
of the leftmost nonzero digit. Since the decimal was moved one position
to the left, add 1 to the exponent (22  1  23  new exponent value).

60.23  1022  6.023  1023

 1.2 Exponents and scientific notation 

Problem 1.4 Write the following numbers in scientific notation

a) 0.000 000 000 015
b) 0.000 050 004 2
c) 437.28  107

Solution 1.4
a) Move the decimal to the right 11 places so that it is positioned to the
right of the leftmost nonzero digit. Write the new number to include all
numbers between the leftmost and rightmost significant (nonzero) fig-
ures. Drop all zeros lying outside these numerals. Multiply the number
by 10, and use a negative 11 as the exponent since the original number
is less than 1 and the decimal was moved to the right by 11 places.

0.000000000015  1.5  1011

b) Move the decimal to the right five positions so that it is positioned to

the right of the leftmost nonzero digit. Drop all zeros lying outside the
leftmost and rightmost nonzero digits. Multiply the number by 10 and
use a negative 5 exponent since the original number is less than 1 and
the decimal point was moved to the right five positions.

0.0000500042  5.00042  105

c) Move the decimal point two places to the left so that it is positioned to
the right of the leftmost nonzero digit. Since the decimal is moved two
places to the left, add a positive 2 to the exponent value (7  2  5).

437.28  107  4.3728  105

1.2.2 Converting numbers from scientific

notation to decimal notation
To change a number expressed in scientific notation to decimal form:
1. If the exponent of 10 is positive, move the decimal point to the right the
same number of positions as the value of the exponent. If necessary,
add zeros to the right of the significant digits to hold positions from the
decimal point.
2. If the exponent of 10 is negative, move the decimal point to the left the
same number of positions as the value of the exponent. If necessary,
add zeros to the left of the significant digits to hold positions from the
decimal point.
 CHAPTER 1 Scientific notation and metric prefixes

Problem 1.5 Write the following numbers in decimal form

a) 4.37  105
b) 2  101
c) 23.4  107
d) 3.2  104

Solution 1.5
a) Move the decimal point five places to the right, adding three zeros to
hold the decimal’s place from its former position.

4.37  105  437 000.0

b) Move the decimal point one position to the right, adding one zero to the
right of the significant digit to hold the decimal point’s new position.

2  101  20.0

c) Move the decimal point seven places to the right, adding six zeros to
hold the decimal point’s position.

23.4  107  234 000 000.0

d) The decimal point is moved four places to the left. Zeros are added to
hold the decimal point’s position.

3.2  104  0.000 32

1.2.3 Adding and subtracting numbers written

in scientific notation
When adding or subtracting numbers expressed in scientific notation, it
is simplest first to convert the numbers in the equation to the same power
of 10 as that of the highest exponent. The exponent value then does not
change when the computation is finally performed.

Problem 1.6 Perform the following computations

a) (8  104)  (7  104)
b) (2  103)  (3  101)
c) (6  102)  (8  103)
d) (3.9  104)  (3.7  104)
e) (2.4  103)  (1.1  104)
 1.2 Exponents and scientific notation 

Solution 1.6
a) (8  104)  (7  104)
 15  104 Numbers added.
 1.5  105 Number rewritten in stand-
ard scientific notation form.
 2  105 Number rounded off to
one significant digit.
b) (2  103)  (3  101)
 (2  103)  (0.03  103) Number with lowest expo-
nent value expressed in
terms of that of the largest
exponent value.
 2.03  103 Numbers are added.
 2  103 Number rounded off to one
significant digit.
c) (6  102)  (8  103)
 (6  102)  (0.8  102) Exponents converted to the
same values.
 6.8  102 Numbers are added.
 7  102 Number rounded off to one
significant digit.
d) (3.9  104)  (3.7  104)
 0.2  104 Numbers are subtracted.
 2  105 Numbers rewritten in stand-
ard scientific notation.
e) (2.4  103)  (1.1  104)
 (2.4  103)  (0.11  103) Exponents converted to the
same values.
 2.29  103 Numbers are subtracted.
 2.3  103 Number rounded off to show
only one significant digit to
the right of the decimal point.

1.2.4 M
 ultiplying and dividing numbers written
in scientific notation
Exponent laws used in multiplication and division for numbers written in
scientific notation include:

The Product Rule: When multiplying using scientific notation, the

exponents are added.
 CHAPTER 1 Scientific notation and metric prefixes

The Quotient Rule: When dividing using scientific notation, the

exponent of the denominator is subtracted from the exponent of the
numerator.
When working with the next set of problems, the following laws of math-
ematics will be helpful:
The Commutative Law for Multiplication: The result of a multipli-
cation is not dependent on the order in which the numbers are multi-
plied. For example,
32  23

The Associative Law for Multiplication: The result of a multiplica-

tion is not dependent on how the numbers are grouped. For example,

3  (2  4)  (3  2)  4

Problem 1.7 Calculate the product

a) (3  104)  (5  102)
b) (2  103)  (6  105)
c) (4  102)  (2  103)

Solution 1.7
a) (3  104)  (5  102)
 (3  5)  (104  102) Use Commutative and Associative
laws to group like terms.
 15  106 Exponents are added.
 1.5  107 Number written in standard scien-
tific notation.
 2  107 Number rounded off to one signifi-
cant digit.
b) (2  103)  (6  105)
 (2  6)  (103  105) Use Commutative and Associative
laws to group like terms.
 12  102 Exponents are added.
 1.2  103 Number written in standard scien-
tific notation.
 1  103 Number rounded off to one signifi-
cant digit.
 1.2 Exponents and scientific notation 

c) (4  102)  (2  103)
 (4  2)  (102  103) Use Commutative and Associative
laws to group like terms.
 8  102(3)
 8  105 Exponents are added.

Problem 1.8 Find the quotient

8  10 4
a)
2  102
5  108
b)
3  104
8.2  106
c)
3.6  10 4
9  105
d)
2.5  103

Solution 1.8
8  10 4
a)
2  102
8
  10 42 The exponent of the denominator is
2
subtracted from the exponent of the
numerator.
 4  102

5  108
b)
3  104
5
  108(4 ) The exponent of the denominator is
3
subtracted from the exponent of the
numerator.
 1.67  108(4 ) Exponents: 8  (4)  8  4  12.
 2  1012 Number rounded off to one significant
digit.
10 CHAPTER 1 Scientific notation and metric prefixes

8.2  106
c)
3.6  10 4
8.2
  106(4 ) The exponent of the denominator is
3.6
subtracted from the exponent of the
numerator.
 2.3  1010 Number rounded off to two significant
digits.
Exponent:
6  (4)  6  (4)  10.
9  105
d)
2.5  103
9
  105(3) The exponent of the denominator is
2.5
subtracted from the exponent of the
numerator.
 3.6  102
 4  102 Number rounded off to one significant
digit.

1.3 Metric prefixes

A metric prefix is a shorthand notation used to denote very large or vary
small values of a basic unit as an alternative to expressing them as powers
of 10. Basic units frequently used in the biological sciences include meters,
grams, moles, and liters. Because of their simplicity, metric prefixes have
found wide application in molecular biology. The following table lists the
most frequently used prefixes and the values they represent.
As shown in Table 1.1, one nanogram (ng) is equivalent to 1  109 g.
There are, therefore, 1  109 ngs per g (the reciprocal of 1  109;
1/1  109  1  109). Likewise, since one microliter (L) is equivalent
to 1  106 L, there are 1  106 mL per liter.
When expressing quantities with metric prefixes, the prefix is usually cho-
sen so that the value can be written as a number greater than 1.0 but less
than 1000. For example, it is conventional to express 0.000 000 05 g as
50 ng rather than 0.05 mg or 50 000 pg.

1.3.1 Conversion factors and canceling terms

Translating a measurement expressed with one metric prefix into an equiv-
alent value expressed using a different metric prefix is called a conversion.
 1.3 Metric prefixes 11

Table 1.1  Metric prefixes, their abbreviations, and their equivalent

values as exponents of 10.
Metric prefix Abbreviation Power of 10

giga- G 109
mega- M 106
kilo- k 103
milli- m 103
micro-  106
nano- n 109
pico- p 1012
femto- f 1015
atto- a 1018

These are performed mathematically by using a conversion factor relating

the two different terms. A conversion factor is a numerical ratio equal to 1.
For example,

1  106 g 1g
and
g 1  106 g

are conversion factors, both equal to 1. They can be used to convert grams
to micrograms or micrograms to grams, respectively. The final metric pre-
fix expression desired should appear in the equation as a numerator value
in the conversion factor. Since multiplication or division by the number
1 does not change the value of the original quantity, any quantity can be
either multiplied or divided by a conversion factor and the result will still
be equal to the original quantity; only the metric prefix will be changed.

When performing conversions between values expressed with differ-

ent metric prefixes, the calculations can be simplified when factors of 1
or identical units are canceled. A factor of 1 is any expression in which
a term is divided by itself. For example, 1  106/1  106 is a factor of 1.
Likewise, 1 L/1 L is a factor of 1. If, in a conversion, identical terms appear
anywhere in the equation on one side of the equals sign as both a numera-
tor and a denominator, they can be canceled. For example, if converting
5  104 L to microliters, an equation can be set up so that identical terms
(in this case, liters) can be canceled to leave mL as a numerator value.
12 CHAPTER 1 Scientific notation and metric prefixes

5  104 L  n L Solve for n.

Use the conversion factor relating
1  106 L
5  104 L   n L liters and microliters with microliters
L
as a numerator value. Identical terms
in a numerator and a denominator are
canceled. (Remember, 5  104 L is
the same as 5  104 L/1. 5  104 L,
therefore, is a numerator.)
(5  1)(104  106) L  n L Group like terms.
5  1046 L  n L Numerator values are multiplied.
5  102 L  n L Therefore, 5  104 L is equivalent
to 5  102 L.

Problem 1.9
a) There are approximately 6  109 bp per human diploid genome. What
is this number expressed as kilobase pairs (kb)?
b) Convert 0.03 mg into ng.
c) Convert 0.0025 mL into mL.

Solution 1.9
a) 6  109 bp  n kb    Solve for n.
Multiply by a conversion factor relating kb to bp with kb as a
numerator:

1 kb
6  109 bp   n kb
1 103 bp

Cancel identical terms (bp) appearing as numerator and denominator,

leaving kb as a numerator value.

(6  109 )(1 kb)

 n kb
1 103
The exponent of the denominator is subtracted from the exponent of
the numerator.

6
 1093 kb  6  106 kb  n kb
1

Therefore, 6  109 bp is equivalent to 6  106 kb.

 1.3 Metric prefixes 13

b) 0.03 g  n ng. Solve for n.

Multiply by conversion factors relating g to mg and ng to g with ng
as a numerator. Convert 0.03 mg to its equivalent in scientific notation
(3  102 mg):

1g 1 109 ng
3  102 g  6
  n ng
1 10 g g

Cancel identical terms appearing as numerator and denominator,

leaving ng as a numerator value; multiply numerator and denomina-
tor values; and then group like terms.

(3  1 1)(102  109 ) ng
 n ng
(1 1)(106 )

Numerator exponents are added.

3  1029 ng 3  107 ng
  n ng
1 106 1 106

The denominator exponent is subtracted from the numerator exponent.

3
 1076 ng  3  101 ng  n ng
1

Therefore, 0.03 mg is equivalent to 30 (3  101) ng.

c) 0.0025 mL  n  L. Solve for n.

Convert 0.0025 mL into scientific notation. Multiply by conversion fac-
tors relating L to mL and mL to L with mL as a numerator.

1L 1 106 L
2.5  103 mL    n L
1 103 mL 1L

Cancel identical terms appearing as numerator and denominator, leav-

ing mL as a numerator value. Multiply numerator values and denomi-
nator values. Group like terms.

(2.5  1 1)(103  106 ) L

 n L
(1 1)(103 )

Numerator exponents are added.

2.5  1036 L 2.5  103 L

3
  n L
1 10 1 103
14 CHAPTER 1 Scientific notation and metric prefixes

The denominator exponent is subtracted from the numerator

exponent.

2.5
 1033 L  2.5  100 L  2.5 L  n L
1

Therefore, 0.0025 mL is equivalent to 2.5 mL.

■ Chapter summary
Significant digits are numerals representing actual limits of precision.
They are usually nonzero digits. Zeros to the left of the decimal point trail-
ing a nonzero numeral are assumed not to be significant. Zeros to the right
of the decimal point preceding a nonzero numeral are also assumed not to
be significant.
When rounding off the sum or difference of two numbers, the calculated value
should have the same number of significant digits to the right of the decimal
as the number in the computation with the fewest significant digits to the right
of the decimal. A product or quotient should have only as many significant
digits as the number in the calculation with the fewest significant digits.
When expressing numbers in scientific notation, move the decimal point
to the right of the leftmost nonzero digit, drop all zeros lying outside the
string of significant figures, and express the new number as being multi-
plied by 10 having an exponent equal to the number of places the decimal
point was moved from its original position (using a negative exponent if
the decimal point was moved to the right).
When adding or subtracting numbers expressed in scientific notation, rewrite
the numbers such that they all have the same exponent value as that hav-
ing the highest exponent, then perform the calculation. When multiplying
numbers expressed in scientific notation, add the exponents. When dividing
numbers expressed in scientific notation, subtract the exponent of the denom-
inator from the exponent of the numerator to obtain the new exponent value.
Numbers written in scientific notation can also be written using metric pre-
fixes that will bring the value down to its lowest number of significant digits.
Other documents randomly have
different content
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Galileo
and His Judges
 This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Galileo and His Judges

Author: F. R. Wegg-Prosser

Release date: June 15, 2020 [eBook #62402]

Most recently updated: October 18, 2024

Language: English

Credits: Produced by deaurider, Charlie Howard, and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at
https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made
available
by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GALILEO AND

HIS JUDGES ***
 Transcriber’s Note
Table of Contents created by Transcriber and placed in
the Public Domain.
GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES.
GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES
BY

F. R. WEGG-PROSSER.

LONDON: CHAPMAN AND HALL,

Limited.
1889.
[All rights reserved.]

CHARLES DICKENS AND EVANS,

CRYSTAL PALACE PRESS.
 PREFACE.
There is no name in the annals of science which has been the
occasion of so long and fierce a controversy as that of Galileo. The
historian, the astronomer, and the theologian have all had a share in
it. Sometimes there has been a pause in the strife, and the question
has been allowed to rest; but after a while another disputant has
rekindled the embers, and the struggle has recommenced. This has
been the case within the last few years, some writers of considerable
ability having appealed to the history of Galileo in order to give point
to opinions that they wished to advance. During all this time, if there
has been unfairness on one side, there have been injudicious zeal
and inaccuracy on the other.
These circumstances must form my apology for interfering in a
dispute already so prolonged and so envenomed; and it has
appeared to me that I may without presumption hope to amend the
errors to which I have just alluded, if in no other way, at least by
stating correctly the facts of the case. I do not, however, undertake
to write a full biography of the great philosopher, or to give a
detailed account of his numerous contributions to the scientific
literature of his day; I confine myself principally to those great crises
in his life which have given rise to so much discussion, and which
have chiefly contributed to make him a name in history.
 CONTENTS
Preface v
Chapter I 1
Chapter II 13
Chapter III 42
Chapter IV 78
Chapter V 136
GALILEO AND HIS JUDGES.
 CHAPTER I.
Before entering on any details relating to Galileo’s life and works, I
propose to give a brief sketch of the progress of astronomical
knowledge up to his time; for without this, one cannot appreciate
correctly the value of his contributions to science, a value
exaggerated or underrated by different writers, each according to his
respective bias.
The primitive conception of the Earth as a vast plain with the
ocean flowing round it, and the solid firmament in the sky above it,
with the Sun, Moon, and Stars driven across by some mysterious
agency, need not be noticed from an astronomical point of view; it
appeared naturally in ancient poetry and in the forms of speech
adopted and continued by popular usage; but it is not necessary to
dwell upon it.
The first astronomers with whom we are acquainted were the
Greeks, though it is said by some writers that the Chaldeans and
Egyptians were really the original astronomers of the ancient world,
and what the Greeks knew was borrowed from them.
The vast majority of men from the earliest times down to the
birth of Galileo believed that the Earth was the centre of the
universe, round which the Sun, Moon, and Stars revolved every
twenty-four hours; round which, also (as careful observers had
perceived), the Sun had an annual motion, progressing through the
various signs of the zodiac; moreover, it had been noticed that the
planets moved round the Earth, though at widely differing periods.
Yet there had been some few men, exceptionally gifted, who had
guessed (and truly so) that the popular conception was a wrong
one. It is said that the old Greek philosopher, Pythagoras, taught his
disciples that the Sun was the real centre of our system, and that
the Earth and planets circulated round it; but he does not seem to
have openly and explicitly published his doctrine, though the
tradition of his having so taught has always existed. If he taught it,
however, he stands almost alone among the ancients. There were
two great authorities in particular, whose opinion carried immense
weight, and who were both decided in holding that the Earth was
the centre, and the Sun a revolving planet. The first of these,
Aristotle, has exercised an influence over succeeding generations
which is simply marvellous. How vast was the weight of his name as
a philosopher in the age of the schoolmen is well known to every
one who has ever glanced at the greatest work of the greatest
intellect of that age, the “Summa” of St. Thomas Aquinas. This
celebrated writer quotes him as “philosophus,” in his opinion the
philosopher par excellence, and besides his general appreciation of
him as thus shown, he wrote an elaborate treatise on the
“Astronomy” of Aristotle.
Nor has this influence been confined to the schoolmen; it has
remained ever since, even to this day and in this country, where in
the University of Oxford his great work on ethics is still a standard
book of study. At the time of Galileo, such was the reverence felt
towards his authority in Italy and in Rome, that the Peripatetici, as
those who specially belonged to his school were called, were
probably quite as indignant with the revolutionary astronomer for
disregarding the teaching of their philosopher, as for going counter
to the literal interpretation of Scripture.
But in pure astronomy, apart from all other philosophy, the
greatest of all ancient writers was Ptolemy, who in the second
century of the Christian era wrote a work called the “Almagest,”
which is a complete compendium of the science as known at that
date. Ptolemy probably borrowed very much from his great
predecessor, Hipparchus, who has been called the father of
astronomy, and who was the first to discover—to take a remarkable
instance—the phenomenon known as the precession of the
equinoxes, involving as it does the difference in length between the
solar and sidereal years. The system of Ptolemy was briefly this: The
heavens and the Earth are both spherical in form—the Earth being
immovable in the centre, and all the heavenly motions taking place
in circles. For this he gives his reasons—sound and good reasons for
the spherical shape of the Earth; unsound and mistaken, however,
for the denial of the Earth’s rotation on its axis, an opinion he
evidently knew had been maintained by some persons; one
important argument on this latter head being that if the Earth
rotated with the great velocity necessary to carry it round in one
day, it would leave the air behind it. He places the Earth (as already
said) in the centre, then the Moon as the nearest planet revolving
round it, the next Mercury, then Venus, then the Sun, and beyond
these Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. All moved in circles, but since, with
the exception of the Sun and Moon, simple circles would not account
for the motions, he supposes small circles in a retrograde direction
forming loops upon the main circle, which he calls epicycles;
undoubtedly following in this respect, Hipparchus, who three
centuries before had struck out the same idea. It is curious that
Ptolemy’s arguments (as above mentioned) show clearly that in his
1
day there were some persons, though their names have perished,
some one or two philosophers endowed with a marvellous insight
into Nature, who had guessed at the true solution of the great
astronomical problem; but they left no enduring mark on their age.
The system of Ptolemy accounted for all the phenomena of the
heavenly bodies that could be observed without the use of the
telescope; naturally it held undisputed sway for many generations.
The first writer who revived the doctrine of Pythagoras as to the
Earth’s movement (if, indeed, Pythagoras ever really taught it) was
Nicholas de Cusa; he was a German by birth, having, in fact, been
born at Trèves, in 1401; but he was educated in Italy. He rose to a
high ecclesiastical position, and was created cardinal by Pope
Eugenius IV., in 1448; his book just alluded to was entitled “De
Docta Ignorantia,” and was dedicated to Cardinal Cesarini.
 The first, however, whose work obtained any great notoriety,
and who upheld the doctrine that the Earth revolved around the
Sun, was Nicholas Kopernik, commonly called by the Latinised form
of his name, Copernicus. He, too, was a German, born at Thorn, in
1473; he studied for a time at the University of Cracow, and like
Nicholas de Cusa, afterwards in Italy, and was subsequently raised
to the ecclesiastical dignity of a Canon. It is probable that he was
not a priest (though he is frequently spoken of as such), but a
Canon in minor orders. In 1500 he was appointed professor of
mathematics at Rome; and such was his scientific reputation that he
was consulted by the Council of Lateran, held in 1512, on the
question of the reform of the calendar—a reform carried out at a
later period by Pope Gregory XIII.
The system of Copernicus was well received at Rome. A German
disciple of his, John Albert Widmanstadt, in the year 1533,
expounded it before Pope Clement VII., and produced a very
favourable impression. Nor was the favour shown to Copernicus and
his teaching ever withdrawn at Rome; his great work, “De
Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium” (published, it is said, by the
advice of Cardinal Schunberg, Bishop of Capua), was dedicated to
the reigning Pope, Paul III.; nor does he appear to have received at
any time the least rebuke or discouragement from the Holy See; he
died, however, immediately after the printing of his book, in May,
1543.
Copernicus supposed the heavenly bodies, the Earth included, to
revolve round the Sun in circles; but, as it was evident that they did
not exactly do this, he used the theory of epicycles, and supposed
each planet to make two revolutions in each epicycle for every
revolution round the Sun. The true solution of the difficulty was due
to Kepler, who lived in the next century, and who discovered that the
planets moved in ellipses. Copernicus held, and, of course, held
truly, that the Earth revolves on its axis, thereby causing the
apparent diurnal motion of all the heavenly bodies from east to
west.
 Owing to his work having been the first of any great importance
that maintained argumentatively the system called heliocentric, that
is to say, in which the Sun is the real centre, round which the
planets, including the Earth, revolve—for the treatise of Nicholas de
Cusa does not appear to have had any extensive circulation—it is
usual to speak of this system as the Copernican one,
notwithstanding the errors from which its great author was unable to
extricate himself, and which have long since been rectified by
subsequent writers; so that even at this day we retain the name.
It is always useful in scientific subjects to introduce a definition;
and this is my definition of the sense in which I employ the word
Copernican, that it is simply as opposed to the system in which the
Earth is the centre of the visible universe, and the Sun revolving
about it. It is, in fact, less accurate but more convenient than the
employment of the Greek words heliocentric and geocentric to
denote the two systems. Greek words, no doubt, abound in our
scientific vocabulary, as the following plainly show: astronomy,
geology, geography, barometer, thermometer, microscope, telescope;
but these have become naturalised in our language by long use,
which heliocentric and geocentric have not as yet been.
After Copernicus there arose an astronomer of great merit, a
Dane, Tycho Brahé by name, who attempted to start a fresh system
—a modification, in fact, of that of Ptolemy. He made all the planets
revolve round the Sun, and the Sun, accompanied by the planets,
round the Earth. He deserves great credit for his painstaking
observations; but he lived just before the invention of the telescope
—or, at least, before it was used for astronomical purposes—and,
therefore, was under an infinite disadvantage. His chief objection to
the system of Copernicus was one at which a modern astronomer
would smile, but which in those days seemed very weighty—namely,
the enormous distance at which you must suppose the fixed stars to
be situated, if it were true. The philosophers of that age did not like
to admit such a waste of space as that which must intervene
between the orbit of Saturn and the stars. And, on the Copernican
theory, if the stars were not situated at an immense, almost infinite
distance, they ought to appear to move in a way they certainly do
not. Tycho Brahé was born in 1546. His theory never made much
way; it had not, I imagine, sufficient elements of probability to
recommend it generally; while the subsequent invention of the
telescope, and the works of Kepler and Galileo, coming so soon after
Tycho Brahé, prepared the way for that almost universal reception of
the Copernican system which we have since witnessed. I shall refer
later on to Tycho and his observations.
Such, then, was the state of astronomical theories in the latter
part of the sixteenth century. Enlightened men like Copernicus had
guessed—not accurately, it is true, but with a considerable approach
to accuracy—at the real facts of the case. Tycho Brahé (who, I
suspect, would have been converted to Copernicanism if his life had
been prolonged) had suggested a system of compromise not likely,
in the long run, to satisfy any thoughtful mind; while the bulk of
men, even the learned, adhered to the old Ptolemaic scheme.
Something, however, now occurred which was destined to work,
sooner or later, a complete revolution in astronomy. The telescope
was invented, and, at the same time, there arose a man who knew
how to use it: that man was Galileo. He was not the inventor of it,
for it was first constructed in Holland or Belgium; yet he had the
energy and the skill to make a telescope, without having previously
seen one, simply from the account he had heard of the instrument.
The telescope that he constructed, which still bears his name, was
the simplest possible. It was of a form now disused excepting for
opera-glasses and for the far more powerful binocular field-glasses
with which we are so familiar; but for telescopes properly so called
an improved principle has long since been introduced. Galileo was
the first man that ever, so far as we know, turned the telescope
upon the heavens. How he was rewarded for his pains we shall
presently see; and I propose to introduce a narrative of the principal
events in his life, since there are no means for forming a judgment
so valuable as having the facts of the case clearly before the mind.
For most of the facts I am indebted to M. Henri de l’Épinois,
whose elaborate article in the French publication known as La Revue
des Questions Historiques is of the highest value; as the author of
this article has done what I suspect very few writers on Galileo have
even attempted to do, namely, to inspect the documents preserved
in the Vatican bearing on the process, some of which he gives at full
length. Not having myself had the same advantage, I yet feel that I
am treading on safe ground when I take my facts from M. de
l’Épinois; for there is scarcely a statement that he makes for which
he does not give his authority, whether from the documents just
mentioned, or from Galileo’s own letters, or from other trustworthy
2
evidence.
To treat of Galileo, and to pass over the events which brought
him into collision with the ecclesiastical authorities, would of course
be impossible, nor is it easy to touch upon these matters without
having some standpoint of one’s own—some principle to guide one,
some basis from which to argue. I do not shrink from stating that I
write from a Catholic standpoint; but without entering minutely into
those subtle questions which are the province of the trained
theologian.
As, however, a good deal of the narrative is connected with the
action of the Roman Congregations, as they are termed, it may not
be superfluous to explain briefly the nature of these institutions.
They are formed by the selection of certain Cardinals, one of them
acting as Prefect of the Congregation, to whom are added other
ecclesiastics as consultors and as secretary. The Congregation of the
Index, to which reference will hereafter be made, was instituted not
long after the Council of Trent, by Pope St. Pius V., and has for its
duty, as its name implies, the pointing out to the faithful people such
books as they ought to abstain from reading. The chief consultor of
the Index is the “Master of the Apostolic Palace,” whom I shall have
occasion to mention more than once in connection with that
Dialogue of Galileo which brought him into such serious disgrace at
Rome.
The Congregation of the Inquisition—I need hardly say, not to be
confounded with the Spanish tribunal of that name, which was
founded at an earlier period, nor with similar tribunals in other
countries—was erected in 1542 by Pope Paul III., and besides the
other officials attached to it, had certain theologians called
“qualifiers,” whose duty it was to give an opinion to the
Congregation on questions submitted to them.
These two Congregations, as well as several others which it is
not necessary to enumerate, still exist, their functions being
somewhat modified by the changing circumstances of the age. Their
action is for the most part confined to matters of discipline, but they
sometimes have questions of doctrine and moral obligation referred
to them by the Pope, from whom, of course, they derive all authority
that they possess.
I do not here undertake to show the advantage and utility of
these Congregations, or of any other institutions connected with the
discipline of the Catholic Church. From the remarks I have just
previously made, it will be understood that I take all this for granted,
and that I feel justified in doing so. Those who differ from me will, I
trust, excuse me when they find that this conviction on my part does
not interfere with the impartial fairness of my narrative.
Galileo, whom I believe to have been a devout Catholic, would, if
he were here to speak for himself, agree with me in principle,
however he might complain of the action of the Roman
Congregations in his own individual case.
We shall then, as we proceed, inquire whether this celebrated
philosopher was, as some imagine, a hero and a martyr of science,
or, as others think, a rash innovator, who happened by chance to be
right, but who had little or nothing but vain and foolish arguments to
adduce in support of his doctrines. Perhaps we shall find that such
critics, on either side, are but imperfectly acquainted with the facts
of the case.
 CHAPTER II.
Galileo Galilei Linceo—for such was his name in full—was born at
Pisa, the 18th February, 1564. When about seventeen years old he
commenced studying mathematics and physical science at the
University of Pisa, and later on, in 1585, he came to Florence, in
order to go through a mathematical course.
He seems to have been wholly free from the sceptical and
irreligious spirit which unhappily warps the judgment of some
scientific men in our own day. His moral conduct, however, in early
life was not irreproachable, and it is recorded of him that he had a
liaison with a lady named Maria Gamba, who became the mother of
three children; but this illicit attachment did not last very long, and a
separation took place, after which he saw Maria Gamba no more,
and she was subsequently married to some other person. He then
entered the celebrated monastery of Vallombrosa, where he was a
novice for a short period; but, having apparently no vocation for the
religious life, he left the monastery, and resumed his former
pursuits. At the age of twenty-five he was appointed professor of
mathematics at Pisa, the Grand Duke of Tuscany having invited him
there on the recommendation of Cardinal del Monte. Here it was that
he first excited hostility by attacking the theories of Aristotle on
physical science, a thing not to be done with impunity in that age.
I have already alluded to the telescope constructed by Galileo,
and it is scarcely necessary to say that such an instrument, however
simple and rudimentary in its construction, could not fail to reveal to
an intelligent observer truths hitherto unknown. It was discovered
that the planet Jupiter had satellites, that Saturn had a ring, that
Venus passed through phases like the moon, that there were spots
on the Sun; this last discovery having been made about the same
time by the learned Jesuit, Father Scheiner, and by Fabricius. It was
not, I think, until the year 1610 that Galileo published his work
called “Nuntius Siderius,” in which he recounted the results he had
obtained. This work seems to have provoked some considerable
opposition, but Galileo was supported by the approbation of his
patron, the Grand Duke of Tuscany. In the following year, 1611, he
went to Rome, and here he was well received and treated with
distinction by prelates of high position, and even by the Pope then
reigning, Paul V. Moreover, when, in the year 1612, he published
another work, which he called “Discorso sui Gallegianti,” he met with
general approval, and no less a person than Cardinal Maffei
Barberini, who afterwards became Pope under the title of Urban
VIII., is stated to have declared that he was in all points of the same
opinion as Galileo.
Now it is quite true that incidental conversations, passing,
perhaps, through the hands of two or three persons, are not to be
greatly relied upon. It is also to be remarked that men in the
position of Cardinals or ecclesiastics of high rank may often look with
toleration and even favour on opinions stated in a guarded and
hypothetical way, and yet, if called on to pronounce an official
judgment on such opinions, would feel it a duty to pronounce
against them. Nevertheless, there appears considerable reason for
thinking that since Galileo’s reputation stood so high, and his ability
was so manifest, he would have escaped all censure if he had
confined himself strictly to stating his views on the Copernican
system as a scientific hypothesis, and had firmly resisted the
temptation (strong as it was) to allow himself to be drawn into the
Scriptural argument.
This, however, it must be remembered, was mainly the fault of
his opponents. Unable to grapple with the question in its purely
scientific aspect, some zealous anti-Copernicans turned to Holy
Scripture for support—Scripture in its most rigid and literal
interpretation; an interpretation, however, it must in fairness be
stated, enshrined in the traditions of successive generations.
 It is said that a monk named Sizi went so far as to maintain that
the Bible contradicted the existence of the satellites of Jupiter. If this
be true (which one cannot help doubting), we may well say that
amongst all the perversions of Scripture in which human fancy has
indulged, there is scarcely any one more monstrous; and we must
not imagine that all the Biblical arguments used against Galileo and
Copernicus were so unreasonable and exaggerated.
It was in 1613 that our philosopher published at Rome another
work, entitled “L’Istoria e Dimostrazione Intorno alle Macchie Solari.”
It was, generally speaking, well received, though he drew a
conclusion in favour of the Earth’s rotation on its axis.
The controversy, however, became still keener on the all-
important point of the interpretation of Scripture. Now that we can
look back on the events of that day with all judicious calmness, we
may well blame Galileo for having let himself fall into so dangerous a
snare; but there was some excuse for him, attacked as he was on
this very ground of the supposed incompatibility of his hypothesis
with the teaching of Scripture; and so he unfortunately committed a
grave error of judgment in grappling himself with a religious
difficulty which, if wise, he would have left entirely to theologians. It
may be said that this is not what we should naturally expect. We
should suppose that the ecclesiastical authorities would welcome any
attempt to prove that new scientific theories were not irreconcilable
with the Scriptural narrative, and possibly such would be the case at
the present day; but in those times it was certainly otherwise, and I
am not quite sure whether the tone and tendency of Rome (that is
to say, Rome as the centre of ecclesiastical tradition and authority) is
not still, as it was then, in favour of the same rule of conduct—that,
namely, which keeps a scientific man to his own province, and leaves
to the authorities of the Church the duty of reconciling physical
theories and speculations with the teaching of Holy Scripture. On
this last-named point I need not say I speak with the utmost
diffidence; but on the historical question, as to whether that was the
feeling which animated Popes and Cardinals in Galileo’s day, I think
there can be very little doubt.
 Now, as the controversy became embittered, a certain Father
Cassini, a Dominican, preaching in the Church of Santa Maria Novella
at Florence, attacked the Copernican doctrine as taught by Galileo;
this aroused the wrath of the philosopher, and he wrote (on the 21st
December, 1612) a letter to a Benedictine monk, Father Castelli,
protesting against the interpretation of Scripture which Father
Cassini had used; and while so protesting, over-stepping, it appears,
the limits of prudence. The result was that this unguarded letter was
denounced by Father Lorini to the Cardinal Prefect of the
Congregation of the Index.
The consequence of this was that in the early part of the year
1615 there commenced a process which in the following year had an
important issue. It is said that in the month of March, 1615, Cardinal
del Monte and Cardinal Bellarmine had a conversation on the subject
of Galileo and his teaching, the result being that they both agreed
on this one point: that Galileo ought to avoid entering on the
interpretation of Scripture, this being a matter reserved to the
ecclesiastical authorities.
Galileo was not then at Rome; and two influential friends of his,
Mgr. Dini and Prince Cesi, advised him to be quiet and silent; such
advice, however, was not to his taste, and he, on the contrary, thrust
his head into the lion’s mouth, confident of ultimate success. He
came personally to Rome, mixed in society, and endeavoured by the
use of such arguments as occurred to him in conversation to refute
the ancient opinions. Several of his friends, including some of the
Cardinals, advised moderation, but in vain; and such was his
confidence in his cause, that in the early part of the year 1616 he
actually began to complain of the delay in the process.
The Pope looked upon his conduct with evident displeasure, and
it is stated in a letter of Guicciardini that on one occasion Cardinal
Orsini spoke to him in favour of Galileo, and he answered that the
Cardinal would do well to persuade his friend to abandon his opinion
—adding that the affair was placed in the hands of the Cardinals of
the Holy Office. After this incident, it is said, the Pope sent for
Bellarmine, talked the matter over with him, and agreed that
Galileo’s opinion was erroneous and heretical. A decided step was
now taken: on the 19th February, 1616, there was sent to certain
theologians belonging to the Congregation of the Inquisition—
technically called the Qualifiers—a copy of the propositions, the
censure of which had been demanded: 1st, That the Sun was the
centre of the world, and consequently immovable locally; 2nd, That
the Earth was not the centre of the world, nor immovable, but
moved round itself by a diurnal rotation.
The Qualifiers of the Congregation met on the 23rd February,
and on the next day, in presence of the eleven theologians who had
been consulted, the censure was pronounced. All declared that the
first proposition was foolish and absurd, philosophically speaking,
and also formally heretical, since it expressly contradicted numerous
texts of Holy Scripture, according to the proper meaning of the
words, and according to the ordinary interpretation and the sense
admitted by the holy Fathers and theological doctors. All declared
that the second proposition deserved the same censure
philosophically, and regarding theological truth, that it was at least
erroneous in point of faith. The next day, 25th February, Cardinal
Mellinus notified to the Commissary of the Holy Office what had
taken place, and the Pope desired Cardinal Bellarmine to send for
Galileo, and admonish him to abandon the opinion in question; if he
refused to obey, the Father Commissary, in presence of a notary and
witnesses, was to enjoin upon him a command to abstain wholly
from teaching such doctrine and opinion, from defending it, or
treating of it; if, however, he would not acquiesce, that he should
then be imprisoned. On the following day, 26th February, this was
accordingly done, and Galileo was warned “ut supra dictum
opinionem... omnino relinquat, nec eam de cetero quovis modo
doceat teneat aut defendat verbo aut scriptis,” with the threat
already mentioned in case of disobedience. Galileo promised to obey.
In the beginning of the month of March there appeared a
printed decree of the Congregation of the Index prohibiting five
works; and here we arrive at the curious fact that no work whatever
of Galileo was prohibited by name. The feeling in the high
ecclesiastical circles of Rome seems at that time to have been very
much to this effect: “Let us stamp out the obnoxious opinion, but let
us spare Galileo individually.” The final result (including what took
place in after years) is strikingly contrasted with such expectations, if
they existed. Galileo had to suffer personally, not bodily torture or
incarceration, but humiliation and failure; whilst the dreaded
doctrine of Copernicanism, purified from incidental error and taught
in an enlightened form, has triumphed and reigns supreme. The
decree of the Index is particularly noteworthy, for it is the principal
matter with which we have to deal. After prohibiting certain
Protestant books, the decree proceeds as follows: “And since it has
come to the knowledge of the above-named Sacred Congregation
that that false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy
Scripture, concerning the movement of the Earth and the immobility
of the Sun, taught by Nicolas Copernicus in his work on the
Revolutions of the Heavenly Orbs, and by Diego di Zunica in his work
on Job, is already spread about and received by many persons, as
may be seen in a printed letter of a certain Carmelite Father, entitled
‘A Letter of the Rev. Father, Master Paul Anthony Foscarini, on the
opinion of the Pythagoreans and of Copernicus respecting the
mobility of the Earth and the stability of the Sun, and the new
Pythagorean System of the World,’ printed at Naples by Lazzaro
Scorrigio, 1615, in which the said Father endeavours to show that
the aforesaid doctrine of the immobility of the Sun in the centre of
the universe and the mobility of the Earth is consonant to the truth,
and is not opposed to Holy Scripture: Therefore, lest any opinion of
this kind insinuate itself to the detriment of Catholic truth, [the
Congregation] has decreed that the said [works of] Nicolas
Copernicus on the Revolutions of the Orbs and Diego di Zunica on
Job should be suspended until they are corrected. But that the book
of Father Paul Anthony Foscarini the Carmelite should be altogether
prohibited and condemned; and that all other books teaching the
same thing should equally be prohibited, as by the present decree it
prohibits, condemns, and suspends them all respectively. In witness
whereof the present decree has been signed and sealed by the hand
and seal of the Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord Cardinal of
Santa Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on the 5th day of March, 1616.”
Here follow the signatures:
“P. Episc. Albanen. Card. Sanctæ Cæciliæ.
“Locus sigilli.

“F. Franciscus Magdalenus Capiferreus,

“Ord. Prædicat., Secretarius.”
There followed a somewhat remarkable episode: some
opponents of Galileo having spread a report that he had been
compelled to make an abjuration, and also had had certain salutary
penances inflicted on him, Cardinal Bellarmine gave him a certificate
to the effect that nothing of the kind had taken place, but only that
the declaration made by the Pope and published by the
Congregation of the Index had been communicated to him; in which
declaration was contained the statement that the doctrine attributed
to Copernicus on the movement of the Earth round the Sun, and the
stability of the Sun in the centre of the world without its moving
from east to west, was contrary to Holy Scripture, and so could not
be defended or held. It appears that the abjuration alluded to was a
solemn act demanded only from those who were suspected of
unsoundness in the faith, and carried with it some disgrace. Galileo
was naturally anxious to be cleared from such imputation, and the
authorities in Rome willingly met him so far, and avoided all acts
casting a personal slur on him. It is noteworthy that the interview
between Cardinal Bellarmine and Galileo took place after the
answers had been returned by the Qualifiers of the Inquisition, but
before the publication of the decree of the Index. The certificate
given by the Cardinal, to which I have just alluded, was subsequent,
and bears date the 26th May, 1616.
And here we may pause in the narrative, to inquire briefly what
was the effect, in an ecclesiastical point of view, of the decree just
quoted, and of the admonition given by Papal order to Galileo. On
the mere face of it, it cannot surely be maintained that there was
any doctrinal decision, strictly speaking, at all. I do not wish to
undervalue the importance of the disciplinary decision, I think it
most momentous; moreover, the reason alleged for it was that the
opinion, the publication of which was to be forbidden, was contrary
to Scripture; but I fail to see how this last-mentioned fact can
possibly convert what is avowedly a disciplinary enactment,
prohibiting the circulation of certain books, into a dogmatic decree.
I should submit it to the judgment of theologians whether this
would not be true even if the Pope’s name had been explicitly
introduced as sanctioning the decree; as it stands, however, the
decree appears simply in the name of the Congregation of the
Index.
It would, I think, scarcely be necessary to argue these points at
length, were it not that the contrary view has been maintained in a
work entitled “The Pontifical Decrees against the Doctrine of the
Earth’s Movement, and the Ultramontane Defence of them,” by the
Rev. William W. Roberts, a work written with ability and moderation
as well as considerable knowledge of the subject, since the author,
though determined to make all the controversial capital that is
possible out of the case of Galileo, rises superior to the vulgar
atmosphere of fable and false accusation; never alleges anything like
personal cruelty or ill-treatment as against the Pope or the
Inquisition, and scarcely alludes to the mythical story of “E pur si
muove.”
Moreover, even were the intrinsic value of the work less than it
is, attention has been publicly drawn to it by a writer whom, both
from a religious and scientific point of view, we feel bound to treat
with respect—Professor Mivart—although he has formed, on the
other hand, an exaggerated estimate of the importance of Mr.
Roberts’ facts and arguments.
Here I wish to introduce an observation, as a sort of anticipatory
self-defence, which is that I do not feel bound to enter into all the
theological minutiæ which learned disputants have introduced into
this case. Those who wish to sift such arguments in detail can read
the articles in The Dublin Review by the late Dr. Ward (since
republished) on the one hand, and Mr. Roberts’ book on the other. I
myself venture to look at the question as a lay theologian, employing
this expression not by any means in the sense of one who, having
read two or three theological treatises, presumes to discuss the
sacred science, himself an amateur, with men whose profession it is
to teach theology; for, to use a familiar expression, I hope I know
my place better. I employ the word in the sense of a man who seeks
to know what the Church teaches as requisite for a layman, that is
an educated layman, to understand: thus the lay theologian, as I
consider him, ought to be able to discriminate between what the
Church teaches him as matter of faith and what she enjoins or
encourages him to hold under a less solemn sanction. He ought also
to distinguish clearly between matters laid down by the Church as
parts of her definitive teaching both on faith and morals—points,
that is to say, laid down as of principle, and therefore irrevocable—
and on the other hand matters of discipline which, whether
intrinsically important or not, may and do vary from age to age. He
may of course make mistakes, as even theologians may do, in
applying his principles to particular cases; but he ought to
understand what the principles are.
Now applying such plain principles to the Galileo case, I do not
understand how any one can come to any other conclusions than
these: first, that the decree of the Index and the other proceedings
in 1616, though founded on reasons of doctrine, that is of the
correct interpretation of Scripture, were purely disciplinary in their
nature; secondly, that this being so, they were not infallible or
irreformable, as the term is; thirdly, that they were, however, real
acts of discipline, and intended to be enforced more or less
stringently according to circumstances. This last-named aspect of
the case is a matter of importance, and I shall return to it hereafter;
but the attempt to impugn the doctrinal infallibility of the Catholic
Church on the strength of such decisions as that of the Index in
1616, seems to me so groundless that I should not discuss the
question further were it not that I think it right to notice some of Mr.
Roberts’ arguments.
It appears that certain theologians have held that decrees of the
Roman Congregations are to be considered infallible, provided they
contain a statement in so many words that the Pope has approved
them, and provided also that they have been published by his
explicit order. This, it may be mentioned, does not necessarily imply
that such decrees concern matters which are strictly and technically
matters of faith, other less momentous issues being frequently
involved.
The decree of the Index in 1616 had no such statement about
the Pope’s approbation, nor any notice of his express order for its
publication, although, in reality, it was undoubtedly approved by
him. Mr. Roberts argues that this distinction is a worthless one,
because, at that time, the custom, since adopted on certain
important occasions, of bringing in the Pope’s name and authority
explicitly, had not come into being.
As an argumentum ad hominem against certain writers who
have suggested that such an omission in the Galileo case was a
remarkable instance of Divine Providence, Mr. Roberts’ answer may
stand; but it has nothing to do with the main argument. It only
shows that whereas the Popes of more modern times have employed
the Roman Congregations as instruments for conveying to the world
their own decrees on certain doctrinal subjects, the Popes of the
early part of the seventeenth century had no such custom. They
used the Congregations for various disciplinary purposes, founded
sometimes, no doubt, on reasons of doctrine, and they sanctioned
the proceedings so taken; but they did not give them the explicit
impress of their own name and authority. Even when this latter has
taken place, it is not every theologian who holds that such decree is
infallible. Cardinal Franzelin, a writer of the highest authority, whose
3
words I give in a note, held that it was not infallibly true, but only
infallibly safe. His language is not quite clear to the non-theological
mind, but he probably meant that the doctrine conveyed in such a
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com